electronics – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Oregon Passes Right To Repair Law Apple Lobbied To Kill

from the fix-your-own-shit dept

Oregon has officially become the seventh state (behind New York, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota) to pass “right to repair” legislation, making it easier and more affordable for consumers to independently repair their own electronics.

The bill, which passed the Oregon Senate last month 25-5 and the House on Monday 42-13, is a bit more robust than the versions passed in earlier states. Among other things, the bill requires that device manufacturers make parts, tools and repair manuals available to consumers and third-party repair shops on “fair and reasonable terms.”

But it also takes aim at “parts pairing,” or the practice of preventing you from replacing device parts without the approval of a company or its restrictive software. Apple, which routinely uses this practice to try and monopolize repair, lobbied extensively against the Oregon bill. As usual, under the (false) claim that eliminating parts pairing would put public safety and security at risk:

“We remain very concerned about the risk to consumers imposed by the broad parts-pairing restrictions in this bill,” John Perry, principal secure repair architect for Apple, said at a legislative hearing last month.”

In reality, Apple is concerned that the crackdown on “parts pairing” will further erode the company’s lucrative efforts to monopolize repair and slow down the rate of shiny new phone sales. Apple has generally tried to pretend than its done a complete 180 on right to repair, when it’s generally been more of a 40 degree turn toward slightly more reasonable policies.

Interestingly, Google supported Oregon’s legislation, and has more genuinely been migrating away from the practice of parts pairing. Activist and consumer groups like iFixit praised the bill’s passage in a statement:

“I’m beyond proud of my home state for passing the strongest-yet electronics Right to Repair bill,” Kyle Wiens, the CEO of iFixit, said in a statement. “By applying to most products made after 2015, this law will open up repair for the things Oregonians need to get fixed right now. And by limiting the repair-restricting practices of parts pairing, it protects fixing for years to come. We won’t stop fighting until everyone, everywhere has these rights.”

Oregon’s bill is notable because it wasn’t aggressively watered down post-passage like some right to repair legislation (See: New York). It’s expected the bill will face industry lawsuits. Still, right to reform remains one reform bright spot in a country where consumer protection has been on the chopping block for the better part of the last quarter century.

Filed Under: consumer rights, electronics, independent repair, oregon, right to repair, wireless
Companies: apple

Apple Now Supports A Federal Right To Repair Law (Its Lawyers Will Help Write)

from the fix-your-own-shit dept

Thu, Oct 26th 2023 05:20pm - Karl Bode

Eager to maintain a lucrative repair monopoly over its products, Apple has had a long history of bullying independent repair shops. Apple lobbyists have also falsely claimed that making its products easier and less expensive to repair would result in vast untold consumer privacy and security nightmares, turning states that consider “right to reform” legislation into lawless meccas for hackers.

But given the immense, bipartisan popularity of right to repair reform, Apple (like Microsoft) back in August claimed it was having a change of heart. The company’s support helped push California’s new right to repair law over the finish line, and now Apple is clearly lending its support for a federal right to repair law:

Apple Vice President Brian S. Naumann made the shocking proclamation during an online right-to-repair event hosted by the Biden Administration Tuesday afternoon. Naumann, who recently echoed support for California’s newly passed right-to-repair law, said both consumers and businesses alike would benefit from clear federal legislation that makes it easier for consumers to repair products while maintaining device security.

Here’s the thing: most of these companies haven’t genuinely changed their stripes. They just know that the bipartisan popularity of these reforms make it impossible for them to continue actively opposing them. So what they’re doing is lending their support for state laws, provided said laws exempt most of the key industries engaged in the dumbest behaviors.

New York and California’s laws are a step in the right direction, but they actively avoid covering key industries where repair monopolies are hugely problematic, like medical hardware, agricultural hardware, or in some instances even phones or game consoles. I’d assume that any federal law where Apple has key input would likely be so loophole-filled and watered down as to have questionable utility.

Activists suggest that some 45 different states are considering right to repair legislation. Like with most policy (net neutrality, privacy) companies would much rather be tasked with adhering to a singular federal law than a fractured web of various state laws. Especially if their lawyers have significantly more input into the width and breadth of that law than activists, consumer groups, or policy experts.

