CBP Warrantless Device Searches Continue To Increase And New DHS Guidance Isn't Going To Bring That Number Down

from the visit-a-country-with-zero-rights-without-even-leaving-the-country! dept

The DHS made two significant announcements late last week, both dealing with the CBP's warrantless searches of electronic devices at the border. The first was a bit of info, showing the exponential increase in device searches in 2016 (jumping from 5,000 in 2015 to 20,000 in 2016) is part of a trend, rather than an anomaly. Searches increased another 59% in 2017, rising to 30,200 total.

The DHS and CBP also released statements justifying the ongoing increase in warrantless searches.

"In this digital age, border searches of electronic devices are essential to enforcing the law at the US border and to protecting the American people," John Wagner, a deputy executive assistant commissioner at Customs and Border Patrol, said in a statement.

[...]

CBP's authority for the border search of electronic devices is and will continue to be exercised judiciously, responsibly, and consistent with the public trust," he added.

These statements are empty and useless. We had just as much of a "digital age" in 2015 and yet searches occurred far less frequently. There seemed to be no less law enforcement happening and no less "secure" as a nation than we are now. In fact, we may have been more secure with fewer searches as we hadn't yet shifted towards a more antagonistic relationship with the rest of the world, starting with our southern bordering neighbor.

It's also difficult to square claims of "judicious, responsible" use of device search authority with the exponential leap in number of devices searched and the DHS's open admission it lacks legal authority for some of the searches its agencies perform.

Accompanying the release of 2017's search numbers, the DHS released updated guidelines on border device searches. The guidelines roughly align with answers delivered by the DHS to Sen. Ron Wyden in response to questions about its warrantless device searches.

The CBP still has carte blanche access to devices of foreigners entering or leaving the country. Its ability to access devices carried by Americans is only slightly more limited. Anything residing on a device can be accessed by CBP officials without a warrant or even reasonable suspicion. From the CBP's search guidelines [PDF]:

Border searches of electronic devices may include searches of the information stored on the device when it is presented for inspection or during its detention by CBP for an inbound or outbound border inspection. The border search will include an examination of only the information that is resident upon the device and accessible through the device's operating system or through other software, tools, or applications. Officers may not intentionally use the device to access information that is solely stored remotely. To avoid retrieving or accessing information stored remotely and not otherwise present on the device, Officers will either request that the traveler disable connectivity to any network by placing the device in airplane mode), or, where warranted by national security, law enforcement, officer safety, or other operational considerations, Officers will themselves disable network connectivity. Officers should also take care to ensure, throughout the course of a border search, that they do not take actions that would make any changes to the contents of the device.

CBP officers can also perform "advanced searches." These involve imaging device contents and possible access of remote storage. Again, the CBP claims it needs no warrant to perform these searches, only reasonable suspicion. The guidance makes no mention of the Supreme Court's Riley decision, likely interpreting the decision to apply only to searches incident to arrest, rather than border inspections of "containers" and their "contents" under multiple court-granted warrant exceptions.

Yes, the CBP still equates phones and laptops to suitcases and personal effects. One of the statutes listed in its defense of warrantless access to electronic device contents refers to the CBP's right to search "persons, baggage, and merchandise" entering or leaving the country.

On top of that, the CBP continues to insist all travelers must unlock or decrypt devices/accounts so contents can be inspected. The CBP says it can use external hardware to crack devices and/or detain locked devices indefinitely if travelers aren't compliant. None of this requires a warrant. Nor does it even require reasonable suspicion. All the CBP needs to justify these seizures and searches is a traveler's refusal to hand over passwords or PINs.

Unbelievably, this new guidance is an improvement. Prior to this, the DHS and CBP weren't even limiting their searches to the low bar of reasonable suspicion. So, while the new guidance is earning limited praise from privacy and rights activists, it's also gathering plenty of criticism. Ron Wyden, who was instrumental in getting the DHS to concede its social media account searches had no legal basis, offered up a golf clap for the DHS's new guidance, along with a warning he would continue seeking a legislative end to the "Constitution-free" zone in which the CBP does all of its intrusive work.

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Americans’ Constitutional rights shouldn’t disappear at the border. By requiring ‘reasonable suspicion’ before conducting forensic searches of Americans’ devices at the border, Customs and Border Protection is beginning to recognize what the Supreme Court has already clearly stated that ‘digital is different.’ It is my view that Americans will be safer when time and resources are spent on searching people with an actual cause...”

“However, there’s more work to do here. Manually examining an individual’s private photos, messages and browsing history is still extremely invasive, and should require a warrant. I continue to believe Americans are entitled to their full Constitutional rights, no matter where they are in the United States. That’s why Senator Paul and I last year introduced the Protecting Data at the Border Act, which would end the legal Bermuda Triangle at the border and require warrants for law enforcement officials to search Americans’ phones and laptops at the border.”

