ICE Drops Extreme Vetting Software Plan After Discovering No One Could Possibly Deliver What It Wants

from the we-have-seen-the-future-and-we-are-disappoint dept

It appears the concept of "extreme vetting" at our borders has been backburnered. The Washington Post is reporting ICE has scrapped plans to acquire software capable of strip-mining immigrants' social media accounts and converting this info into a RATE MY DANGEROUSNESS number. However, it does not appear the concept is being done away with entirely.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials told tech-industry contractors last summer they wanted a system for their “Extreme Vetting Initiative” that could automatically mine Facebook, Twitter and the broader Internet to determine whether a visitor might commit criminal or terrorist acts or was a “positively contributing member of society.”

But ICE quietly dropped the machine-learning requirement from its request in recent months, opting instead to hire a contractor that can provide training, management and human personnel who can do the job. Federal documents say the contract is expected to cost more than $100 million and be awarded by the end of the year.

No more one-click snooping on entrants. Instead, this job will be farmed out to vendors who will probably never accidentally leak the large amount of personal data they're collecting for the government. This isn't a case of ICE/DHS realizing this isn't just intrusive but unnecessary and quite possibly useless. Instead, this is a case of ICE not liking what vendors had to offer on the software front.

An ICE official briefed on the decision-making process said the agency found there was no “out-of-the-box” software that could deliver the quality of monitoring the agency wanted.

For the time being, it won't be AIs and algos doing the vetting. Instead, it will be a government contractor doing the work, presumably using some live humans. What ICE was seeking was a mythical piece of software. It wanted a rigorous vetting system that predetermines the risk levels of immigrants at a touch of a button -- all without troubling civil liberties and/or conflicting with numerous other databases ICE controls or has access to.

There's no doubt the government can acquire something that harvests massive amounts of data. The problem is making that data useful, something even our most experienced data harvesters in the NSA frequently have trouble doing. But ICE wanted it to be more than a database of past social media behavior. It wanted the program to hand it a thumbs up/down rating on visa applicants, something that's not really advisable, if even actually possible. And there doesn't appear to be anything that fits the description.

“Have they realized only that it doesn’t exist now, which is important in its own right, or have they also recognized that this really was an idea that was built on a complete fantasy?” said Rachel Levinson-Waldman, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning policy institute. “That you can somehow take these hugely disparate sources of information, in lots of different languages, and make a prediction about what somebody’s value and worth is?”

Content moderation, but for humans. That hasn't worked well anywhere. It usually leads to profiling, false positives, and wastes of the government's human resources, which are far more limited than its data-hauling capabilities. Extreme vetting isn't going away. It's just going be far more iterative than ICE would like, however. Visions of "Minority Report" (and for actual minorities!) have been dashed by the cold water of tech reality. Concerns about mass violations of privacy and civil liberties had nothing to do with this partial reversal of course.

Filed Under: extreme vetting, ice, social media, surveillance

Judge Allows Fourth Amendment Challenge Of Warrantless Device Searches At The Border To Continue

from the uphill-battling dept

A federal judge has allowed the ACLU, EFF, and the several plaintiffs they represent to continue their Fourth Amendment lawsuit against DHS, ICE, and CBP. The plaintiffs are challenging the Constitutionality of border device searches -- something that has skyrocketed in recent years. As it stands now, these agencies believe nothing stronger than reasonable suspicion is needed to perform highly-intrusive searches. In many cases, not even suspicion is needed, thanks to the "border search" exception to the Fourth Amendment courts have carved out for the government.

Policies for agencies performing border device searches are pretty much identical. All allow searches and seizures of devices without individualized suspicion. This warrantless, suspicionless search may also result in the device being confiscated for weeks or months while a forensic search is undertaken -- again, supposedly without violating travelers' rights. CBP's policy was altered this year, requiring forensic searches and the mirroring of devices to at least reach the level of reasonable suspicion. Better than ICE's policy, but still nothing approaching a warrant.

The government sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, claiming the plaintiffs had no standing to assert violations, much less seek injunctive relief on the theory they would likely be subjected to intrusive device searches the next time they traveled.