Filed Under: electronics, freedom to tinker, hardware, phone, right to repair, right to repair law
Companies: apple

After Dumb Lobbying Delays And Ample Watering Down, NY Passes Landmark ‘Right To Repair’ Bill

from the fix-your-own-shit dept

Thu, Dec 29th 2022 07:39pm - Karl Bode

New York State has finally passed a landmark “right to repair” bill proving American consumers some additional protection from repair monopolies. After some annoying delays created by lobbyists, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul signed the legislation on December 29.

The legislation gives New York consumers the right to fix their electronic devices themselves or have them repaired by an independent repair shop, instead of being forced to only obtain repairs through costly manufacturer repair programs. Groups like Consumer Reports were thrilled:

Marta Tellado, president and CEO of Consumer Reports, said, “This landmark law will save New Yorkers money, provide them with more convenient repair options, and cut down on waste. When your device is broken, you should have more options than a high-priced service or the landfill. The Digital Fair Repair Act will ensure that New York consumers have the choice to fix their own electronic products or have them fixed by a servicer they choose, including those independent of the manufacturer.

The final version of the bill enjoyed rare bipartisan support, passing the state assembly 147–2 and the senate 59–4. To make this happen, the bill doesn’t include vehicles, home appliances, farm equipment or medical devices — all sectors rife with obnoxious attempts to monopolize repair via DRM or by making diagnostics either expensive or impossible.

The final version of the bill stalled on Hochul’s desk as lobbyists attempted to weaken it further. With some success; according to Gothamist reporter Jon Campbell, the final bill strips away language requiring that manufacturers provide consumers, all “passwords, security codes, or materials to override security features,” as well as some additional intellectual property protections demanded by industry.

There are also some additional restrictions that force consumers to buy entire “repair assemblages” instead of being able to buy just the independent parts they need, which advocates say further undermines the law (imagine being forced to buy an entire computer motherboard when just a single component is broken):

It’s still a meaningful win, especially given the massive, well-funded, cross-industry opposition to the bill. Right to repair coalitions put it this way:

Repair supporters are justifiably upset that the law signed bears little resemblance to our original. The governor never made a statement of her intent, but it’s clear now that she never wanted the bill to include more than cell phones and laptops purchased at big box stores. At the same time, we know that lobbyists had her ear – and TechNet in particular has clearly had the most influence. But it still moves the ball forward so we’ll take our fight to the next level elsewhere.

So it’s nowhere near the landmark bill it professes to be, but it’s still a step forward. While it’s been a fairly dark decade for U.S. consumer rights, the “right to repair” movement’s shift from niche to mainstream continues to be one of the more promising trends in recent memory.

Filed Under: consumer rights, electronics, hardware, independent repair, new york, repair monopolies, right to repair

Lobbying, Corruption Stall Landmark NY Right To Repair Bill

Thu, Dec 22nd 2022 06:24am - Karl Bode

Back in June New York state was the first state in the country to pass “right to repair” legislation taking direct aim at repair monopolies. The bill mandates that hardware manufacturers make diagnostic and repair information available to consumers and independent repair shops at “fair and reasonable terms.”

Activists had hoped to add such provisions later. But getting the bill as written into law has proven to be difficult. The bill has been parked for months without any movement on the desk of NY Governor Kathy Hochul. It seems likely that the bill will still pass, but lobbying has ensured that making that happen will apparently take as long as humanly possible:

The Digital Fair Repair Act, the first right-to-repair bill to entirely pass through a state legislature, is awaiting New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature. But lobbying by the nation’s largest technology interests seems to have kept the bill parked on her desk for months, where it could remain until it dies on Dec. 28.

“Right to repair” gained an incredible head of steam thanks to public annoyance at repair monopolies. Whether it’s John Deere’s restrictive crackdown on tractor repairs, or the annoying, life-risking monopolies enjoyed by many medical device manufacturers, anger on this front is sustained, bipartisan, and shows no sign of slowing down.

Companies eager to build repair monopolies have spent the last five years lying about how such laws will somehow make the public less safe. Meanwhile, lobbying ensured that New York’s landmark bill was as weak as possible, and it’s still somehow laboring to find its way across the finish line more than half a year after it was passed with broad bipartisan support. This is, as they say, why we can’t have nice things.

