With the holiday season underway, travelers are bracing themselves for the countless hassles that come with modern travel. Most have adapted to waiting on long security lines, taking off their shoes and parting with their bottled water. But international travelers often don’t realize that they might also have to endure border officials viewing their Web histories. And their financial records. And their vacation photos.
That’s because the Obama administration, in an August that attracted little public attention, stated that it would continue President Bush’s policy of searching and copying the information on international travelers’ laptops, cameras and cell phones without any suspicion of wrongdoing. If you want to know how much that matters, just think about the personal information you have on those devices. The administration is expected to issue a civil liberties assessment of the policy any day now, but it’s hard to imagine any justification for groundless searches of Americans’ sensitive personal data.
Originally announced in July 2008, the permits border agents to search electronic devices “absent individualized suspicion.” Agents may hold on to devices “for a reasonable period of time” to “review and analyze information.” In other words, border agents are legally able to take travelers’ information whenever they want at security checkpoints at airports or along the border, and hold on to it for as they long as they want. Agents may also copy information and send it off-site to be analyzed. The policy applies to all electronic devices, including computers, disks, hard drives, cell phones and cameras. Travelers have to be concerned about more than the possibility of security agents rifling through their belongings. Their private data might be compromised, erased, or kept indefinitely, and they don’t know how that data might be used.
Courts have previously protected individual privacy rights by requiring the government to meet a before gaining access to library patrons’ reading records, and by mandating that searches of materials protected by the First Amendment be carried out with “.” The same level of protection should be afforded to those traveling through our nation’s airports and across our borders.
It is doubtful that the government’s suspicionless searches make us any safer. If only a tiny percentage of travelers are criminals or terrorists, and an even tinier percentage of these individuals travel through government checkpoints carrying evidence of their own illegal actions, then the odds are vanishingly small that a groundless search will turn up evidence of wrongdoing. Besides, there is already an easy way to move information across borders without risking a search at the border: the Internet.
In justifying its policy, the government has issued platitudes about the importance of suspicionless border searches of information to security. But it has offered no data indicating how often the searches have uncovered unlawful conduct, and no data indicating how many of those cases have led to prosecutions. The civil liberties report expected this month should address the effectiveness of these searches, but it is doubtful that the policy has yielded results that could justify this intrusive practice. What is more likely is that, in the absence of any standards or guidelines to follow when selecting individuals for search, the policy increases the possibility of individuals being selected for scrutiny on the basis of their rather than any other legitimate criteria. The government’s assessment should provide data on the racial and ethnic breakdown of those subjected to suspicionless searches.
Previous statements by the administration indicate that the forthcoming civil liberties report is also unlikely to adequately acknowledge the magnitude of the valid privacy issues presented to travelers. In a previous report that accompanied its adoption of the Bush policy, the Obama administration dismissed those who questioned its authority by characterizing them as — or, in the bureaucratic words of the report, as those who “need additional information regarding the authority to conduct border searches.” Travelers deserve better than to have their concerns brushed aside when their private data can be seized without suspicion. No one should be expected to check their Fourth Amendment rights, along with their baggage, when traveling across our borders.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.