The court disagrees with all the government's arguments. The government claimed the number of device searches -- although steadily increasing -- is still a small percentage of the overall whole. The court points out it doesn't really matter what the percentage is. It's whether or not CBP and ICE perform these searches routinely. From the decision [PDF]:

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have also failed to satisfy the “substantial risk” inquiry. Plaintiffs allege that CBP data demonstrates that it is on track to conduct approximately 30,000 searches this fiscal year. Defendants point out, however, that those searches only amounted to 0.008% of the approximately 189.6 million travelers who arrived at U.S. borders during this period. Defendants argue that this future search probability—which they characterize as a “slight chance” of search—is not sufficient to establish standing here.

There is no numerical threshold, however, at which likelihood of harm becomes a “substantial risk” of harm. See Kerin v. Titeflex Corp., 770 F.3d 978, 983 (1st Cir. 2014) (noting that “a small probability of a great harm may be sufficient”). Although 0.008% may be a small percentage of total travelers, the searches still occur at an average of approximately 2500 searches per month. In SBA List, the Supreme Court supported its conclusion that there was a substantial likelihood of future harm with the explanation that proceedings enforcing the statute in question were “not a rare occurrence,” with twenty to eighty such cases occurring per year. Against this backdrop, 30,000 searches per year is not a “rare occurrence,” even if it makes up a small percentage of total travelers.

The government also argued allegations of future harm were too vague to support a lawsuit. The court finds this argument unbelievable, given the history of the plaintiffs' interactions with border agents and the agencies' border search practices.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs’ allegations of future harm are impermissibly “vague” and speculative. They point to Reddy for the proposition that in the First Circuit, “‘[s]peculation’ that a government actor ‘might in the future take some other and additional action detrimental to’ Plaintiffs, is ‘not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm.’” In Reddy, however, the First Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ assertions of standing were speculative as to a New Hampshire buffer zone statute, emphasizing that the statute had not yet been enforced. Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs challenge policies that are in place and are being actively enforced.

[...]

Plaintiffs’ alleged future injury does not depend upon defendants’ future illegal conduct untethered to a pattern of past practice, cf. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983) (concluding that plaintiff subject to illegal arrest procedure made no showing that he was likely to be arrested and subjected to illegal procedure again), but rather upon recurring conduct authorized by official policies. That is, Plaintiffs’ subjection to prior searches further bolsters their allegations of likely future searches.

The heart of the matter is the border search exception. It's what allows CBP and ICE to bypass the Supreme Court's Riley decision and its institution of a warrant requirement for device searches. The government seizes a single phrase from the Supreme Court ruling: "search incident to arrest." Its argument attempts to divorce border device searches from the Supreme Court's finding that searching cellphones was more analogous to searching houses than searching pants pockets or suitcases. The court doesn't agree with the government's distinction.

As an initial matter, the Court is not persuaded that Riley’s reasoning is irrelevant here simply because Riley’s holding was limited to the search incident to arrest exception, see Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2495. Judicially recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement do not exist in isolation; rather, they are all part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, justified because, ordinarily, the circumstances surrounding the search and the nature of the search have been deemed “reasonable.”

[...]

Here, the First Circuit has not yet spoken on what level of suspicion is required to justify a cell phone or other electronic device search at the border. The First Circuit has, however, acknowledged the significant privacy interests implicated in a cell phone search, explaining that the information on these devices is “the kind of information one would previously have stored in one’s home and that would have been off-limits to officers performing a search incident to arrest.”

The court then goes on to say that merely raising the standard for invasive device searches to "reasonable suspicion" may not be enough.

[T]he Supreme Court rejected the reasonable suspicion standard when it came to cell phones because it “would prove no practical limit at all when it comes to cell phone searches.” Digital device searches at the border, perhaps even when supported by reasonable suspicion, raise the same concerns.

This is encouraging, even if all that's happened at this point is the case surviving the government's motion to dismiss. It provides plenty of insight into the court's thinking, and shows how much of it is at odds with the government's assertions. This has the potential to restore some Fourth Amendment protections at our nation's borders for the first time in years.

Filed Under: 1st circuit, 4th amendment, border searches, cbp, dhs, ice, warrants
Companies: aclu, eff

ICE Performs Warrantless Raid Of Private Farm; Draws Heat From State And Federal Officials

from the 'rule-of-law,'-my-ass dept

A recent ICE raid of a New York farm made national headlines thanks to the agency's apparent disregard for the Fourth Amendment, among other things. The show of force, coupled with the lack of Constitutional compliance, presented ICE as ruthless enforcers of the law. But there's not much respect for the "rule of law" contained in these actions, no matter how the current administration -- with its emphasis on expelling foreigners from the US -- presents itself.

John Collins was standing outside the milk house at his dairy farm this morning when he heard yelling coming from inside. He ran in, he says, and saw his worker, Marcial de Leon Aguilar, pinned up against the window by armed men.

The men did not identify themselves and were screaming at Aguilar, Collins said.

"I run and say, 'What the hell is going on in here?'" Collins said.

Then the men told Collins they were officers with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He asked them for a warrant or some paperwork to explain what they were doing. They had none, he said, so he ordered them to get off his property and leave Aguilar alone.

As this happened, Collins said, Aguilar's children watched. They were waiting nearby for the school bus to come. Collins said the officers put Aguilar in handcuffs and took him across the rural road to their vehicles. At least seven officers had come onto the small farm, Collins said.

This resulted in immediate backlash from prominent New York government officials. Governor Andrew Cuomo sent an angry letter [PDF] to the agency chastising it for its apparent refusal to respect Constitutional protections.

Your agency's aggressive claims of upholding the rule of law belie the fact that the pattern of conduct and blatant constitutional violations committed by both agents in the field and regional leadership actually reflect a readiness to sink to lawlessness.

[...]

The persistent failure of your agents to properly identify themselves or produce required documentation to conduct lawful searches and arrests is illegal and creates significant risk of harm to all New Yorkers, including law enforcement who have also been left unaware of your activities within the communities they are entrusted to protect.

NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand followed the governor's letter with a demand for a federal investigation.

Unbelievably, ICE thinks its actions -- a warrantless raid conducted on private property -- are Constitutional.

Agents were within their rights to be on the farm and did not need a warrant, ICE spokesperson Khaalid Walls told [Vice Media's Eoin Higgins] in an email. The agency said that its actions were justified because de Leon-Aguilar's wife Virginia, who is enrolled in the Alternatives to Detention program, which allows her to stay out of immigration detention while she goes through immigration court proceedings, had missed a number of appointments.

"After having missed several scheduled reporting dates," said Walls, "the resident was deemed to be out of compliance with the terms of the program, necessitating a home visit, which does not require a judicial warrant."

This is wrong. First of all, the raided farm was private property. Even if a home visit was in order, the home resided on property owned by someone else. This wasn't a rental property with only a door separating residents from the outside world. And this was no "home visit." The plainclothes ICE officers showed up, trespassed on private property, and effected an arrest. No permission to enter was sought and no warrant was presented.

ICE can't honestly say it doesn't need warrants to perform these actions. Its own training manual (published by Unicorn Riot) stresses the need for warrants. Searches still require warrants, even if they're looking for illegal activity. ICE can search businesses for illegal workers, but it still needs "Blackie's" warrants (named after a 1981 case brought against the INS), which allow the government to search for people, rather than property. There is no known warrant exception to intrude on private land to search for illegal workers. ICE may feel the Alternatives to Detention program gives it the right to search homes occupied by members of the program (and it does), but when the home resides on property owned by a US citizen, the barrier to entry remains a search warrant. The immigrant arrested in this case had proper documentation to work and resided in a house owned by John Collins on the Collins' property. To reach the house, ICE had to enter private property owned by someone ICE had zero interest in: a legal resident and American citizen.

The lawsuit that's certain to follow this intrusion will sort out the Constitutionality of ICE's actions. At this point, they appear completely unconstitutional, but qualified immunity and the good faith exception may allow the agency to escape liability for the actions of its officers.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, andrew cuomo, ice, immigration, john collins, kirsten gillibrand, marcial de leon aguilar, new york, private property, warrants

Apple Sued An Independent Norwegian Repair Shop In Bid To Monopolize Repair -- And Lost

from the high-horse dept

A few years ago, annoyance at John Deere's obnoxious tractor DRM birthed a grassroots tech movement. John Deere's decision to implement a lockdown on "unauthorized repairs" turned countless ordinary citizens into technology policy activists, after DRM and the company's EULA prohibited the lion-share of repair or modification of tractors customers thought they owned. These restrictions only worked to drive up costs for owners, who faced either paying significantly more money for "authorized" repair, or toying around with pirated firmware just to ensure the products they owned actually worked.