Filed Under: customers, drm, electronics, freedom to tinker, independent repair, kathy hochul, new york, repair monopolies, right to repair, self-repair

Canadian Border Agents Also Routinely Demanding Passwords From Travelers And Searching Their Devices

from the slightly-more-apologetic-rights-violations dept

In sad but unsurprising news, Canada is no better than the US when it comes to ignoring its citizens’ rights at the border. The Canada Border Security Agency (CBSA) has also been given the green light to perform invasive, warrantless searches of people’s devices at the border. And, like its US counterpart, it seems to be using this power frequently.

The CBSA said that between November 2017 and March 2019, 19,515 travellers had their digital devices examined, which represents 0.015 per cent of all cross-border travellers during that period.

Whether or not these numbers are on the rise is still a mystery. The CBSA only began tracking this statistic in late 2017 after Canada’s privacy commissioner opened an investigation into this practice. Concerns were raised about the CBSA’s searches, which involved cloning devices for later examination and seizing devices if travelers refused to hand over passwords.

Unfortunately for the CBSA, it searched the wrong person’s device. A legal challenge is being raised by someone well-equipped to raise legal challenges, as CBC News reports.

“The policy’s outrageous,” said Toronto business lawyer, Nick Wright. “I think that it’s a breach of our constitutional rights.”

His thoughts follow a personal experience. After landing at Toronto’s Pearson Airport on April 10, he said the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) flagged him for an additional inspection — for no stated reason.

Wright had just returned from a four-month trip to Guatemala and Colombia where he studied Spanish and worked remotely. He took no issue when a border services officer searched his bags, but drew the line when the officer demanded his passwords to also search his phone and laptop.

Wright refused, telling the officer both devices contained confidential information protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The end result was CBSA agents confiscating Wright’s phone and laptop with the assurance they would be sent to a government lab in order to have their password protection cracked. Replacing them cost Wright $3,000.

Wright claims this is a violation of Canada’s charter of rights. Canadian courts, like those in the US, have decided no involuntary sacrifice of rights is too great when national security is on the line. The CBSA, for its part, has greeted the tech future by pretending it’s still 1975, and that searching a phone is no different than searching a briefcase or the trunk of a car.

For all of that, this is probably the right time to challenge this custom of customs officials. The nation’s top court has already drawn a distinction between briefcases and cellphones, saying the latter contains vast amounts of information that “touches a person’s biological core.” And at least one provincial court has declared Canadians’ rights are not null and void simply because they’re at a border crossing.

The CBSA’s statement to CBC News says these suspicionless searches that can result in the indefinite seizure of citizens’ devices are “reasonable and necessary” to keep Canada secure. But they seem to be neither. There’s nothing “reasonable” about invasive searches completely divorced from articulable suspicion. That’s the very definition of “unreasonable.” And as for necessity, all the CBSA has to offer is that 38% of its 19,000+ device searches “uncovered evidence of customs-related offences.” This means most searches don’t recover any evidence of anything and that things like undeclared goods are somehow threatening to the country’s security.

It’s time for border agencies to stop pretending the only way to secure a nation is to discard its citizens’ rights. And it’s time for courts to stop deferring to national security mantras and stick up for the rights they — and the rest of the government — are supposed to be protecting.

Filed Under: border searches, canada, device searches, electronics, passwords, privacy

Electronic Warrants And Roadside Blood Draws Are The New Normal For DUI Checkpoints

from the jetsons-were-so-wrong-about-so-much dept

A few years ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration brought down the heat on itself by teaming with local law enforcement to set up roadside blood/saliva draws. The plan was to compile data on impaired driving, but the “voluntary” sample stations were staffed by cops who flagged motorists down, leading many to believe this was just another DUI checkpoint.

Now that the NHTSA is out of the picture, local law enforcement is taking care of this itself. Only it very definitely is mandatory and any data-gathering would be incidental to the real purpose of these checkpoints: arresting impaired drivers. It’s 2019 in America and we can only now proudly say we’re the Home of the Roadside Blood Draw.

It was about 6:30 on a Friday night in January when Phoenix Police Det. Kemp Layden pulled over a white Jeep Cherokee that was speeding and weaving in and out of its lane.

