The Constitution Project Report on Data Searches

A legal think tank known as The Constitution Project, has issued a report on the practice of searching digital devices carried by passengers at ports of entry. This has been a hot-button issue that has pitted privacy advocates against Customs and Border Protection's security and law enforcement mandate. Here is a link to the report.

The report concludes with a recommendation that the Department of Homeland Security amend its existing policy to require a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before conducting a digital search. Further, the report recommends that DHS secure a warrant before it is able to retain copies of data or seize the device for further review beyond a reasonable period. There are other recommendations including some dealing with potential racial profiling, privileged information, and the possibility that other law enforcement agencies will piggy back on Customs border search authority to get information that would otherwise not be available without a warrant.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Larry -

CBP and ICE make no secret of their right to search electronic devices at the border. Today's laptop, for example, is the equivalent of a mid-20th Century briefcase.

The fact that an individual CHOOSES to bring an electronic device into the country, with all the publicity given regarding search thereof by CBP and ICE is tantamount to CONSENT to such a search.

Imagine the great hue and cry if CBP/ICE were to stop searching these devices, resulting in a major terrorist act taking place.

I have NO sympathy for the views expressed by "The Constitution Project" and other bleeding hearts.

The searches are legal, PERIOD!

Your faithful Customs retiree.
May 18, 2011, 12:56:00 PM
Anonymous said…
@ your faithful customs retiree,

I tend to worry when it is necessary to stretch the definition of consent to include actions that have little or nothing to do with actual consent. To me, the simple fact that you have to say something is "tantamount" to consent to define consent is a big bright red flag and a slippery slope.
May 19, 2011, 10:20:00 AM
Jim Dickeson said…
Regardless of whether such searches by U.S. authorities are right or wrong, consider that foreign governments conduct similar activities.

Consider, too, that if your deal in technology whose export is controlled by the Commerce or State Department, you may have old forgotten technical documents on your laptop that could be acquired by foreign government. And by extension, consider that the U.S. government could find, on your return home, that you committed an export violation when you left, particularly if the search reveals that you connected to a network while abroad.

Some savvy companies don't allow such employees to travel internationally with their regular laptop, but instead issue them a scrubbed laptop.

Jim Dickeson
Import Export Geeks
Import Export Compliance Training
May 22, 2011, 1:32:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl...
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more