The John Deere fiasco resulted in the push for a new "right to repair" law in Nebraska. This push then quickly spread to multiple other states, driven in part by consumer repair monopolization efforts by other companies including Apple, Sony and Microsoft. Lobbyists for these companies quickly got to work trying to claim that by allowing consumers to repair products they own (or take them to third-party repair shops), they were endangering public safety. Apple went so far as to argue that if Nebraska passed such a law, it would become a dangerous "mecca for hackers" and other rabble rousers.

Apple's efforts in particular to monopolize repair run deep. The company has worked alongside the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to seize counterfeit parts in the United States and raid shops of independent iPhone repair professionals. FOIA efforts to obtain details on just how deeply rooted Apple is in ICE's "Operation Chain Reaction" have been rejected. The efforts to "combat counterfeit goods" often obscures what this is really about for Apple: protecting a lucrative repair monopoly and thwarting anybody that might dare repair Apple devices for less money.

And Apple's efforts on this front are a decidedly global affair. More recently, Apple has been harassing an independent repair shop owner in Norway named Henrik Huseby. After Norway customs officials seized a shipment of 63 iPhone 6 and 6S replacement screens on their way to Huseby's repair shop, Apple threatened to sue the store owner unless they agreed to stop using aftermarket screens and pay a hefty settlement:

"In order to avoid being sued, Apple asked Huseby for “copies of invoices, product lists, order forms, payment information, prints from the internet and other relevant material regarding the purchase [of screens], including copies of any correspondence with the supplier … we reserve the right to request further documentation at a later date."

The letter, sent by Frank Jorgensen, an attorney at the Njord law firm on behalf of Apple, included a settlement agreement that also notified him the screens would be destroyed. The settlement agreement said that Huseby agrees “not to manufacture, import, sell, market, or otherwise deal with any products that infringe Apple’s trademarks,” and asked required him to pay 27,700 Norwegian Krone ($3,566) to make the problem go away without a trial."

How sweet. Huseby decided to fight the case, and despite being out-manned five Apple lawyers to one, managed to win. And despite Apple's ongoing claims that it's simply engaged in a moral crusade against counterfeiters, Huseby's lawyer is quick to reiterate what Apple's methods are really all about:

"In this case, Apple indirectly proves what they really want,” Per Harald Gjerstad, Huseby’s lawyer, told me in an email. “They want monopoly on repairs so they can keep high prices. And they therefore do not want to sell spare parts to anyone other than ‘to themselves.’"

Apple's real motivation is the protection of their lucrative repair monopoly enjoyed thanks to their "Authorized Service Provider" program, which requires that repair companies become authorized by paying Apple a fee, only buy "authorized" repair parts from Apple at a fixed rate, and limits what repairs a third-party vendor can actually perform. Meanwhile, Apple continues to lobby against right to repair laws in 18 states around the United States, all of which require hardware vendors sell replacement parts and repair tools to the general public and independent repair companies.

Ironically, the harder Apple and other companies fight against this trend, the more support they drive toward these right to repair bills.

Filed Under: counterfeits, homeland security, ice, norway, right to repair, trademark
Companies: apple

Top ICE Lawyer Accused Of Identity Fraud Against Detained Immigrants

from the such-a-lovely-organization dept

For many, many years we've questioned the bizarre lawless nature of ICE -- Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- going back to the days when it was illegally seizing blogs, based on false claims of copyright infringement. We questioned what ICE had to do with censoring blogs in the first place. Of course, in the last year, ICE has been getting a lot more negative attention for something that is clearly under its purview: enforcement of immigration laws. Specifically, ICE has been almost gleefully demonstrating how they are thuggish bullies who are eager to deport as many people as possible. It's disgusting and inhumane -- and if you're going to be one of those people who pop up in our comments to say something ignorant about how if someone is here illegally they have no rights and should be booted as quickly as possible, go somewhere else to spout your nonsense. Also, seriously: take stock of your own priorities and look deeply at why you are so focused on destroying the lives of people who are almost certainly less well off and less privileged than you are, and who are seeking a better way of life.

But ICE's violent, gleeful thuggery seems to come easy to the organization -- and thus it should be little surprise that one of ICE's top lawyers has been charged with identity fraud and wire fraud in trying to use the identities of at least seven immigrants who were being processed by ICE. The indictment against Raphael Sanchez, the chief counsel for ICE in Seattle is quite a read.

