DIGITAL AND INTERNET PRIVACY - LOSSES AND WINS
Founding Fathers Know Best? Not exactly. The Fourth Amendment was
dumped right here in Los Angeles.
In in United States vs.Arnold, you'd think the Federal Court of
Appeals in the Ninth Circuit =96 Central District of California (in Los
Angeles) would emphasize judicial restraint and fidelity to the
original meaning of the Constitution and laws. You would think a lot
of things, but a fact of life is that international airports and
customs were given unfettered power to federal authorities to
disregard the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
papers and effects. The court ruling applies as well to Americans and
Legal Residence when reentering at the border. The decision =96=96 United
States vs. Arnold allows a search your laptop or other digital device
(laptops and iPhones, et cetera) without limitation. A Federal Judge
ruled that "no cause" is required in order to search your personal
property. There is no reasonableness to this decision, the Judge
tossed that out too. It=92s pretty much Carte Blanche, unrestricted
power -- undercutting the Fourth Amendment protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The Judge bestirred the heart for
the Fourth Amendment Clause, he struck down a showing of probable
cause.
Unfettered electronic device searches also endanger trade secrets,
attorney-client communications, and other private information.
number of professional organizations filed amicus curiae (friend of
the court) briefs arguing for the Appeals Court not strike down the
Fourth Amendment. The integrity and fidelity of search and seizure was
put to death. Some groups signed a letter asking Congress to hold
hearings to find out what protocol, if any, Customs and Border
Protection follows in searching digital devices. The letter asks
Congress to pass legislation protecting travelers=92=92 laptops and smart
phones from unlimited government scrutiny.
Microsoft is giving away forensic tools that can quickly search an
entire hard drive; it won't be
long before customs agents can efficiently perform a thorough search
on every machine. So long
as there are no protocols or oversight for these searches, every
traveler's personal information is
at risk.
How can international travelers protect themselves at the U.S. border,
short of leaving their
laptops and iPhones at home? Encryption is one (imperfect) answer. If
you encrypt your hard
drive with strong crypto, it will be prohibitively expensive for CBP
to access your confidential
information. This answer is imperfect for two reasons: one is
practical, the other is technological.
See: U.S. vs. Arnold
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6D5D931898D8168188257432005A=
C9B8/$file/0650581.pdf?openelement
See: Amicus Curiae
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/US_v_arnold/arnold_amicus.pdf
Protecting On Line Privacy - More on Digital and Internet Privacy
The better news is a New Jersey Court case. The Court honored the
wisdom of the Founding
Fathers. A Federal Court ruled web users have an "expectation of
privacy in their Internet activity
and ISP addresses." The ruling is thought to signals the court is
concerned about privacy erosion
in a society where date is increasingly stored digitally. For
optimist, the holding is "harbinger of a
trend" toward protecting on line privacy. For more information:
http://www.eff.org/cases/us
vs.
arnold
California Assemble Bill AB 2444
Here is something from the California Assembly, AB 2444: If passed, it
protections from bogus
lawsuits as an excuse to force ISPs to reveal users identities, and
provides for attorney fees for
users who successfully oppose a lawsuit.
Six Tips to Protect Your Privacy on the Internet
Http://www.eff.org/wp/six_tips_protect_your_search_privacy
More Information, Digital and Internet privacy:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks
|
