Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Courts Consider Legality of Laptop Inspection

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the my-porn-is-all-grown-up-anyway dept.

ceide2000 writes "The government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computer's hard drive, the government says, is no different from looking through a suitcase. One federal appeals court has agreed, and a second seems ready to follow suit." This story follows up on a story about laptop confiscation at the borders from a few months ago.

595 comments

  1. next will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    next is your banking information, previous employments, medical history and telephone calls made in the past 6 months.

    Welcome to the USA.

    1. Re:next will be... by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Next?

      Are you kidding? There is no fundamental law which protects the stuff you mention. Instead there is a patchwork of laws like HIPAA, ECPA, Fair Credit Reporting etc that protect against various egregious abuses, but many if not most of these laws have massive loopholes. For example, the Government is forbidden to take its records and create dossiers on random citizens, but it can buy that same information from vendors on the open market.

      And most of these laws have explicit exceptions of law enforcement and intelligence activities.

      There is no fundamental right to privacy recognized in US law, especially if you are a strict constructionist. The only protection for individual privacy in the US is political; if people get mad enough, then Congress will places the biggest patch on the problem that they can get past the lobbyists.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:next will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there is a right to privacy fundamental in the Constitution both through the 4th Amendment (its purpose is to protect the citizenry from unfair intrusion by the Government) and via the 9th and 10th amendments (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. and powers not granted the federal government in the Constitution or given to it by the States are reserved for the states or the people).

    3. Re:next will be... by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nothing about citizenry. The law states that "The People" shall be secure in their person and effects.

    4. Re:next will be... by Mercedes308 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't citizenry fall within 'The people'?

      --
      And no, I couldn't give a shit what my karma is.
    5. Re:next will be... by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The ninth, of course, is the most important of the amendments when it comes to privacy. The Fourteenth is probably the next most important, with its protection of liberty and due process.

      The Fourth in itself doesn't really say anything about privacy. It doesn't even keep the government from prying into our private affairs. It does two things: it prevents the government from "unreasonable" (that is to say more or less irrational) seizures and searches. It doesn't even require a warrant for any search or seizure, but it sets standards for warrants where they are customary. If you are a strict constructionist, it doesn't do anything more.

      It is centuries of judicial interpretation and faulty pedagogy that have invested the fourth amendment with privacy protecting powers. Conservative jurists have fought this every step of the way. It was innovators like Louis Brandeis who saw a "right to be left alone" implied by the fourth and fifth amendments, and liberals like William Douglas (Griswold v. Connecticut) and Harry Blackmun (Roe v. Wade) who found a right to privacy in the "penumbra" of the fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendment. It certainly isn't there in plain words, but what is there (they would argue) doesn't make sense unless is protecting such a right.

      Strict construction is an argument against this kind of reasoning. However if you believe in this philosophy, you'd better be pretty accurate about what the Constitution does say, because it lacks a great deal of the mechanics you'd need to protect individual liberties, although the spirit is there.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:next will be... by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, however "The People" is more inclusive. Citizenry regards a group of people who belong to a certain status. "The People" is just vague enough to be all encompassing. Therefore, everybody here has those protections. When you limit it to citizens you create a disgusting class structure of rights.

    7. Re:next will be... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      There is no fundamental law which protects the stuff you mention.


      I think you're missing something. The US Constitution enumerates which powers the government has. Nowhere does it empower the government to infringe on those liberties, and the ONLY applicable mention is the 4th Amendment, which recognizes the rights of the people to be secure in their possessions (note it does not grant said right - it recognizes a right the people already have).

      These days it's so easy to say "Those rights aren't protected!" but most people forget that the Constitution was intended to tell the government the powers it has, not what rights the people have.

      Since the only applicable text in the document protects citizens, I should think we'd start from the assumption that the government has NO RIGHT to that information, that they should PROVE they need it, and NOT that people have to prove it should be protected.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    8. Re:next will be... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't citizenry fall within 'The people'?


      The citizenry is a subset of the people. The word 'citizen' was left out of the Bill of Rights on purpose - the colonial British were fond of stripping citizenship in order to carry out all manner of injustice on people.

      Not to mention the fact that the political philosophy that gave birth to our nation does not limit human rights to "citizens" of some hypothetical state, but applies it to all humans equally. It would have been hypocritical for our founders to then limit recognized human rights to citizens only.

      Which, incidentally, is why I don't buy any of the government's arguments about why imprisoning people in Guantanamo is legal.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    9. Re:next will be... by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These days it's so easy to say "Those rights aren't protected!" but most people forget that the Constitution was intended to tell the government the powers it has, not what rights the people have.


      For practical purposes, those rights aren't protected, because the Constitution does empower to government to do lots of things, and not in minute detail, but in broad terms. For example the Constitution gives the government the power to wage war or to enforce laws. If you've been paying attention, the big privacy problems come when the government is doing stuff it's supposed to be doing. The question is, how far can it go when it's doing what it's supposed to be doing?

      Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't really say.

      One claim is that it can go as far as proves useful; that if pursuing a particular course results in more criminals being caught or terrorists being thwarted. Such a course of action, in broad terms, is reasonable. It's the details that get unreasonable. An explicit and detailed right of privacy would make the government work harder in such cases. It would probably even work better. But the Constitution doesn't mandate good policy. It empowers the government (as you say) and protects citizens (although not as much as they think).

      It sounds reassuring to say that Constitutional strict construction restrains the government from impinging on individual liberties. It would be great if it were true. But it isn't. The government is empowered to do all kinds of things, that if done in certain ways would undoubtedly infringe on individual liberties, and the borders of how far it can go aren't spelled out very precisely, which means the border drawn around individuals is all the more important. Unfortunately the Constitution isn't so great there either.

      We think of ourselves as a free people. We think of our freedoms as guaranteed by our Constitution -- as indeed some of them are. We believe ourselves protected by the Constitution (whatever it actually says), and it is this which is the secret of American freedom. It is the certainty public outrage that restrains the government from all kinds of outrages against liberty. It isn't the Constitution, although that was a good effort for the 1700s, it is the American people's ability to get mad as hell that keeps Uncle Sam in line.

      We'd better hope we don't loose that ability.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:next will be... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What we need is another ammendment that extends the protections of the bill of rights to anywhere under the control/power of the US (so they can't claim that the customs line isn't US territory) or their agents (so extraordinary rendition is prima facia illegal). That, and actually applying the 4th/14th to property seizure.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    11. Re:next will be... by moxley · · Score: 0, Troll

      The "loopholes" as you call them are usually the true purposes of the laws you mentioned.

      HIPAA being a prime example.

      They'll (they being legislators, lobbyists, etc) create a law or regulation in an area which is already pretty much covered by existing legislation or standards..

      Then the marketing of said law starts...They'll claim "This law clarifies and preempts existing laws, and this law protects you from X, Y, and Z"...but in reality, what they are really doing is defining said law to mean X, Y, and Z are now illegal - but they don't tell you that the reason they are doing so is so that their buddies in the private sector can then use methods A, B, and C to accomplish something far worse.

    12. Re:next will be... by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Although I agree with your philosophy, I don't think your argument holds water.

      The British Crown would not have stripped colonials of citizenship, for the simple reason they didn't have citizenship. Nor did any resident of Britain from the lowliest Cockney tinker to the haughtiest peer of the realm, for the simple reason the Crown didn't have citizens, it had subjects. Of course the Crown was never an absolute monarchy, it was never anything like the crown of France, or Spain. The barons had this thing called the Magna Carta.

      There were always a few Whigged out eccentrics who thought ordinary people had, not just a few basic rights, but something called liberty. Many people toyed with such views in their phase of youthful indiscretion, but it was the overseas provincials who really bought into the whole delusion. So much so that when they gained their independence, they set up their entire government the exact way they thought the government in London was operating all along. There were a few republican small r twists. The King was called the President and he was elected every four years. The House of Lords was called the Senate (wealthy provincialism is no barrier to having a fine library of Latin works) and the commons was called the House of Representatives. But pretty much they took the customary powers of each piece of the English government (as they understood them) and put them down in a document that ensured that government would be weak and far away, just like in the good old days before the King started taking an interest in Colonial affairs.

      They didn't bother to write everything down, like exactly when warrants are needed, because everybody already knew how that was supposed to work. Which is why the Constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights to begin with. Once it was proposed, it wasn't really a controversial idea; some people had a bee in their bonnet about what seemed perfectly clear to most people, so they did what Americans always do when faced with a complex philosophical problem like the relationship of the people to the government. They put together a quick patch that seemed to cover most of the things people were most concerned about, got it passed, and got on with the business of innovation, territorial expansion, and generally making money.

      Consequently, a lot of what they put down is open to interpretation. Interpretation being what it is, this is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing. As much as I agree that the people have human rights, and the Bill of Rights reflects this, people can and do make serious arguments that it doesn't apply to people who are aliens. Whether it did or not would probably have been clear to every patriotic American in the first decades of independence.

      Which doesn't mean they'd actually agree on anything, other than the meaning was plain one way or another.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:next will be... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Was the distinction between British-style parliaments and American-style legislatures set at that point?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    14. Re:next will be... by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      "Consequently, a lot of what they put down is open to interpretation."

      common law is anything but "open to interpretation".

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    15. Re:next will be... by quandmeme · · Score: 1

      Help me understand the medical records part. I know we (now) have no fourth amendment protections regarding bank records and employment history, I know the government has succeeded in getting telephone records from the telecoms without a warrant, what is the status on medical records, are there no protections on those?

    16. Re:next will be... by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      It would have been hypocritical for our founders to then limit recognized human rights to citizens only.

      What were these "human rights"? If they had anything to do with freedom, how did the slavery happen?

    17. Re:next will be... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      What were these "human rights"?


      You're kidding, right? Just trolling?

      If they had anything to do with freedom, how did the slavery happen?


      Again.. you're just trolling, right? You can't be that naive. First of all, they had nothing to do with 'freedom.' Freedom is a buzzword that is essentially meaningless. They had to do with liberty, a more interesting and yet wholly different concept.

      As for why slavery still happened, if it had not, the United States would never have been created. Read up on the subject, the compromises made in order to ensure the formation of the union are quite interesting.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    18. Re:next will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories. :(

    19. Re:next will be... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The British Crown would not have stripped colonials of citizenship, for the simple reason they didn't have citizenship. Nor did any resident of Britain from the lowliest Cockney tinker to the haughtiest peer of the realm, for the simple reason the Crown didn't have citizens, it had subjects.


      I should have chosen my words more carefully: they'd be stripped of the protections of the Magna Carta and associated law by merely declaring them enemies of the crown. Such abuse is well documented.

      Although I agree with your philosophy, I don't think your argument holds water.

      Fair enough.

      As much as I agree that the people have human rights, and the Bill of Rights reflects this, people can and do make serious arguments that it doesn't apply to people who are aliens.


      And on principle I simply can't accept those arguments. Anyone who is believed to have done something so heinous should have such evidence presented against them in a public court of law. Law, justice, its practice, and people's faith in the fairness of that law is seriously compromised when "justice" becomes something done in secret. I think the value of transparency and general faith in the principles of one's government are greater than the value of some supposed secret.

      Whether it did or not would probably have been clear to every patriotic American in the first decades of independence.

      I ponder on that point frequently; it's unfortunate more of our founders' ideas weren't explicitly written down. So much of what they took for granted has changed. They KNEW it was inevitable that we'd lose sight of the principles on which this country was founded; Jefferson wrote extensively on the subject.

      Then, sometimes I think that BECAUSE they knew it was inevitable, they didn't attempt to stave it off; and instead allowed for the situation when revolutions would have to be fought again, because attempting to hold off the need for revolutions pretty much prolongs the inevitable.

      And then, sometimes, I get tired of thinking of the whole thing and wish I could be as indifferent as everyone else seems to be..
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    20. Re:next will be... by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      I was addressing the problem with grand-parent comment, that human rights were applied to all humans, not only citizens. But in order to actually keep the things the way they are, set of humans was limited to "white people" (or something like that).
      I do see this as rational and understandable, but I cannot accept it as "applies it to all humans equally" and not calling it "hypocritical".

      As for slavery as absolute necessity for creation of USA, I just couldn't care less. If you trade off liberty for economical gains, I can understand it. But then please admit that USA was not respecting human rights. You can't eat the cake and keep it.

      <offtopic>
      How do you (not YOU, but Americans) justify Civil War (1849-1865)? Killing people from your own nation just because they want to get rid of government is bit puzzling to me. Should the south be considered conquered territory? This sure sounds like flaming but I really want to know.
      </offtopic>

    21. Re:next will be... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do see this as rational and understandable, but I cannot accept it as "applies it to all humans equally" and not calling it "hypocritical".


      I was the GP.

      At any rate - yes, our founders struggled with the seeming hypocrisy of the issue for the rest of their lives. Jefferson was especially bothered by it, which is why he freed his slaves in his will. It was a terrible compromise made so that the US could be formed at all; the Southern States would not have joined the Revolutionary War had they not been promised that they would be able to keep their slaves, nor would they have ratified the US Constitution. In that case, unity was chosen as a higher value than the ideals the nation was founded on.

      Some call the Civil War the "last battle of the American Revolution" precisely because it finally addressed that issue.

      Killing people from your own nation just because they want to get rid of government is bit puzzling to me. Should the south be considered conquered territory? This sure sounds like flaming but I really want to know.


      I'm American; personally? I don't justify it. Some say it was an overall good because it eliminated slavery, which is a fair enough argument; the problem I have with it is that the Civil War was used to justify solidifying the power of the Federal Government over the many US States. It was at that point that the centralized power of the US began to grow, and we see what the effect of that concentration of power has been.

      Abraham Lincoln justified the war in legalese by saying there was no justification to dissolve the union, or more precisely, that there is no exit clause in the Constitution if States decided they no longer wanted to be part of it. It was a calculated risk backed up by military force but the justification he used has always been questionable.

      It was a laudable goal to eliminate slavery, but that wasn't the reason the Civil War started; it was only a very small part of it. Not until 1863 did Lincoln say that abolishing slavery was one of the goals; prior to that, it was all about putting down the rebellion.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    22. Re:next will be... by Ochu · · Score: 1

      My passport disagrees with you. I am a British Citizen, no bones about it.

    23. Re:next will be... by stm2 · · Score: 1

      Next? Have you ever saw a VISA application form? You have to SHOW your financial status since it is presumed you may over-stay illegally (you have to "Bring evidence that their visit is temporary and that they will return home after their legally authorized stay"). Bank statement is a standard way to show this.
      Medical: You have to declare that you don't have AIDS or any other STD.

      --
      DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
    24. Re:next will be... by esocid · · Score: 1

      I'll assume their definition of "The People" is any US citizen who has not ever left its borders.

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    25. Re:next will be... by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 1

      When I read posts of yours like this, it reminds me of why you are on my "friends" list.

      Your argument(s) was eloquently stated and very well done.

      --
      uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
    26. Re:next will be... by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 1

      "Nothing about citizenry. The law states that "The People" shall be secure in their person and effects."

      I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Behold the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America:

      We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      It makes perfect sense that "the people" used throughout the rest of the document refers to "We the people of the United States." Don't you think?

      --
      I am not left-handed, either!
    27. Re:next will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "next" is already here!
      Most are incapable of seeing that the "super power" is _ironically_ morphing into the puppet tyrant regimes it supports!

    28. Re:next will be... by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      No, you are being deliberately sheep-like. The People of the United States does not signify citizens. They, the writers and signers, were speaking out on behalf of everyone on their continent. As such, they were sending a message. That message was deliberate and did not include the words citizen. That is the end of the story.

    29. Re:next will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you've somehow managed to remain ignorant of the Federalist Papers....

    30. Re:next will be... by EaglemanBSA · · Score: 1

      it prevents the government from "unreasonable" (that is to say more or less irrational) seizures and searches.

      I think the issue here is that the searches they're conducting do seem, to most of us, unreasonable. Where is that line (the determination that a search is unreasonable) drawn? It looks as if the courts have drawn it just on the other side of "we can look at whatever we damned well please, whenever we damned well please." If they can do this in an airport, there's little problem extending that capability to other areas.

      The original amendments were left vague such as to err on the side of limiting specific government controls, allowing for further establishment where needed later on. That being said, the founding fathers expected to have a new constitution drawn up every 50 years or so - I think they'd be surprised to see how we do things today. Just my two cents.
      --
      Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
    31. Re:next will be... by gyepi · · Score: 1

      Isn't the second amendment also one of the cornerstones of privacy protection?

      It can be argued that the main reason to secure the right of people to bear firearms is that this is a way how they can keep their government under control. Absolute power abuses absolutely, so you want to maintain a way for the people to get rid of their government in case that turns against them (and by making sure that this uprising could happen actually provides incentive for the government to not to cross the line). But then you need to prohibit the government to take away the means by which the people could achieve this end. One of the means is to bear firearms, which is explicitly stated. However, the action of single individuals would be insufficient, you also need to insure that the people have the means to assemble without letting the government learn about their plans and go after them on that basis. Hence without a right to privacy the intent of securing the right of the people to bear firearms would be lost, hence it is implicitly implied by the second amendment that the people can not be stripped off their right to privacy.

      --
      Attitudes make the difference between Space and Time: we want to MAX our temporal, and MIN our spatial extension.
    32. Re:next will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will you define as under control ? Is the government in control inside my house ? What about some fox hole in Iraq ? Are you saying US law should apply anywhere there is a US person ? Must he be armed ? How many square feet around a person would this apply to ? What happens to the laws of the host country are they void ? And does the opposite apply: US law is void if the "government" is not in control. Typically contries only try to pass laws and rule over their own territory. Your new dynamic extensions need a bit more thought. (and international agreement)

    33. Re:next will be... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Easy. Slaves were defined as non-human.

    34. Re:next will be... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      Apparently you've somehow managed to remain ignorant of the Federalist Papers....

      Apparently you see what you want to see.

      I have read the Federalist Papers. What I'm talking about are social norms that dictate how we interpret our laws, the parts of our society we DON'T write down.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    35. Re:next will be... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      What will you define as under control ?

      Anywhere we exercise control - if it's an agent of the government that's in charge, he's subject to our laws, period. This means that the recent case where some blackwater goons gangraped a woman in iraq and will likely not be prosecuted would be under our jurisdiction.

      What happens to the laws of the host country [-] are they void ?

      No, just one more restriction on what our government can do. Why would you even ask such a question?

      Typically contries only try to pass laws and rule over their own territory. Your new dynamic extensions need a bit more thought. (and international agreement)

      Not really. They only apply to people working for our government. Someone under contract to our govt, but not actually a citizen/resident isn't subject to these laws, but the guy who hires him is - if that guy sends someone overseas to be tortured, he should be criminally liable.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    36. Re:next will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the black people working on the plantations weren't granted any of the rights in the constitution, but everyone else on the continent was? Like the natives? Huh. You're right, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for enlightening us.

    37. Re:next will be... by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      How is it you can confuse unjust laws with Constitutionality? The problem with "black people on plantations" was that there were issues at the time with recognizing their person-hood and humanity. These were ultimately wrong and to ensure that it was observed, an amendment to the Constitution was enacted. ALL people within our control are protected by these provisions.

    38. Re:next will be... by bobkoure · · Score: 1

      It was a laudable goal to eliminate slavery, but that wasn't the reason the Civil War started; it was only a very small part of it. Of course the Civil War started over slavery.
      You're looking at things backwards - why did the states of the South secede? Look at the North Carolina Declaration of Secession - they were leaving over the right to own "property" (i.e. slaves).
      Look at Dred Scott, and the declarations made by several northern states not to honor the forced return of "property".

      You're absolutely right that Lincoln, even though a Republican (who were the radical left at the time) was not an abolitionist, and, indeed, came late to freeing slaves. It could very easily have been a move of political expediency.

      There were plenty of southern apologists who claimed (after the war) that it was for "States Rights". BS. Read the docs the southern secessionists wrote at the time of secession. IMHO, if the South had immediately given up slavery upon secession, they could have gotten support from Britain (major cotton-textile connection). With that backing, they could have told the North to piss off - and make it stick. I semi-recollect that there was mention of this as common knowledge (meaning probably "common knowledge within the general staff)in the letters of one of Lee's generals (Longstreet?)
    39. Re:next will be... by bratwiz · · Score: 1


      What do you mean NEXT??? That was FIRST!

  2. But by kieran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can they demand you decrypt data or, worse, provide the key?

    1. Re:But by YukonTech · · Score: 1

      Thats a very good question.

    2. Re:But by sholden · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You could try reading the article, you know the one that discusses this very thing...

    3. Re:But by jandrese · · Score: 1

      No, you are perfectly in your rights to refuse to decrypt your data. They'll just confiscate your laptop instead, or you can turn around and go back home.

      Frankly, this seems untenable to me. What if you ship your data separately? To me it just seems like an extension of the policy where Border Guards can pretty much do whatever they want. As anybody who has had to do more than tell the guard you're only going over the border for a daytrip can attest, those guys don't care one whit about your privacy or anything like that. They have a job to stop certain things from entering the country and you're just an annoyance they have to deal with to get their job done.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:But by BeanThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could try answering the question instead of giving a snarky response ... the article "discusses" it, yes, but doesn't completely clarify the issue - the bottom line is that the 5th amendment 'probably applies' (I presume only to citizens?), but I'm guessing you're likely to be subjected to a fairly rigorous police-state-like series of events if you try to refuse to give your password. If you're just a tourist and not a citizen, you're probably a lot worse off too, I'm not sure what would happen.

    5. Re:But by eln · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not that the Bill of Rights has much sway in cases where "terrorism" or "national security" can be applied, but the 5th amendment applies to "persons" rather than "citizens" (this distinction is made several times in the Constitution), and thus applies equally to anyone under US jurisdiction, whether they are a citizen or not.

      So, if we actually followed the Bill of Rights, no one should be compelled to give that information, regardless of where they come from.

    6. Re:But by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I think a "laptop" is a "thing" and files are "papers" There are different legal rules. Imagine a Lawyer crossing the boarder with his laptop, does that mean a prosecutor can "search" his laptop for ANY client files simply because he crossed a border? Or what about an accountant.. can we demand the CFO of GE turn over files on his computer to any minimum wage lackey? As long as the "thing" is being searched to prove it's safe and legal, the "papers" should be off limits unless there is a specific warrant.

    7. Re:But by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

      Nope, there was a recent case where you can refuse to provide a PGP key based on the fifth amendment, anyone have the link for me?
      thx

      --
      stuff |
    8. Re:But by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      So, do you have an answer, or are you just going to speculate wildly?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    9. Re:But by sholden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's pretty clear cut fifth amendment (it was a question in that case because the person has already given the pass phrase to the customs agent) , if you don't know that you can claim that then you really shouldn't be traveling to the US (especially with something you know you're not allowed to have).

      It's foolish not to find out about the laws and customs before you travel to foreign countries. Of course if you are a tourist I think the agent can just refuse you entry anyway - which might be better if you really do have something to hide. Though a refused entry record is going to make international travel a pain for the rest of your life.

      If you're a citizen, then the ka-ching sounds will be making it hard to concentrate as you try to get everything on record for the sue everyone vaguely involved action that's coming...

      Of course there's always the chance you get shipped off to the middle east for some torture since you look like you might have once been in the same building as someone who went to school with someone who is a suspected terrorist. It's not something I'd try, but then again I wouldn't be trying to cross the border with child pornography on my laptop...

    10. Re:But by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Yes, they absolutely can, and you must provide it or be terminated with extreme prejudice on the spot. Don't bother to read the article, it'll just confuse you with boring old "facts" and "case studies."

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    11. Re:But by netruner · · Score: 1

      Anyone who can speak can demand. The ones controlling the gate into the country can deny you access. The court system takes time to challenge any misconduct, so I guess it would depend on how long you're willing to wait to bring your stuff in.

      Simple case - you're denied access because you won't turn over your info

      Not so simple case - you sit in Gitmo until you provide the key

      The problem I have with this is that anyone with ill intentions who isn't smart enough to outmaneuver this can't be that effective. This has much more potential to damage the good guys (degraded civil rights - giving up some of our core values) than potential to "get" the bad guys.

      --



      DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    12. Re:But by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I agree. Border agents will disagree though. Unless it's in a diplomatic immunity pouch, they tend to want to get their grubby hands on it. There are probably laws about this but the laws also let the border agents turn people away for any reason they feel like.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    13. Re:But by davidsyes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The assholes, rummaging through a hard drive means LOOKING into someone's personal life, proprietary information, or the like. Rummaging through a suitcase doesn't involve asking for receipts of when, where, and for how much the clothing or toiletries were purchased, or for or by whom the purchases were made.

      This has less to do with protecting the public than it does with further conditioning the public to EXPECT to surrender for ANY reason, even without suspicion or due process or valid warrants.

      Why, just WHY should the public trust some low-level functionary or scanner operator to NOT heft away with product ideas?

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    14. Re:But by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2, Funny

      Congress, in passing DMCA, legitimized DRM. Sometimes the answer is, "I don't know the key. Ask Columbia Pictures."

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    15. Re:But by ArikTheRed · · Score: 1

      You could try answering the question instead of giving a snarky response Hi, this is Slashdot. Welcome!
      --
      http://www.coderoshi.com/
    16. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though a refused entry record is going to make international travel a pain for the rest of your life. Well, until you renew your passport anyway, and even before then only when travelling to certain places (Notably the US).

      I was held at LAX for just over 8 hours in 2003 for not having leave orders (apparently something that the US army gives to its soldiers when on leave) as I was in the Army at the time (but not the US Army). This meant that my passport was stamped by US customs, with an (apparently negative, according to a friend who works in the Home Office) series of numbers scrawled underneath it, this means that countries like the Philippines and Canada seem to take a disproportionate amount of interest in me.

      I missed my connecting flight (which according to the Airline was my fault for being stopped, fair play I suppose) and ended up paying rather a large sum of money to get on another one, pretty much ruining my trip. Worst of all, I wasn't even intending to fly to or through the US, my original flight was supposed to be via Dubai but due to a number of cancellations in Manchester I ended up on a flight via Heathrow and LAX, everywhere else in the world if you are on a connecting flight you don't go through customs (you generally go from aircraft to a lounge back to an aircraft), why the US seems to insist on everyone going all the way through to US soil just to go back again is a mystery.

      Needless to say I am avoiding the US at all costs when making travel plans.

      Getting back to the point, since I got hold of a new passport in march last year (I lost the old one) international travel has become much much nicer again, it seems that there isn't a whole hell of a lot of international co-operation as far as information on travellers is concerned, to the point that if it isn't written in your passport then it didn't happen (although I assume the US still has a record of whatever they deemed happened.
    17. Re:But by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Border agents will disagree though. Unless it's in a diplomatic immunity pouch, they tend to want to get their grubby hands on it.
      I once crossed into Maine through a remote customs post. I was wearing a fanny pouch and a customs agent wanted to look inside it. So I handed it to him and he proceeded to rummage through it looking exactly like a paraphiliac rummaging throuh a pile of soiled underwear.

      Yes, those guys definitely have a **problem** (but it doesn't prevent them from working! Quite the contrary...)

    18. Re:But by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      Someone mod parent up, please.

      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    19. Re:But by c1ay · · Score: 1

      Well, if you used a hidden volume via TrueCrypt would they even know you had any encrypted data :)

      --

    20. Re:But by richcsst · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is, you aren't "in the country" until Customs says you are. This is international law. The areas marked for international travel are technically an "embassy", not US soil. This allows the governments (plural, no matter where you are) to send you back where you came from without you actually legally "arriving". The movie "The Terminal" shows this concept very well. So, until Customs approves your arrival, you're not in the USA (and its "jurisdiction") and the US Constitution does not apply. The same goes for other countries as well.

      So, you can refuse a search, but then again, they can refuse to let you into their country. The control is left to you and them (mostly them).

      So, remember, whilst in an international terminal, whether airport or border crossing, you are in a place where only international law applies until that country says you are in their country. Until they say you are in their country, they have every right to search anything you bring with you, and every right to confiscate anything deemed as contraband, every right to send you back where you came from, and every right to use anything they found as evidence against you according to their country's laws after they say you are "in their country".

    21. Re:But by dryueh · · Score: 1

      The assholes, rummaging through a hard drive means LOOKING into someone's personal life, proprietary information, or the like. Rummaging through a suitcase doesn't involve asking for receipts of when, where, and for how much the clothing or toiletries were purchased, or for or by whom the purchases were made.

      Rummaging through someone's laptop doesn't involve the things you cite either. The point of the searches is that, as the article states, things present on your laptop are just like documents present in your briefcase. If, instead of using a computer to store all your personal files (bills, receipts, kiddie porn, whatever) you carried around original hardcopies of everything with you ===== then, when they search your briefcase, customs WILL known the receipts oof when where, and for how much... blah blah blah.

      I think that I see the reasonableness of the majority of the court decisions --- thinking of a computer as a container makes a lot of sense. I can't tell customs folks to not look in my bag b/c I have a receipt, credit card, or soemthing else personal in there --- it's not hard to see how that logic can vault over to not wanting customs agents to look through my laptop.

      You can't lock your luggage anymore when traveling (right?) --- why should you be able to 'lock' your computer? It's possible to store very personal effects in either, but no one claims 5th amendment rights when security asks you to unlock your bags for inspection.

      It's easy to see how the default siding would be to limit access to one's electronic files ---- but I really do think there's a reason why the appealed decisions by the courts turned out the way they did.

    22. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The catch is that you haven't legally entered the US until you've cleared passport and customs. Until you do, you're in a sort of extraterritorial zone and (from what I understand) have no rights in particular.

    23. Re:But by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Who gives a RAT's ass what the courts think?

      When they read your documents, they can rip an envelope, read them, and probably aren't going to fire up a cig lighter to your docs. But, to read your laptop or peripheral disks, they have to get the carrier to fire them up. I don't know about YOU, but I have hundreds of gigs of cruft, lots of it on the SAME disk (yep, I tend to from time to time lose it all when slaving them to the wrong reader connectors, and *I'M*** not EVEN trying to frag my own data) through my own ineptitude.

      These people will likely sluff thru disks ALL day long, get tired of seeing the same old thing. Then, they'll get orders to ignore the file names and READ the documents, or parse them to a supercomputer to search and INDEX them for keywords for the usual things: evidence of activity with porn or terrorism, tax evasion, etc.

      NOW, you not only have the issue of forced invasion of privacy with no initial wire taps or LEGITIMATE or even TENUOUS suspicion of criminal involvement, these assholes will be archiving umpteen billions of gigs of data at taxpayer expense. We ALL know people steal. What will the Hollywood, IT, and tax industry pros think when suddenly they weigh the particular bonehead congress and senate memebers who ram this down our throats. It's ONE thing to file or declare summarized information for duty reasons; it's another to have one's planned creative or product ideas basically STOLEN before one may even finish product development. Since people steal, what's to stop a corrupt functionary or security agent from stealing your ideas, passing them to information brokers, and then depriving you from gaining from your previously undisclosed ideas, ideas which you MIGHT not even be able to prove were stolen, depending on the time frame that you realize you've been beaten to the market.

      They need to look for f*cking BOMBS, chemicals and other weapons, not bits and bytes. Bits and bytes searches can be dealt with by existing or evolving wiretap laws when triggered to shift into search and seizure of PHYSICAL evidence.

      NObody should be forgiving these assholes for demanding that citizens OR foreigners surrender their laptops or data devices for read-access under duress. That's just PLAIN ASSHOLERY! Then, if they munge your data, they'll say, "So what you didn't sign a waiver, and we wrecked your data, and too bad your travel-backups got trashed, too, necessitating you return home to restart your trip."

      Hopefully, there is a massive foreign backlash that threatens the tourism-business travel industry lobbyists to make the government desist on this stupid avenue of porn and terror hunting.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    24. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The assholes, rummaging through a hard drive means LOOKING into someone's personal life, proprietary information, or the like. Rummaging through a suitcase doesn't involve asking for receipts of when, where, and for how much the clothing or toiletries were purchased, or for or by whom the purchases were made.

      In fact they often ask for receipts, along with when & where you purchased it. That is how they calculate import duties & taxes (if any). Just about every country in the world does that.

      Have you ever crossed an international border? It sounds like you haven't.

    25. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully, there is a massive foreign backlash that threatens the tourism-business travel industry lobbyists to make the government desist on this stupid avenue

      It's called the devaluation of the dollar and subsequent economic recession. Look around. They have not changed course, because the system is mentally defective at the very top.
    26. Re:But by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      You can't lock your luggage anymore when traveling (right?)


      You can, actually. They just recommend you don't, since regular locks they'll cut away if they want to inspect your bag.

      However, TSA's own site describes TSA-approved locks that you can buy, which open with a "master" key or combination.

      The set of TSA-approved locks I got even has a green/red status port. If the TSA has opened it using a master key, it goes red. The TSA is *supposed* to leave a Notice of Inspection if they've opened your bags for inspection, but my brother didn't get one last year and they *definitely* went through his checked bag.
    27. Re:But by Eil · · Score: 1

      Can they demand you decrypt data or, worse, provide the key?

      Step 1: Pack a Windows XP Home installation CD in the front pocket. Carry it at all times, even if you run Linux.

      Step 2: When asked to login to the machine, say you don't know the password because you just bought the laptop from your friend's girlfriend's cousin's stepson and haven't yet had a chance to install one of these here Windows on it. (If confronted about this on the return trip, exclaim, "And what--show up in like some dumb American without my laptop?! Puh-lease!")

      Step 3: Grin confidently while the security guard furrows his brows at you for a few seconds and then waves you on.

    28. Re:But by sholden · · Score: 1

      Did they deny you entry? Or just hold you up for hours and hours?

      Almost every visa application form I've filled out has a question about that, which I suspect answering Yes to would make life hard.

      The US visa waiver program, for example has: Have you ever been denied a U.S. visa or entry into the U.S. or had a U.S. visa canceled? If yes; when and where ?

      Answering Yes means you need to apply for a visa rather than using the VWP - well you could try but they're way more likely to refuse you entry which will make for an expensive non-holiday... Of course you can lie, though I imagine that has consequences if they actually check. The US one restricts it to the US (for the visa waiver anyway, no idea about an actual visa) a tourist visa to Australia asks "been removed or deported from any country (including Australia)? left any country to avoid being removed or deported? been refused a visa for Australia or another country? been excluded from or asked to leave any country (including Australia)" - I would imagine answering Yes makes things more difficult.

      They insist on you clearing customs in the US, so that they can catch people in transit more easily for whatever offense they committed against American sensibilities (running an online casino, etc). Well that's my cynical view anyway.

    29. Re:But by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      The point, which very clearly went entirely over your head even though I made it very clear (and would be even clearer if you read and comprehended the articled), is that there IS no clear answer.

    30. Re:But by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      Haha, yes UID 865776, I'm not exactly new here, but I'm still idealistic enough to try nudge things towards the better here ;) ... this is one of the few places where you can still find what passes for an intelligent conversation - well, sometimes - and I wouldn't want cocky think-they're-smart idiots to totally ruin that, they can bugger off.

    31. Re:But by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      I have traveled to numerous "foreign" countries and have yet to have been made to pay duties on entry to the US or any other country or on exit from any country.

      However, I hope whoever made the "TSA's BEEN HERE" locks makes a LOT of money off any patent they might have filed for the entry detection indicator. And, if the TSA's bypassing that color indicator, I hope a NEW design comes out to combat that bypassing, too.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    32. Re:But by mrv20 · · Score: 1

      On the first reading I misunderstood your post and was starting to wonder why you were carrying soiled underwear in your fanny pack.

      --
      "Algebraical symbols are used when you don't know what you are talking about" - BCS
  3. hmph by moogied · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I for one welcome our laptopinspecting overlords. May there lap loving appetite be satisfied.

    --
    So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
  4. China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see "US" tag. A better tag will be "China".

    1. Re:China by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      I see "US" tag. A better tag will be "China".

      Look at the firehose; I just sbmitted a New Scientist story US and UK rival China for government surveillance.

      The US, the UK, China and Russia are "endemic surveillance societies", according to a recent study examining privacy protection around the world that gave the four nations the lowest possible rating.
      I wrote a K5 article a few years ago, Liberty? What liberty? where I pointed out that the Supreme Court has gutted the Bill of Rights. From the Bill of Rights:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
      Apparently your laptop, like your car, isn't an effect and its contents aren't documents.

      Next thing you know they'll be demanding you give army soldiers quarter in your home and the SCOTUS will agree to it, just like they agreed that twice your lifespan is "limited" when dealing with copyright.

      I fear the only way to get "our" coiuntry back is by armed revolution, which I do NOT want to see. Start the revolution after I'm dead, ok?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:China by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      ... and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, ...

      All you need is a bit of creative reading. What is a probable cause? Well, obviously a cause which is probable. If something has a probability of more that 50%, one certainly can say it's probable. So in order to not violate the clause, you'll just have to make sure that more than half of the time there's a case.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:China by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      But what about the "warrants" thing? The local cops didn't need a warrant to search my garage last Memorial day!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:China by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, if you read the text carefully, you'll find out that searches and seizures have to be reasonable ("against unreasonable searches and seizures"), and gives conditions for a warrant. Nowhere does it say that a warrant is needed for a search or seizure.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  5. Luckily by svelemor · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... there are effective ways to protect your own privacy http://www.truecrypt.org/

  6. Suitcase opening... HAH! by guitaristx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not suitcase snooping, this is opening a sealed envelope found within my suitcase and reading the contents even though both the suitcase and envelope test negative on the bomb sniffer.

    --
    I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
    1. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      Yes, I thought that the 'logic' for checking suitcases was to search for physical threats such as bombs. Bits on a hard disk hardly qualify as a threat.

    2. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by winkydink · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, upon entering the country, they can open a sealed letter in your possession and read the contents already.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    3. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by sholden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your assumption is wrong. It's to search for items which are illegal to bring into the country. That would some plants and animals (quarantine laws), and also certain bit sequences on a hard drive (child pornography), bits of paper (undeclared currency over a magic value), arbitrary objects (that you didn't pay duty on) and a lot of other things. It's customs doing the searching, they don't actually care about bombs - of course if they found one they'd bring in the people who do care about such things...

    4. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by chgros · · Score: 1

      That sounds suspicious (for instance I doubt they can do it for mail). Care to back up that statement?

    5. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by init100 · · Score: 1

      This is just a covered attempt to help US companies by gathering information from their foreign competitors while pretending to look for "terrorists".

    6. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Um, upon entering the country, they can open a sealed letter in your possession and read the contents already.

      Maybe they can legally do that, but why are we saying that's ok? Maybe someone can elaborate on the potential physical danger posed by those words on that paper?

      Folks, something being legal doesn't make it right. When posed with a question like this you need to focus first on the morality and ethics of the situation. You need to focus on our common goals and how they make society better. You need to focus on the golden rule. Only then do you look at the law. But when you look at the law, you don't say, "hark, it is legal so I can do it anyway!" No no. You say, "Hark, it is legal but morally repugnant so I will work to change the law.

      That's the way this is supposed to work.
    7. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Back up what statement? You're entering the US from a foreign country. Say, they find you suspicious, for whatever reason, and decide to perform a more thorough inspection of you and whatever you are bringing with you. During this inspection they find a sealed envelope in your luggage. Do you really believe that when this happens, the inspector just says, "Oh, this is sealed. I can't look inside."

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    8. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by servognome · · Score: 4, Informative

      That sounds suspicious (for instance I doubt they can do it for mail). Care to back up that statement?
      They can for mail. Thank this one to the "war" on drugs.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    9. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by ashridah · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure there's going to be import duties on a 5kt nuke or 10 pounds of C4 or something.... :)

    10. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by chgros · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link.
      If opening mail is legal, then looking at your hard drive is practically nothing in comparison.

    11. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      It might not be words, it might be pictures of naked kids. Think of the children.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    12. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by Adambomb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The real question is, if it isnt sanctioned by law, what process can foreign visitors follow to complain? Who is the ombudsman?

      I have this odd feeling that there isnt one. The CBP certainly do not list the procedures, nor is it easily found using their search or site maps. For all I know it may be there, but i sure am not running across the list of regulations concerning search and seizure of foreign visitors.

      If it is sanctioned by law, well if you dont like it do not visit. Many area already thinking this way in the nebulous "rest of the world", although i almost want to thank the US for creating a HUGE influx of conferences being hosted in canada that used to be hosted in the US. Tim hortons alone is grinning ear to ear on that one.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    13. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      If it is sanctioned by law, well if you dont like it do not visit.

      Except now we've apparently got secret laws and regulations, so you don't know what you don't know.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    14. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      Thats what i'm saying with the information not being locatable, or at least not being in a reasonable location.