Beginning in or about October, 2013, and continuing until on or about October 25, 2017, in the Western District of Washington, the defendant,

RAPHAEL A. SANCHEZ,

devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud financial institutions, including American Express Company, Bank of America Corporation, Capital One Financial Corporation, Citibank, Discover Financial Services, and JPMorgan Chase Co., by using the personally identifying information of seven aliens in various stages of immigration proceedings with the United States Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and in doing so, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate or foreign commerce, writings, signals, and email communications for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice to defraud; including but not limited to the following email "that SANCHEZ caused to be sent via interstate wires:

April 18, 2016: Email message sent from Raphael.Sanchez@ice.dhs.gov to Raphael.Sanchez@ice.dhs.gov and Raphael_sanchez@yahoo.com, containing a Puget Sound Energy bill addressed to R.H. for service at 3516 South Webster Street #A Seattle, Washington, and an image of a United States permanent resident card and the biographical page of a Chinese passport issued to R.H., originating in Washington and utilizing email servers in West Virginia and Mississippi.

That's the wire fraud part. The identity fraud part includes:

On or about July 5, 2016, in the Western District of Washington, the defendant,

RAPHAEL A. SANCHEZ,

did knowingly transfer, possess, and use, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person, including the name, Social Security number, and birth date of R.H., a real person, during and in relation to a felony violation enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(c), to wit, wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, as charged in Count One of this Information, in violation of 18 § U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1). .

I assume as the case against Sanchez moves forward, more details will come out about what exactly happened here. But, remember, this is at the very same time as ICE is asking to be reclassified from a law enforcement agency to an intelligence agency, giving it much greater access to surveillance data -- without a warrant. Just imagine the kinds of identity fraud ICE lawyers could pull off with that access....

Filed Under: homeland security, ice, identity fraud, immigraiton, raphael sanchez, wire fraud

ICE Wants To Be Yet Another Federal Agency With Access To Unminimized Surveillance

from the get-some-backdoor-searches-to-go-with-the-front-door-raids dept

Officials at ICE are pitching a dangerous idea to an administration likely to give it some consideration. It wants a seat at the grown-up table where it can partake of unminimized intel directly.

Internal advocates for joining the America’s spy agencies—known as the Intelligence Community or the IC—focus on the potential benefits to the agency’s work on counterproliferation, money laundering, counterterror, and cybercrime. The official added that joining the IC could also be useful for the agency’s immigration enforcement work––in particular, their efforts to find and arrest undocumented immigrants with criminal arrest warrants (known in ICE as fugitive aliens).

At this point, no one other than a few ICE officials really wants this to happen. Privacy and accountability activists say the last thing the White House should do is give the agency access to warrantless surveillance. ICE is a domestic enforcement agency and has no need to root around in foreign-facing data collections. The agency, however, feels foreign intel -- along with the unmentioned backdoor searches of domestic communications -- could aid it in tracking down drug traffickers, money launders, and various cybercriminals.

But it shouldn't have direct access. Nor should it ever really need it. Information sharing has been expanded, thanks to the last president, which means ICE likely already receives second-hand info from other IC members like the DHS, FBI, and DEA. Former government officials are wary of the idea of direct intel access, noting that it would result in more complications, rather than better immigration and customs enforcement. Peter Vincent, ICE's general counsel under Obama, had this to say:

Unlike most intelligence agencies, which focus on gathering information about America’s adversaries, ICE’s agents and officers deal with federal courts every day. If they use classified material to generate leads, that information could be inadmissible in court. Both the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration, which are in the Intelligence Community, deal with this issue. Adjusting would be a challenge for ICE.

Vincent said this could create “many potential mission creep spectres, especially in this current climate,” and that he doesn’t think it would be necessary for ICE to join the Intelligence Community.

We've seen how well dips into NSA stores has worked for these two law enforcement agencies. Parallel construction becomes the rule, rather than the exception, and cases are far more likely to be dropped if defense lawyers and judges start asking too many questions about presented evidence.

Another former DHS intelligence official claims the added intel would do little more than "complicate the architecture," making it harder for ICE to do its job. If critical information needs to be shared with ICE, it could be done by bringing the head of ICE in on intel meetings, rather than adding ICE into the IC mix and adding yet another set of minimization rules to intel sharing.

Bad idea or not, the push for ICE to join the Intelligence Community comes at the right time. While Trump has been extremely critical of other IC components -- particularly the FBI -- he's very fond of his domestic immigration enforcers, having given them free rein to enforce the law in whatever way they see fit.