Filed Under: border, cbp, customs, device searches, dhs

DHS Trying To Bury Report Showing Violations Of Travel Ban Court Orders By CBP Officers

from the neutralizing-oversight dept

An Inspector General's report showing Customs and Border Protection violated court orders during its implementation of Trump's travel ban appears to be headed for a burial by the DHS. A letter from the Inspector General to high-ranking senators says the department has indicated it will invoke an unchallengeable privilege to withhold large portions of the report, if not its entire contents.

The unusual missive to Congress on Monday from Inspector General John Roth said his 87-page report was sent to DHS leadership Oct. 6, but officials have declined to authorize its release over the past six weeks.

Roth said officials informed his office that the report is under review for information that may be subject to attorney-client privilege or to a privilege protecting the agency's "deliberative process."

The IG's letter [PDF] makes it clear the invocation of "deliberative process" privilege is highly unusual in this context. It's usually invoked in FOIA cases to withhold certain information. The problem with its invocation in the context of an IG report release is that it prevents anyone from challenging the DHS's decision.

The deliberative process privilege is a common law privilege, largely invoked in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and civil litigation, which permits (but does not require) the government from disclosing predecisional and deliberative communications because of the potential chilling effect such disclosure would have on the candid deliberations and back-and-forth discussion that effective policy-making requires. However, invoking the privilege can mask discovery of decisions made based on illegitimate considerations, or evidence of outright misconduct.

For that reason, in civil litigation the privilege is not absolute but requires a court to balance the competing interests of the parties. This has been interpreted to mean that a party requesting the information may overcome the privilege by showing a "sufficient need for the material in the context of the facts or the nature of the case . . . or by making a prima facie showing of misconduct." Unlike civil litigants, however, we are not able to have a federal court or other disinterested party decide these issues, but must rely on the good faith of the Department.

This leaves the decision entirely in the DHS's hands and no one in the Inspector General's office can do anything about it. Evidence of wrongdoing, it could be swept under the carpet by the DHS. It's unclear what Congressional leaders can do it about this (or even how many of them would actually be interested in fighting the DHS's privilege invocation), but at least the public is now aware evidence of court order violations is in the process of being memory-holed by the administration.

The report -- at least what can be gleaned from the Inspector General's letter -- isn't completely damning. It notes the implementation of the travel ban took place during several courtroom challenges and involved conflicting directives from White House and the DHS. Perhaps most CBP officers did the best they could during the disorganized chaos, but that still didn't prevent key violations from occurring.

Roth said CBP defied court orders by providing guidance to airlines not to allow travelers from certain countries to board flights bound for the U.S.

"While CBP complied with court orders at U.S. ports of entry with travelers who had already arrived, CBP was very aggressive in preventing affected travelers from boarding aircraft bound for the United States, and took actions that, in our view, violated, two separate court orders," he wrote.

As Politico notes, FOIAed communications show DHS officials were troubled by the continual lack of clear internal guidance, as well as contradictory statements made by White House officials. The court orders, however, were much more direct and clear and yet CBP officials violated them repeatedly.

That's where the IG's sympathies end. The DHS watchdog doesn't hedge when it comes to addressing the report's planned burial.

I am particularly troubled by the Department's threat to invoke the deliberative process privilege, as this is the first time in my tenure as Inspector General that the Department has indicated that they may assert this privilege in connection with one of our reports or considered preventing the release of a report on that basis. In fact, we regularly have published dozens of reports that delve into the Department's rationale for specific policies and decisions, and comment on the basis and process on which those decisions were made. Indeed, that is at the heart of what Inspectors General do.

[...]

Invoking the deliberative process privilege, in this report and in future reports, would significantly hamper my office's ability to keep "Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies" of the Department, as required by the Inspector General Act. I am also unaware of other Inspectors General who have been prevented from issuing reports on such a basis. With regard to this specific report, it would deprive Congress and the public of significant insights into the operation of the Department. Moreover, because we have concluded that CBP appears to have violated at least two separate court orders, we will be unable to describe the factual basis behind our conclusion.

Burial by the DHS without the input of neutral parties would do little to rebuild the trust broken by the CBP's violation of court orders.

Filed Under: cbp, congress, deliberative process, dhs, hiding report, inspector general, john roth, transparency, travel ban

Proposed Bill Would Exempt Customs And Border Protection From FOIA Compliance [Updated]

from the who-needs-laws-when-you-operate-in-the-constitution-free-zone? dept

[Update: Thanks to reporting by the Tuscon Sentinel, Rep. Martha McSally has stripped this exemption from the bill and added language clarifying the law should not be construed as exempting CBP from its FOIA duties.]

To build a wall, you've got to break a few laws. That's the message being sent by a new bill, which helps pave the way for the eventual construction of a border wall by exempting the CBP and US Border Patrol from a large number of federal laws.

H.R. 3548 [PDF] would give the CBP a free pass to ignore all sorts of federal restrictions when engaging in its enforcement activities. All the things citizens can't legally do on federal land, the CBP and Border Patrol would be allowed to. This would keep the federal government from getting in its own way in the event wall construction actually takes place, as well as keep CBP agents from worrying about polluting, killing endangered species, or violating sacred grave sites while pursuing undocumented aliens.