      Hence, if there are no listed rules and regulations and one doesnt like the concept, stay away =)

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    15. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by Teun · · Score: 1

      According to international treaties mail is protected against certain invasions of privacy.
      OK it is a huge leap to claim this protection in the present USofA.
      Yet in this particular instance no country would allow you to keep the envelope unopened as you are not the postal services.
      Easy.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    16. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by quandmeme · · Score: 1

      Just so everyone is on the same page. The courts have read the Fourth Amendment protection against search and seizure to extend only where there is an expectation of privacy. In your home or sitting on the backseat of your car, you have an expectation on privacy in the contents of a suitcase or a sealed envelope. If the government has a warrant or a range of special needs, it can open that suitcase and the sealed letter. There are times when we have no expectation of privacy so the 4th Amendment protections do not apply. The border is a classic black-letter situation where the expectation of privacy falls away in the face of national security. The government may randomly open _international_ mail for example, because of decrease property interests. My opinion: there must be a distinction based on the nature of the intrusiveness of the search. Looking through books for cash or drugs hidden there seems within the governement's self-defined powers. Cross referencing the titles of each book with a black list, be it communist, fundamentalist, or tax avoidance should be outside their special interest.

    17. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can also browse through the pictures in your digital camera, evidently. Happened to me on the way back from my last trip to Singapore.

    18. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by zenkonami · · Score: 1

      This is the second time I've seen the child porn assertion, and what I have to wonder is, how likely is someone to smuggle child pornography into the U.S. on a laptop? This is not a criticism of the responders (for once I didn't RTFA), but I do wonder how ridiculous our gov't has become in regards to "security."

      --

      Do You Experiment?
    19. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by kramulous · · Score: 1

      Your summary is actually very good. I'd have a problem with a computer expert going through the contents of my source files and data but I have no problems with a customs dude doing it. He/she is looking for specific items and doesn't care about the confidential stuff. It is exactly the same as inspecting wooden goods, only looking for the bugs, doesn't care what the wooden object is.

      --
      .
    20. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      They can also browse through the pictures in your digital camera, evidently. Happened to me on the way back from my last trip to Singapore.

      I suppose that's one advantage to film right there.

    21. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by sholden · · Score: 1

      The article was about a child porn case so clearly it does happen, and so when discussing the article that's the obvious example to use using something else would require trying remember/find something else of a similar nature that's illegal to import/possess - using the thing the article is about means you don't have to spend any effort checking to make sure the thing you think is illegal is in fact illegal. In a land of free speech there shouldn't be many (some would argue any) after all.

      Pirated movies, maybe?

    22. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree: one chooses whatever puts in a suitcase: I wouldn't put may personal photos in a suitcase knowing it can be opened at the airport. I wouldn't put there my bank account info for the same reason.

      One could erase the personal info from the laptop, but that is quite hard to do and probably makes carrying the laptop useless.

    23. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymously is probably unnecessary, but just in case...

      I had my laptop searched just before Christmas when entering Canada and the focus of the searches made by the customs agent seemed to be exclusively child porn (lots of file searches for things like 'young', 'kiddy', etc...). He got rather more interested in the large folder of anonymously named .mov files imported from my camera and insisted on watching several of them until satisfied they were standard tourist fare.

      Interestingly (and thankfully!) even though he looked through the folders and folders of downloaded TV shows and movies the outcome was simply a stern warning that it was illegal to download pirated video off the net.

      The guy doing the searching may not have been a computer expert, but he knew enough to go through both my MacOS and Windows partitions and to check for encryption software.

  7. No you have a choice. by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A. You can decrypt the data
    B. You can go back where you came from

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:No you have a choice. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 4, Insightful
      B. You can go back where you came from

      What if you came from the US? I know that many Americans are ok with tourists to the US having no privacy rights, but what about US citizens - is it ok that a citizen loses his rights as soon as he encounters US borders? It seems the 4th amendment ought to protect you against "unreasonable searches and seizures". It's certainly reasonable to search a suitcase for illegal drugs, explosives or quantities of goods which exceed the import limits. All of these things are directly border-related. However is it reasonable to search a laptop at the border? Sure a laptop might contain illegal files, but that's always the case. So if it's reasonable to search for these at the border, it should be reasonable to search for these on all computers all of the time.

    2. Re:No you have a choice. by faloi · · Score: 1

      You also have a right to invoke your Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination, apparently. At least until the next President does away with those.

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    3. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This begs the question:

      Is there now a place for a program that decrypts data in two ways?
      i.e. Show's something interesting, but not the real data when given one key and then show your real data when given the other key. Or better yet, present the actual content with a bunch of fluff around it so that it becomes useless to whomever is looking at it. I guess there is already steganography, so I'm sort of answering my own question.
      Obviously there are legal ramifications for trying to hide something.

    4. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A. You can decrypt the data
      B. You can go back where you came from
      C. You can avoid totalitarian states in the first place

      This is now a war on commerce, international science and visiting family. We have a new iron curtain.

    5. Re:No you have a choice. by init100 · · Score: 1

      Well, such a stance probably won't be popular among business people. If the US wants to continue international trade, asserting the right to look through private/proprietary data might not be such a good idea. Who knows, information gathered from such inspections could just be forwarded to American corporations, something foreign businesses wouldn't be too fond of.

    6. Re:No you have a choice. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is there now a place for a program that decrypts data in two ways?

      It's called TrueCrypt and is available for Windows, Linux and to some degree for OS X.

      Main Features:

              * Creates a virtual encrypted disk within a file and mounts it as a real disk.

              * Encrypts an entire hard disk partition or a storage device such as USB flash drive.

              * Encryption is automatic, real-time (on-the-fly) and transparent.

              * Provides two levels of plausible deniability, in case an adversary forces you to reveal the password:

                  1) Hidden volume (steganography - more information may be found here).

                  2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be distinguished from random data).

              * Encryption algorithms: AES-256, Serpent, and Twofish. Mode of operation: LRW.

                  Further information regarding features of the software may be found in the documentation.
    7. Re:No you have a choice. by operagost · · Score: 1, Redundant

      If you RTFA, the issue involves non-citizens of the US.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:No you have a choice. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the heads-up, Captain Hyperbole.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Except as a US Citizen this is in violation of my Fourth Amendment rights...

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Simply entering the country is NOT PROBABLE CAUSE...

      ps. I come from this rapidly increasing (and already 100% fascist) Police State, called the U.S.
    10. Re:No you have a choice. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      As much as it pains me to admit it, in the future, information may become as important as physical goods, making data on a laptop potentially just as dangerous as any of those illegal goods.

      --
      Apology to Ubuntu forum.
    11. Re:No you have a choice. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      It sounds that like that's the actual situation. You don't have to give them your data, but then you can be faced with not being allowed to enter with it. So you either sacrifice the laptop, or maybe even the whole trip.

      I think the question is: is it right? Should immigration grunts be allowed to deny entry for any arbitrary reason (i.e. I don't like the look on your face, or I don't like that you won't decrypt your data), and should they be able to seize any arbitrary item, even when they don't have reason to suspect that it may be harmful? I ass/u/me Congress has passed some sort of law that certain items are "controlled" and may not be brought in. Computers and storage probably wouldn't be on such a list.

      If one argues that they should be allowed to do that, then it raises a problem: it's not generally feasible. Physical items are hard to hide if you go through a reasonably-easy-to-set-up filter. Data is easy to hide. If someone has "illegal information," and really wants to hide it, then no inspector has a reasonable chance of finding it -- even knowing that there is something to be decrypted, unless they seriously check it out. I'm talking about potentially weeks of analysis. It's simply not practical to audit all information coming into the country. It would take weeks of dedicated and active "quarantine" costing thousands of dollars, and even then, you don't know if your analysis is complete. Are the taxpayers going to pay that? Or are we going to charge some huge $1000 per megabyte duty on all storage devices, to pay for the people who are going to check to see if anything is encrypted?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    12. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you RTFC, you'll realise it limits the federal government for "the people" not just citizens.

    13. Re:No you have a choice. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure - there are two cases described - one is about a Canadian (Sebastien Boucher) another about a guy called Michael Arnold on a flight from the Philippines. I didn't find anything about the latters nationality, but from the name it sounds like he might be American. Also the article states that The government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. If that's correct, the phrasing would include US citizens.

    14. Re:No you have a choice. by moankey · · Score: 1

      You forgot C. We keep your laptop.

    15. Re:No you have a choice. by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That may be true, but as far as information goes, there's nothing that you can't get into the country on a laptop hard disk that you couldn't just as easily bring over the internet. Worse, this only applies to people crossing at checkpoints. Mexicans seem to have no problem crossing almost anywhere there ISN'T check point

    16. Re:No you have a choice. by Boronx · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? Torture is already legal.

      --
      Play Command HQ online
    17. Re:No you have a choice. by Frymaster · · Score: 1

      It's called TrueCrypt and is available for Windows, Linux and to some degree for OS X.

      the important thing about truecrypt is the concept of 'deniable encryption' -- that encrypted data is indistinguishable from garbage on disk, and the number of encrypted 'aspects' on a disk are indeterminable. what this means is that you can give up the password to the aspect that contains your collection of chickpea recipes and still keep the password to the apsect that holds your other data to yourself. this is nice since, you know, if you get waterboarded it's nice to have something to tell your inquisitors.

      in the same vein as truecrypt, there is also rubberhose which, according to the site, "deniably encrypts disk data, minimising the effectiveness of warrants, coersive interrogations and other compulsive mechanims, such as U.K RIP legislation". the theory, as the name implies, is that the only way anyone is going to get all the passwords to all the crypted aspects on your disk is by hitting you with the aforementioned length of tubing. rubberhose, however, is still only in alpha and the project appears to be abandoned so it's a 'use at your own risk' kinda deal.

      lastly, of course, there's always steganography -- the art of hiding the data, often in conjunction with crypting it.

      now, if you steg up your precious data, throw it on a deniably crypted filesystem and then write the whole thing to a series of 5" floppies that no border guard is reasonably going to have the equipment to read... well, you should be okay.

      --

      2 1337 4 u!

    18. Re:No you have a choice. by homer_ca · · Score: 2

      That's really the solution. Keep an absolute minimum of working files on the laptop, and keep your files online either on a trusted server or in encrypted archives. It's sad, but if you want minimal hassles with Customs, be prepared to log in to a bare Windows with hardly any files and let them poke around. Don't have anything that looks remotely like encryption software. A zip program with AES encryption and a secure file wipe utility should cover it. You have nothing to be nervous or guilty about. Individuals and businesses have a legitimate right to protect sensitive personal info like financials. However, Customs is given a lot of discretion in searches. You're better off avoiding the hassle to begin with.

    19. Re:No you have a choice. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You can argue all you want but the courts have already said that the constitution, bill of right and everything else in it only apply to citizens unless a law extends it to non-citizens. But certain parts of it automatically apply to noncitizens legally under the authority of the US.

      This means that foreigners visiting lawfully would be covered. Those here illegally or through some detention program are only covered where a law extends that coverage.

    20. Re:No you have a choice. by EatHam · · Score: 1

      If you RTFC, you'll realise it limits the federal government for "the people" not just citizens.
      Good to know. I'll make sure to advise the local officials of that next time I'm in some other country. I will bet they will be very happy to learn that our laws apply everywhere.
    21. Re:No you have a choice. by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Well. It seems I won't be travelling to the US any time soon.

      I wonder if customs officials are allowed to rummage through your luggage (well, of course they are, but bear with me), and when they find your diary, demand you to unlock it and then read it in detail.

      And if they are, is it so everywhere in the world?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    22. Re:No you have a choice. by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      A. You can decrypt the data
      B. You can go back where you came from

      True on both points. But y'know what? here in the UK we're enjoying a deluge of chinese students that used to go to the US before you went all draconian and started assuming everyone was up to no good.
      Now they inject millions into our economy, specifically universities and the towns that service them. You might want to ask some of your University folk what they think about that..

      This sort of behavior reassures the terrorists that they're winning, which they do every time you subject innocent people to suspicion and restrict their movements/rights. In the meantime, those innocent people start thinking they might go elsewhere instead.

      On a more personal note, I had been planning a six month to a year long sabbatical in a couple of years time, and I was going to spend it traveling the US. Now I've switched plans to Australia, with a brief spell in New Zealand.

    23. Re:No you have a choice. by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      the important thing about truecrypt is the concept of 'deniable encryption' -- that encrypted data is indistinguishable from garbage on disk,

      Right up to the moment they use an undelete tool on your laptop and find the formerly uninstalled encryption program on your hard drive....

      now, if you steg up your precious data, throw it on a deniably crypted filesystem and then write the whole thing to a series of 5" floppies that no border guard is reasonably going to have the equipment to read... well, you should be okay.

      Carrying floppy discs? Hello? How many machines use that as standard now, you've got an instant vector to suspicion right there.

      Ok, so you use a cd/dvd. Only they might just wonder why empty discs show physical signs of being written to, as any such disc would.

    24. Re:No you have a choice. by AnomaliesAndrew · · Score: 1

      The first obvious thing that comes to mind is the fact that plain old steganography will likely render this sort of search useless. Not only will they be unable to get the data that you need, but they won't even know you have anything out of the ordinary.

      My only question is... who cares what they bring into the country on a laptop? Whatever it is, it can be brought in much more easily over the internet, or in a UPS box filled with DVD-Rs.

      We all need to buy headgear: the politicians need padded helmets, and we need the variety fashioned out of tin foil.

      --
      Move all sig!
    25. Re:No you have a choice. by LLKrisJ · · Score: 1

      B. You can go back where you came from How about C. Will not even think about going with the current sad state of affairs.

      What the hell is next??? Obligatory body cavity search for _everybody_ trying to enter the country??

      Besides, what good is browsing a computer in the airport??

      1) you cannot possibly search all my files in sufficient time
      2) it's much easier for me to access my 'dangerous-to-the-great-country-of-the-FREE', nefarious and super duper gazillion bits encrypted content from a server I have safely tucked away somewhere... Far from the prying eyes of the customs people
      3) What if a buffoon of customs fucks up my research data or other important data sitting on my hard drive?

      Wake up and smell the coffee, I said it once and I'll say it again. These tactics are just as effective in protecting the US as DRM is in stopping piracy... It's just a nuisance to normal people while terrorists will happily go about their not so merry business.

      The 9-11 hijackers didn't use a hacked copy of Flight Simulator to cause their damage. They used sharp box cutter _metal_ blades which they appear to have gotten through the metal detector just fine. Just goes to show...
    26. Re:No you have a choice. by caseih · · Score: 1

      That entire line of reasoning on their part is really silly. If I had extremely sensitive data that was vital to my own well-being or interests, I would merely transmit it ahead of me to the site where I needed it and not bother to carry it with me in my laptop. Alternatively, leave the encrypted data at home and simply fetch it from a job site. Already I back all of my important documents and data to a site outside the country I reside in.

      Seems to me they want to treat information the same way as they treat tangible goods. The problem with that is, among other things, that the internet makes border control of such goods really really ineffective and stupid.

      Just one more thing that makes me wonder how much longer the United States can be relevant in the world.

    27. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Well. It seems I won't be travelling to the US any time soon.

      I wonder if customs officials are allowed to rummage through your luggage (well, of course they are, but bear with me), and when they find your diary, demand you to unlock it and then read it in detail.

      And if they are, is it so everywhere in the world?

      You pretty much have zero rights in a customs search anywhere in the world. And it's always been that way. The US is hardly unique in this area, and is probably way better than most. I remember getting grilled for over an hour while customs officers dug through every inch of my bags while entering the UK way back in 1987. Including going through some prescription meds to the point of pulling apart some pills.

      So what the sheltered dolts at /. might post or mod up about "Fourth Amendment rights!" or "Get a warrant" is utter bullshit.

    28. Re:No you have a choice. by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      Good to know. I'll make sure to advise the local officials of that next time I'm in some other country. I will bet they will be very happy to learn that our laws apply everywhere.

      No, only where the US has jurisdiction. Like, you know, prisons on the island of Cuba. Or customs at airports.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    29. Re:No you have a choice. by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      You can argue all you want but the courts have already said that the constitution, bill of right and everything else in it only apply to citizens unless a law extends it to non-citizens

      And the founders thought that life terms would leave the Supreme Court immune from political hackery... how wrong they were.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    30. Re:No you have a choice. by apt142 · · Score: 1

      there's nothing that you can't get into the country on a laptop hard disk that you couldn't just as easily bring over the internet.

      That's extremely true. You can also put a lot data on an SD memory card or one of the micro cards. Those things are small enough that hiding them on your person would be a breeze.

      Maybe that's the way to go. Get a laptop with an SD port, and pop the chip out at the border. Reinsert on the other side. In the meantime, it can hide in your pack of gum/cigarettes.
      --
      Star Pirates
    31. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all those constitutional rights taken away you're no longer free, and by taking away income you're going to be poor.

      You're safe from terrorism now.

    32. Re:No you have a choice. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right up to the moment they use an undelete tool on your laptop and find the formerly uninstalled encryption program on your hard drive....


      I think you missed the point... TrueCrypt allows you to hide an encrypted volume in the same filespace as another innocuous encrypted volume. TrueCrypt can also run as a portable app... no registry entries etc; you can run the entire thing off of a USB drive or SD card. Of course, there will still be visible data in the OS's pagefiles....

      The other trick TrueCrypt uses is that it doesn't leave recognizable headers, so you could have 10 truecrypt files with innocuous names hidden within other files, and unless you know they're there, there is no way to identify them. Use a standard TrueCrypt archive and the TrueCrypt software to store your home computer inventory or something similar, and you can show this to anyone who wonders why you've got an encrypted partition on your drive/USB drive.

      Of course, as I mentioned elsewhere, the best way to go about this is to have a multilayer truecrypt drive file named DSCINDEX.TOC and store it on the SD card you keep in your digital camera. Such files are generally treated as junk files, and an examination of the file would make it look like junk... unless you tried to mount it with TrueCrypt after mounting the card on your computer desktop.

      Probably easier just to use TrueCrypt to encrypt your laptop drive at the drive level though, and have two passwords to reveal two different sets of data. That way your pagefile will be encrypted too, and the only way to analyze the sensitive data would be to read the RAM chips with a special device. Of course, an examiner could still accidentally erase your real data while examining the device, which would be a shame.
    33. Re:No you have a choice. by JasonTik · · Score: 2, Informative

      And if you RTFC(onstitution), you will see that the fourth amendment does not use the word citizen. As such, his point is still valid.

    34. Re:No you have a choice. by thefirelane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      is it ok that a citizen loses his rights as soon as he encounters US borders? It seems the 4th amendment ought to protect you against "unreasonable searches and seizures".

      Sorry, but false. Look into Maritime law, that hasn't applied for hundreds of years. You can be stopped and held at gunpoint while your ship is searched. Same thing for entering the country. They also aren't liable for any damage caused, so they can disassemble your boat/car and say "hey, I guess there weren't any drugs, here's your parts back"

    35. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ergo, who the fuck cares, amirite?

      (cunts)

    36. Re:No you have a choice. by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and you pray that they don't find it. I'm pretty sure that if they did, you'd be in for a lot of "scrutiny."

    37. Re:No you have a choice. by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These court cases happened way before the current administration was though about and some were befor they were even born.

      Because they say something you don't agree with doesn't mean that they are wrong or prejudices by politics. It typically means that you are wrong or misguided. Nothing to get upset about, we learn and move on.

    38. Re:No you have a choice. by lionchild · · Score: 1

      I've mixed thoughts on the issue. If we agree that it's okay to look through someones briefcase, and therefore the documents contained therein, why are we upset about electronic forms of it? Think of the contents of your hard drive as paper files, in a file cabinet. There's a much larger volume, but would we expect it to be exempt from search at a boarder crossing?

      Something that does come to mind, are that there are specific software packages that are not allowed to be exported. As a result, there is software that federal law says you can't take outside the country. Should businessmen, or others, be allowed to take such software out of the country, installed on their laptops?

      I think the real problem I have with this...is there shere volume of data that they'll have to sift through, leaving the traveler either waiting forever, or without their laptop. Unlike a briefcase or suitcase, there is only so much to look through before they're satisfied you're not carrying anything with you that's prohibited.

      --
      Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    39. Re:No you have a choice. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      You forgot C. We keep your laptop.