Filed Under: ice, intelligence agency, law enforcement, surveillance, warrants

ICE Finally Gets The Nationwide License Plate Database It's Spent Years Asking For

from the papers-please,-says-ICE-to-all-vehicles-in-the-nation dept

ICE is finally getting that nationwide license plate reader database it's been lusting after for several years. The DHS announced plans for a nationwide database in 2014, but decided to rein that idea in after a bit of backlash. The post-Snowden political climate made many domestic mass surveillance plans untenable, if not completely unpalatable.

Times have changed. The new team in the White House doesn't care how much domestic surveillance it engages in as long as it might aid in rooting out foreign immigrants. The first move was the DHS's updated Privacy Impact Assessment on license plate readers -- delivered late last year -- which came to the conclusion that any privacy violations were minimal compared to the national security net benefits.

The last step has been finalized, as Russell Brandom reports for The Verge.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has officially gained agency-wide access to a nationwide license plate recognition database, according to a contract finalized earlier this month. The system gives the agency access to billions of license plate records and new powers of real-time location tracking, raising significant concerns from civil libertarians.

For those counting tax beans, the good news is this database won't cost much. Billions of license plate records have already been collected (and continue to be collected). All the winning contractor has to do is hook ICE up to the firehose.

The source of the data is not named in the contract, but an ICE representative said the data came from Vigilant Solutions, the leading network for license plate recognition data. “Like most other law enforcement agencies, ICE uses information obtained from license plate readers as one tool in support of its investigations,” spokesperson Dani Bennett said in a statement. “ICE is not seeking to build a license plate reader database, and will not collect nor contribute any data to a national public or private database through this contract.”

Nice use of wiggle words to minimize ICE's new surveillance power. ICE won't "build" a database. Great, but it doesn't need to. Vigilant has been collecting records for years via private companies and partnerships with law enforcement agencies. Around two billion plate/location records are already stored by Vigilant, presumably indefinitely. According to the Verge report, ICE will have access to at least five years of records for historical searches.

But ICE won't be just be diving into Vigilant's plate record archives. ICE will also be able to hand Vigilant "hot lists" for automatic notification any time the nation's many ALPR cameras capture a shot of targeted license plates.

ICE agents can also receive instantaneous email alerts whenever a new record of a particular plate is found — a system known internally as a “hot list.” (The same alerts can also be funneled to the Vigilant’s iOS app.) According to the privacy assessment, as many as 2,500 license plates could be uploaded to the hot list in a single batch, although the assessment does not detail how often new batches can be added.

According to the report, ICE first tried out Vigilant's system in 2012. It hoped to go live in 2014, but the Snowden documents chilled enthusiasm for mass surveillance temporarily. Now, the system is ready to roll, pre-stocked with a couple billion plate records for ICE to peruse as it expands its enforcement activities past the deportation of foreign criminals.

There are few nods to privacy, but they're mostly useless. ICE owns it own ALPR cameras but those won't feed into this database, which means other law enforcement agencies won't have access to ICE-generated plate records. Hot lists aren't forever. They'll expire after a year. And there will be audit trails for ICE agents who use the system, although it remains to be seen how serious ICE is about punishing misuse of this authority.

There's not much that citizens can do to keep their inland plates from becoming part of ICE's border enforcement activity. Most states require visible, legible license plates at all times, even when parked at homes or private businesses. One state, however, is doing something about that. California legislators recently offered up a bill that would provide a little pocket of privacy for citizens and their vehicles.

S.B. 712 would allow drivers to apply a removable cover to their license plates when they are lawfully parked, similar to how drivers are currently allowed to cover their entire vehicles with a tarp to protect their paint jobs from elements. While this would not prevent ALPRs from collecting data from moving vehicles, it would offer privacy for those who want to protect the confidentiality of their destinations.