The authority is so broad that CBP and its officers are given exemptions from the requirements of 36 different federal laws, including but not limited to, the National Environment Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Fish and Wildlife Act, the Eagle Protection Act, the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, AND "Subchapter 5, and chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 'Administrative Procedure Act')."

The last one listed is why the American Society of News Editors is commenting on the bill. The Administrative Procedure Act covers federal FOIA law. If this goes through unaltered, it could easily be read to exempt the CBP and Border Patrol from responding to open records requests pertaining to their activities... pretty much everything these entities do. The bill covers everything from tactical infrastructure efforts to detainments to patrol efforts.

ASNE isn't quite sure what to make of this exemption being included, but knows there's no way the law should be passed with this part intact.

It's unclear whether this reading is accurate, or intended, but unless someone asks, we might not know until it is too late. Unfortunately, there has been little to no stated opposition to this bill, so it could very well pass the House Committee on Wednesday, and later the entire House, unchecked.

The risk of leaving this stone unturned is clear: The public and press would be in the dark with regard to CBP activities near the border. We wouldn't have access to records of arrests, injuries, deaths and other major incidents at the border or the costs of securing the borders, including the cost and other details of building a border wall.

It could have been a mistake with legislators wishing to exempt CBP from something else, but if it can be read as excusing ICE from its FOIA duties, you can be sure that's exactly how the agency will read it. Alerting representatives is the only way this will receive any attention, considering it's just a few words in the middle of a 102-page bill seeking expanded powers for the agency.

Filed Under: cbp, customs and border patrol, dhs, foia, transparency

EFF, ACLU Sue Government Over Warrantless Electronic Searches At The Border

from the still-in-US-territory,-but-none-of-your-rights-apply dept

If all goes well, we might have the US border join the rest of the United States in recognizing citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court's Riley decision made it clear law enforcement needed to obtain warrants before searching people's cellphones. Unfortunately, the so-called "border exception" -- upheld by at least one court -- says securing the border is more important than recognizing people's rights.

The EFF and ACLU -- along with the 10 US citizens and one permanent resident they're representing -- are suing DHS, CBP, and ICE for violating the Constitutional rights of the plaintiffs by warrantlessly searching their devices. Not only did the government search their devices, but in some cases, held onto the devices for weeks. One plaintiff's phone is still in the hands of the CBP, having originally been taken from the plaintiff in January.

The filing [PDF] provides details of the plaintiffs' interaction with government agents at US borders. All plaintiffs were taken to secondary screening where they were coerced into handing over their devices and, in some cases, passwords. This is all being done with zero articulable suspicion or probable cause. Agents imply devices will be returned sooner if those they've detained are compliant. But even complicity can result in citizens having to leave their devices in the hands of the government.

Even when travelers comply with officers’ demands to unlock their devices or provide their device passwords, officers sometimes confiscate the devices anyway. For example, even though Ms. Alasaad provided the password to her phone, and CBP officers had already searched Mr. Alasaad’s unlocked phone, officers still confiscated both of the couple’s phones. CBP kept both phones for approximately 15 days.

These lengthy device confiscations cause significant harm. Many travelers, including Plaintiffs, rely on their electronic devices for their work and livelihoods, as well as for communicating with family members. Losing access to electronic devices and the information they contain for extended periods of time can disrupt travelers’ personal and professional lives. Confiscation of electronic devices is especially harmful to those who need, but do not have or cannot afford, replacement devices, and those who need but did not back up stored data.

As a result, the plaintiffs have spent thousands of dollars replacing devices the government kept without offering a legitimate law enforcement/national security reason for doing so. As the lawsuit points out, this type of behavior is unconstitutional.

When CBP and ICE officers confiscate electronic devices pursuant to their policies and practices for the purpose of searching those devices’ content, such confiscations violate the Fourth Amendment in at least three distinct ways:

a. First, these confiscations are not justified at their inception when they are affected absent probable cause.

b. Second, these confiscations are excessive in scope, because officers confiscate not just the locked devices they are unable to search at the port of entry, but also the unlocked devices they are able to search and that they sometimes have already searched.

c. Third, these confiscations are excessive in duration where the duration of confiscation of locked devices is unreasonable in relation to the time actually needed to search the devices.

In addition to the Fourth Amendment violations, there are also concerns about the First. A few of those participating in this lawsuit are journalists. CBP officers not only searched their phones, but questioned them directly about sources and subjects.

Even the plaintiffs who aren't journalists have valid First Amendment complaints. If the government's going to demand access to writings, photos, videos, and other forms of expression stored on electronic devices, this limits future expressive acts. People whose devices have been seized and searched are less likely to give the government as much to dig through the second time around. This means less writing, fewer photos, and steering clear of any artistic creation the government might somehow misconstrue as threatening, criminal, or simply critical of rote government abuse.