      So when you want to enter the U.S. with a laptop, you better freshen up your knowledge of the C programming language ...
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    40. Re:No you have a choice. by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 1

      Right up to the moment they use an undelete tool on your laptop and find the formerly uninstalled encryption program on your hard drive.... Use ext3. Undeletion is much more difficult due to the way inodes are destroyed. Sure, there are tools that can do it, but only if the filesystem hasn't been touched since deletion. Combine that with an encrypted /home and you're home-free; the 4th and 5th Amendments should protect your passphrase.

      --
      ~ C.
    41. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C. you can have the decoy hard drive in the machine and the real one in your carry on shaving kit, better yet FedEX it to yourself before you got on the plane.

      TSA agents are incredibly stupid. You ca get anything around them if you have an IQ above 89.

    42. Re:No you have a choice. by Niten · · Score: 1

      Right up to the moment they use an undelete tool on your laptop and find the formerly uninstalled encryption program on your hard drive....

      No, you're missing the point. TrueCrypt can provide plausible deniability as to the existence of an encrypted volume even if it's known that you're using TrueCrypt.

    43. Re:No you have a choice. by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      These court cases happened way before the current administration was though about and some were befor they were even born.


      Read my post again. I didn't say a thing about the current administration, because I'm well aware that some of those court rulings are decades old.

      All I'm saying is, the ideal of an educated few who will consider decisions with wisdom and without coercion is an ideal that has been shown demonstrably false. Just because the court says it is so, doesn't make it right.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    44. Re:No you have a choice. by MaoTse · · Score: 1

      > You can go back where you came from

      Hell, you mean ?

    45. Re:No you have a choice. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      C. You can store your data elsewhere, protecting it from notebook theft as well as from the authorities.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    46. Re:No you have a choice. by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It is fact more than a search it is confiscation. The loss of the use of your computer hardware for an extended period. Do your buy a replacement upon the basis that the US government will steal it and never return it or they demand you fly back to the country to pick up the laptop at a greater cost than the laptop.

      Juts another little egotistical power trip for pencil dick thugs, don't like your attitude, your appearance, your accent or your colour, and the dick heads steal your laptop and cost you a couple of thousand dollars.

      So how long before the arse holes wake up about modern phones and their gigabyte storage capacity, and start stealing those to fullfill their petty power trips.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    47. Re:No you have a choice. by kraut · · Score: 1

      C. We'll just keep you in detention for as long as we like.
      D. We can ship you to a random country that owes us favours, and you'll be lucky if you emerge alive in a year or two.

      The joy of globalisation, even torture can be outsourced.

      I haven't found a good way of outsourcing googling for references yet, so you'll have to do it yourself.

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    48. Re:No you have a choice. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well. It seems I won't be travelling to the US any time soon.

      I wonder if customs officials are allowed to rummage through your luggage (well, of course they are, but bear with me), and when they find your diary, demand you to unlock it and then read it in detail.

      And if they are, is it so everywhere in the world?

      The answer to your question is yes, and if there are any countries where Customs does not have that authority, I have never heard of them. So, I guess you won't be travelling anywhere that you need to go through Customs?
      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    49. Re:No you have a choice. by terrymr · · Score: 1

      You can argue all you want but the courts have already said that the constitution, bill of right and everything else in it only apply to citizens unless a law extends it to non-citizens.

      [Citation Needed]

      I don't think the courts have said any such thing.

    50. Re:No you have a choice. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Read my post again. I didn't say a thing about the current administration, because I'm well aware that some of those court rulings are decades old.

      All I'm saying is, the ideal of an educated few who will consider decisions with wisdom and without coercion is an ideal that has been shown demonstrably false. Just because the court says it is so, doesn't make it right.
      Well, despite some of those decades being a complete century or more which shouldn't matter, I still think your wrong.

      I think it is more that after all these years, you or the groups you subscribe to have mistaken the entire situation as hand. In fact, I am saying you are wrong not because a few politicians or justices were wrong, but because they were right years before you. And what I am objection to is this premise that they are manipulated or somehow pressured into making the rulings they have and supported for so many years before you were even born.

      Your disagreement with their position says nothing about the integrity of their positions, character or honor, but it does say loads about your willingness to degrade someone when you are wrong with the attempts at propping your ideals up.
    51. Re:No you have a choice. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      A google search will do you just fine. I don't need to spell it out for you. You will learn more doing the work yourself. Not only will it change the way you think, but it will give you an informed opinion on the subject. Try it.

    52. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah. So just wait until they say, "Inspecting internet packets as they cross the border is no different from inspecting the contents of a hard drive as it crosses the border."

      If the government can define information as contraband like this, then freedom (in the form of speech, privacy, and so forth) is profoundly weakened.

    53. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This sort of thing is not new. The legal theory is that when one encounters the US border, one does not enter a State within the United States immediately. This is because one of the delegated powers to the US (federal) government is foreign relations. A logical understanding is that the States are wrapped in the "cling film" of exclusive federal jurisdiction (Article I section 8 paragraph 17). How thick this "cling film" is in practice is the subject of much jurisprudence.

      A key case for understanding the operation of federalism in the United States is one of the "Insular Cases" known as DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). This case dealt with the subject that asks "Does the Constitution follow the flag?" The following is Justice Harlan's dissent:

      The idea prevails with some-indeed, it found expression in agruments at the bar-that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system [182 U.S. 244, 381] of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions. 'To what purpose,' Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 176, 2 L. ed. 60, 73, 'are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation.' From the above the ruling is clear. The Constitution does NOT follow the flag. This is why there should be following signage in airports, shipping ports and border crossings that states to this effect:

      You are entering an area under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress that is maintained apart from the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)). There exists a diminished expectation of liberty in this area. If you wish to maintain the uninterrupted full exercise of all rights and liberties guaranteed under the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, consider the following:

      1. Do not enter this area.
      2. Use alternate forms of transportation.
    54. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw the niceties.

      E. Death by blunt trauma and dump the body in a drum of concentrated alkali or acid solution until even the bones and precious metals (aqua regia may be necessary) are dissolved. Commiting perfect crimes are the sine qua non of intelligence agencies.

    55. Re:No you have a choice. by terrymr · · Score: 1

      It was you that made the claim, you back it up.

      The argument is kind of backwards really - because the constitution lays out the powers of the government and not the rights of the people. All people are guaranteed equal protection under the law - that seems to prohibit selective application.

    56. Re:No you have a choice. by jtgd · · Score: 0
      B.1 Go back where you came from.

      B.2 Encrypt and transmit your data to a server you can reach from anywhere.

      B.3 Format the laptop's drive and ship it to yourself in the U.S.

      B.4 Return through customs without laptop.

      --
      J
    57. Re:No you have a choice. by Swampash · · Score: 1

      A. You can decrypt the data
      B. You can go back where you came from

      C. The point is moot, because I wouldn't travel to the USA. I wouldn't travel there voluntarily, and I've refused business travel for conferences and tradeshows. It's just not worth the indignities.

      Of course, by "indignities" I mean "possible immediate detention without access to counsel, secret transportation to places and countries unknown, imprisonment, torture, and death".

    58. Re:No you have a choice. by 2short · · Score: 1

      Also point out to them the wonderful virtues of our educational system, that provided you with such fine reading comprehension.

    59. Re:No you have a choice. by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

      It's more like a silicon (semiconductor) curtain. Mexicans and terrorists pass through without any difficulty. Octogenarian females and Teutonic males get the third degree. That's what happens when +86 owns our debt.

      The Fourteenth Amendment is a suicide pact. Dyett v. Turner all the way!

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
    60. Re:No you have a choice. by WNight · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. A judgment that a country can infringe on human rights is a bad one. Anyone who makes that judgment, or follows it, is a bad person.

      It's really that simple. They're human rights. Foreigners are human, so they have human rights.

      If the SC says that when the US constitution forbids the federal government a power, that it doesn't apply if the target if a foreigner, they're both right because they make the law and thoroughly wrong because they intentionally perverted the original meaning.

      The constitution applies to the government, it limits what the government can do. Of course it applies regardless of who the government is dealing with. By making these constitutionally diminishing decisions the SC is removing its moral authority.

      It says loads about you that you're willing to grasp at technicalities instead of admit that a corrupt decision is corrupt. Technically Saddam Hussein was 100% legal in all his action in Iraq but obviously he was a murdering swine. Technically the SC can say whatever they want, and technically they can do so for almost any reason, but that doesn't make them or their reasons less odious.

      People who support the constitutional lies required to let Guantanamo happen are traitors. Call it what you will, but selling out your country is pretty rotten.

    61. Re:No you have a choice. by WNight · · Score: 1

      Or, have your laptop setup to dual boot. Configure it to go to your decoy OS immediately unless you hold down a key during boot.

      Pick an innocuous decoy like Vista that's common, and unable to see/read ext2 or reiserfs partitions. Do just enough browsing in it to make it look lived in, all at disney and fox-news.

      Do your real work in the other OS, storing the files on a partition Windows can't read, if not properly encrypted in a deniable partition ala TrueCrypt.

    62. Re:No you have a choice. by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      Well, first, I don't deal with morals which seems to be what your attempting to impose as human rights. It doesn't matter if it is morally wrong or not, what matters for the purpose of this discussion is that the constitution has been interpreted a certain way and that it has been for years.

      You see, we aren't talking about morally right and wrong, we are talking about the corruption of judicial entities because of political influence. All that I am saying is that it doesn't exist, the person claiming it did is wrong. Now if this country has been morally wrong since it's inception and first legal cases surounding this, that is a different manor entirely. I'm still going to disagree with you on most of it but that isn't what we are talking about. I know your panties are in a bunch and you just got to let go, but do it somewhere where it is relevant.

      People who support the constitutional lies required to let Guantanamo happen are traitors. Call it what you will, but selling out your country is pretty rotten.
      Why because you say so? Well, besides the obvious question of who the fuck do you think you are to make such a statement and believe it, what makes you think your right as apposed to all the people in position dealing with this? Is it some deeply held religious belief or something? Anyways, if you were to stop and wonder why the people put in charge of this stuff has made these decisions years before you poked your head into this world, you would quickly find out that you are on the wrong legal side even if you are morally right. They aren't traitors, think of another catchphrase and maybe people will take you more seriously.
    63. Re:No you have a choice. by WNight · · Score: 1

      Why do I say so? Because I'm obviously smarter than you. Able to connect two related ideas. The USA used to be the country that didn't torture people, now they outsource torture as routine policy. That's pretty much a direct sell-out on the key values being an American used to stand for. If you can't get from there to traitor you need help.

      If you don't think it's traitorous, let me phone in a tip about you. See if water-boarding will change your mind.

    64. Re:No you have a choice. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would doubt your self proclaimed smartness. We did things in the past that is considered torture today. But we weren't talking about torture either were we?

      Here is another question for you before we go any further. Why is it you cannot stay on topic? I mean we were talking about how the judges interpreted the constitution and how this is or isn't a sign of bowing to political pressure and you took it to, The judges, in all their knowledge and study don't know what the founding father were thinking when writing certain parts of the constitution or how to interpret the constitution in that context but miraculously you somehow do and you know this better then all who have had the job before. Now, you are taking that to the point of torture and we somehow are doing something we never have done before and it makes anyone who doesn't agree with you a traitor?

      I thinking that you aren't talking about the United States of America, the same country that got into the revolutionary war with England and sparked a move replicated all around the world. There are tales of threatening soldier with death in exchange for information in the revolutionary war. Treatment of prisoners back then would be considered torture by todays standards. But lets get somewhere closer in time, how about the civil war where prisoners were corralled into a make shift holding area and they had to used their own clothes to make primitive shelters or suffer the elements. Ropes were strung up to create a perimeter inside the prison camp that if cross meant that the prisoner was shot. Not warned, not wrestled down and constrained, not tasored into submission, but shot dead. Torture or not? Lets get a little closer in time, Water boarding as you referred to wasn't outlawed for use in the US until 1968 when there was an outcry revolving around pictures of it in practice that appeared in the Washington Post. Only one other instance before that was noted and it was in 1901 when an army major was court marshaled and sentenced to 10 years hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the philistines, not for information but for fun.

      So tell me, when is this time supposed to have happened that makes you a traitor for not denouncing torture? I mean it is something you have had to of cooked up on your own. I am interested to know?

      I think it is more like you have some fictitious idea implanted into your mind and are wanting to impose it on other people. The US never "originally" stood against torture, what wasn't considered as torture became torture and we started rejecting the idea of it(and rightfully so). but there are a lot of things that are somewhat sketchy that is considered torture. Staying up all night, listening to loud music, going from one temperature extreme to another, which sounds like a northern state college kids weekend is considered torture by todays standards. So where are we supposed to draw the line, were kids gladly participate or where you have some misguided romantic feelings about something that wasn't? I don't agree with water boarding but I don't agree with your ideals and comments even more. This fictitious state that never existed must be a nice place if it ever existed. And until it does, don't call me or anyone else a traitor of it. And then at least we assume we care about that state.

    65. Re:No you have a choice. by WNight · · Score: 1

      Torture/treason doesn't seem like a huge leap from the discussion of the supreme court finding against a strict constitutional reading. It's constitutional ambiguities, like the meaning of 'people', that people use to justify torture.

      As for the history, yes torture has always existed. But in WW2 the USA had a lot of opportunities to torture POWs or kill them like the Japanese and Germans did, but mostly took a higher road. Now torture is specially allowed by order of the president and the government is shipping people overseas to undergo said torture.

      It's not even as if we're talking about battle-field torture where you can say that 1) you'd have shot the guy anyways and 2) he might know something of tactical use. This is plain on-going break-your-mind torture, used on subjects that are hardly high-priority information sources.

      If nothing else, this is a bad precedent because we don't have any grounds to complain when our soldiers get tortured.

      Treason is a word that conjures images of spies handing over nuclear secrets, but I think a weakening of our values is pretty damaging. Considering it's done for political gain, it's a total corrupt sell-out of everyone else...

      It's like the second amendment. It's perfectly clear what's intended. If you want to make an argument that times have changed, consider amending the amendment, don't invent lies about what it means. If the constitution was meant to extend protection only to citizens, it would have used the word 'citizens', and landed immigrants would be on their best behavior. But that's not what it said, because that's not that it meant.

    66. Re:No you have a choice. by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      we are talking about the corruption of judicial entities because of political influence. All that I am saying is that it doesn't exist, the person claiming it did is wrong.

      If you believe that, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. You can't be that naive.

      And for what it's worth, morality can never be removed from a debate. Our morals define our character and it is our character that guides our actions.

      For you to be sitting here making purely legalistic arguments in defense of torture tells me you know you can never win the moral argument, and tells me that deep down in your mind, in the part you don't want to pay attention to, you know you're wrong.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    67. Re:No you have a choice. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I take some issue with your mainline of argument. Mainly that treason can be redefined so easily in that way. You shouldn't get into the habit of defineing treason as something you don't agree with. Would it be treason for people to argue for a 40 hour work week and use that for political gains? It change the values of American quite a bit when it happened in the early 1900s. Would it be treason when a politician supports gays openly because he knows it will get them elected? Because you know about every tom dick and religious harry will claimed it was against their values at some point and time.

      Now, as I said, I don't support torture but todays torture isn't always torture. And my point wasn't that we participated in it in the past as a country as much as it was to show that things we did without thinking it was torture is now considered torture. This so called endorsement of torture isn't torture by the standards we had 40 or 50 years ago. You know, back then when we didn't torture people in WW2. Are you starting to understand now? Same acts years apart and it is torture now?

      your second amendment issue, I have having trouble absorbing it. Are you seriously saying that it was never meant for the citizens to have guns and all interpretation in that way is made up? I mean in the 1930's when they made transporting sawed off shotguns across state lines illegal (one of the first gun control laws in the civilized society), the supreme court said that the interstate commerce clause gave congress the rights to regulate transporting guns across state lines and that didn't abolish second amendment rights to own a gun. So again, this interpretation of the second amendment meaning the government can keep guns only, just like this torture is new to the system.

      If you look, you will find laws in the wild west being challenged about carrying guns in towns. You will also find the courts saying that the second amendment didn't transfer to territories and the not carrying guns didn't impute your right to own a gun. I hope I misunderstood what you were saying. Until this point, I actually agreed with most of it.

    68. Re:No you have a choice. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I have better things to do then oversee your education. However, if you take my advice and do some google searched, you will find everything you need.

      But here is a question for you, a simply logic question, if I said "we the people of the Knights of sumdumass" would you think I was talking about anyone that wasn't a member or a knight of sumdumass? So you could imagine that everything I said after that pertained to What? Now start searching.

    69. Re:No you have a choice. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If you believe that, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. You can't be that naive.
      This is getting old pretty quick. Maybe you do have a bridge and I should look at it because you don't know it is a bridge and think it is just a hill or something.

      However, I don't believe that the courts are bowing to any political pressure. They may lean to an ideal that some political parties support but that would be because they are right and agreeing with the courts more then the other way around. Even when you disagree with it.

      And for what it's worth, morality can never be removed from a debate. Our morals define our character and it is our character that guides our actions.
      No, Morality can be removed from a debate within the context of the debate. You see, when speaking to a set of facts, morality does nothing to the argument when the facts are wrong. It does say something about the character debating and presenting those facts, but it says nothing about the debate. You cannot win by shaming someone into submission. If the debate ends, it doesn't mean you have won just like if someone gets tired of tracing people back on track and stops the debate, it doesn't mean they have lost. Tricks and smoking mirrors don't work in the real world. They might in grade school but I would hope we are way past that.

      For you to be sitting here making purely legalistic arguments in defense of torture tells me you know you can never win the moral argument, and tells me that deep down in your mind, in the part you don't want to pay attention to, you know you're wrong.
      Lol.. See above, think for a while and then go back and read what I have said. Morals don't change the facts. All we are talking about is facts. Nothing being discussed on my side has anything to do with morals because we are talking about facts. Morals may make something more right or more wrong when considering the righteousness of the facts but they do nothing to the facts.

      Lets put this into a perspective a third grader should be able to follow. I am saying there is a dog. People likes dogs. The op was saying that dogs are great then watched one attack a person and now says dogs are mean and evil. What he said had nothing to the effect of what I said, there is a dog and people like dogs. Instead he attempts to turn the morals onto the dog and proclaim that dogs are evil, you can't like them. But the fact was, I didn't say it was up for discusion or debate, I said there is a dog and people like dogs.

      If he wanted to disagree with me, he could have attacked what I said. Maybe a I don't like dogs now. But that wouldn't change anything I said, it would just cause me to refine it in order to exclude him. And it would be true, there is a god, some people like dogs.

      You see, morals don't change anything. I said that his interpretation of the constitution is different then at any time in history by the people trained to interpret it, holding the job of interpreting it and attempting to determine what the founding father really meant. This is still true no matter how bad or evil torture might be. It is true no matter how bad or evil the thought of the constitution only applying to citizens might be. If you have an issue with it, change the thing. But don't claim something already exists and everyone else is too stupid to see it. Morals won't change the validity of that argument at all.
    70. Re:No you have a choice. by WNight · · Score: 1

      Sure, in the past some torture happened. Especially on the battlefield. Yes.

      But torture used to be something we *as a people* didn't do. If you asked people, torture was what happened in German death camps, Japanese POW camps, etc. We made a fairly good effort to, as a team, play above board. Those of ours who tortured were censured for it.

      But now there are specific torture camps where we send non-combatants for years. Even when they aren't our citizens or captured in battle. (Maher Arar, etc)

      More than just a battle-field aberration, or the work of a rogue commander, this is now a direct executive order. Torture is now a USA policy!

      The rest of the world has a slightly lower opinion of us than they did post WW2.

      As for the 2nd amendment, I mean that it clearly says "right to bear arms shall not be infringed". It could say "Recognizing that ponies are kewl, the right to bear arms ..." and not matter. The important clause is "shall not". Anti-gun advocates twist this to try to say that because they don't see a need for a militia that all of a sudden the 'shall not' isn't binding.

      The world changes. Rules need to change too. Sure. But breaking the existing ones to pretend they cover new scenarios is disgusting. If torture is allowable, let's not reread the definition of 'people' to be, people who aren't in our protected class, but let's write a whole new torture amendment spelling out exactly when we think it's justified, not on who. Spell it out, admit it conflicts instead of reinterpreting the old.

      imho, if you play word games with the constitution you're a lying cheat. And a liar who cheats his whole country seems a lot like a traitor.

