Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: password protection is not RAS for a search or seizure

  1. #1
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    password protection is not RAS for a search or seizure

    .

  2. #2
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the border patrol cannot search or seize electronic equipment absent reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, and password protecting your computer, phone, files, etc. does not give RAS.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...aptops-border/

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Wait. What???

    You mean that a court ruling was necessary to establish the electronic equivalent of, "Pulling down the shades in your bedroom window does not amount to RAS that you are being a criminal"?

    The real danger to rights in this country are LEOs operating from a we-need-to-do-this-so-it-is-OK POV rather than from a can-we-do-this-helpful-task-or-will-it-violate-the-rights-of-the-people-we-do-it-to stance. No court should have had to rule on a question with such an obvious answer.

  4. #4
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Wait. What???

    You mean that a court ruling was necessary to establish the electronic equivalent of, "Pulling down the shades in your bedroom window does not amount to RAS that you are being a criminal"?

    The real danger to rights in this country are LEOs operating from a we-need-to-do-this-so-it-is-OK POV rather than from a can-we-do-this-helpful-task-or-will-it-violate-the-rights-of-the-people-we-do-it-to stance. No court should have had to rule on a question with such an obvious answer.
    It goes further...we as a people, need to DEMAND and make sure that LEO and public officials that violate the rights of a citizen, and should have known better, are held to account FULLY and completely. This should include jail time, loss of worldly possessions and loss of "their good name".
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162

    Preemptively deny the nonconsensual cursory search with Full Disk Encryption

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1909939

    Preemptively deny the nonconsensual cursory search with Full Disk Encryption - so that the passphrase must be entered before the OS will even boot.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_disk_encryption

    Use an effective passphrase.

    Remove all traces of previous content with a many pass disk wipe of unused space.

    In the limit, both are merely delaying tactics. Time being money they make the intrusion too expensive to be regarded as cursory, thus, hopefully gaining the protection of the courts and the Constitution.

    Separate a high value HDD from its computer and post it ahead of the traveler. Travel with an inoccuous throw-away HDD installed. Do not trust "the cloud" as one would not trust G00gle.

    ETA: "The ruling says that Americans who carry laptops or other electronic devices when they go out in public have some expectation that that information is not open to a search if they made an effort to protect it.(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/8/court-limits-feds-ability-search-laptops-border)"
    Last edited by Nightmare; 03-10-2013 at 12:14 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    If nothing else, have a 3rd party copy/paste a long, random password (that is not disclosed to you) and then send the password separately. You cant reveal what you don't know.

  7. #7
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    If nothing else, have a 3rd party copy/paste a long, random password (that is not disclosed to you) and then send the password separately. You cant reveal what you don't know.
    So far as I know, you still can't be legally compelled to give up a password as part of an investigation against you, under almost any circumnstances. It's protected by the 5th, unlike something like a physical key would be. But you're right, it probably would be easier to be able to just say that you don't know it, without lying.


    I agree it's kind of silly that a judge would have to make a ruling to determine this, but on the other hand I'm glad that it is being ruled on in this way so that maybe it sets a precendence and deters some whack-job judge from ruling another way.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 03-10-2013 at 11:46 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Cop: "We need your password."

    Me: "No."

    Cop: "It'll go rough on you if you do not cooperate."

    Me: "See you in court."
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    My additional concerns include the personal papers angle.

    What if I were carrying my briefcase across the border? I can see border agents wanting to see if I have contraband like drugs; but, I cannot see any legitimate purpose in reading all my business papers in the briefcase, which is essentially what the border agents are trying to do when they seize and search personal electronics.

    What if my business papers included some written in code to protect against industrial espionage? Seizing my papers for code-breaking is functionally equivalent to seizing my electronics until the password is revealed or keeping my electronics until the password is broken.

    Does anybody really believe a border agent is going to be indicted for insider trading if he buys or sells some stock based on learning from a search that a company's stock is going down? The opportunities for money-making off discovered information is endless.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-11-2013 at 09:15 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790

    nunya...

    I think the password protection is sufficient to tell the border agents that the information contained therein is "none ya" business.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •