Activist who supports soldier in WikiLeaks case sues U.S. over seizure of laptop

Source: The Washington Post

The co-founder of a group advocating for an Army private accused of leaking classified material to the antisecrecy Web site WikiLeaks is suing the U.S. government for unlawfully seizing his computer and copying its contents to aid a criminal investigation of the site.

Computer scientist David House’s laptop was taken in November at an international airport by two Department of Homeland Security agents without a hint that it contained evidence of wrongdoing, but rather because House was a vocal supporter of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the accused leaker, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged in a complaint to be filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston.

The case, the civil liberties advocates contend, is a troubling instance of how the government’s more aggressive border search policies in the post-Sept. 11 era are being used not to enforce customs or immigration laws, but to advance government investigations of third parties and to collect information about people’s political activities.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/activist_who_supports_soldier_in_wikileaks_case_sues_us_over_seizure_of_laptop/2011/05/11/AFxxzf1G_singlePage.html

He does not.

It says all I need to know about his character.

appeals regarding his birth certificate. The President has better things to do than read meritless lawsuits.

What, if any, specific harm does Mr. House allege?

How about unreasonable search and seizure?

I have all my financial records on my laptop, and personal email.

limited.

Has been, since colonial times.

Would you be foolish enough to bring your personal info to an international border.

with their laptop? Or anything else with personal info on it? Who's
sounding foolish here?

you don't travel with them.

If you don't want people looking at your personal records--then you don't travel with them. This does not mean you cannot have a laptop. This just means you might want to remove whatever child porn, offshore account information, drug mule schedules, and Al-Qaeda newsletters you've got on your hard drive.

Travel internationally sometime. If you have sex toys in your luggage, woe to you.

They can copy my hard drive but it is encrypted. They won't be able to read any files they copy. If you are using Win 7 business or ultimate edition you can use BitLocker or go to www.truecrypt.org and use their free open source encryption software. If the government deems you a menace or threat and you travel overseas, when you come back through US Customs they will copy the hard drive of any computers you have in your possession. They have been doing this for years.

the adage that locks only keep out honest people is even more true than in real life. Encryption is really not so hard to break. Special-purpose machines are constructed to break various forms of it. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/EFF_DES_cracker">DES was brute-forced in 1998 in two days for $200,000. That was a non-profit group with limited funds doing so to make a point. Encryption may be stronger today, but the integrated circuits used to break it are also stronger and cheaper. Encryption is also only as good as the algorithm and math behind it - ask the HDCP creators. Do you really trust Microsoft to be infallible on security?

Any agency of the US government has access to significantly more funds and parts that may not be generally available. I would be very, very surprised if there was not some special-purpose machine that could crack your BitLockered or TrueCrypted drive in a matter of hours or a handful of days, while you may be made to wait around for it. Such a machine won't exist at every port of entry, but it won't need to. They would just send a copy of your encrypted data to it, while you're detained pending the outcome.

Mathematically, the only form of encryption that keeps out more than casual viewers is a one-time pad. Even then, it does so only under some circumstances (e.g. truly random numbers) and is very easy to screw up. Every other form is like a safe - rated in terms of how long it will take the safecracker to open it, not whether he will be able to.

If the agents ask for it

The freedoms that Americans founded this country on have been abused and squeezed until there is hardly a drop left.

....At least, there's not much left for average Americans.

It's as American as it gets.


**43 Act of July 31, 1789, ch.5 §§ 23-24, 1 Stat. 29, 43 (current version at 19 U.S.C. §§ 482, 1582).

There is no right to privacy etc at the international borders. It has always been that way. Digital data is considered just like hard copy and subject to copying and review. Been that way a very long time but people are only hearing about it now.

Most of the rights, a civilian has.

While i don't agree with the necessity of that in it's entirety, that's just the way it is :(

I would think the "all enemies foreign and domestic" includes those who fail to do their own duty by claiming one policy to the public while pursuing another, or by violating international and domestic law.