      Look at it this way. If we'd jumped from 2001/9/11 straight to 2008/01/01 we'd be shocked by the dollar, the world view of the USA, and the big-brother attitude of our country and the legal abuses related. If Dubya had just thrown our money, respect, and right of law away we'd be bloody mad and call him a traitor. So he and a few like him have done it slowly, with lies and doublespeak, and that's not traitorous despite where we are?

      I'm "jumping" topics to Bush here, but that's because he openly lies so much. WMDs, no torture policy, etc. Next to him all the activist SC judges pale, especially because with his signing notes he styles himself above their power anyways.

      So yes, in general lying about the constitution for your own gain rather than admitting what it does say and working for open honest change strikes me as treason. Less flashy than a gunpowder plot, but more damaging in the end. Especially when it comes from people like SC judges and the president who should know better.

    71. Re:No you have a choice. by terrymr · · Score: 1

      We can argue about the language all you like. However most legal experts will tell you that the constitution protects all persons who are in the USA, the only point for debate right now is how much the constitution protects non-us citizens, outside the usa, when acted upon by agents of the us government.

      The main revealed by google searching is the crazies who confuse somebody who hasn't been granted the right to reside in the US with somebody who isn't protected by the constitution.

      I still don't know why you think it's my problem to find the cites to back up your claim. All I asked for was the citation that led to your claim that it's undisputed that the constitution only applies to US Citizens.

    72. Re:No you have a choice. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      We can argue about the language all you like. However most legal experts will tell you that the constitution protects all persons who are in the USA, the only point for debate right now is how much the constitution protects non-us citizens, outside the usa, when acted upon by agents of the us government.
      If you exclude case law and include what people think instead of how it is, then yes you would be correct.

      I still don't know why you think it's my problem to find the cites to back up your claim. All I asked for was the citation that led to your claim that it's undisputed that the constitution only applies to US Citizens.
      Because I can tell you anything and unless you find it for yourself, you won't learn anything. And here is a hint, stay away from blogs and the likes unless your looking for real places to search.

      Also, some of the sources I have require expensive memberships. It is unlikely that you would be able to follow the links through to actually read the article so again, we will be at the I can tell you anything. But a main reason is because I'm not going to put the time in to do the research for something I already know to be true. Your the one not willing to accept what I say so look it up and find out for yourself.

      And BTW, lawyers are compelled to argue by default. They job relies on it. The opinions they state can and often are their opinions which allows them to get work. Taking a lawyers opinion can actually be damaging to you. And example is, I have a friend who was in a car accident where she was the passenger and the driver was drunk as well as the driver of the other car. She broke her hip in 5 places and the costs of recovery and rehab was more then the coverage the driver had with insurance. When she called to check out why her bills weren't being paid, they referred her to the legal department that said the coverage simply ran out. She mentioned something about having to sue to get them paid and they said she would never win and it would be a waist of time and money because the drivers didn't have anything.

      I do work for attorneys so I know a few things about how they think. After about 2 months of no income, medical bills stacking up and her savings shot, she asked to barrow money to keep her utilities on and I found out about this so called "lack of coverage". I referred her to one of the lawyers I work with regularly and and within 2 weeks, she was getting payments for lost income and they were taking care of her medical expenses again, she eventually got her savings she spent on medical expenses back and they ended up settling for a large amount of money in addition to maintaining any medical expenses related to the accident for 17 years after the last treatment. The point is, two different lawyers had two different opinions on the facts. One of them was right and they didn't need to goto court to prove it. So take anything a legal mind tells you with a large gain of consideration to the purpose they might be telling it to you.
  8. No by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I don't they can demand that you provide a key, because that is self-incrimination. However, they can certainly try to decrypt the data themselves. I unfortunately think the government can do searches of your computer equipment. However, I do not believe they can confiscate it. They should be required to take an image and return your data.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:No by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1
      I don't they can demand that you provide a key, because that is self-incrimination

      The article specifically references the issue of the prosecutors demanding the key.

    2. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is the functional point of this when they can't police data retrieved over the net.

    3. Re:No by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      The article specifically references the issue of the prosecutors demanding the key.


      Correct.

      The article also implies that while the defendant was attempting to use his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination to stop having to give the key, they expected the judge to force him to give it since he already gave it willingly to the border patrol agent.

      That is the trick. If you have something encrypted, simply refuse to give them the key, or play dumb....

      BPAgent: What is this 10GB file on your hard drive with the gibberish name?

      You: What file? I don't know what you mean officer.

      BPAgent: THIS one! (points at screen)

      You: Gosh officer, I have no idea what that is. Oh no! Do you think I have a Virus?

      BPAgent: (grumbling) I wouldn't know Sir. Never mind, here is your laptop back, have a nice day.

      You: Why thank you officer! (walks away whistling)

      While they might be able to arrest you for "Interfering in a Police investigation" You can then successfully plead the 5th, and the prosecution will likely have to drop the case. Being unwilling to do something to incriminate yourself is NOT a crime anywhere in the United States, Nor is not knowing what something on your hard drive is. Heck, if ignorance of the contents of PC hard drives was a crime, 99% of the population would have to be locked up!
      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    4. Re:No by knight24k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't they can demand that you provide a key, because that is self-incrimination

      The article specifically references the issue of the prosecutors demanding the key.
      They can demand all they want. Police can also demand that you confess to all the crimes they know you are guilty of as well. That doesn't mean they have the authority to force you to do so. They can't force you to do anything that violates either the 5th or the 4th Amendments.

      Now should they get a warrant from a judge, then matters become a little more shaky. They could argue that the laptop is locked and that you are in contempt by refusing to unlock it for search as ordered by the court the same as they would do for someone refusing to unlock a building or safe, etc. That is where a good encryption software comes in. Unless they can prove that the drive is encrypted, that you know it is encrypted and you are in possession of said keys to decrypt it. They get nowhere.

      Citizens can push this issue since they can't exactly refuse them entry. Visitors legally can do the same, but being refused entry can have ramifications as others have mentioned previously. IMO they are using that last item as a method to coerce disclosure of laptop contents even though they have no legal grounds to demand the same. Normal caveat - IANAL.
    5. Re:No by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Heck, if ignorance of the contents of PC hard drives was a crime, 99% of the population would have to be locked up! Easier just to say 100% of the Windows installs. I'm still saying WTF is this or that dll, and when I look it up it's another MS thing...
      -nB
      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  9. Terrorist intent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I posted about how having to take my laptop out played that whole how would I bomb the whole airport going unnoticed fantasy in my mind. Them actually going through my files might turn that into real intent. Good I am not going to the USA anytime soon.

  10. By that logic... by RandoX · · Score: 1

    Can they inspect every packet that enters (or exits) the US? Does the physical medium have to be in transit?

    1. Re:By that logic... by russ1337 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can they inspect every packet that enters (or exits) the US? Does the physical medium have to be in transit?
      Answer: yes
  11. Huh? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

    We can't examine every container that comes into our ports or every package that gets flown into this country, but we're trying to examine every laptop that crosses our border? Great use of resources folks.

    Besides, if they want to inspect my laptop (I don't actually have one but you get the idea), then I get to inspect their laptop. After all, if they have nothing hide. . .

    I said it before in a posting and I'll say it again: I can remember a time when people would brag about being able to drive from state to state without having to show identification or worry about the government listening in on your phone conversations when comparing our country to the former Soviet Union. But now, it appears we've taken mulitple pages from their playbook and are following their example. Looks like at least parts of a totalitarian state have won out over freedom.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I can remember a time when we wouldn't stand for showing identification period, and were collectively willing as a country to back that up.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkpoint_Charlie#Clay_responds

  12. If you can search a suitcase... by moderatorrater · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You can search a hard drive. Claiming that a hard drive is an extension of your memory is bullshit. If the government can search your suitcase, I see no problem with them searching your hard drive. If you have something you don't want them to find, encrypt it. Hide it. Do something other than leaving it in plain sight of a simple search.

    1. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I tend to store my data in binary on magnetic platters, where it is completely unreadable by humans using plain sight in a simple search.

    2. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article states that they can ask you to decrypt the data.

    3. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      If you have something you don't want them to find, encrypt it. Hide it. Do something other than leaving it in plain sight of a simple search.
      exactly, what self respecting terrorist is going to have their data in plain sight? In this case, you end up searching everyone but the people who would actually be a threat as they know better than to have any of their sensitive data in plain sight.
      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      You can search a hard drive. Claiming that a hard drive is an extension of your memory is bullshit.

      its not BS. my writings are MINE unless I give the gov express permission to read them.

      this is thought-crime and nothing more. what's to say that I'm writing some fiction novel and they read some of it and take it as a 'plot' of some kind?

      once on a 'bad guys list' you NEVER EVER get off.

      this is CLEARLY against the constitution. but that has not stopped this admin one bit in the past ;(

      if you have proof or even just reasonable suspicion I am a bad guy, lets hear your case before you look further. isn't that the basic idea of search/seizure laws? but this just is a dragnet. dragnets are unamerican and unconsitutional!

      it can also be used to intimidate those they want to.

      this whole fucking thing stinks to high heaven.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      As mentioned elsewhere in the discussion, these are customs agents, so they're not looking just for dangerous things, but for anything that you're not allowed to bring into the country for one reason or another, including child pornography (which is the case under dispute).

    6. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      How is that different from you having your writings as a bundle of paper in your suitcase? Everything else you said also applies to searching suitcases. I'm just saying, if you going to complain about searches, complain about all searches, not just the laptop.

    7. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by Professional+Slacker · · Score: 1

      Sorry I butter fingered the moderation there Mr AC. I meant to give you a funny.

      --
      A Free Market requires informed intelligent consumers, such people are rare, we're in trouble.
    8. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      I personally don't agree with you, but I've realised something when debating points like this: both sides can argue about rights until they're blue in the face, but normally there's are two simple question to settle it - Will it really achieve anything useful? If so, will that achievement be worth more than the extra resources expended?

      I quite like to debate about these kind of things (hell, that's why I'm reading stories like this on Slashdot) but realistically I know that none of us are likely to drastically change our opinions about the issue. I'd be interested to hear from those who are on the same side as the parent though (i.e. believe it is within the rights of border controls to search data), and whether they they think that this scheme is really going to get anyone anywhere by doing so.

    9. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by erc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Carroll Doctrine (aka the "automobile exception", aka Carroll v. US) says that although they can seize a locked container in transit, they can't search it without a warrant. If no warrant is forthcoming, they have to return the locked container unsearched - they can't destroy it or confiscate it. There have been plenty of court cases since (California v. Acevedo, US v. Chadwick, US v. Ross, Chambers v. Maroney, et. al.) that have clearly established the rights of "persons" (as opposed to merely "citizens") under the Fourth Amendment. And even though the USSC has said that people crossing into the US have a diminished expectation of privacy and border guards have expanded powers of search and seizure because of the exigent nature of the circumstances surrounding a border crossing (in particular, no probable cause is needed before a search), there still is no support as far as I've been able to find for the warrantless search of a locked container absent any sort of either probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. It follows that the government can search my hard drive without a warrant at a border crossing, but what happens when they happen across that TOPSECRET encrypted folder?

      It's going to interesting the first time one of these cases reaches the USSC. What happens if I encrypt my data with AES 256 (certified for TOP SECRET data), I get stopped at the border, and I refuse to give up my encryption key? Since I'm a citizen, they can't deny me entry, they can't hold me until I give up my key, and they can't decrypt the data. An interesting situation. As a former police officer, I know how I'd handle the situation without breaking the law and without holding the subject in jail, but I doubt that most DHS folks would have that much creative imagination.

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    10. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      wait until they can scan your thoughts. Then you'll be telling us how easy it just "not to think of it"

      I mean, gee, what fool would think of something illegal while undergoing "a simple search"? (like, say, showing positive emotion toward the wrong political party) /asswipe

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    11. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      they should NEVER look at papers, either.

      when was the last time a piece of paper, with ANY writing on it, took down a plane?

      invasion of my writings is NOT any kind of security check that I can understand.

      let them search for weapons - that is reasonable. but looking THRU my laptop? no, that's completely off limits.

      child porn? oh please. don't give me that 'think of the children' shit. that's quite tired and we all know its just a power grab for authorities.

      again, there is nothing in the constitution that allows ANYONE to search me unless they have reasonable suspicion. and just simply wanting to travel is NOT reasonable suspicion.

      unreasonable search. for papers. this new 'interpretation' makes zero sense to me. my life is NOT yours to rummage thru just because I'm flying somewhere. no, you don't have the right to search my ideas, my writings and maybe even my dreams. for 'security'? oh please!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    12. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      once on a 'bad guys list' you NEVER EVER get off. Sadly true. If ever I meet the asshole who used to live in Oakland that I am mixed up with, I'm going to kick his ass.

      The only time I've ever been asked to turn on a notebook computer at customs (I wasn't carrying the battery, so it wasn't going to work) they took one look at the keyboard and told me to never mind.

      I was treated as a criminal for the crime of not separating a notebook computer from the bag I was carrying it in. Ah well, I've not made that mistake again and haven't been bothered (wrt computers) since then.

      It always irritates me when I go into a mall with my wife and the armed security guard waves me through while her purse is carefully examined. Boneheaded security knows no national boundaries.
    13. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      where do you live?? they are searching bags at SHOPPING MALLS? I've not seen THAT. in fact, I'd never go to that mall again if someone wanted to search my bags at a SHOPPING CENTER. wow.

      the only run-in I had with airport security is when I was visiting a friend in germany and I bought a car amplifier there (high end and cheaper there). to bring it back, I disassembled the main pc board and wrapped it in my clothes. I just didn't want to pay duty on it so I separated the pc board from its main casing and I was going to tell them 'it needed repairing' ;) that was my story and I was going to stick to it. well, their scanner picked up my car audio amp board and they freaked a little. pulled me aside and had me open my laptop, run some 'wipee' over it and scan the wipee. sheesh! "he has car audio parts on him - don't let him get away!". yeah...

      I don't think I'll do that again.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    14. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      they are searching bags at SHOPPING MALLS? With wanding, etc. etc. I live in the Philippines and there is a terrorist problem there. The Glorietta mall in metro Manila was successfully bombed a couple months ago.
  13. new laptops too? by rossdee · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are they going to check all the new laptops shipped from China too? Theres probably spyware, malware etc on their hard drives Anyway its gpoing to mean long lines at the security checkpoints at airports as federal employees check out business travellers pron colledtions.

  14. Hand over your corporate laptop :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I will hand over mine :) I work for Microsoft (Seriously) let them fight the battle, thats not my job :)

    1. Re:Hand over your corporate laptop :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed ... if this ever happens to me I'll hand over the work laptop as instructed, tell my employer about it, and then - seeing as how I'm not able to do any real work without said laptop - head on home and have myself a nice little unplanned vacation.

  15. Ha, ha, ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contents of my_home_video.avi:

    Secret terrorist plans to make all Americans remove their shoes at airports follows. Use your private key to decode. 1010110101001010110101000010101010...

  16. A better analogy... by kebes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Rummaging through a computer's hard drive, the government says, is no different from looking through a suitcase. Wouldn't a more apt analogy be "can border security read all the paper documents a person is carrying?" Is it legal for border security to open every binder of notes, and open every letter on your person, including medical records, bank statements, things marked "private" or "confidential" or "top secret"?

    I think the answer is: no, that's not allowed. They are allowed to search in order to satisfy themselves that it is a book/document and not something nefarious (bomb, contraband, etc.)... but beyond that they cannot go rummaging through any data you happen to be carrying on your person.

    By analogy, I would expect that physically inspecting a laptop (to make sure it's not hiding anything nefarious) is okay, but I can't think of a legitimate reason to start scanning through the data on it.
    1. Re:A better analogy... by peragrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      curious are they going to search every MP3 player, every Thumb drive, every floppy disc, or cd that enter's the country?

      If I wanted to get information beyond the border without It being noticed, a partitioned MP3 player HD hiding an encrypted volume.

      The MP3 player plays just fine, but only a physical search by a trained IT person would even notice that something was wrong. especially if I "upgraded" an old 20gb model with a 40 or 80 gb hard drive, and partitioned it in such a way as to leave 20gb for the player, and the rest was hidden from view, unless inserted into another computer.

      I just thought of that reading these responses.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:A better analogy... by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      What about a microSD card? Those things are so tiny you could easily hide 2GB of storage inside a watch, button, or anything with even a little bit of space inside it.

      Trying to have security guards like TSA trying to stop "illegal data" from leaving the country is bound to fail.

      The only reason to have TSA look at the data on a laptop is to get around the 4th amendment rights.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    3. Re:A better analogy... by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      If your carrying something labeled "top secret" across the border it has better be properly package and have your courier card with you. If you don't they can do a lot more than just read it.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    4. Re:A better analogy... by harl · · Score: 1

      Is it legal for border security to open every binder of notes, and open every letter on your person, including medical records, bank statements, things marked "private" or "confidential" or "top secret"? Seriously? So I can just write private the outside of my bag and they can't open it? Why are smugglers going through elaborate routes then? Throw some contra-band in a box label it confidential and walk on through the front door?

      Labeling something "confidential" is functionally identical as labeling it "bumper".

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    5. Re:A better analogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the answer is: no, that's not allowed. They are allowed to search in order to satisfy themselves that it is a book/document and not something nefarious (bomb, contraband, etc.)... but beyond that they cannot go rummaging through any data you happen to be carrying on your person.
      Ya sure about that, sport?
    6. Re:A better analogy... by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 1

      If I wanted to get information beyond the border without It being noticed, a partitioned MP3 player HD hiding an encrypted volume.
      It is the job of Customs agents to consider the possibility of smuggling, and finding a secret compartment of any kind will certainly attract attention even if it's only full of your traveler's checks. And we who aren't smugglers don't need to give either the smugglers nor Customs agents any suggestions on how to do their jobs; they both already know more about their work than we do.
    7. Re:A better analogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whether or not it is legal, they do photocopy documents and copy flashdrives if they feel like it. you can either go along with it or they can get nastier (they are already nasty, rude, and unprofessional) ... and I'm a US citizen.

    8. Re:A better analogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just encrypt your nefarious stuff and upload it to something like http://www.xdrive.com/ and then download it when you're wherever you intend to do your evil deeds?

    9. Re:A better analogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't a more apt analogy be "can border security read all the paper documents a person is carrying?" Is it legal for border security to open every binder of notes, and open every letter on your person, including medical records, bank statements, things marked "private" or "confidential" or "top secret"?

      I think the answer is: no, that's not allowed.

      You would be wrong. US Customs has the authority to examine everything that enters the USA. If it is contraband, they can seize it or levy a fine. Other countries have similar rules.

      The only things that US Customs does not have the authority to examine are things that are legally privileged under US law, such as letters to your lawyer, or diplomatic pouches.

      A better question is why US Customs is wasting their time looking at laptops when over 95% of shipping containers entering the USA are not inspected at all.

      If you're a terrorist trying to get a bomb into the USA just send it Fedex. Probably easier.

    10. Re:A better analogy... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      I think the answer is: no, that's not allowed. They are allowed to search in order to satisfy themselves that it is a book/document and not something nefarious (bomb, contraband, etc.)... but beyond that they cannot go rummaging through any data you happen to be carrying on your person.

      Obviously UANAL. I'm not either, but this isn't the FBI/DOJ searching, this is the Customs service (part of the treasury department). They are pretty much allowed to do everything short of a body-cavity search with no probable cause. And probable cause can be "he was acting nervous and his answers sounded suspicious".

      The primary purpose is to search for any kind of contraband, not just stuff that's completely banned. Apart from terrorist documents, this can include undeclared items on which duty is owed, pr0n that offends the community standards (of which the kiddies would be a sub-set), agricultural products that may be infested with vermin, items pirated or counterfeited (that Gucci handbag you picked up at the flea market in Paris, as well as the DVDs from Shanghai) and weapons. The original intent of this was to ensure that the government got its cut, but the scope was expanded when items like drugs and weapons started to get banned in the US.

      From the court's perspective, opening a computer's HD is analogous to opening a chest full of documents, photos and videos and viewing every one. The level of privacy invaded by scanning a HD is no greater than opening and viewing a collection of love-letters, and they were already allowed to do that. Don't get your hopes up this will be overturned.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    11. Re:A better analogy... by forestbrooke · · Score: 1

      What are they worried about inside the laptop? child porn? blueprints/keys to nuke sites? huh, the border guys haven't heard of the internet yet? What can someone bring in a laptop to US that the same person cannot upload it to some site and offload it to his/anyone's PC once he is inside? Then a better idea would be to isolate the US network infrastructure from the rest of the world! hmmm...