The 47-year-old driver spoke slowly, his eyes were red and watery, and his pupils were dilated. The inside of the Jeep reeked of marijuana, and the driver failed a field sobriety test, which includes walking heel-to-toe and standing on one leg.

He told the officer he had smoked marijuana a few hours earlier and taken a prescription sedative the night before, police say. The man passed a portable breath test — he wasn’t drunk. But Layden suspected he was impaired by drugs, which the test can’t detect.

A DUI police van equipped with a special chair and table for blood testing pulled up. The man refused to submit to a blood draw. So Layden grabbed his laptop and filled out an electronic warrant, or e-warrant, which was transmitted directly to a judge.

Within 10 minutes, Layden had a search warrant. Another officer drew the man’s blood. A lab report later confirmed he had active THC and a sedative in his blood.

Roughly 80 minutes after he was stopped, this driver had traded his vehicle for a DUI citation.

This will become more common as time goes on. With the legalization of marijuana use in several states, there’s a new form of impairment that can’t be caught with a breathalyzer. While there’s definitely a law enforcement interest in limiting impaired driving, there’s also a lot of fiduciary pressure to continue to ~~bust drivers~~ generate revenue even when the driver’s drug of choice isn’t alcohol… and the driver may not even actually be impaired.

This is leading to two things: an increase in electronic warrants sent at odd hours to judges who will likely approve any boilerplate sent from a DUI checkpoint… and a whole bunch of minimally-trained officers running roadside blood drives out of police vans.

The good news is some training is actually happening. The bad news is certified training is the exception, not the rule.

At least nine states have law enforcement phlebotomy programs: Arizona, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington state, and Illinois is starting one, according to the national highway safety agency.

That doesn’t mean every ad hoc blood draw is a communicable disease vector staffed by officers using your arm to rack up OJT hours. In Arizona, for instance, officers must have 100 hours of training before they perform blood draws and must perform the job in OSHA-approved environments. But that doesn’t mean every agency is as demanding as the ones in Arizona are, so the experience may be far more unpleasant than a normal DUI checkpoint.

[S]ince officers aren’t in the healing profession, [defense attorney Donald] Ramsell said, they’re not concerned about pain reduction or hitting a vein. He cited the case of a client arrested in Arizona who had a blood draw in a police DUI van.

“The officer poked him at least 15 times, and because he has a medical condition it was next to impossible to draw enough blood to fill a 10-cc tube,” he said, referring to the size of the tube in cubic centimeters. “Those knuckleheads just kept poking the hell out of him. They only got 3 ccs.”

The only thing keeping this from being even worse is a 2016 Supreme Court decision. Without it, these blood draws wouldn’t even have a hasty judicial scrawl at the bottom of a dozen pages of boilerplate authorizing Officer Nurse to take blood from drivers’ arms. Meanwhile, officers are touting the speed of this new dystopian feature as a win for the public, since the guilty parties will be able to processed into the criminal justice system in less than half the time.

According to Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Janet Miller, a certified phlebotomist, “It’s been a great tool not only for law enforcement but for the individual placed under arrest.

_“Instead of spending three to six hours with the officer, it’s been cut down to one to two,” she said. “They can get to the jail sooner and get out sooner._”

Win-win, I guess.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, blood draws, dui, dui checkpoints, electronics, police, searches, traffic stops, warrants

Court Says Probation Violations By Teen Don't Justify On-Demand Warrantless Searches Of His Electronics

from the little-bit-of-4th-and-1st-implications-all-tied-up-together dept

It’s assumed (wrongly) that minors have few, if any, Constitutional rights. The error is easy to make because they’re just kids. They can’t drink, smoke, vote, or even serve their country/secure these own valuable freedoms by [checks sources] aiding in the increase of opium production in foreign countries. “Hundreds of government officials can’t be wrong!” someone is sure to exclaim, being just as wrong as the hundreds half-assedly cited in their stinging rebuttal.

Minors do have rights. They’re subject to more limitations but they’re far from nonexistent. But that doesn’t stop prosecutors, cops, and school officials from pretending “limited” equals “zero.” A case highlighted by FourthAmendment.com shows a court pushing back against this assumption, which took the form of an overly-invasive probation condition slapped on a minor following a search of the student which uncovered a small knife, rolling papers, and a lighter.

The incident leading to the search began when the student fell asleep during class, which is possibly one of the most ordinary things a student can do. The student admitted he had smoked marijuana the night before (also possibly one of the most normal things a high school student can do), but hadn’t smoked any that day or on school property. He was asked to consent to a search and he volunteered he had a knife in his possession. The search uncovered the rest of the “contraband.” The 15-year-old was then arrested, detained, and placed on home detention.

Had that been the end of it, there would have been nothing to write about. But the dispositional order dealing with probation conditions added a whole bunch of unnecessary stipulations given the violation. This occurred when the minor violated his probation conditions by using marijuana and Xanax. Subsequent violations occurred — all of them drug-related. A few months later, the minor appeared to be back on the road to the state’s good graces. He was doing well in school and had landed a job. For whatever reason, the state decided to punish the minor for getting his life back together. This hearing added stipulations that appear to be far more vindictive than curative, and they’re certainly anything but Constitutional. From the decision [PDF]:

In the report submitted for the September 7, 2016 dispositional hearing, without explanation, the probation officer recommended adding an electronics search condition.

[…]

Later the same day, the juvenile court judge issued a signed written disposition order, describing the electronic search condition in greater detail, using the following text, which probation had recommended: “[Minor must] submit all electronic devices under [his] control to search and seizure by the probation officer at any time of the day or night with or without a search warrant, arrest warrant, or reasonable suspicion, including all logs, text and voicemail messages, photographs, emails, and social media account contents contained on any device or cloud or internet connected storage owned, operated, or controlled by [Minor], including but not limited to cell phones, computers, computer hard drives, laptops, gaming consoles, mobile devices, tablets, storage media devices, thumb drives, Micro SD cards, external hard drives, or any other electronic storage devices. [Minor] shall also disclose any and all passwords, passcodes, password patterns, fingerprints, or other information required to gain access into any of the aforementioned devices or social media accounts as requested by any probation officer . . . .”

The minor challenged this order on constitutional grounds, citing its needless violation of his privacy. Given the state’s unwillingness to specify which of the offenses these conditions addressed, the court finds the minor has a solid point.

We agree with Minor that the electronics search condition imposed here is unconstitutionally overbroad because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve its ostensible purpose or to meet Minor’s needs. […] Any connection between Minor’s offenses and his usage of electronic devices is speculative and, absent such evidence, the electronics search condition is not tailored to meet Minor’s specific needs.

As the court points out, there are less intrusive ways of achieving the same ends and it’s highly unlikely blanket search permission for every single electronic device owned by the minor is the least intrusive option. It’s also unlikely blanket search permission would somehow prevent the minor from obtaining drugs or alcohol.

Not only that, but the state’s arguments for this supposed necessity ignored evidence showing more probation stipulations weren’t needed to keep the minor from engaging in criminal activity.

In an interview with probation before the September 2016 dispositional hearing, Minor acknowledged having made poor decisions in the past, but stated he had new motivation to complete treatment and probation going forward, and that he had a new job, which was making a positive impact on his life.

Minor’s statements about his mindset were supported by his school’s report that it had no concerns with Minor’s behavior, that Minor arrived on time, completed all of his work, was “doing great,” and was “exhibiting a positive attitude.” Minor’s mother and his treatment program provided similar accounts. This information does not support the conclusion that only by subjecting Minor to a new, exhaustive, and invasive search condition—allowing probation to review every electronic device under his control, including any “gaming consoles, mobile devices, tablets, storage media devices, thumb drives, Micro SD cards, [and] external hard drives” and to access all of his “passwords, passcodes, password patterns, fingerprints, or other [similar] information”—could Minor be deterred from future use of controlled substances.

That strikes these conditions from the minor’s probationary terms, restoring the privacy the state tried to take from him. The state insisted on defending this Constitutional violation despite having zero precedential support to cite. The closest it could come to a prior case in its favor involved a gang member who promoted his gang and its activity on social media when not using those platforms to issue threats to police officers and their families. That’s not even close to the same level of severity in observed behavior. As the minor notes in his case, the state AG didn’t even provide evidence the minor owned any of the devices the state decided it needed access to. But when you’re playing Constitutional poker with someone else’s money, why not take a flier on bullshit probation orders?

Filed Under: electronics, fifth amendment, fourth amendment, probation, probation violations, teens, warrantless searches

TSA To Require Separate Scanning Of Electronics 'Bigger Than Cellphone'

from the brought-to-by-minds-'smaller-than-most' dept

The TSA is still in the business of making sure none of your stuff is inside other stuff. Liquids. Laptops. Other things that confuse/frighten failed mall cops. After engaging in a “successful” trial program in ten airports, the TSA is expanding its theater troupe’s infliction of misery to airports around the nation.

To ensure the security of airline passengers and the nation’s airports, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is implementing new, stronger screening procedures for carry-on items that require travelers to place all electronics larger than a cell phone in bins for X-ray screening in standard lanes. Following extensive testing and successful pilots at 10 airports, TSA plans to expand these measures to all U.S. airports during the weeks and months ahead.

[…]

As new procedures are phased in, TSA officers will begin to ask travelers to remove electronics larger than a cell phone from their carry-on bags and place them in a bin with nothing on top or below, similar to how laptops have been screened for years. This simple step helps TSA officers obtain a clearer X-ray image.

The press release comes with zero clarification on what “larger than a cellphone” means. Over the last eight years, the size of my smartphone has increased to “larger than a cellphone” when compared to the 2009 iteration. Is this phone/not phone call going to be made by screeners? Is a flip-phone-using former gym teacher who changed careers after reading a particularly effective pizza box ad going to decide travelers’ smartphones are nothing more than small tablets and force them to drop them in a bin where they can be pawed at by TSA probers further down the security line?

Because that’s exactly the sort of thing we don’t need: more TSA personnel/policies stating that bigger is more dangerous. We already have the problem with laptops because the TSA’s math says potential threat level is directly proportionate to screen size.

If this doesn’t sound like much fun or make much sense, not to worry: the TSA will sell some rights and privileges back to you after a background check and a personal check (from you to the TSA). All others will be expected to dump their electronics in bins and engage in fruitless arguments about whether the phone they’re carrying is a cellphone or “larger than a cellphone.”

But that’s ok, because the TSA is oh so concerned about you, dear traveler:

“Whether you’re flying to, from, or within the United States, TSA is committed to raising the baseline for aviation security by strengthening the overall security of our commercial aviation network to keep flying as a safe option for everyone,” said TSA Acting Administrator Huban A. Gowadia.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!

Hahahahaaaa!

Haha… oh my god, she’s serious.

God bless the TSA, where enhanced screening is something to be inflicted on travelers, but never job applicants.

The TSA notes this change “may” cause delays during screening, which can be read as “will,” especially as everyone gets the hang of the latest thing the TSA’s doing (including the TSA). More items will be headed to checked bags, which works out for airlines. And more people will be piled up at security checkpoints, which works out well for terrorists.

Filed Under: electronics, scanning, security theater, tsa

DHS Confirms There Will Be More And Greater Intrusiveness During Border Searches

from the welcome-to-America,-land-of-the-heavily-surveilled dept

DHS boss John Kelly continues to push for ultimate government intrusiveness, whether at the borders where the CBP will handle the getting all up in your everything, or at airports, where the TSA will examine the hell out of travelers’ electronics while overlooking explosives, guns, and other more dangerous contraband.

The DHS is no longer perched atop a slippery slope. It’s enthusiastically sliding down it with both hands in the air. The Center for Democracy and Technology asked the DHS the same questions a few legislators have: what are you doing to protect the rights of US citizens at the border? The answer, in the form of a noncommittal letter, is an official shrug of indifference.

Back in March, CDT, along with more than 50 other civil society groups and trade associations, wrote a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly urging that he back away from DHS proposals to use border searches as a tool to collect passwords and other social media information. Today we received a response. Unfortunately, the reply largely ducks our concerns, ignoring the main issues at play and doing little to shed light on the government’s plans or put to rest controversy about its contentious proposal. This non-answer is deeply troubling because it seems to indicate that Customs and Border Protection (CBP, which is a sub agency of DHS) is doing nothing to change course from a recent, dangerous trend: the use of the U.S. border as a tool to conduct broad surveillance.

