Slashdot Mirror

Data on electronic devices can show a persons support of and funding for a banned group. That they travelled to a nation to support and funded a banned group. Photographs, faith based and political support for groups of interest to the USA. Funds for and meetings with people and groups of interest to the USA. GPS, images that show the device owner when questioned was in a nation they failed to mention when asked about.

While these are within the scope of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) search, all of the above are outside the allowed activities of the TSA.

The article states " This lawsuit comes after a number of reports came in pertaining to the searches of electronic devices of passengers traveling domestically.... TSA does, however, have public policies pertaining to the search and seizure of electronic devices at the border and during international trips."

The complaint seems to conflate TSA and CBP searches, and alleges TSA is searching the contents of electronic devices held by domestic travelers flying through SFO, but provides no evidence to support this claim.

The ACLU is busy defending male genital mutilation.

"US Customs agents now have free reign to search through all the photos of your personal life, emails to your friends and family, all the e-books you have purchased, and your entire music library."
https://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/the_privacy_of_your_laptop_at_international_borders.shtml makes interesting reading, or http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/crossing_border.html

Proposition 35 - Oppose
Proposition 35 increases criminal penalties for sex offenses and imposes new restrictions on registered sex offenders. For example, the measure requires that registrants provide online screen names and information about their Internet service providers to law enforcement - even if their convictions are very old and have nothing to do with the Internet or children. This provision essentially eliminates the ability of registrants to engage in anonymous online speech and imposes a substantial burden whenever a registrant wants to use a new online platform to speech, infringing on registrants' First Amendment right to free speech.

This was buried in an otherwise good proposal (human trafficers should be registered as sex offenders) and wasn't even visible from the official voter guide summary. It has the same problems.

This proposition also passed and I believe goes into effect on in just over a week.

https://www.aclunc.org/cases/active_cases/doe_v._harris.shtml

It's really not a good law - it won't accomplish its goal and it has lots of bad possible side effects.

Seems the Northern California chapter of the ACLU has some information if you plan on participating in a "sit in".

Even they tell you to understand the law. I can't imagine the ACLU advocating that "breaking out of your handcuffs" would further your cause.

That's the weirdest part is that there's clear proof that cameras do not deter crime or help solve it. The only other reasons a governmental unit would put them up is control by fear or if there was a lot of dirty money changing hands - neither of which is a good thing.

Why do people tolerate it? Are they just uninformed? Willfully ignorant? Afraid of the boogeyman? What?

You're missing the point. whether or not my data is worth compromising (which I whole heatedly believe that it is), is irrelevant.
Setting aside the fact that I may have cached passwords and financial information stored on my hard drive, the fourth amendment
is meant to guard against unreasonable searches and seizures. Since the US government has chosen to ignore the constitution, I believe that a "better safe than sorry" approach is quite prudent to say the least. You might want to check if you're currently located in a Constitution Free Zone as well.

There is a problem with that: they are also authorized to demand the passphrases for any and all encrypted data and can prevent you from officially entering the United States until you give them the passphrases.

Here's an article, and here is a post from the NorCal ACLU on the same topic. There are others out there but they're pretty easy to dig up.

This is also helpful for knowing your rights:
http://www.aclunc.org/library/publications/asset_upload_file654_3533.pdf

If you had a lawyer representing you, then you were not in small claims court, contrary to what you said in your blog. Nor was it an appeal. It was a retrial in municipal court. And decisions in municipal court are subject to appeal.

Now it may be that you don't have my basis for appeal. But that has nothing to do with the small claims system. It has to do with the laws under which the case was decided.

Many things are wrong with the American court system. It's too arcane, and it's stacked in favor of people with deep pockets. But the part of the court system you're attacking is actually one of the few aspects of the system that serves folks with limited resources. You think it treated you unfairly -- but people who lose court cases rarely think otherwise.

You have every right to criticize the court system -- God knows there is plenty to criticize. But criticism needs to he based on a solid understanding of the institution you're criticizing. The angry sense of injury you're relying on is a poor substitute.

If you really think your rights hare been trampled on, you should contact a civil liberties group (try http://www.aclunc.org/ ) and ask them to help you file an appeal. But if they tell you it's a waste of time, you should put away your indignation for a second, and ask them to explain why this is so. And listen carefully this time. You might still think you've been screwed over, but at least you'll have some solid facts to back your claims.

Read the full comments made by the Nicole Ozer, Technology and Civil Liberties Policy Director ACLU of Northern California, on her blog here: http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/bytes_and_ pieces/blackhat_presenters_threatened_with_patent_ suit_for_exposing_rfid_vulnerabilities.shtml

ACLU of Northern California
http://www.aclunc.org/students/guide/searches.html

"Can the principal or a teacher search me?

Yes, but only under certain specific circumstances, because you don't give up your right to privacy when you go to school. Under the law, if a school official wants to search you, there are two requirements. First, before he or she searches you, there must be a "reasonable suspicion," based on facts, that the search will produce evidence that you are violating the law or a school rule. For example, the principal would have to have specific information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a student is carrying a weapon, drugs or cigarettes. Second, the way he or she searches you should be "reasonable" based on your age and what is being searched for.
These restrictions apply to searches of a student's person (i.e., pat down of clothes, emptying pockets) and any personal belongings, including backpacks, lunch bags, or cars (if they are on school grounds)."

Reasonable suspicion = all your base are belong to school

"Remember: if the principal asks if you agree to a search and you say yes, you can turn an illegal search into a legal search."

you guys say that, but i doubt you could point out a single incident where a citizen was restrained from protesting the government.

Stepped right into the cut.

Yes, students do have rights. Everyone who is a citizen is protected by the rights given in the Constution and no one can take them away.

http://www.aclunc.org/students/guide/

Sometimes, as part of our member recruitment program, we exchange or rent our list of members' names to like-minded organizations and publications.

...no organization will ever see the names of the members on our list unless an individual responds to their mailing.

While I agree with you that the profit motive will encourage if not mandate the development of thee technologies I dispute your claim that all of this is "inevitable."

Unbiquitous computing like any other techynology can be employed in a myriad of ways. You seem to be arguing that the profit motive will force this technology to be used in the worst possible way and that there isn't anything that can be done about it. I disagree.

I think that a rational and aware populace can restruct how this technology is used in some ways to avoid fitting into the dystopic fears that many of us have. Unfortunately, doing so requires effort and many poeple don't want to expend any.

Several years ago poeple said that CCTV systems in public places and face-scanning technologies were "inevitable." Yet some cities including San Diego have turned it down and, contrary to predictions., other cities are not snapping it up like crazy. At the same time CCTV adoption has been mixed even being rejected in some cities like Oakland California. Even the herald of Big-Brother, the Total Information Awareness Project was shot down.

So no, I don;'t think that our darkest fears will inevitably be realized or that we are powerless to do anything. I think that it is really up to us to decide and, given sufficient efforts, Big Brother can still be avoided.

Both the statute (CDA's Section 230 provisions) and case law are very strong in the exemptions granted to the operators of a computer service from the duties and liabilities of a traditional publisher. Every direct challenge brought against an online service provider regarding speech contributed by a third-party has been defeated both at trial and in appellate court.

• Zeran vs America Online. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of defendant, AOL, that defendant was NOT responsible for defamatory statements made via its service by a third party per 230 of the CDA. Subsequent appeal was denied by US Supreme Court.
• Ben Ezra, Weinstein, and Co., Inc. v. America Online Inc. The US District Court in New Mexico held that AOL "clearly qualifies" for Internet service provider immunity under 230 of the CDA. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld this finding.
• Curzon Brown v. San Francisco Community College District Plantiff charged that TeacherReview.com was responsible for defamatory comments made on its web site about a professor at San Francisco City College. In settlement, plantiff abandoned claim and was forced to pay $10,000 to TeacherReview.com for legal fees.

Look at the ruling in both the CPHack case and the DeCSS case. They are using the "working in active concert" bit to stop linking and mirrors.

The Napster is turning around the burden of proof on an infringement case.

Even so, big companies is using the expense of litigation to beat people into submission. That is why Jon settled with Mattel, not being able to afford to defend it. Not the issue of propriety of his acts.

One interesting point here is that the Communications Decency Act, of all things, provides an absolute bar against such suits. A service provider cannot be held responsible for material posted by a user, and Lathouwers is a "service provider". He's offering an automated service which allows others to comment on teacher quality. Even if he does some manual editing, he doesn't lose that immunity. That was clearly established in a case involving AOL. So the case will probably be dismissed on Wednesday.