    12. Re:A better analogy... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Truecrypt can do stenography inside of a Truecrypt volume. Hide your data encrypted, and show them the dummy data that you keep in the envelope volume.

      Your idea has the advantage that they might not notice. A hidden Truecrypt volume has the advantage that there is no publicized method of even knowing it exists(there is a good chance that there is no way to know that it exists, but you can't prove a negative).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:A better analogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I wanted to get information beyond the border without It being noticed, a partitioned MP3 player HD hiding an encrypted volume.


      I would just use that fancy electric internet...
  17. 4th Amendment by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess if they're going to ignore the 4th Amendment when it comes to suitcases, they might as well ignore it when it comes to laptops. After all, who is to say what it means for "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,"

    1. Re:4th Amendment by mathimus1863 · · Score: 1

      I don't think the 4th amendment applies to crossing international border crossings.

    2. Re:4th Amendment by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      After all, who is to say what it means for "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,"


      The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Unfortunately, the average person isn't too vigilant, so freedoms deteriorate until a few people with a clue get really pissed off and fight to get them returned.
    3. Re:4th Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 4th amendment prevents only "unreasonable" searches, and since Border Searches have a long history (explicitly authorized by the first Congress in 1789, and implicitly authorized by Article I Section 8 as part of collecting duties), they have been upheld as reasonable in every relevant Supreme Court case.

    4. Re:4th Amendment by umbrellasd · · Score: 1

      I don't know why they can't just ask us to check our brains at the door for inspection before allowing them into the country. What's more dangerous? A hunk of silicon, or a really pissed software engineer with the know-how to crack systems and F shit up?

    5. Re:4th Amendment by Myopic · · Score: 1

      who is to say what it means for "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,"

      The Supreme Court, traditionally; and in fact there is tons of case law on exactly that issue.

    6. Re:4th Amendment by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      And hence why we need to do why people commit crimes, instead of trying to outright prevent them through any means necessary. I mean, for example, if we truly wanted to prevent pick pockets from stealing, we could simply mandate all people born have their hands surgically removed at birth.

  18. I'm holding this airplane hostage with excel! by pwnies · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Except that software doesn't pose a "threat to national security" if it's transfered on an airplane. Sure they may say that "We want to keep hacker software and naughty viruses out!", which is ginger and all, but there's this one new thing, maybe you've heard of it TSA - called the internet. So really I have to ask why do they need to search peoples hard drives? The people could easily just leave their data at home or on a remote server and transfer it to their laptops once they land.

    On the subject of encrypted data, here's an interesting question, what if the user doesn't have the key (e.g. a messenger)? Do they have to delete that data? And how do they know it's entirely deleted? Do they run Nuke and Boot on the user's hard drive?

    It seems to me this is just a classic case of political "Lets make laws on things that we don't understand and scare us".

    1. Re:I'm holding this airplane hostage with excel! by UltraMathMan · · Score: 1

      This brings up another interesting point; if traveling by air even if such "nefarious" programs were removed, with airlines beginning to offer in-flight internet access, the offending party could (ostensibly) simply redownload said program. I don't even want to know what happens when the see you running Linux.

      --
      Registered Linux User #423733
  19. Just how stupid do you have to be... by sholden · · Score: 1

    To carry a laptop across the border with child porn on it...

    But there's more, how retarded do you have to be to encrypt it and then give the passphrase to decrypt to the customs agent when he asks...

  20. It's tricky by hibiki_r · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A laptop can be used to carry contraband. Pirated software. Nuclear secrets. What makes it different from opening a suitcase?

    There's a few things that make it different. First, by opening a suitcase and performing a cursory inspection, an official doesn't read every notebook and letter the traveler is carrying. A customs official that takes a computer for inspection can do all kinds of unreasonable things to it, and there's little that can be done about it. There's also the problem of figuring out what is illegal: Should a traveler prove that every mp3 he is carrying was ripped legally? Should we have to carry the licenses of all commercial software? It'd be crazy.

    And finally, there's the fact that anyone smuggling software will just get an internet connection and send it across through the wire.

    1. Re:It's tricky by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      A laptop can be used to carry contraband. Pirated software. Nuclear secrets. What makes it different from opening a suitcase?

      What makes it different, is that it's virtually impossible to search. A hidden compartment inside a suitcase is pretty risky for a smuggler. But if I format a drive with a well-known filesystem (e.g. FAT) and then store contraband inside the "free space," or just put it inside an innocuous-looking /usr/bin/foo, and encrypt it, you can't even tell that it's there. Anyone smuggling nuclear secrets (not sure why we'd worry about someone bringing that in rather than out -- looks like we have to inspect people who are exiting the country too), assuming they take some rather trivial (relative to the payoff) precautions, is going to get by. Inspection is only going to catch the incredibly, incredibly lazy.

      To stop really it, you'd have to assume you understand everyone's filesystem, and write zeros to all their-seemingly unallocated storage (so now you've prevented the smuggling, even if you have failed to detect it). Then you have to inspect all allocated storage to verify that it is what it appears to be. Anything you don't understand, you have to zero-out. You just spent several weeks of a very-highly-qualified computer inspector's time. And you did it for every single storage device. It's impossible. It makes a lot more sense to just ban all digital storage.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    2. Re:It's tricky by richlv · · Score: 1

      Anything you don't understand, you have to zero-out.

      now this doesn't seem to fall into "inspection". inspecting/messing with personal belongings seems to be one and accepted case, but modifying them...
      "hey, i have never seen anything before that looks like this weird thing with letters SD on it. i'd better hammer it. twice."
      --
      Rich
  21. What are they looking for? by Scotman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is "illegal" on a laptop that comes into the country? I can understand stuff like plans for a bomb or correspondence with a terrorist group. But that has to be an extreme. So what else are they looking for?

    1. Re:What are they looking for? by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      What is "illegal" on a laptop that comes into the country? I can understand stuff like plans for a bomb or correspondence with a terrorist group. But that has to be an extreme. So what else are they looking for?
      I dunno, but I bet you'd grab their attention with a desktop wallpaper of "TSA LICKS BALLS",

      Or, if you plan well enough ahead of time, a picture of the TSA officers wife.

      Or just travel with an old broken laptop and when he asks you to boot it, ask the guy to fix it first. - "but officer, I'm taking it to Best Buy for repair!?"
    2. Re:What are they looking for? by RingDev · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or just travel with an old broken laptop and when he asks you to boot it, ask the guy to fix it first. - "but officer, I'm taking it to Best Buy for repair!?" I find traveling with sex toys in your carry on is a great way to get searches to end quickly.

      -Rick
      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    3. Re:What are they looking for? by Xinef+Jyinaer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Better yet, if you need to keep them from snooping around on it, just unhook the mobo from the PSU.

      --
      Some days I just get bored and Troll post all the memes I can think of...
    4. Re:What are they looking for? by berashith · · Score: 1

      I thought that plans for a bomb and correspondence with a group were both legal, unless the bomb plans were actually still classified. Possessing and using information are completely different, and until 6 years ago possession was not a crime. Gathering the information and linking it to the person carrying it would be evidence gathering more suitable to police or the FBI, not the TSA.

    5. Re:What are they looking for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I was this close on buying a ticket just to bring my less than 30 days old brand new and broken laptop to the BestBuy fuckers.

    6. Re:What are they looking for? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Better yet, if you need to keep them from snooping around on it, just unhook the mobo from the PSU.

      So let me get this straight.

      Your suggestion is to go through security in an airport with a laptop which has been intentionally sabotaged such that it cannot be turned on without a screwdriver.

      So when they say "Can you switch this on please, sir", you're going to have to either refuse or ask for a screwdriver (because I strongly doubt you'll be allowed to carry one).

      That sounds like an extremely good way to have your laptop confiscated and destroyed in a controlled explosion, and for you to spend some years in prison.

    7. Re:What are they looking for? by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      I thought about that: putting a broken, crashed hard drive into the laptop, but it just ends up more of a hassle. Where do you stash the working drive? What if they confiscate the drive or the whole laptop? Better hope there wasn't sensitive data on the drive before because you can't wiped a crashed drive. OTOH, nobody's gonna do an expensive forensic recovery on Joe Schmo's laptop drive.

    8. Re:What are they looking for? by interlingua.ro · · Score: 1

      Actually that is the surefire way to get your laptop confiscated. If it doesn't boot up, it stays there for 'further research'.

    9. Re:What are they looking for? by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      I never thought I'd wish this on another human, but . . . I wonder if a strategically placed Goatse pic might do the same for laptop searches?

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    10. Re:What are they looking for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious? If yes, then this is a great way, really...

    11. Re:What are they looking for? by SevenDigitUID · · Score: 1

      I was going to mod you insightful or informative, but some jerks already topped you off with funny. This works very well. I've heard several former TSA guys tell stories about looking at something on the xray screen, not being able to figure out what it was, calling over a supervisor and realizing it was nipple clamps or a creatively shaped vibrator. As soon as they realized what they were looking at, the pushed the bag on through as fast as they could.

    12. Re:What are they looking for? by RingDev · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? If yes, then this is a great way, really... I don't travel as much as I used to, but this was quite effective back in 2001-2003 time frame. It started off as one of those 'if they're going to go through my stuff' rants, turned into a bar room dare, and eventually was put into practice.

      A few things I noticed:
      1) the female inspector I had to deal with on one occasion was very flustered about the ordeal. After finding the first item she started blushing and was doing everything she could to get me out of there (the screening table was just off to the side of the line, so if any of the boarding passengers looked over they would have seen her holding the... instrument...)
      2) the male inspector I had to with on another occasion said that he thought I was carrying the stuff just to try to embarrass him. I assured him that I was a swinger on my way to a wild party of decadence. Unfortunately though, he was right, I was just doing it to screw with him (and to cash in on a $25 bar bet).
      3) I would recommend not bringing any toys in excess of 24" as they could be used as a bludgeoning weapon.
      4) I would also recommend not bringing up any threats of choke hazards. Those TSA guards are damn picky, and one poorly timed joke will guaranty a missed flight. I almost got stranded in MN once because I disagreed with a TSA guard about the ability to use the clip on my wallet's chain (not the chain itself, the clip) as a weapon.

      -Rick
      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    13. Re:What are they looking for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a nice little script that if you don't log in with the correct password, any time you try to open a pic you get goatse/tubgirl and any video you try to open is 2 girls 1 cup? I mean, it's not like they will be opening your files with external hardware, they will be using your OS....

    14. Re:What are they looking for? by dido · · Score: 1

      This happened to me the last time I visited the United States. Apparently, they're looking for child pornography. So they started rifling through all of my files, specifically at my stash of (legal) pornography. They specifically looked for image files and movie files. They didn't seem to care that my laptop was loaded with stuff that could potentially be in violation of some copyright somewhere. This took them a long time, and it nearly made me miss my flight to my final destination. Sheesh, after that ordeal I'd rather not go back to the United States ever again if I can help it. What an absolutely pointless exercise. Looking for terrorist correspondence would be an even more pointless exercise.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    15. Re:What are they looking for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I almost got stranded in MN once

      Well you could always take those toys into the bathroom and tap your foot on the floor...

    16. Re:What are they looking for? by Xinef+Jyinaer · · Score: 1
      I really don't advise that you say, "oh yea I sabotaged it so you wouldn't be able to turn it on and find out what I've got on it."

      That sounds like an extremely good way to have your laptop confiscated and destroyed in a controlled explosion, and for you to spend some years in prison. Prison time? Because your laptop wouldn't turn on? They might taze you for but I doubt a judge would convict someone for having their psu not connected to their mobo in their laptop while passing through airport security...
      --
      Some days I just get bored and Troll post all the memes I can think of...
    17. Re:What are they looking for? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Prison time? Because your laptop wouldn't turn on?

      My knowledge of the judicial system in this area is approximately nil, so I hope you'll forgive the wild speculation.

      But I imagine that if you pissed off security enough, they would charge you for something connected with "causing a terror alert" (if such a crime exists - I'd be astonished if that or something similar didn't). The fact that all you did was disconnect your laptop mobo from the PSU is neither here nor there, it's that anyone who'd flown before could reasonably have predicted that attempting to get through security with a lump of grey plastic which looks like a laptop but has been intentionally disabled would be likely to cause a security problem.

    18. Re:What are they looking for? by KillaBeave · · Score: 1

      I find traveling with sex toys in your carry on is a great way to get searches to end quickly.

      With the important caveat that said luggage isn't borrowed from your new in-laws that failed to tell you that they last used the luggage to carry FIREWORKS up from Tennessee. That makes for a long search no matter what's in the case ... even if you're departing on your honeymoon.
  22. Lessons by Thansal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "There are all sorts of lessons in these cases. One is that the border seems be a privacy-free zone. A second is that encryption programs work. A third is that you should keep your password to yourself. And the most important is that you should leave your laptop at home."

    Don't forget the one about not being a pedo, I mean, I know, it isn't that obvious, but still, just in case you didn't catch it, don't be a damn pedo.

    Honestly, I am not sure how I feel about boarder inspections. Yes, they are important to some degree (it IS illegal to traffic in certain things). However, they should also have a good REASON to search you.

    If we accept them doing random stops and searches (I honestly don't know how I feel about this), or if they have good reason to stop and search you, then I have no problem with them searching your laptop as well. They obviously should not keep records of ANYTHING found in there (unless breaking a specific law), however searching a laptop when you are already searching the person/car for somethign that likely could be found on the laptop? why not?

    All in all, I dono. It seems a slippery slope problem, but it also seems relatively reasonable (Again, assuming there is a good reason for the search in the first place)

    --
    Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
  23. Re:Sounds about right by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

    Apart from carrying a toothbrush around what do you excel at?

    --
    No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  24. Eunuchs only by peipas · · Score: 1

    Not a bad job to get to be a screener going through a homesick businessman's girlfriend/wife pics.

  25. New plan for border agents... by soulsteal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Folder on desktop named "Kiddie pics?" Check.

    Thousands of JPGs within? Check.

    All JPGs are hello.jpg? Checkmate.

    1. Re:New plan for border agents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better: all JPGs are tubgirl.

    2. Re:New plan for border agents... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      Damn, no mod points today :-)

    3. Re:New plan for border agents... by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Folder on desktop named "Kiddie pics?" Check.

      After they see the "kiddie pics" folder, you get segregated. Now sit on your ass for a couple hours while they call a higher level agent to OPEN the folder.

      "Thousands of JPGs within? Check."

      Sit through another couple of hours of interrogation, trying to get you to reveal what's in the folder. Then they call a computer forensics "expert" to analyze the files.

      "All JPGs are hello.jpg? Checkmate"

      They spend another few hours trying to determine if the Goatse Guy is under 16. Then they call in a higher level computer forensics "expert" to analyze the files for steganography.

      By that time, you may as well BE the Goatse Guy - you are about as fucked as you are ever going to get.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    4. Re:New plan for border agents... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reasonable suspicion that person has explored the possibility of hiding something up his anus? Check.

      Rubber glove? Check.

      Any way to refuse? Checkmate.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:New plan for border agents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traveling to the US from Mexico City? Check. Drank the water? Check. Waiting to cross the border for two hours withholding the intense diarrhea? Checkmate!

  26. How I do it... by WED+Fan · · Score: 5, Funny

    I encode all my dangerous stuff with everyday words and string them into mundane sentances disguised as personal communication.

    There, everything you need to construct your own death star is in the line above. Oh, and some extra information is hidden in this line about exhaust ports. Damn, I just realized, my encoding for "exhaust ports" renders as "exhaust ports". Well, back to the drawing board.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:How I do it... by netruner · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry about the exhaust ports - anything they would use in a large scale assault would never be in position to target them. Besides, think of all the labor, parts and rework expense that can be avoided by leaving them as they are.

      --



      DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    2. Re:How I do it... by apt142 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It'd cost you parts (box of nails and some chicken wire) and labor (1 extremely under-paid mech droid).

      If you skipped lunch, you could probably pay for it.

      --
      Star Pirates
    3. Re:How I do it... by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damn, I just realized, my encoding for "exhaust ports" renders as "exhaust ports".

      Welcome to the future: ROT-26 encryption. Too bad most Slashdot lamers are still using their old PGP keys.

    4. Re:How I do it... by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      The exhaust port problem can be fixed tomorrow, if money is no object.

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    5. Re:How I do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I encode all my dangerous stuff with everyday words and string them into mundane sentances disguised as personal communication.

      You shouldn't have to resort to this deception when doing nothing wrong..

      I think its better if terrorists blow up a few thousand people than 300 million citizens live without freedom and privacy for the rest of their lives.

  27. HALT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to nazi amerika.

    Have your papers and items ready to be inspected.

    Please step ahead to the next checkpoint.

    Have a nice day. (but not too nice or we'll suspect you of something)

  28. encrypt and hide by blueskies · · Score: 1

    They only know to ask for your decryption key if they can find data they think is encrypted.

    Then you can have things like hardware keys and password keys. And you could have a rsa key on the internet, so you need all three to decrypt.

    1. Re:encrypt and hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or even better. Just encrypt and put your files on the internet. This is just getting outrageous, if its in digital format and they want to smuggle it, why not just upload it to the internet and download it when you get in the states.

  29. Bypass howto by V!NCENT · · Score: 0

    Just install Linux/*BSD/etc, encrypt your HDD with PGP and create John Doe user acount with it's own home folder... *They boot up your laptop* "What's your username and password, sir?" *Give login name and password for John Doe user* "Ok... you're free to go" Eeeeeeaaaaassssssssyyyyyyyyyyyyy

    --
    Here be signatures
    1. Re:Bypass howto by coats · · Score: 1

      with it's own home folder
      in its own partition, and leave the real and encrypted home partition unmounted.

      Easy to change /etc/fstab after you get there...

      --fwiw

      --
      "My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
  30. Do They Inspect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Senators, government officials and so forth upon their return from overseas? How about the throngs of staff members that accompany them? How about their family members? Would they subject these people to the embarrassment of having their computers searched and if anything is found, being arrested on site no ifs, ands or buts. Probably not because they are our trusted government officials who could do no wrong overseas. ;)

  31. And the purpose is..? by eebra82 · · Score: 1

    If the purpose is to prevent illegal/dangerous files from getting into the country, who exactly do they think they can catch? Have they heard of the internet and how easy it is to transfer files from one user to another - anonymously?

    --
    Full Tilt
    1. Re:And the purpose is..? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Well in fairness: if the customs agent is asking: "do you have child pornography on your laptop" and you say "maybe", then they have a reason to search. (Both of these condition apply in the case discussed in the article.) So in this particular case, I can't find fault with their actions. However in general I think there should have to be a reasonable suspicion before they search a laptop.

  32. Let the Godwins fly... by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

    Taking all bets on the number of Godwins folks...

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Let the Godwins fly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking all bets on the number of Godwins folks... Shut up you fucking Nazi.
  33. I guess they don't like tourism revenue by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After all, they keep giving us foreigners more and more reasons to avoid the US and spend our money elsewhere.

    --
    It's official. Most of you are morons.
  34. Dumb criminals... by faloi · · Score: 1

    The bottom line from the story seems to be that the government is within their rights to giver a cursory examination to laptops and other electronic media. If you're dumb enough to put illegal files in a location that's quick and easy to get to, you're going to get busted. If you run an OS that the agents are familiar with, you're more likely to get busted. I'd bet your average customs/TSA agent that was faced with a Linux laptop would double click on a few things on the desktop and send you on your way.

    An interesting question that comes out of all this regards passwords and encryption keys. If your right to not disclose encryption keys is upheld, I would think you'd have a right to not disclose a password to log-in to your box under the same Fifth Amendment arguments.

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
  35. an even worse scenero by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    what if they had a device installed that emitted e.m.p or some other electromagnetic destruction of data from disks and usb memsticks, and people would only find out later that all their harddrives & USB memory sticks wiped clean...

    not sure if this would work on CD/DVD roms though...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:an even worse scenero by jdjbuffalo · · Score: 1

      Something like mandatory EMP destruction of all harddrives and memory sticks would cause rioting on the borders and likely within the borders too. That is something that would piss off almost everyone and no government in their right mind would do something so asinine (even China).

      --
      We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
    2. Re:an even worse scenero by riggah · · Score: 1

      What motivation would they have to do that?

      What sort of legal precedent would allow them to arbitrarily wipe HDs and such? There isn't, as far as I know, while searching a laptop (in the way that they search a bag) is legal.

