Professional Troublemaker ®

 Jonathan Corbett, Civil Rights Attorney



DHS “Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties” Admits It Is A Farce

I mean, they didn’t say that explicitly, but you be the judge: the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was asked to review the policy of DHS’s Customs and Border Patrol regarding conducting suspicionless searches of electronic media (generally, your laptop) at border crossings. This policy means that any time you enter the country, the government feels it has the right to look through all the documents on your hard drive, even if there’s no reason at all to suspect that you might be engaged in criminal activity.

The review concluded that “imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefit.”

Do you see a problem here with an office, whose job it is to ensure that an agency respects the civil rights of the people, that does not understand how requiring the government to have a reason before it paws through the photos of your kids and wife (yeah, those photos!), reads through all of your e-mail, and makes sure the music you’re listening to and books you’re reading are not “suspicious,” would have a civil liberties benefit? DHS does this, ostensibly, to prevent the trafficking of child pornography and corporate espionage. I’m no expert on either subject, but it would seem to me that if one were to engage in either crime, wouldn’t they simply upload their contraband to a secure location on the Internet, where they can easily download it at their destination, rather than travel the globe with it sitting on their hard drive?

It seems clear to me that the alleged desired benefit of these searches is unobtainable since they are easier to circumvent than the TSA’s body scanners. It seems clear to me that this is a new technique to spy on the citizens, collect data (“Oh, Mr. Corbett here has files on his hard drive relating to aviation security… let’s put him in a database!”), and chip away at the Fourth Amendment. It seems clear to me that this furthers the government’s, and particularly the Obama administration’s, desire to fellate the copyright industry — from its absurd extrajudicial prosecution of Megaupload, to its attempts to pass SOPA and related laws, to these hard drive searches at borders that have already seen travelers questioned about whether they illegally downloaded songs and movies.

While this battle is fought on the legal front, you can protect your data now: free software such as TrueCrypt can scramble the data on your computer such that, if done right, it cannot be unscrambled without the correct password, even by the government (and, even if the government can decrypt your hard drive, they won’t: to admit that they know how to break the world’s strongest encryption algorithm would be giving away a secret that is worth much more than prosecuting you). As U.S. Courts of Appeals have refused to compel people to provide passwords, for the time being, encryption allows you to force the government to respect your rights.

The TSA Likes It Both Ways

If you’ve been following for a while, you know that my first filing for court review of the TSA’s nude body scanner and genital molestation program was booted for being filed “in the wrong court” (if by “wrong” they mean “in the court that would give me the best opportunity to challenge the TSA’s unconstitutional behavior”). In order to convince the courts to dismiss my case and the several others like it, it had to assure the courts that the other court — the US Court of Appeals — actually would have jurisdiction. This was a problem, since filing in that court has a statutory time limit of 60 days absent “reasonable grounds” for delay.

So, when another plaintiff, who filed virtually the exact same complaint as I did (in large part word-for-word ;)) pointed this out to the judge in their case, the government argued that the “reasonable grounds” clause would clearly cover such a case, and the court need not worry about it:


Months later, here we are in that Court of Appeals that the TSA insisted on. And, of course, now the TSA argues that reasonable grounds don’t actually apply:


Just another fine example of the Department of Justice’s “Win At All Costs, Fuck Justice” attitude. Luckily, courts are not keen on hypocrites and arguing one thing in front of one court and the opposite in another is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. …in theory, at least. Ruling in favor of the TSA here would mean that “scope & grope” would never be able to be reviewed by any court, ever, which is equivalent to placing the Constitution in the fireplace. Let’s see how the court handles this one!

Blog at

Up ↑