As the plaintiffs point out, these searches aren't Constitutional, but they are allowed by DHS and CBP policies -- which state agents may search and seize phones without reasonable suspicion. To that end, the lawsuit asks the court to find the policies officially unconstitutional and ban the government from searching devices at the border without a warrant.

It's a long shot, given the judicial branch's general deference to all things national security-related. But it will be nice to see the government explain how the Supreme Court's Riley decision somehow doesn't apply to American citizens just because they're entering or leaving the country.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, border exception, border searches, cbp, computers, doj, ice, phones, warrantless searches
Companies: aclu, eff

Border Device Searches Continue To Increase, Threatening More Than Just The 4th Amendment

from the nothing-to-hide,-everything-to-fear dept

This administration has made it clear "securing" the borders is one of our nation's top priorities. In all honesty, the administration probably couldn't care less about the Canadian border. Almost all of its attention is focused on the southern border, but it also wants to make sure visitors/immigrants from certain countries are hassled extensively no matter where they first set foot in this country.

The nation's borders have long been a place where certain rights become privileges. Legislators and courts have done little to roll this back, usually favoring national security over individual rights. Border searches of electronic devices were already on the rise before Trump took office, jumping from 5,000 in 2015 to nearly 20,000 in 2016.

2016's gaudy record numbers will soon be overwritten, though. And we're barely three-quarters of the way through 2017.

On April 11, 2017 the CBP announced in a press release that they'd searched 14,993 electronic devices being carried by international travelers (they don't say how many were American citizens). In all of 2016 CBP says they searched 19,033 devices. In 2015, reports say they searched about 5,000.

At the rate reported, visitors and US citizens will have been on the receiving end of nearly 60,000 devices searches by the end of the year. And that's only if the last reported numbers remain steady. But there's every reason to believe these numbers will increase exponentially. The administration has actively encouraged more intrusiveness at the borders, something that has bled into potential rights violations even at our northern border, where things were generally more relaxed.

The DHS is fine with this wholesale write-off of Fourth Amendment protections. It frequently points to a 2009 Privacy Impact Assessment which bluntly states plenty of privacy will be impacted and the CBP is more than welcome to generate probable cause after the fact.

CBP will contact you by telephone when the examination of the electronic device(s) is complete, to notify you that you may pick-up the item(s) during regular business hours from the location where the item(s) was detained. If it is impractical for you to pick up the device, CBP can make arrangements to ship the device to you at our expense. CBP may retain documents or information relating to immigration, customs, and other enforcement matters only if such retention is consistent with the privacy and data protection standards of the system in which such information is retained. Otherwise, if there is no probable cause to seize information after review, CBP will not retain any copies.

But this increased focus on searching as many electronic devices as possible has the potential to do damage to rights beyond those enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Frank Miniter of The American Conservative points out so-called "routine" searches cause problems for the First Amendment.

While doing research for my novel Kill Big Brother I had off-the-record conversations with men and women from U.S. intelligence agencies. I also interviewed Dark Web types who insisted they stay on background. None of these individuals told me about secret government programs or anything at all that would make an interesting scene in a Jason Bourne movie. All I got was background and perspective—invaluable things to a journalist who wants to get things right. But recordings of some of those conversations are on my iPhone. Other sources are there, too. So I’ve password protected the encrypted data. It will automatically erase all the texts, audio and more if someone tries to guess their way into my phone.

That’s my reason for being concerned that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has the power to disregard my Fourth Amendment rights and to demand I give them access to my digital devices if I fly internationally or even decide to drive to Montreal.

I’m a journalist and I must protect my sources, but I also don’t think my private photos, my social media, my texts and more are the government’s business.

A couple pieces of legislation aimed at creating a border search warrant requirement have been introduced, but will be facing more opposition than usual. The DOJ and DHS have never welcomed new warrant requirements and, given the directives issued during the first few months of the Trump presidency, will certainly feel any such requirement would undermine their ability to carry out the president's orders.

Filed Under: cbp, dhs, fourth amendment, homeland security, privacy

Proposed Law Would Turn US Borders Into Unblinking Eyes With A Thirst For Human DNA

from the all-the-bad-lawmaking-in-one-large-PDF dept

Some senators are looking to turn US borders into the equivalent of London: cameras everywhere and a host of new incursions into travelers' and visitors' privacy. Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica "outed" the not-yet-introduced bill -- titled "Building America's Trust Act" [wtf] -- since the supporting lawmakers have yet to formally announce their plans to make the US a worse country to live in, much less visit.

The one-pager [PDF] for the bill [PDF] (which is 186 pages long) makes it clear what the objective is: more surveillance, more boots on the ground, and green lights for law enforcement agencies located anywhere within 100 miles of the nation's borders. The bill calls for more judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and inspectors, as well as walls, levees, fences -- whatever might further separate the US from its bordering neighbors (but only the southern one, apparently).

