password protection is not RAS for a search or seizure

.

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.
:banana: :monkey
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/8/court-limits-feds-ability-search-laptops-border/

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

Fallschirmjäger said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Cop: "We need your password."

Me: "No."

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

Me: "See you in court."

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.

nunya...

I think the password protection is sufficient to tell the border agents that the information contained therein is "none ya" business.