Only in how we feel things should be.


NU-DU indeed.

> Privacy? If you go to an international border, your right is limited.

If you're outbound from the USA across an international border,
your right to survive is limited as there is no acknowledgement
of "sovereign territory" from your not-so-tame gatekeepers ...

Lots of places in the world where the cruise missile will suddenly hit
and there isn't even going to be an apology afterwards for any kids
who were unfortunate enough to be within the "collateral damage" radius.

Woo-hoo! Team America F*ck Yeah!

:patriot:

so you actually do need a reason to perform those searches...

The federal law basically breaks down into routine and non-routine searches. The search of information is considered routine. The search of your body? Non-routine.

Or do you reckon the cops can enter your home and rummage around all they like, without a warrant, just so long and there is no 'specific harm' done to the place?

Seriously. You can look it up.

Border Search Exception Doctrine--

First Congress, 43 Act of July 31, 1789, ch.5 §§ 23-24, 1 Stat. 29, 43 (current version at 19 U.S.C. §§ 482, 1582).

The Fourth wasn't passed 'til 1791. Border Search remained an exception.


No, I'm not saying that the police can come into my house, without a warrant. But I'm not so stupid as to think that the rules that apply to my home and curtilage apply to an international border.

Even in a civilian court, arguing 4th would lead to an unpleasant verdict, in a court martial it will not even be raised.

It's not a simple issue.

if you fancy the Constitution.

That's...interesting.

That's a horse/cart kind of thing.

are monitored, those in a combat theatre are doubly so. As far as the facts go, it is highly doubtful he is not guilty or that the guilt can not be proven to the merits required by a court martial.

My grandfather died in WW2, but we still have letters that are redacted from him. If you ever want to read about a true clusterfudge, read about the Leopoldville.

By their own admissions, no?

it's not spying...good to know...Tom(just guesing, or am I...) :P

This was taken during the time Manning carried the Iraq War Logs to America, while on leave from Iraq.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/bradley-manning-caught-on-video-with-hacker-friends-around-first-wikileaks-release/

Check out the timeline, here--

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/05/a-narrative-chronology-of-bradley-mannings-alleged-leaks/

Which probably gave rise to this--

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio/2011/04/27/wikileaks

or of Woodward and Bernstein with their "Deep Throats."

when do we begin to take that into account?

And how much body privacy do we even how left when a woman arrested for

a speeding ticket can be subjected to a body cavity search -- evidently on

the whim of an arresting officer -- or the police station?

Why, pray tell, should President Obama end that?

First Congress, 43 Act of July 31, 1789, ch.5 §§ 23-24, 1 Stat. 29, 43 (current version at 19 U.S.C. §§ 482, 1582).

if not, no telling where that could take us --

remember politicians have hearts colder then ice, and will only move for profit.

Besides, what goes unsaid is that he is "More" then likely guilty of the charges proffered against him, and no one bets on a losing horse.

take that computer. And now we find out that Bin Laden was able to send emails for years and the US could not detect them, so they spy on all of us anyhow.

It's our fault in the end, because we tolerate it. I do admire those like House, who refuse to be bullied by them and who stand up to them.

Electronic data falls into the routine search category.

You may not like the law, but routine searches need no reason or cause.

:)

I don't think it's going away.

The government cannot use the border search exception as an excuse for examining information about people's political activities and associations, or even to get around the warrant requirement in a criminal investigation. Whether seizing and searching that laptop was constitutional depends on why it was seized and what information was collected.

cases that cover that particular issue.***

In both cases, the idea of a First Amendment exception to the Border Search Doctrine was rejected, soundly. Mr. House will not get a circuit split out of the 1st--I think it unlikely that 1st will even consider classifying this type of search as 'non-routine,' much less find that there's a 1st amendment exception.