First off, there will be an increase in aerial surveillance. The bill calls for an increase in manned flight hours, as well as mandating drone flights at least 24 hours a day for five days a week. This would be in addition to increased use of surveillance equipment that can be mounted on vehicles or carried by humans. The DHS will also be allowed to draft the National Guard to perform border patrol duties and construct fences and walls and set up/monitor surveillance equipment.

The list goes on and on. (And on.) Customs and Border Patrol (and any agencies assisting it) will be exempted from 30 state and federal laws governing (among other things) use of public land should it be determined these ecology-protecting statutes "interfere" with the CBP's border patrolling efforts. The bill would also exempt border security efforts from the normal federal bidding process, allowing agencies to use non-competitive means to hire employees and source contractors. The bill would also raise staffing levels, providing for signing bonuses of up to $10,000 per new hire and an expanded waiver of the CBP's polygraph test requirement.

The law would allow border security agencies to obtain Defense Department surveillance gear, with an eye on round-the-clock surveillance in some form and increased gathering of biometric information. More specifically, the bill asks for this:

The Secretary shall create a system or upgrade an existing system (if a Department system already has capability and capacity for storage) to allow for storage of iris scans and voice prints of aliens that can be used by the Department, other Federal agencies, and State and local law enforcement for identification, remote authentication, and verification of aliens. The Secretary shall ensure, to the extent possible, that the system for storage of iris scans and voice prints is compatible with existing State and local law enforcement systems that are used for collection and storage of iris scans or voice prints for criminal aliens.

This will be fed by the DHS's biometric entry-exit collection, meaning it won't just be foreign visitors adding to the pile of biometric data. The law calls for the program to be put in place at all high traffic ports of entry (including major airports) within two years. As we've seen from previous pilot programs, there's no good way to ensure US persons aren't swept up in the biometric scanning. All we have are assurances these "inadvertent" collections will be siloed off from the DHS's foreigner collection.

Customs authorities will also be given power to demand biometric info from visa applicants and DNA will be collected from all detained immigrants, whether or not they're criminally charged. This information will then be shared with the State Department and the FBI.

From there, the law adds other politically-charged stipulations, like an entire subsection entitled "Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act." Also of note: the bill would allow law enforcement to seize everything from cash to bitcoins if they're suspected to be "criminal proceeds." It also strips away any mens rea protection from accusations of money laundering, allowing the government to seize money/charge suspects with a federal crime whether or not they knowingly engaged in criminal activity.

The whole package is basically a 186 pages of surveillance expansion and xenophobic legalese. The sole benefit of the bloated bill is it consolidates so many anti-foreigner objectives into a single PDF, saving opponents the trouble of having to track a few dozen similarly-minded bills. The limits on the collection and use of biometric data are almost nonexistent and there's nothing in it specifically ordering agencies to keep US citizens out of the data pile. A number of law enforcement agencies have already offered their endorsement of the bill, suggesting it's spent some time being circulated among proponents. Now, it's in the hands of the rest of the county where it's unlikely to see as unqualified support. It's a Patriot Act but for the border -- a hysteria-based bill that panders to the president's desires.

Filed Under: bata, border patrol, buidling america's trust act, cbp, privacy, surveillance

Report Shows CBP Officers Rarely Punished For Abusive Actions

from the zero-accountability-in-the-Constitution-free-zones dept

Here's how the CBP is defending our borders -- even before the Trump Administration's "surge:"

Everyone they detained was an American citizen, coming back to the US after attending a wedding of a cousin. They were treated terribly, put in a cold room with no food or drinks, and no information on what was going on. CBP demanded they hand over their electronics, and made it clear they might not get them back. The thing is, this isn't a unique situation. As the report notes, there's almost no oversight over CBP actions, allowing them to act with impunity. In the report, the story is told of a 4-year-old girl, an American citizen, who was detained for 14 hours, in a cold room, without being allowed to speak to her parents and given no food beyond a cookie. And then she was deported. Even though she was a US citizen. She was allowed to come back weeks later, but now has symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

And that was at the Canadian border. Down south, treatment of citizens and (especially) non-citizens is even worse. The CBP has a vast amount of power but very minimal oversight. The fact that they deal with non-citizens frequently tends to result in a "They're not Americans, so who cares?" attitude.

In 2013, the American Immigration Council studied data on complaints against the CBP. What it found was depressing, if unsurprising.

The data, which the Immigration Council acquired through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, covers 809 complaints of alleged abuse lodged against Border Patrol agents between January 2009 and January 2012. These cases run the gamut of physical, sexual, and verbal abuse. Although it is not possible to determine which cases had merit and which did not, it is astonishing that, among those cases in which a formal decision was issued, 97 percent resulted in “No Action Taken.” On average, CBP took 122 days to arrive at a decision when one was made. Moreover, among all complaints, 40 percent were still “pending investigation” when the complaint data were provided to the Immigration Council.

The most common complaint was physical abuse, occurring in nearly 40% of the studied cases with excessive force following close behind with 38% of reports. This should be expected, as the CBP is a law enforcement agency. Many US law enforcement agencies believe the most effective response to almost any situation is violence, and they deploy it frequently in various forms.

Complaints about CBP officers are notoriously difficult to substantiate. It's not that the complainants are more unreliable than complaints against other agencies. It's that there's usually a language barrier to be dealt with and the odds of the complainant having been whisked into Mexican/Canadian cornfields are much higher. No other agency has the power to deport its unhappy customers.

Three years later, the Immigration Council has compiled another report [PDF] based on FOIAed documents covering complaints from 2012 to 2015]. There has been no improvement.

This data, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, includes 2,178 cases of alleged misconduct by Border Patrol agents and supervisors that were filed between January 2012 and October 2015. These cases range from instances of verbal abuse, to theft of property, to physical assault.

Even though assessing which cases did or did not merit disciplinary action was not feasible with the information CBP provided, the overall findings of this report are still remarkable. For example:

95.9 percent of the 1,255 cases in which an outcome was reported resulted in “no action” against the officer or agent accused of misconduct.

The complaints contain allegations of many forms of abuse, with “physical abuse” cited as the reason for the complaint in 59.4 percent of all cases.

“No action” was the outcome of many complaints against Border Patrol agents that alleged serious misconduct, such as running a person over with a vehicle, making physical threats, sexually assaulting a woman in a hospital, and denying medical attention to children.

A 1.1% "improvement" in sustained complaints is nothing more than expected variance. However, physical abuse appears to be on the upswing, jumping nearly 20% in the last three years. Again, the sheer amount of alleged abuse -- and the allegations themselves -- make for harrowing reading. Here's a small sampling of complaints against CBP officers.

Border Patrol agent allegedly placed Taser in the mouth of a U.S. citizen, resulting in injury (Tombstone, AZ)

Border Patrol agent allegedly beat, kicked, and made a UDA [“Undocumented Alien”] (a citizen of Ecuador) eat dirt while he was apprehended (Imperial Beach, CA)

Border Patrol agent allegedly verbally abused and threatened a UAC [“Unaccompanied Alien Child”] with rape and either a weapon or [self-defense] spray (Laredo, TX)

Border Patrol agent allegedly put a gun to a UAC’s [“Unaccompanied Alien Child’s”] neck and threatened to kick and kill him (Weslaco, TX)

A UDA [“Undocumented Alien”] alleges she was raped by two male Border Patrol agents prior to her apprehension by a female Border Patrol agent (Casa Grande, AZ)

Taken altogether you have an agency that has little fear of reprisal for its actions. Bolstering this is an opaque complaint process exacerbated by language barriers. On top of it, there's the general dehumanization of everyone the CBP interacts with, which only encourages staff to treat people like meat, rather than with any sort of restraint or dignity. Sitting all the way above it on the federal organizational chart is a president who's decided to make anyone without US citizenship a scapegoat for overstated leaps in criminal activity. It's only going to get worse. And considering how long the CBP has been able to escape punishment for its behavior, there's really no reason to append "before it gets better" to the previous sentence.

Filed Under: abuse, border patrol, cbp, dhs

DHS, CBP Admit They Have No Legal Authority To Access Americans' Social Media Accounts

from the CBP-reminded-of-this-2-months-after-Wyden's-letter dept

Since at least 2009, the DHS has asserted a legal right to copy/search the contents of anyone's electronic devices at the border. Its privacy assessment said no one has much privacy, at least not near US borders. Building on years of judicial national security deference, the DHS has recently expanded its searches of electronic devices, eliminating most of its adherence to the Fourth Amendment in the process. If your devices wander into the country's Constitution-free zones, you can expect to suffer diminished expectations of privacy.

Noting that border searches of electronic devices were increasing exponentially (more searches in February 2017 alone than in all of 2015), Senator Ron Wyden did two things: introduced a bill creating a warrant requirement for border electronic device searches and asked the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) about its new demands for social media/email account passwords.

The DHS has responded [PDF] to Wyden's questions, and the answers are a bit surprising.

U.S. border officers aren't allowed to look at any data stored only in the "cloud" — including social media data — when they search U.S. travelers' phones, Customs and Border Protection acknowledged in a letter obtained Wednesday by NBC News.

The letter (PDF), sent in response to inquiries by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and verified by Wyden's office, not only states that CBP doesn't search data stored only with remote cloud services, but also — apparently for the first time — declares that it doesn't have that authority in the first place.

This admission about a lack of legal authority contradicts the assertions made in its 2009 Privacy Impact Assessment, which placed CBP agent hunches above anything resembling reasonable suspicion or probable cause. But the answer aren't quite as clear-cut as it might appear from the NBC New summation.

With or without legal authority, the CBP is still performing searches of thousands of devices. Returning US citizens aren't exempted from these searches. They are often free to go, even if their devices might need to be left behind so the CBP can search/copy the device's contents. This may be done without reasonable suspicion because, as the letter puts it, any device might hold evidence of criminal activity (terrorism, smuggling, and child porn are specifically named).

