Federal Agents Allowed to Take Your Laptop: Is This a Necessary Evil?

Crimes committed via cyber transactions have been rising at an increasingly alarming rate, hence many feel that random inspections and detentions of laptops and other electronic devices are ethical in the name of security. The Department of Homeland Security has released recent security information about the legalities of allowing federal agents to take, search and share information found on a traveler’s laptop or other electronics, without being deemed a violation of privacy, during border searches.

These agents can, accordingly, take these electronics from travelers for any amount of time, be transported to any place for inspection, and be subjected to processes such as language translation and data encryption if authorities observe anything suspicious. The power to detain suspicious devices and materials is supported by the July 16 policy released by DHS agencies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Devices or materials that have the capability to store information in either digital or analog forms are covered in this policy. Items falling under this policy include flash drives, cellphones (mobile phones), beepers (pagers), hard drives (hard disks), video and audio tapes and even MP3 players (Apple iPod, iPhone, Microsoft Zune, Creative Zen). Physical paper based materials, including written forms of documentation such as books and scrap papers, are also licensed to be withheld for the same reasons. The security policy does require that authorities be reasonable and use delicate handling of information that may be involved in business and confidential data between lawyers and their clients. However, it is still unclear as to the procedures for personal data, like a traveler’s medical and financial records.

Once copies of the suspected information are made and after investigation found to be okay, the policies strictly impose that these copies be destroyed and those that have been sent to non-federal entities must be surrendered back to the DHS immediately for destruction as well.

This new security imposition has been understandably met with mixed emotions by the public. In a USA Today published opinion piece, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff expressed that the measures aim solely to protect the citizens, since dangerous information, including illegal pornography and terrorism documents, can easily be stored in laptops and other electronic devices. He stressed that only under a “certain level of suspicion” will travelers be required to undergo this “thorough examination” to ensure the safety of the yearly 400 million travelers. Not thoroughly checking passengers that may be carrying dangerous information, he added, could potentially be fatal – a high risk they are not willing to take.

Even United States citizens are to be subjected to this inspection, as it’s not just a process that only tourists and foreigners entering the country have to do. Officials supporting this plan feel that terrorism can never be taken too lightly and these practices to avoid attacks have been ongoing for a long time already and have saved many lives.

Sen. Russell Feingold expressed alarm over the introduction of the new policies and vowed to amend this act to make it clear that race, religion, and origin biases should not factor into who is being searched as well as to impose more specific instances and conditions that are considered suspicious during these border searches.

Appellate courts in other states, such as the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 9^th Circuit of San Francisco, have already begun placing these rules into motion, although there are still many civil public liberty groups that have requested further clarification and full disclosure of the policies and procedures that are stipulated.

Do you feel these search and seizure laws are necessary to ensure the safety of citizens or are they a breach of privacy?

The End of P2P Throttling: FCC Slaps Comcast

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced its orders on Comcast, a major high-speed internet provider, to halt their practice of throttling selected peer-to-peer file sharing traffic. The commission voted 3-2 on the said ruling stating that Comcast has been monitoring the contents of their customers’ internet connections and has been blocking traffic, particularly in BitTorrent peer-to-peer networks. The commission claims that such practices are invasive and have significant effects on the rights of internet users.

According to the commission, Comcast uses deep-packet inspection to monitor the contents of the customers’ internet connection, instead of the destination. “In essence, Comcast opens its customers’ mail because it wants to deliver mail not based on the address on the envelope but on the type of letter contained therein,” the commission said.

The commission also claims that the effect of Comcast’s throttling is widespread, to the point that they have managed to control the traffic of up to three-quarters of all file sharing connections in some areas.

The Comcast Violation Run-down

Comcast violates FCC policies on Net Neutrality, forbidding any kind of restrictions on the kinds of equipment, communication, and content allowed on the internet. In particular, Comcast violates the policy on the grounds of discriminating against file sharing traffic.

Comcast admits performing network management practices in allegiance with Sandvine and claims that its actions are in accordance with the law and are reasonably consistent with industry practices. It denies the FCC statement that the company is blocking any file sharing traffic whatsoever. It also asserted that the company does not have anything against peer-to-peer networks, let alone, anything specific against BitTorrent.

Comcast spokesperson Sena Fitzmaurice said that the company was “gratified that the commission did not find any conduct by Comcast that justified a fine,” still claiming that the company never did meant to throttle internet traffic. Comcast was not asked any monetary sanction but was ordered to completely halt its monitoring practices. The commission gave the company 30 days to fully disclose its throttling methods.

The FCC believes that Comcast’s motive in halting BitTorrent network traffic was profit-oriented. It has to be considered that BitTorrent provides high-quality video downloads accessible to all internet users. Such wide scale video distribution provides a tough competition to Comcast’s own video-on-demand services.

Public Knowledge, a nonprofit digital rights group brought the said complaint to the FCC months before the ruling was announced. Gigi Sohn, president, said that “Comcast’s throttling of legal internet traffic had nothing to do with network management as the company claims.” The group shares the speculation of FCC that the practice was clearly profit-oriented stating that what Comcast did has “everything to do with a big company trying to exert its power over a captive internet market.”

Net Neutrality is a policy adopted by FCC as a result of a hearing done back in 2005. The rules have a mandate to ensure that the internet is “accessible to all consumers.”

The ruling against Comcast was proposed by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, a Republican and was voted on by Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, both are Democrats. Republican commissioners Robert McDowell and Deborah Taylor voted against the said ruling.

McDowell believes that the decision has the potential to politicize the internet. “It will be interesting to see how the FCC will handle its newly created power because, as an institution, we are incapable of deciding any issue in the nanoseconds of internet time. Furthermore, asking our government to make these decisions will mean that every two to four years the ground rules could change depending on election results,” he said.

Sex Toy Ban: You Can Own Them But You Can’t Sell Them

From Craig Williams: 

Here’s the follow-up to a February 14, 2007 ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court:  stores who lost their attempts to overturn the Alabama legislature’s ban on selling sex toys have taken their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Alabamans need not worry, however.  The sex toy stores are not likely to get a favorable reception – the U.S. Supreme Court turned down their request back in 2005, and they’ve lost at least three times in the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Alabama legislature got the whole ban started.  You can possess sex toys in Alabama, you just can’t sell them there.  According to the Alabama Supreme Court, it’s a legitimate attempt to legislate morality, but frankly the dichotomy is lost on me.

After all, if you’re going to enact a ban on sales, why not also ban purchases and possession?  Perhaps the Court doesn’t want to face the news coverage when they start collecting sex toys in an amnesty program for state residents.

“A person should have the right to make their own decision to explore their sexual boundaries outside what some government official says is moral,” adult store owner Sherri Williams said outside the Supreme Court before filing the appeal.

Next Page »