***United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005)
United States v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008)

I suspect that a sister case, Abidor v. Napolitano, filed in the 2nd is soon going to be dismissed.

have thus far (and wrongly in my opinion) favored the government rather than civil liberties. But no one doubts that there are constitutional limits to the government's right to search at the border. (Some limits are even recognized in the cases you mention.) Hypothetically, if the government were to target specific individuals for border searches for the purpose of discovering someone's political associations, I can't imagine that any court would say that the First Amendment hadn't been breached. Of course, that's merely a hypothetical, and I confess that I don't know enough about the particfulars of the actual case at hand to say whether Fourth Amendment or First Amendment constitutional limits have been breached, or whether the court is apt to rule that such limits have been breached. I do hope that eventually more limits to the border search doctrine are recognized by the courts.

the 1st Amendment, and targeting individuals.

Yes. It is permissible to target potential terrorists (child pornographers, too) at the border. There's no First Amendment rights at the border.

VA grand jury matter---

House was definitely a potential suspect and/or material witness to the handing over of classified material.

Bradley apparently hand-carried the Iraq War Logs to America in Jan/Feb 2010--visiting 'friends in Boston.' He visited David House during that time.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/05/a-narrative-chronology-of-bradley-mannings-alleged-leaks/

Mr. House, IMHO, is being actively investigated.......I think friends of his got the subpoena
http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/?story=/opinion/greenwald/radio/2011/04/27/wikileaks

Remember the Fadderland.

If you look around you might find that your local Code enforcement now comes under law enforcement.

As of 2003, it makes sense to have the same agency looking at people and things coming into the country. Or would you prefer that one agency does people, and one other, things?

to Homeland Security.

Before it was rolled into form part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Customs Service had three major missions: collecting tariff revenue, protecting the U.S. economy from smuggling and illegal goods, and processing people and goods at ports of entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Customs_Service

That border protection has been streamlined into one agency doesn't change that.

The Homeland Security Act changed the mission to security.

just waltzed right in with their goods?

Whatever.

renewed exploitation of women and children -- though somehow those engaged in the

sex slavery trade manage to move their "assets" across borders and into US -- !!

We might also recall the corruption of the Customs services for the benefit of

moving harmful chemicals from US into hands of dictators.

a few weeks ago. They went to a person living in Cambridge.

If it's not House himself, then it's probably someone he knows.

Which means that House's stupidity helps the grand jury.

And ship it to yourself. Then the laptop is useless for any type prying by any authority. No drive, no data, no snooping.

I think it's all about face-saving, myself.

And he's a Computer scientist to boot. I missed that the first time. He knows better. There is no excuse for a professional not taking better care he wasn't snooped. He had to know he was a target. Shit, if nothing else, he could have imaged his drive into an online storage company, and then wiped the drive. He was sloppy and got screwed.

He'd do everything possible to seem shady/shifty, in order to get searched, and then try a lawsuit, with attendant publicity.

My mind just doesn't work that way.

Sometimes the best action is to break the rules, and then draw maximum amounts of attention to it.

Either at the border or due to a search warrant.

Doesn't mean I like it or support it, but that is the current law

1800blowme? gofrackurself?

I slipped and hit my head the other day and can't remember the passcode now.

There are a few stories when the targets of broad search warrants have claimed that the police took a memory stick with the key so they can not provide it. Short of something like that, you will be forced to give it up.

Better approaches include off site network storage. Most cop shops do not have the capability to detect that ahead of time. Presuming you or an associate is free after the search, that allows it to be downloaded from another location. Media drives with and FTP server are a good choice for that, simple to setup, easy to recover physically and hide later.

I have pointed out here before how easy it is to have unrecoverable email and otherwise make computer forensics recovery damn near impossible. Its not hard, but it can be a PITA in ones daily life.

and removing hard drives from laptops!!???

Well -- wait, you could just mail the laptop to yourself, right?