      Everyone is up in arms about this, but have any of you ever actually been picked out by a Customs official? They can do almost *anything* they want as long as they follow procedural guidelines. I moved to Guam at one point in my life. I packed as much as I could into a few suitcases and arrived at Guam Customs at about 1am. Around 4am they were satisfied with their search after taking apart things like water filters, looking through packets of papers, etc. Perhaps I don't know my rights in regards to border security, but a Customs Official's "probable cause" is much, much different than a police officer or non-federal law enforcement official.

      Is it wrong? Possibly. Have we allowed it without complaint for decades? Yes. Is it a case of "they're not doing it to me so what do I have to worry about?" Yes. I just think it's funny that they can strip search anyone for any undisclosed reason and no one complains, but as soon as a laptop is mentioned they are completely out of control.

      Also... I'm fairly certain that the technology you describe already exists.

    3. Re:an even worse scenero by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that'll work out well. It only takes one major lawsuit to put an end to physical destruction of peoples goods.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
  36. Four words: by Dan+East · · Score: 2, Funny

    thumb drive
    encryption
    orifice

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Four words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're just going to sit there with your thumb up your ass, then.

  37. Time for some external drives... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

    Oh sure, you can go through my laptop. And here're my other drives. 5TB of random characters. Enjoy!

  38. Not about rights, but rather usefulness by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can see the court's argument, and I suppose it really isn't any different, since you're crossing a border. But what's the point? I've heard there's actually a big network that extends internationally outside the United States (an "inter-net" if you will) that makes data transfers into the US without physical hard disks fairly easy. If this is truly the case, wouldn't anything "contraband" be sent via that? (I mean, assuming it's not too difficult to get an account on this network.)

    1. Re:Not about rights, but rather usefulness by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      A big part of police work is to quickly process all the crimes commited by stupid people. There are plenty of crimes committed by intelligent people too, but you are in a better position to catch these if you can catch the stupid criminals with just a small amount of your resources.

      That said - the point of us having a police force is for them to protect our rights, if we need to give up our rights for them to do their work, then they are useless.

    2. Re:Not about rights, but rather usefulness by Linknoid · · Score: 1

      But NSA and other such agencies can monitor information travelling over the internet a lot easier than they can monitor the contents of a hard drive crossing the border. This would kind of close that loophole.

    3. Re:Not about rights, but rather usefulness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > assuming it's not too difficult to get an account on this network
      We at Comcast are already working on it.

  39. Just create a dummy account? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't think you'd need to encrypt anything. Your laptop won't be on when they begin their inspection, right? So add another account that you fully cooperate with them with that has access to nothing, and maybe has some default pictures and stuff for them to browse around with. Configure login script to fix whatever they screw up on that account on each login. Log into *that* one for them to do their probing. They won't have any way of knowing it isn't your main account. Heck, make that a nice self-healing account that friends can use. Bonus!

    If you assume somewhat more sophisticated inspectors, you may want to put what can be construed as nefarious software (nmap, tcpdump, nessus, kismet, etc) in a more secure than normal place.

    Now, if you expect the thing to be confiscated, that is a different story.

    1. Re:Just create a dummy account? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That could get you in a lot more trouble than just letting them see your real account. Granted, it is really easy to fool these people. It is not like they are college educated. You just need to set-up a login screen that does not show the accounts (easy to do with Gnome and KDE). But God help you if they find out what you did. The reason they are searching laptops is to look for suspicious activity that resembles behavior of a terrorist or spy. What you just described is exactly that.

    2. Re:Just create a dummy account? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      tcpdump is now nefarious software? uh oh.

    3. Re:Just create a dummy account? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Your laptop won't be on when they begin their inspection, right? So add another account that you fully cooperate with them with that has access to nothing

      That's another question... you may be required to let them search your hard drive, but are you required to help them do so? They can search my computer all they want, but I'm not giving them my password.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Just create a dummy account? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      I don't own a windows box. Linux boxes all boot runlevel 3. I don't like using a DM. Putting 'startx' in the login script wouldn't be too bad, I guess. How are they going to see any other accounts on my pretty framebuffer screen? I don't let *friends* use my own login, I certainly am not about to let strangers take control of it. There's nothing terrifying about logging in on my restricted account and saying "here you go, have at it.". I'm more afraid of them fucking up legitimate stuff than I am of them finding something implicating me as being a spy or terrorist. Why make that easy, or even possible?

    5. Re:Just create a dummy account? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      I said "can be construed as nefarious". Remember, some people think lite brites are bombs and shut down cities when they see them hanging on a building...

    6. Re:Just create a dummy account? by Niten · · Score: 1

      tcpdump is now nefarious software? uh oh.

      In that case all of us Mac users are screwed; every single copy of OS X comes with tcpdump.

    7. Re:Just create a dummy account? by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Your laptop won't be on when they begin their inspection, right? Except, of course, if you hate closing down what you do and starting up everything anew whenever you need to move ... so you use hibernate regularly instead of shutdown. You can make the hibernate ask you for your account password, but I don't think you can make it have you log into a different account.

      On the whole, it looks like TrueCrypt is the way to go (and TrueCrypt partitions can be made to be unmounted at hibernation time).
  40. Try this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In stories like this, replace every occurence of USA or America with Iran and see if you still agree.

  41. one workaround by rritterson · · Score: 1

    If you are concerned about your privacy, then only keep the base OS on the installed hard drive, and carry your personal documents and information on a flash drive, preferrably concealed as a pen, thermos bottom, etc (they've become quite common and cheap these days). Another option is using something like an iPod, which most people would assume can only play music, and can't be used as a disk.

    Of course, this is just security by obscurity, because I'm sure customs could easily force you to turn over your flash drive too, but it's something.

    --
    -Ryan
    AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
    1. Re:one workaround by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Store your sensitive information in a truecrypt volume on your camera's SD card. Name the truecrypt volume DSCINDEX.TOC if you want a bit more security. In order for anyone to find the data, they'd have to:

      1. remove your SD card from your digital camera and stick it in a computer,
      2. notice that you have a 2GB index file,
      3. recognize (somehow) that it is a truecrypt volume,
      4. get you to enter the password that opens the hidden volume instead of the default innocuous volume.

    2. Re:one workaround by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      If you are concerned about your privacy, then only keep the base OS on the installed hard drive, and carry your personal documents and information on a flash drive, preferrably concealed as a pen, thermos bottom, etc (they've become quite common and cheap these days).

      Geez, you'd almost guarantee yourself a strip search.

      If they get the sense that you have some electronics concealed (they x-ray you, remember?) and that you're deliberately hiding things from them ... they're going to get really thorough with their next set of questioning and what else they want to look inside, which may not be so pleasant.

      Having stuff hidden in such a way as to appear you intended to smuggle it would probably get you an ass fondling and some serious interrogation. You'd look more guilty than not.

      Me? When I travel by air, I make sure my carry on xrays as having books, and light fluffy things like clothes that couldn't possibly be dangerous. Being evasive or surly with security personnel nowadays isn't likely to do you any good.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  42. What government would do if they could by alextheseal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a perfect example of the government tipping their hand. Every time they say, trust us with your privacy, think back to what they do when they have no constrains.

  43. Johnny Mnemonic by mattr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Finally a plausible reason why JM is conceivable.

    1. Re:Johnny Mnemonic by boris111 · · Score: 1

      80 Gigs just doesn't cut it anymore these days.

  44. No, it's worse than that by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, it's not "opening a sealed envelope". Envelopes can contain toxic chemicals, weapons, etc. Computers only hold information. The difference is that they're now policing thought.

    1. Re:No, it's worse than that by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Envelopes can contain toxic chemicals, weapons, etc. Computers only hold information.

      Hmm...
      Taken from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/science/toxic-tech.html

      If you have [an LCD monitor, it] contains phosphor, as well as mercury, a heavy metal that can damage the brain.

      There's lead in the keyboard, toxic flame retardants and antimony in the circuit boards, cadmium in the battery and the chips, all wrapped up in a casing of plastic that will release more deadly substances - furans and dioxins - when it's burned. I'm surprised customs hasn't taken this approach to confiscating technology yet.
    2. Re:No, it's worse than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Computers only hold information"

      'Only' hold information?

    3. Re:No, it's worse than that by wrf3 · · Score: 1

      The difference is that they're now policing thought.

      Now? Hate crimes legislation was a precursor to this.

    4. Re:No, it's worse than that by turing_m · · Score: 1

      Exactly... if you think that computers only hold information you should try prying off the keys of a keyboard and giving it a clean sometime.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    5. Re:No, it's worse than that by maxume · · Score: 1

      If you buy me a computer, any computer, I bet I can put toxic chemicals or a weapon in it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:No, it's worse than that by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Exactly... if you think that computers only hold information you should try prying off the keys of a keyboard and giving it a clean sometime. OK, wise guy. They hold information, hair, and coffee.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    7. Re:No, it's worse than that by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Sure, but they're not searching the hard drive to find things stuffed under the keyboard.

  45. Company Computers and NDA's?? by Foofoobar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can they ask to see the contents of a company laptop? If that information is proprietary you have every right to deny them access as an employee or face legal liability for showing others that information. Arguably, they have no right to a laptop that isn't yours or viewing information that you do not have the right to show them; they would need to get a release from the company in order to view that data.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by Lieutenant_Dan · · Score: 1

      Can they ask to see the contents of a company laptop?

      Sure, they can. Any proper company would have some policy or guidelines in regards travelling with company hardware. If they know you're going to Iran or China, they may say that you're not permitted. If they allow you, it's because they are willing to assume all risks that go along having such device under the laws of a foreign country.

      We have a policy: don't take our gear outside the country. If they insist, have their VP or director sign off. If the data becomes compromised you will feel the heavy hand of legal affairs (fired, criminally charged and sued for damages). 99.999% then decide not to take the notebook. Only one arrogant fool decided to take his notebook outside the country (to France, where one has to divulge your private encryption key is requested).

      --
      Wearing pants should always be optional.
    2. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

      This potentially falls within the borders of our own country however so therefore your argument is nul and void since airports and screening agents are at every US aiport and this will eventually mean that every screening agent has the right to inspect any laptop they want. Confidential information such as medical data, lawyers notes, diaries, etc are all now publicly inspected violating your civil liberties as a US citizen.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      More to the point, what if you are a foreign civil servant and your laptop contains government information for a foreign power? Sounds like an international incident waiting to happen.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by Foofoobar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oooh... good point. In some case the old 'diplomatic immunity' would get you through those checkpoints but other workers would not be so lucky. Yeah this is stupd in so many ways. We are just descending into a Hitler-esque nightmare (aka George Bush wet dream) more and more.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    5. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can they ask to see the contents of a company laptop? If that information is proprietary you have every right to deny them access as an employee or face legal liability for showing others that information.

      The US Customs agency is operating under the mandate that they can detain you and/or inspect you arbitrarily, and that you have no legal recourse against it.

      You used to be able to say "I withdraw my petition to enter your country" and they'd just basically ship you back. Now, they don't really care. Gonzales basically gave them a legal opinion that says you, as a foreign national, have no legal protections or expectation of privacy. I'm not sure of the specifics, but at one point, they said "we can do anything we like".

      Arguably, they have no right to a laptop that isn't yours or viewing information that you do not have the right to show them; they would need to get a release from the company in order to view that data.

      Refusing to give them the information on the grounds of a NDA will mean nothing to them. They'll jail you if they want to. They are not bound by your NDA, and they can compel you to answer whatever they ask or open what they request.

      I wouldn't be willing to try to stand behind an NDA with my company at a US border -- but then again, I don't plan on presenting myself to one any more. Over the last few years, I have decided that there really isn't a compelling enough reason to travel to the US. The level of draconian crap and complete loss of rights which can ensue is just not worth the exposure or the risk.

      It gets echoed a lot here on Slashdot, but an awful lot of people simply will not travel to the US again.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

      Well I'm mainly speaking as a US citizen stuck in the gulag. Nturally they are going to do whatever they fell like with foreigners (deplorable) but when they start doing it to their own citizens, that's grounds for civil war since our civil liberties and protections and rights provided to us by our own government are being retracted by our own government without justifiable reason or our consent.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    7. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Can they ask to see the contents of a company laptop? If that information is proprietary you have every right to deny them access as an employee or face legal liability for showing others that information.
      Not at all. Law **ALWAYS** trumps company policies.
    8. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Gonzales basically gave them a legal opinion that says you, as a foreign national, have no legal protections or expectation of privacy. I'm not sure of the specifics, but at one point, they said "we can do anything we like".
      Gonzales is **NOT** the law. Only the law decides that, not Gonzales.
    9. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by Gat0r30y · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work in the hard drive industry and end up traveling to China quite a bit. We have to take our gear (laptop, scope, everything down to pens and pencils and paper). While customs is a pain in the ass (it took me 6 months to get my scope back), its much less expensive than dropping 80 G's to buy a new scope + laptop for me while I'm there. Luckily, there is a really simple way to avoid any issues with giving up sensitive data, leave it all on the company intranet, while the customs officials/border folks might have a legitimate interest in seeing whats on my hard drive, they certainly have no business making me SSL into a private network.

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    10. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by Tom · · Score: 1

      It gets echoed a lot here on Slashdot, but an awful lot of people simply will not travel to the US again. But not enough to make those people re-think. Heck, I've turned down an invitation to speak in front of a bunch of oil companies top-execs. You'd think the current administration would listen if they complain that people don't want to visit them. No, I guess they didn't have too many troubles finding someone else.

      But the number of people putting the US on their personal "do not go there" list is increasing rapidly, at least from what I hear all around. Maybe a few years down the road it'll start to hurt. You know, as usual, when the damage is done and all that.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    11. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by AIkill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have to agree with you on this in terms of US Customs. But, personally, I think that in the end, US Customs will be baned from searching laptops that are owned by a corporation.

      My reasoning:

      If customs starts searching corporate laptops, they naturally will be able to view data that the corporation will most likely want to keep secret. Additionally, in some cases, the corporate agent will have to reveal the password and encryption key for the laptop and data, which would let the customs agent know what kind and what pattern of security the corporation uses. Finally, the delays caused by the searching of the data on the laptop could cause problems for the corporate agent.

      In the end, the corporation will get ticked of and try and get their lobbyists to make it so that searches of that nature cannot be done to corporations. After all, its the corporations that usually provide the campaign funds for the various government offices, so what the corporations want, the corporations get.

      --
      Angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night- Ginsber
    12. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gonzales is **NOT** the law. Only the law decides that, not Gonzales.

      Oh, we all know that.

      However, that hasn't stopped Bush et al from doing things which are illegal but that they have a legal opinion that it is legal. The distinction is, in practice, apparently irrelevant in terms of what the White House does.

      I mean ... suspension of Habeus Corpus; saying that White House staff doesn't need to respond to a congressional subpoena due to "executive privilege"; sending Whitehouse e-mail from Republican Party e-mail addresses; kidnapping foreign nationals in foreign countries; extra-ordinary renditions (ie torture) to a third country; performing warrantless wiretaps and then shielding the phone companies who helped you do it from court cases ... all of these things are illegal and haven't been decided upon by 'the law'. It hasn't stopped it from happening. Let's face it, Congress isn't holding them to account for doing it. The law sure isn't coming along to set them right.

      There's all sorts of things the administration is doing that are based off their opinion that what they're doing is legal. To date, the actual legality of any of this stuff hasn't been established, nor has that stopped them.

      Bush seems to believe that whatever he decides to do under his powers as a "war time president" is fully covered by executive privilege and that nobody has recourse to stop him. What's your law doing about that? From outside, I'd say not a damned thing.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    13. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by djrok212 · · Score: 1

      You mean loss of privacy similar to having cctv cameras following you everywhere you go?

    14. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by hoppo · · Score: 1

      If you invoke an NDA, Customs will simply bar entry to the item in question. Just because they're not likely to throw you in jail for refusing to comply doesn't mean they have to let you in with your laptop either.

      I fail to see anything illegal or unconstitutional with this policy. As stewards of our security, this government reserves the right to know about anything that crosses its borders. Where Customs is involved, they are acting in the interests of our economic security, keeping contraband that is potentially harmful to us economically out of our nation.

      But (there's always a but) one has to question the practicality of this endeavor. It would seem to me that the cost to society, through invasion of privacy and general inconvenience, greatly outweighs any benefit we may realize. Plus there is an opportunity cost involved with searching a laptop -- whatever Customs agent is given this task could invariably be doing something much more productive with that time.

      Perhaps once information becomes the sole asset remaining in this country, we'd have a change of heart, but right now it just seems like annoyingly senseless policy.

    15. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by syrinje · · Score: 1
      Many road-warriors I know have no administrative access to their company issue laptops - this effectively puts them at risk at a border checkpoint as they will be unable to "open" folders/files restricted to them by the local security policy.

      Guess it's time to refuse business travel!

      --
      See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
    16. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by telso · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You used to be able to say "I withdraw my petition to enter your country" and they'd just basically ship you back.Now, they don't really care.
      This actually gives you a good reason to travel to the US through Canada. From the Preclearance Act (which is summarised on some signs in Canadian airport preclearance areas):

      10. (1) Every traveller has the right, at any stage of the preclearance process, to leave a preclearance area without departing for the United States, unless a preclearance officer informs the traveller that the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the traveller has committed an offence under section 33 or 34. [These sections say you can't lie to or obstruct a preclearance officer in the execution of the officer's duties.]
      There are many other protections the act gives, including that if you're detained you must be transferred to a Canadian officer or released if asked, that the US government is not immune from liability, and protection of personal information, among other things. And once you're through customs, they still can't do anything more to you, until you arrive in US airspace (or, more likely, land), after which you, I would assume, have the protections of the US Constitution. IANAL.
    17. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by kraut · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I've seen plenty of legal opinions on slashdot, where the average user is about as legally qualified as Gonzalez, stating that sharing your music collections is a basic human right. ;)

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    18. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by lhorn · · Score: 1

      Sharing your music is ok.
      Sharing OTHER PEOPLES music should be ok,
      but there is money to be had for denying you this -
      and this money like laws that deny your right to share our common culture.
      Many people in most countries want something done about this,
      so work with them for new laws before
      you cannot play your music for your friends in your own house.

      --
      accept no limits but time
  46. they can stick theyre hand up your butt by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they can stick theyre hand up your butt, why would you be worried about your laptop. your laptop won't cry in the shower to boy george after it's violating probing.

    1. Re:they can stick theyre hand up your butt by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's the argument being presented by the EFF. They can't arbitrarily put their hands up peoples' butts, but they can if they have to have a reasonable suspicion that they'll find something. The defense argues that searching a computer is analogous to putting a hand up ones butt.

  47. I want to visit the US less and less every day by Piata · · Score: 1

    Considering my laptop would be the most expensive item I could bring with me on a trip, just the mere thought of them confiscating it and all the data I have on it (which is easily worth more than the cost of the laptop to me) is terrifying. I'm sure this doesn't happen often, but they better have a damn good reason to take away something that valuable. i.e. more than circumstantial evidence.

    1. Re:I want to visit the US less and less every day by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      just the mere thought of them confiscating it and all the data I have on it (which is easily worth more than the cost of the laptop to me) is terrifying

      Data worth more than your hardware? Time to invest in some redundant backups...

  48. Welcome to AmeriKKKa by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    I saw this coming the day 9/11 happened. We're all now guilty until proven innocent "in this post 9/11 world". Welcome to AmeriKKKa, home of the rich, land of the have's. Why do it for the children when you can do it "to stop terrorism!!!!".

    1. Re:Welcome to AmeriKKKa by operagost · · Score: 1

      And thank you for your totally useless comment that adds no insights or information to this discussion.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  49. summy: borders are 'privacy FREE zones' by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    There are all sorts of lessons in these cases. One is that the border seems be a privacy-free zone. A second is that encryption programs work. A third is that you should keep your password to yourself. And the most important is that you should leave your laptop at home.

    I don't understand why crossing some border means I have to give up more rights than at other times.

    why? can someone explain why I have to have my personal life examined in such detail because I want to stand 'over there' for a little bit and then return?

    I just don't get it.

    one thing that worries me the most - there is no way you can know if they MODIFIED your drives! added spyware. whatever.

    so now you'll have to md5 your whole filesystem and assume its been tampered with if anyone has 'intercepted' your lappie.

    great. might as well just leave the thing home. just like they say.

    in fact, I'll just not travel. yeah, that's better.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:summy: borders are 'privacy FREE zones' by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "one thing that worries me the most - there is no way you can know if they MODIFIED your drives! added spyware. whatever."