The letter [PDF] from the DHS explains almost nothing, while assuring CDT all of this is completely above board. But, as Chris Calabrese of CDT points out, we’ve come a long way from physical strip searches. Searches of travelers’ electronic devices are far more intrusive. And yet, the DHS still seems to feel device searches are no different than taking a look in a vehicle’s trunk or opening up a suitcase. Check out the spin job being done here: intrusive device searches are just a team effort on behalf of America and Americans should just be more willing to pitch in.

All items entering the country are subject to inspection, and CBP may seek the traveler’s assistance in presenting his or her effects including electronic devices in a condition that allows inspection of the item and its contents. This inspection may include searching computers, disks, drives, tapes, mobile phones, and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players, and any other electronic or digital devices. In instances where an electronic device, or portions of the content on the device, are locked or password-protected or otherwise not readily available for inspection, CBP may take Iawful measures, as appropriate, to inspect the device and its contents consistent with longstanding authority to perform border searches. These practices are consistent with various laws authorizing searches and detention…

The DHS has reduced “exposing your entire digital life” to “presenting effects.” This isn’t an answer to CDT’s queries. It’s just propaganda.

The DHS also unhelpfully points to a 2009 Privacy Impact Assessment, which covers the search of electronic devices at the border. Again, this does little more than inform readers many of their rights are gone and won’t be coming back. After spending several pages saying DHS/CBP will do all it can to minimize intrusion, protect harvested data/communications, and require badges and such to prevent unlawful access to seized digital goods, the report closes with the sheet handed to travelers when their devices have been taken by CBP officers. It states, in plain English, that CBP officers can perform suspicionless searches of electronics and hope it morphs into a justified search by the time the CBP is done searching them.

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.

As Calabrese points out, none of this seems likely to make the nation safer, much less minimize Constitutional violations.

As we told DHS back in March, the practical result is that border crossing will require full digital disclosure – exposing not just our personal information but also the tools we use to bank, communicate, and participate in our digital lives. This will not just infringe on free expression and privacy, but will also expose our personal information to the federal government who has a terrible track record of keeping such information safe. Ironically, it’s unlikely to have any security value, since bad actors conceal their accounts and the government drowns in information from innocent people.

The DHS has no answers. Things will get worse and are unlikely to get better. It’s easy for government power to expand but almost impossible for it to retract. Since terrorism will always exist in one form or another, the government will always be able to justify mission creep and the further diminishment of civil liberties.

Filed Under: border searches, dhs, electronics, homeland security, john kelly
Companies: cdt

New Zealand Airports Customs Officials Performing 'Digital Strip Searches' Of Travelers' Electronics

from the putting-the-'awful'-back-in-'lawful' dept

Despite DHS hints that foreign airports were falling down on the “security theater” job, it appears a few customs officials are more than happy to engage in local versions of “extreme vetting.” New Zealand customs officials are way ahead of the DHS in this department, having turned airports into rights-free zones where nearly anything can happen… to travelers.

According to an investigative report by New Zealand’s 1 news, airport customs officials routinely force up to two travelers each day to give up their electronic devices and passwords for searching. According to the customs agents, the program is designed to look for smugglers by performing a “digital strip search” on the phones and laptops of travelers. This does not require a court order, but the agents do claim to adhere to New Zealand’s privacy act.

Yes, somehow the stripping of someone’s electronic privacy still “adheres” to the privacy act. One would think “smuggling” would be routine criminal act, not worthy of “digital strip searches.” One would also think some sort of reasonable suspicion would be needed to proceed with this, as compared to anti-terrorist activities which usually result in rights-violation blank checks being issued to customs authorities.

The data shows more than 1,300 people have been subjected to these suspicionless “strip searches” since 2015, with less than a third of those being New Zealand citizens. The majority of those searched are foreigners and it appears visitors to the country should somehow expect delays of up to five hours thanks to this supposedly random vetting process.

And there is no option to refuse this additional, highly-invasive search. As Techspot reports, travelers refusing to hand over their electronic devices can be subject to fines of $5,000. That makes it a very expensive trip, especially for foreigners. Extra delays, extra costs, zero privacy — all in the name of keeping untaxed cigarettes out of NZ or whatever.

Filed Under: electronics, new zealand, privacy, searches, travel