What the CBP cannot do -- at least according to this letter -- is retrieve information and data not stored on the phone itself. But this would only prevent CBP officers from accessing cloud-based storage. Much of the information contained in email and social media accounts is not stored locally, but there's no practical way to separate local/cloud data when officers have access to the entire device. The letter appears to indicate officers need to restrict their searches to SMS messages, call logs, and photos/videos stored on the device.

How this operates in practice is another matter. The letter states CBP cannot demand passwords/pins from American travelers, but points out this may result in their electronics being detained indefinitely even as the citizens themselves are free to go. It says CBP officers have been instructed to stay away from social media/email accounts, but the April 2017 "reminder" appears to be the direct result of Wyden's probing questions, which were sent to the DHS at the end of February. What CBP was doing before the senator started asking questions is anyone's guess, but anecdotal evidence suggests CBP is treating US citizens as badly as it does foreign visitors.

What isn't in the letter is a direct response to Wyden's question about the number of US citizens subjected to these intrusive searches. The DHS claims not to have this information on hand but has promised to turn over some data later this year.

In the meantime, American citizens are receiving only slightly better treatment than arriving foreigners. Assertion of rights are the border will often be taken as unprompted admission of guilt. While the CBP may not have a legal basis to demand access to social media accounts, it does appear its demands for access to people's phones isn't stifled by many legal hurdles. Considering most phones/laptops contain social media account info, it's up to Americans to believe the CBP isn't accessing data it's been told to stay away from.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, cbp, cloud, device searches, dhs, laptop searches, local storage, privacy

Homeland Security's Inspector General Investigating Attempt To Unmask 'Rogue' Tweeter

from the so-much-to-investigate dept

As you probably recall, a few weeks ago Twitter sued Homeland Security after it received a summons from Customs & Border Patrol seeking to identify any information about the @ALT_uscis account. USCIS is the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, and the "alt" part is similar to many other such accounts purporting to be anonymous insiders in the government reporting on what's happening there (whether or not the operators of those accounts truly are inside those organizations is an open question). Anyway, the issue here is that such a use of Twitter would be protected by the First Amendment, and unless the account was revealing classified info, it's unlikely that there would be any legit means to investigate who was behind the account. And, because of that, it certainly appeared that Customs and Border Patrol decided to use illegitimate means to get the info. Specifically it sent a 19 USC 1509 summons, which is an investigative tool for determining the correct duties, fees or taxes on imported goods. As you can see, identifying a Twitter user does not seem to fit into what that law is for.

Having been called out on this in federal court (and, one hopes, having DOJ lawyers chew out DHS/CBP folks), the feds dropped the summons hours later and Twitter withdrew the lawsuit.

However, abusing the law to seek out information like that is a pretty major abuse, and is one that shouldn't just let everyone move on afterwards without some sort of accountability. Senator Ron Wyden asked Homeland Security's Inspector General if it was investigating this and, in a fairly straightforward and open letter, DHS IG, John Roth, lets Wyden know that an investigation is ongoing and even clarifies what they are investigating and why. The letter itself is pretty clear, so I'll just post a chunk of it here:

While we typically do not comment on open investigations, it has come to my attention that there may be some confusion about the scope of DHS OIG’s work relating to this matter. Specifically, we have been asked to clarify which, if any, of the following three issues we are investigating:

(1) Misconduct on the part of the owner of the @ALT_USCIS Twitter account, who CBP suspected was a DHS employee;
(2) CBP’s use of its summons authority in this particular case; and
(3) Use of summons authority across the Department.

Regarding the first issue, we were asked by CBP to assist their efforts to determine whether the tweets at issue disclosed any classified information. To that end, we helped CBP pull the content of @ALT_USCIS’s tweets off the internet and cross-reference that content against data in DHS systems to determine whether the information was classified. We have concluded that no classified information was released via the @ALT_USCIS Twitter account.

I’d like to make clear that DHS OIG has not played any role in attempting to identify the owner of the @ALT_USCIS Twitter account, and only learned of the issuance of the March 14, 2017 summons when it was reported in the media. Our investigation protocol includes controls for situations in which First Amendment activity is implicated, and we strive to ensure that our work does not have a chilling effect on individuals’ free speech rights. I can confirm that DHS OIG is not investigating, and will not investigate, any alleged misconduct on the part of the @ALT_USCIS account owner relating to his or her use of the Twitter account.

Regarding the remaining two issues, I can confirm that DHS OIG is investigating whether the investigation conducted by CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility relating to the @ALT_USCIS Twitter account was improper in any way, including whether CBP abused its authority in issuing the March 14, 2017 summons to Twitter. DHS OIG is also reviewing potential broader misuse of summons authority at the Department and/or its components.

That's pretty clear and makes sense. They looked and found no classified info being revealed, they've been careful to not seek any other way of identifying the owner of the account, or to do anything that might chill speech, and they are actively investigating if CBP abused its authority (beyond just this one case). I look forward to find out the results of that investigation.