You'll need a screwdriver. But with laptop drives being so small, (they're 2.5", or even 1.8" for an SSD, as opposed to 3.5" of desktops) they can easily fit in small box. That will ship much cheaper, and safer (less of a target of theft by employees of shipping companies) than the whole notebook. If you lose the drive it can be replaced for under $50. That a lot better than a paying $500 to replace the notebook.

Here's some videos as an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U23F8JuKKE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg_EhfPcZX4&feature=related

It's really quite disturbing to see how some people try to rationalize away an attack on our freedoms.

This thread is turning into a sad example of why Civics needs to be a required High School course.


*43 Act of July 31, 1789, ch.5 §§ 23-24, 1 Stat. 29, 43 (current version at 19 U.S.C. §§ 482, 1582).

that someone won't try to rationalize.

Facts are things that attorneys argue, when they go to court.

Thus, it is a good idea to have facts in hand when one wishes to overturn a law one does not like.

It's not even reasoning.

The fact is House was targeted because of an association as his interrogation demonstrated and political targeting is unconstitutional.

You cannot just waltz on through, you never could.

If you take your laptop through customs, they can and will search its contents.

Many of the Canadian and Mexican border inspections were cursory at best, at least if you were a white guy. Not so much anymore.

the Bradley Manning support network. That's illegal, just as it was illegal for Amy Goodman to be targeted on her way to Canada because of what she might be planning to say about the Olympics. You can't be targeted by the government because of legal associations or because of your opinions.

to single out House and copy his hard drive.

Customs did not mark him for this special treatment. Other authorities put him on a list, took advantage of his being at a border to grab his data.

I also see a lot of people on this thread happy to approve authoritarian abuses by the state, as long as they can be presented as strictly legal.

A great many wrong things are not illegal. They're still wrong.

We've all been thru Customs -- even in much saner times --

and it is the fake Drug War and fake "terrarism" which is permitting

this insanity in this national security state --

The follow up question is when are Americans going to stop cooperating with this

fascism --

It is our government which is wiretapping, eavesdropping and torturing -- not us!

And we need to keep that clearly in mind --

Why don't they drop the D and H and add a S. As in SS. Get it!!!:mad:

Use TrueCrypt.

IT CANNOT BE HACKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://aclum.org/house

And Greg Mitchell has some information up on his WK blog @ his 12:30 entry:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/160651/wikileaks-news-views-blog-friday-day-167

ACLU link --

The lawsuit charges that the government targeted Mr. House solely on the basis of his lawful association with the Bradley Manning Support Network when it seized Mr. House's laptop, USB drive and camera, and proceeded to copy and possibly disseminate their contents.

On November 3, 2010, Department of Homeland Security agents at O'Hare International Airport detained Mr. House for questioning upon his return from a trip to Mexico. While detaining Mr. House, agents asked him about his involvement with the Support Network, and confiscated his property. The detention and search of these electronic devices were not authorized by law and violated the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.



Greg Mitchell link --

"The government does not have the authority to demand information about whom you spend time with or what you talk about. We need safeguards to ensure that targeting of people based on their political associations does not continue."

In November 2010, DHS agents stopped House at O'Hare International Airport as he returned from a vacation in Mexico and questioned him about his political activities and beliefs.


PLUS all of this we also know that our government hasn't quit harassing anti-war groups --

one of the most dangerous issues --

Wiretapping, eavesdropping -- and Torture -- just what is our government getting ready for?

I appreciate the work they do but they lose as often if not more than they win and there is a reason for that.

Al-queda could be called a political organization if the ACLU is trying to suggest you cant question people about their connections at the boarder to Al-queda or hell the Russian SS for that matter or any number of other political adversaries they are going to lose this one as well, as they should.

Thanks for the thread, alp.

another example of the feds witch hunts...


http://www.stopfbi.net/about/timeline

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

point I am trying to make here is we dont have a clue here on DU what is going on in this case other than whatever the article of the day wants to try to feed us.