Unfortunately, this legislation has struggled to find enough support to get it to the governor's desk. As the EFF reports, state senators who have stated support for pushing back against the White House's anti-immigrant policies failed to show support for a bill that would have slowed ICE's acquisition of plate records from their state. The initial vote, however, took place before the Verge broke the story of ICE's partnership with Vigilant Systems. Things could change on January 31's vote, now that new information has come to light.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, alpr, database, ice, law enforcement, license plate readers, lpr, privacy

Homeland Security's Over Obsession With Counterfeits Now Harming Innocent Buyers Of Counterfeit Goods Online

from the this-is-not-theft dept

For many years we've talked about the kind of derangement that happens among many -- especially among those working for Homeland Security's Customs and ICE divisions -- considering the supposed "dangers" of counterfeit goods. Over and over again we've pointed to studies that have shown that the "harm" of counterfeits is massively overblown. And these are not just random studies picked out of a hat. Both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the OECD have put out studies on this. When you look at the details, you quickly learn that while there are a few cases of people tricked by counterfeit goods -- and a vanishingly small number of cases where people are put at risk due to counterfeits -- in many, many cases, no one is actually losing out due to counterfeits. They are frequently an aspirational buy. That is, the buyer knows they're buying a counterfeit good, but are doing so because they so appreciate the real version, but can't afford it. And studies show that buyers of counterfeits quite frequently buy the real deal later when they're able to afford it. Thus, counterfeits often act as marketing for the original.

But, for whatever reason, Homeland Security likes to play up the "threats" of counterfeits and makes lots of noise about how many counterfeit things it seizes at the border every year (or... not at the border -- such as the time it raided a lingerie store to get "counterfeit" panties advertising sports teams). And sure, Homeland Security really really wants you to believe it's protecting the public with this kind of thing.

But if that's the goal, explain this story. Harper Reed tried to buy a fancy Rimowa luggage on Amazon last year. There was no indication that it was counterfeit -- it was priced the same as actual Rimowa luggage. But customs intercepted the shipment and wouldn't let it in. That's fair enough, I guess, but it's the next part that's shocking. Because of this Customs refused to renew Reed's Global Entry membership. Global Entry, for those who don't know, is a process by which fliers who frequently travel internationally can fill out a form, go for an interview, pay some money... and be able to speed through customs upon re-entering the US. While some grumble about paying for access, it's actually a more reasonable security program than most -- in that it actually involves effectively pre-clearing people less likely to need scrutiny at the border.

But Reed's status was not renewed because he was listed as trying to "import counterfeit goods." Again, you can see the intent behind this rule. If someone is actually "importing" a bunch of counterfeit goods to sell, you can see how that might be a good reason to deny someone Global Entry. But Reed wasn't trying to import a bunch of counterfeit goods. He was trying to buy a suitcase. He didn't get it from Amazon (he bought one later from a store) and that's fair enough under the law -- but why hold that against him.

Apparently the geniuses at Homeland Security have little desire to distinguish a counterfeiting operation from a dude buying something on Amazon he thought was legit.

When CBP intercepts a shipment, says Mark Schonfeld, an intellectual property lawyer at Burns & Levinson LLP, in Boston, Massachusetts, it sends a seizure notice to the trademark holder (in this case, Rimowa), which includes the names of the importer and exporter. The brand can then decide what action it wants to take, if any. Going after the latter party can be difficult and costly, since the vast majority of counterfeits come from Asia (in 2016, nearly 90 percent of products seized by CBP originated in China and Hong Kong). The importer, however, is by definition domestic, making them the easier target.

Schonfeld says this is the first instance he’s heard of in which a consumer has been flagged for importing a single item, but that legally, the principle is the same. “It definitely can happen to a consumer,” he says. “You know, you can go to Tijuana, just right over the San Diego border and you can easily buy counterfeits there, but no consumer should think that coming back into the United States with the item is risk free.” Much more common are cases in which Amazon itself is named as the importer, particularly since it began courting Chinese sellers with favorable shipping terms in 2015, and as its Fulfillment By Amazon program expands by leaps and bounds each year, offering third-party merchants the chance to take advantage of the e-commerce giant’s logistics infrastructure, customer service, and even Prime two-day shipping by sending goods directly to its warehouses.

Again, at the very least, it seems that intent should be taken into account here. Buying something on Amazon, with no indication (not even price) that the luggage was counterfeit, should not lead one to being accused of being a counterfeiter. But, of course, with DHS feeling so damn strongly about the "evils" of counterfeiting, it's only to be expected that they'll overreact to situations like this as well.