Filed Under: alt_uscis, cbp, customs, dhs, rogue tweeter
Companies: twitter

Twitter Sues Homeland Security Over Attempt To Unmask 'Alt' Immigration Twitter Account

from the the-times-we-live-in dept

As you probably know by now, there are a whole bunch of "alt" or "rogue" government Twitter accounts, initially inspired by what appeared to be tweets from a former National Parks Service employee containing "rogue" information against the Trump administration. Many of those rogue accounts are questionable in nature and likely fake, rather than being actually run by employees of the parts of the government they claim to represent. Still, it appears that many in the government are concerned. Just yesterday, via a FOIA request, it was revealed that Donald Trump himself got "directly involved" in the hunt for the National Park Service's rogue tweeter:

If you can't read that, it's an excerpt from an email saying that "this has become a very sensitive issue, especially since the President has gotten directly involved and contacted Acting Director Mike Reynolds concerned about one of the images..."

It appears that other parts of the government are also deeply concerned with unmasking who's involved in these things. Today, Twitter sued the US government because the Department of Homeland Security and its Customs & Border Protection division have apparently been trying to unmask the operator of the @ALT_uscis account, which claims to be run by people working for US Citizenship and Immigration Service presenting the "rogue" view on immigration issues.

From the lawsuit:

This is an action to prevent the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), and the individual Defendants from unlawfully abusing a limited-purpose investigatory tool to try to unmask the real identity of one or more persons who have been using Twitter’s social media platform, and specifically a Twitter account named @ALT_USCIS, to express public criticism of the Department and the current Administration. The rights of free speech afforded Twitter’s users and Twitter itself under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution include a right to disseminate such anonymous or pseudonymous political speech. In these circumstances, Defendants may not compel Twitter to disclose information regarding the real identities of these users without first demonstrating that some criminal or civil offense has been committed, that unmasking the users’ identity is the least restrictive means for investigating that offense, that the demand for this information is not motivated by a desire to suppress free speech, and that the interests of pursuing that investigation outweigh the important First Amendment rights of Twitter and its users. But Defendants have not come close to making any of those showings. And even if Defendants could otherwise demonstrate an appropriate basis for impairing the First Amendment interests of Twitter and its users, they certainly may not do so using the particular investigatory tool employed here—which Congress authorized solely to ensure compliance with federal laws concerning imported merchandise—because it is apparent that whatever investigation Defendants are conducting here does not pertain to imported merchandise.

Specifically, Twitter argues that DHS is abusing particular laws that CBP/DHS has access to, but for a specific purpse -- and it's not to identify rogue employees:

First, the sole statutory authority CBP invoked in issuing the summons—19 U.S.C. § 1509—authorizes the agency to compel production of only a narrow class of records relating to the importation of merchandise. But CBP’s investigation of the @ALT_USCIS account plainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the importation of merchandise into the United States. Section 1509 thus provides CBP no power to compel Twitter to reveal information pertaining to the identity of the individual(s) behind the @ALT_USCIS account.

Further down in the complaint, Twitter notes that it appears that DHS/CBP directly misrepresented what was happening here:

The CBP Summons states generically that “production of the indicated records is required in connection with an investigation or inquiry to ascertain the correctness of entries, to determine the liability for duties, taxes, fines, penalties, or forfeitures, and/or to ensure compliance with the laws or regulations administered by CBP and ICE.” Beyond that boilerplate language, the CBP Summons provides no justification for issuance of a summons targeting the @ALT_USCIS account.

Amusingly, the lawsuit also notes that CBP demanded Twitter hand over this info the day before the summons was sent.

And then it points to the clear free speech chilling effects this kind of unmasking could cause:

Second, permitting CBP to pierce the pseudonym of the @ALT_USCIS account would have a grave chilling effect on the speech of that account in particular and on the many other “alternative agency” accounts that have been created to voice dissent to government policies. The Supreme Court has long recognized the extraordinary value of the kind of speech emanating from these accounts—pure political speech criticizing government policies and highlighting government waste and mismanagement. And the Court has likewise recognized that anonymity is often essential to fostering such political speech where, as here, the speaker could face retaliation or retribution if his or her real identity were linked to the speech. In this context, the CBP Summons must be declared unlawful and enjoined absent an evidentiary showing by Defendants that some criminal or civil offense has been committed, that unmasking the users’ identity is the least restrictive means for investigating that offense, that the demand for this information is not motivated by a desire to suppress free speech, and that the interests of pursuing that investigation outweigh the important free speech rights of Twitter and its users. Defendants have not even attempted to meet that burden.

As for the actual account, since the lawsuit was announced it retweeted the ACLU saying that it will go to court to defend the anonymous person or people behind the account, and then it pinned the following tweet:

I have no idea if the people behind the account really work for US CIS, but there's no way that the government should be able to abuse other laws or chill free speech to try to track down people saying things they don't like.

Filed Under: cbp, dhs, free speech, privacy, uscis
Companies: twitter