Filed Under: counterfeits, customs, harper reed, homeland security, ice, luggage, online shopping, trademarks
Companies: rimowa

Washington State AG Sues Motel 6 For Handing Over Guest Registry Info To ICE

from the keep-it-in-your-proverbial-pants,-moteliers dept

At some point in the recent past, Motel 6 owners decided they were deputized law enforcement personnel. So what if people paid for a night's worth of uninterrupted sleep and expected that visits from federal and local officials would be kept to a minimum. These owners -- which the Motel 6 corporation takes great pain to point out are "independent" owner/operators -- have decided to ingratiate themselves with untrustworthy organizations like ICE… or the local PD.

Some Motel 6s decided to fax guest lists to police departments every night. Others decided they'd turn over every name that looked slightly non-Caucasian to ICE. In both cases, Motel 6 (the corporation) brought the hammer down, swearing it had never given franchisees the permission to turn guest lists into tip sheets for law enforcement. The post-facto corporate rollback wasn't enough for Washington's Attorney General. The state looked into local policies after hearing about rogue ICE relationships in Arizona. It found more of the same occurring in Washington, resulting in a state lawsuit against company for turning guests list into ICE fodder.

The hotel chain Motel 6 routinely gave federal immigration agents guest lists with personal information that it used to make arrests, according to a lawsuit filed on Wednesday by Washington’s attorney general.

At least six Motel 6 locations in the state provided the information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — some on a near-daily basis — without any reasonable suspicion, probable cause or search warrants, the lawsuit charges. Agents would then single out guests by their national identity, at times circling “Latino-sounding” names on the list, according to the court complaint.

The lawsuit [PDF] requests an injunction preventing Motel 6 employees from passing on information to ICE agents without being provided with at least some legal reason to do (probable cause) by government agents. If this were filed at a federal level, it wouldn't likely find a sympathetic court. A Supreme Court decision overturning a Los Angeles statute granting law enforcement constant, unchallengeable access is about the only restriction on sharing guest lists with law enforcement.

The allegations the Washington AG raises are concerning, but they're not actually illegal... at least not under federal law.

Since at least 2015, Motel 6 has had a policy or practice of providing to ICE agents, upon their request, the list of guests staying at Motel 6 the day of the agents' visit. The guest lists included some or all of the following information for each guest: room number, name, names of additional guests, guest identification number, date of birth, driver's license number, and license plate number.

ICE's usual practice was to come to Motel 6's reception desk and request the guest list from the receptionist. The receptionist would print out the guest list and give it to the ICE agent, along with a "law enforcement acknowledgment form" for the agent to sign, acknowledging receipt of the guest list. The ICE agent would review the guest list and identify individuals of interest to ICE. Motel 6 staff observed ICE identify guests of interest to ICE, including by circling guests with Latino-sounding names.

On a number of occasions after reviewing the guest list, ICE agents arrested or detained Motel 6 guests.

Motel 6 trained its new employees to follow the practice described above to provide guest lists to ICE agents upon request, without requiring the agents to show any reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or search warrant for the guest registry information.

However, at the state level, this appears to be a violation of local statutes.

Motel 6's privacy policy also states that Motel 6 may disclose guest registry information to law enforcement agencies pursuant to a court order or in compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule, or ordinance.

Under Article 1, § 7 of the Washington Constitution, motel guest registry information constitutes a private affair protected from disclosure without probable cause. Motel 6 guests in Washington have a reasonable expectation of privacy that their guest registry information will not be disclosed to ICE without probable cause.

Motel 6 guests in Washington also have a common law right to the privacy of their guest registry information.

This is where the State AG hopes to prevent Motel 6 from using guest lists for ICE bait: at the state level where guest registry info is given more privacy protections than other places in the nation. It seems like ICE shouldn't be too put out by having to show a little probable cause paperwork before it starts browsing registries, but the government doesn't roll like that. It would be pretty easy for Motel 6 to get out from under this lawsuit. All it has to do is tell Washington franchisees to knock it off. It's unclear what benefit Motel 6 receives from this possibly-illegal relationship with ICE. So why not just institute a policy that actually complies with local laws?

It certainly won't make ICE happy. No federal agency likes having to ask permission from judges to perform searches. ICE is not a party to this lawsuit, but I'm sure it will find some way to make its presence felt. It may argue the Fourth Amendment does not require warrants to access third party records. Hopefully, the court presiding over this will remind ICE (and Motel 6) state laws can provide more protection than the Fourth Amendment without damaging federal authority. The Fourth Amendment is the baseline. Everything else above that -- established at the local level -- is a completely legal bonus for the state's residents.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, ice, motel guests, privacy, washington
Companies: motel 6