      Ugh. That's a very good point. If I were a paranoid country, I would sneak phonehome-ware onto each and every laptop that entered my borders. And with the sophisticated rootkits etc. now available, how would the average geek spot it, let alone the average non-geek??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  50. Notice body searches need the same suspicion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The laptop searches are annoying but relatively easily avoided by wiping them before going through customs and downloading the stuff you need after transiting the border,
    or where poor internet access makes this difficult, hiding the data where a cursory inspection won't find it.
    However, the article mentions that the customs officials can do body searches (presumably this includes body cavity searches) with "reasonable suspicion". This is a lot harder to avoid. If you fit the wrong profile or piss off the wrong agent, its body cavity search for you. At the level of "reasonable suspicion", it isn't hard to make up some excuse that will cover you.

    1. Re:Notice body searches need the same suspicion by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      If you fit the wrong profile or piss off the wrong agent, its body cavity search for you
      Maybe you can put them off by moaning and screaming :P
      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  51. Of course they can. by dameron · · Score: 1

    They can stick their hand inside your ass.

    It'll be hard to argue that the contents of your laptop deserve any more protection than your back hole.

    Lesson here: don't store your hard drive in your ass.

    I think it's silly, since they'd only catch the most idiotic of terrorists/criminals who, for some reason, must carry their incriminating data on them physically.

  52. yet another reason not to visit the states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    keep em coming...

  53. Porn, of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Title 19, 1305:

    All persons are prohibited from importing into the United States
    from any foreign country [ ..treasonous material, or.. ] any obscene book, pamphlet, paper,
    writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing, or other
    representation, figure, or image on or of paper or other material, or
    any cast, instrument, or other article which is obscene or immoral.

    There you go.

    1. Re:Porn, of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obscenity and morality have very subjective definitions. So who's definition do we go by? My definition? The individual border-guard's? The government's?

  54. so what's next... by vajaradakini · · Score: 1

    Are they going to have the right to read my diary if I travel through the US?

    I mean, I keep things that are just as personal on my computer.

    --
    what's that now?
  55. truecrypt provides plausible deniability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truecrypt provides encryption, hidden volume-in-a-volume and plausible deniability. Oh, it's free and win/nux multiplatform, too.

  56. Unreasonable search and seizure? by Nomen+Publicus · · Score: 1
    I don't understand how searching everybody can be reasonable. If there was a high percentage of successful searches that disclosed illegal materials there may be some argument in favour. However, there are vanishingly few cases where examining a laptop shows that it is really a bomb or contains plans for blowing up some damn dam.

    But then, of the billions of shoes examined over the past few years, exactly NONE turned out to contain a bomb. So, one has to wonder why the policy continues.

    If you really want to worry, consider that the average human can carry at least a quarter pound of C4 + a detonator internally...

  57. Dual Password Encryption? by Symbolis · · Score: 1

    I thought TrueCrypt had this capability, at least on encrypted "containers".

    Basically, if you put in password1, you get one set of data decrypted(and shown). If you put in password2, you get a completely different set of data.

    Seems like a good way to get past these issues...assuming I'm remembering right. ;)
  58. Do this instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Encrypt your data.
    2) Use the "Tubes" to transfer your data to a server in America.
    3) Datascrub the harddrive and then reinstall the OS.
    4) Let them search it at the border.
    5) Once you are in, re-download your encrypted data (and delete it from the hosting server).

    Alternatively, you can:

    1) Set up an SSH server on your box at home, being careful to lock everything else down (and to keep your data encrypted).
    2) Carry your datascrubbed laptop across the border.
    3) Connect to your foreign computer and download your encrypted data.
    4) Send a remote command to shut down your foreign computer.

    Simple!

    1. Re:Do this instead by smitty97 · · Score: 1

      You forgot...

      5) ????
      6) Profit!

      --
      mod me funny
    2. Re:Do this instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4) Send a remote commando to nuke your computer. It is the only way to be sure.

    3. Re:Do this instead by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      1) Encrypt your data.

      Use an encryption method which produces things like "first post", "Imagine a beowulf cluster", "In Soviet Russia" etc.

      2) Use the "Tubes" to transfer your data to a server in America.

      For example, Slashdot.

      5) Once you are in, re-download your encrypted data (and delete it from the hosting server).


      Ok, that one is a problem with Slashdot ... OTOH your data will get moderated down quite quickly, which is just as good (if not better).

      SCNR

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  59. Terminal A? by delire · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a heavy terminal user I long since lost interest in running a desktop environment. This has become a problem when I travel internationally, something I do very often.

    On two separate occassions I've been asked to boot my machine. On both occassions the security officials became quite disturbed when they saw a text only boot sequence. One asked me to turn the machine off immediately and after 30 minutes I was able to explain what was on my computer in a way they liked. The second incident was worse. Once my laptop had come out of suspend-to-RAM the security guy demanded "Log into your computer please". On seeing a single maximised xterm he became nervous. He held me until an official came down from upstairs, who promptly laughed warmly and said "It's unix. It's OK".

    I know a couple of other people that have been in very similar situations.

    These days I have a session manager such that I can boot into a clean GNOME desktop should such a situation arise, complete with soothing coastal background image.

    The rationale for having me boot my computer apparently was that it may be a bomb, not that my contents might be suspicious. The logic of having me sit in front of them and power on a bomb just to find out if it is, in fact, a bomb still escapes me to this day. Nearly as bizarre as the giant liquids disposal vat at security check: "Please mix your bomb ingredients in this packed airport instead of on the plane. Thankyou."

    1. Re:Terminal A? by archont · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn. If I, for whatever reason, will be forced to visit the US, I'll make a custom boot sequence on my laptop. It'd go something like this: Primer.. Green PETN charge (50g).. Green VX gas pressure.. Green Anti-tampering.. Green Along with a hollywood-stylized bomb counter with some arabic text and a password box "Type password to deactivate". If I wouldn't die from being tasered I'd probably die from laughter.

    2. Re:Terminal A? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rationale for having me boot my computer apparently was that it may be a bomb, not that my contents might be suspicious. The logic of having me sit in front of them and power on a bomb just to find out if it is, in fact, a bomb still escapes me to this day. Or, maybe they are worried about a stripped down computer, no motherboard or internals except a bomb. Or maybe a gun or two. No way to "power it up" as it would show nothing on screen.

      Asking you to boot it up is simply a check that it is, in fact, a computer.

      I personally can attest to this check being done since before 9/11. They didn't make us log in back then, but that might be newer since it's easier now to just plug in a hacked up video ipod to replay a logon on screen.

      I imagine the text screen looked to them like a Hollywood bomb getting ready to blow. A fun way to get security to shit themselves.
    3. Re:Terminal A? by harl · · Score: 1

      The logic of having me sit in front of them and power on a bomb just to find out if it is, in fact, a bomb still escapes me to this day. Nearly as bizarre as the giant liquids disposal vat at security check: "Please mix your bomb ingredients in this packed airport instead of on the plane. Thankyou." The reason is that the liquid ban is security theater. They don't expect someone to use liquid explosives. The whole idea is fairly comical. They put the ban in place to make people feel better. Also they can claim we stopped 125,000 prohibited objects last ^timeunit. Then people say, "Wow the TSA is protecting us." However if 0 of those items were bombs that someone was going to use to take out a plane then what did they really do?
      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    4. Re:Terminal A? by harl · · Score: 1

      he rationale for having me boot my computer apparently was that it may be a bomb, not that my contents might be suspicious. The logic of having me sit in front of them and power on a bomb just to find out if it is, in fact, a bomb still escapes me to this day. This is rather simple. If the bomb went off in customs it would kill less than on a plane.
      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    5. Re:Terminal A? by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Funny
      The rationale for having me boot my computer apparently was that it may be a bomb, not that my contents might be suspicious. The logic of having me sit in front of them and power on a bomb just to find out if it is, in fact, a bomb still escapes me to this day.

      Simple. If your computer switches on and acts as a computer should, then it's clearly not a bomb. There is absolutely no way to replace the hard drive with a miniature solid-state device running a basic OS install, and the battery with a much smaller one sacrificing battery life for extra room, and use the space saved for a big lump of Semtex to be triggered by echo detonate > /dev/bomb. This is entirely impossible. Which is fortunate, because otherwise they'd have to ban laptops on flights, and that would upset the rich.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:Terminal A? by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      he rationale for having me boot my computer apparently was that it may be a bomb, not that my contents might be suspicious. The logic of having me sit in front of them and power on a bomb just to find out if it is, in fact, a bomb still escapes me to this day. This is rather simple. If the bomb went off in customs it would kill less than on a plane. Have you seen some of the lineups at airports lately??
      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
    7. Re:Terminal A? by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      That is laughably stupid. Why would a terrorist make a bombed laptop explode on boot, among zillions other trigger methods?

    8. Re:Terminal A? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason is that the liquid ban is security theater. They don't expect someone to use liquid explosives. Philippine Airlines Flight 434

      The bomb was, or at least all of its components were, designed to slip through airport security checks undetected. The explosive used was liquid nitroglycerin, which was disguised as a bottle of contact lens fluid. Other ingredients included glycerin, nitrate, sulfuric acid, and minute concentrations of nitrobenzene, silver azide (silver trinitride), and liquid acetone. The wires he used were hidden in the heel of his shoe. At that time, metal detectors used in airports did not go down far enough to detect anything there.

      (The plane landed safely, due to a misplacement of the bomb, the fuel tank was in a different possition in that model of the 747)
    9. Re:Terminal A? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your whole security theatre discussion - but note that it doesn't have to be a bomb to put the aircraft at risk - or even a firearm. 9/11 was apparently accomplished with just box cutters. Of course, the reinforced cockpit doors help alot with that situation.

    10. Re:Terminal A? by Altus · · Score: 1


      Trivially easy to get around though. If you wanted to smuggle a laptop bomb onto a plane you would simply take a big ass Dell Desktop replacement laptop and gut it. then you put in some very simple, small electronics that would give you enough of an illusion of being a fully functional laptop. The smallest mother board you can find (speed and advanced functionality not required. The hard drive could be replaced with a bit of flash memory, just enough to boot a small OS and put something pretty on the screen. No need for a big battery either. The rest of the case you just pack full of explosives.

      It never seemed like a very good test to me... especially since everyone knows about it.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    11. Re:Terminal A? by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      There is plenty of space inside a regular laptop for placing a bomb though. A PCMCIA slot filled with C4 could already do plenty of damage at the right spot.

      The boot test isn't going to do anything to stop a terrorist. Hell, it's gonna look perfectly safe to the cops since it boots to a cleanly installed Windows Vista, and the cops would easily recognize that as "safe". While the guy who installed Linux in his laptop and actually has useful business to do within the borders is gonna get detained.

    12. Re:Terminal A? by harl · · Score: 1

      Yes I have.

      Look at the kill count from your average person based suicide bombing in a crowded area. They're significantly less than the number of people on any flight I've been on in the last few years. Any of the really big kill counts were with vehicle based bombs.

      For example look at the Bhutto killing. That was a packed crowd, literally shoulder to shoulder, with the bomber in the crowd and it only killed 20 people.

      Where as with a plane everyone on it is dying. Even the turbo prop region jets I ride on carry 60ish.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    13. Re:Terminal A? by imsabbel · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you can afford a plane ticket crossing borders, you can afford a laptop.
      Great way of making yourself look like a retard with that last sentence.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    14. Re:Terminal A? by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      Schiphol airport: I am required to answer a whole range of questions that I packed my bag alone, I didn't take anything from a stranger, etc. etc. Then, since I was carrying a backpack, I am required to leave it in the big, open, rack with backpacks, standing next to the check-in area until the final check-in time. Who can assure me that some person after me doesn't slip anything in my backpack when I'm going through the customs? It's out of my sight and reachable by anyone!

      If you want to be secure, ok, do it, but then do it good. Don't come to us with these bogus security checks that are just here to make life generally crap and generate fear among us. Oh, wait, that is what these checks were for in the first place, we should be scared for the "terrorists" that want to take our freedom.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    15. Re:Terminal A? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd just stick some semtex in the removable drive bay. Computer would still boot up normally. Semtex is horribly powerful stuff, so a small amount would be enough to down a plane. A true geek would get it to explode upon a certain ATAPI or SATA command sequence being supplied to the drive. I bet there's a lot of other nasties you could fit in the size of a laptop optical drive.

      Note I'm not Irish, so I'm not completely au fait with explosives. Maybe you need a certain amount of semtex before it works.

    16. Re:Terminal A? by Trashman · · Score: 1

      Please start a project for this on Sourgeforge! I'll gladly run this....

      --
      Do not read this .sig
    17. Re:Terminal A? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      >The rationale for having me boot my computer apparently was that it may be a bomb, not that my contents might be suspicious. The logic of having me sit in front of them and power on a bomb just to find out if it is, in fact, a bomb still escapes me to this day.

      Do you remember that old Daffy Duck cartoon where he's checking ammunition by hitting it with a hammer and if it doesn't go off, he writes 'dud' on it? Maybe you've just discovered why the TSA is hiring so many people and advertising at local community colleges for job applicants.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    18. Re:Terminal A? by harl · · Score: 1

      I think that link makes my point.

      It detenated 1 row in front of the fuel tank. It failed to compromise the fuselage. It only killed the person sitting on it.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    19. Re:Terminal A? by harl · · Score: 1

      What's your point?

      As long as we keep letting people on planes there will be a risk that said people will try and eventually take down the plane.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    20. Re:Terminal A? by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 1

      > While the guy who installed Linux in his laptop and actually has useful business to do within the borders is gonna get detained Which means he won't be on the plane when it explodes. See, the gov't does care

    21. Re:Terminal A? by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 1

      Bomb fatality is all about energy, and people are really good at absorbing energy. Bombs lose a good chunk of their after a few layers of "meat based shielding".

    22. Re:Terminal A? by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      If your computer switches on and acts as a computer should, then it's clearly not a bomb. There is absolutely no way to replace the hard drive with a miniature solid-state device running a basic OS install, and the battery with a much smaller one sacrificing battery life for extra room, and use the space saved for a big lump of Semtex to be triggered by echo detonate

      Actually, a fair number of laptops come with removable modules for floppy, DVD, and battery. Removing the floppy unit and replacing with another battery is an easy way to double your 'unplugged' time. Removing the floppy unit and replacing with an explosive in the the remaining space is also trivial, also leaving you with a fully functional laptop. No need for any special command codes sent over the OS - simply remove fake "floppy" drive and real battery, and push the 20v, high amp battery terminals against the explosive. Heck, there's usually enough inert space for PCMCIA/PCCard slots to get quite a mess.

    23. Re:Terminal A? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that link makes my point.
      It detenated 1 row in front of the fuel tank. It failed to compromise the fuselage. It only killed the person sitting on it. Except the experts think it would've destroyed the aircraft had the terrorist realized that plane was different and booked the correct seat on top of the fuel tank. Think about that for a moment.

      Besides, what's to stop two terrorists from carrying a bottle of contact lens fluid each? The bomber wasn't even on the plane when the bomb blew up.
    24. Re:Terminal A? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      How about getting a 9 cell battery and replacing 8 cells with petn?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    25. Re:Terminal A? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sounds like bombers should start holding the things up in the air. The ball bearings spread by a suitcase full of C4 or what have you will surely get better range and score hits on more targets if it's held at or just above eye level than one held at hip or chest height.

      Of course, most of those other bombings have been from bomb vests, right? Someone with two or three big-assed suitcases, running at a full clip, is a perfectly normal sight in an airport. Not so much in other places, where it might arouse suspicion. No need to bother with a limited vest-based solution in an airport. If you've got a couple of timers or a remotely-detonated solution and were willing to sacrifice yourself, you could drop three or four bomb-filled suitcases along the side of the security line, over a span of 50-100 feet, and detonate them before anyone realized something was wrong. Two bombers working together could probably manage to wound or kill everyone in even very long security lines.

      Bonus: the attack would cripple the airlines and, by extension, commerce in general, at least as badly as 9/11 did.

      The fact that such a simple, easy to execute attack hasn't happened tells me that one or more of the following is true:

      1) "The Terrorists" don't want to cause huge amounts of economic and human damage with a minimal of cost and sacrifice. Yeah, I'm thinking that this isn't likely.
      2) "The Terrorists" are not even 1/10 as well-organized and widespread as we've been led to believe they are, and thus lack the resources to carry out this sort of attack, and/or are focusing their very limited resources on more spectacular attacks and cannot spare even the relatively tiny cost (in men and in money) to do things like this.

      We're wide open for dozens of attacks of this sort, and they just don't happen. Makes me wonder how necessary any of the airport security is in the first place.

    26. Re:Terminal A? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Do you remember that old Daffy Duck cartoon where he's checking ammunition by hitting it with a hammer and if it doesn't go off, he writes 'dud' on it?

      Unbelievable I know, but that was Bugs Bunny. Once in a while, even he lost, and in this one he ended up doing what has got to be the worst job in the world :-)

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    27. Re:Terminal A? by schon · · Score: 0

      If your computer switches on and acts as a computer should, then it's clearly not a bomb. There is absolutely no way to replace the hard drive with a miniature solid-state device running a basic OS install, and the battery with a much smaller one sacrificing battery life for extra room, and use the space saved for a big lump of Semtex to be triggered by echo detonate > /dev/bomb. This is entirely impossible. For someone who is completely and utterly wrong, you sure do seem sure of yourself.

      If someone can turn a cell phone into a bomb, and have it still act like a cellphone, why couldn't someone do the same thing with a (much larger) computer?
    28. Re:Terminal A? by aaza · · Score: 1

      If someone can turn a cell phone into a bomb, and have it still act like a cellphone, why couldn't someone do the same thing with a (much larger) computer?

      Your sarcasm detector appears to be broken - please take it in for repair.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
      In practice, however, there is.
    29. Re:Terminal A? by thbb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously. US customs are among the most paranoid bureaucrats on earth.

      I know of a respectable French old lady in her 60's who is banned from traveling to the US.

      Her crime ? At the customs inspection, as the officer checked her purse, she inconspicuously
      hushered "boom" (it was in 2002).

      She was sent back to France on the next flight after 24h in custody.

    30. Re:Terminal A? by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      This is not just an after 911 thing. It isn't even a computer thing. In the 70's, the UK was suffering from a plague of bombings, and when I went through security in Heathrow, they made me punch every button on my TI59. They weren't the sort to be impressed with the technology, but they were horrified at the number of buttons.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    31. Re:Terminal A? by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      The zany thing is that you don't need an actual bomb. All you have to do is communicate that you're holding a walkie-talkie whose other end is wired to a bomb in the cargo hold, push the button and BOOM.

      If you're intending to hijack the plane, then you don't need an actual bomb, only the plausible and imminent threat of a bomb. Box cutters, people may charge you and expect to get cut a few times; maybe one guy dies. A bomb which can be activated with the push of a button, may easily go off before the button is pushed, taking out everyone in the plane.

      Of course if they call your bluff, you have no recourse.

      --
      Slay a dragon... over lunch!
    32. Re:Terminal A? by Barromind · · Score: 1

      And there goes another faultly sarcasm detector... ;)

    33. Re:Terminal A? by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      And there goes another faultly sarcasm detector... ;)

      DOH! They got me. On the other hand, looks a few other people got hit, too. In my defense: the funny mod didn't show up until after I posted.

  60. The 4th does not apply to border searches by sirwired · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 4th amendment does not apply to searches at the border, and it never has. Throughout modern history, every country in the world (the U.S. included) has reserved the right to search anything and everything entering the country, save diplomatic pouches.

    The 4th amendment only covers "unreasonable" search and seizure. Border searches are considered reasonable, and therefore require no warrant. This was formally codified by the 1st Congress (thank you Findlaw), who could be assumed to know the intentions of the founding fathers. More intrusive operations over and above a cursory search (such as X-Rays, or I supposed computer checks) only require "reasonable suspicion", as opposed to the more strict "probable cause".

    The current version of the law states:
    19 USC 1581:
    (a) Customs officers
    Any officer of the customs may at any time go on board of any vessel
    or vehicle at any place in the United States or within the customs
    waters or, as he may be authorized, within a customs-enforcement area
    established under the Anti-Smuggling Act [19 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.], or at
    any other authorized place, without as well as within his district, and
    examine the manifest and other documents and papers and examine,
    inspect, and search the vessel or vehicle and every part thereof and any
    person, trunk, package, or cargo on board, and to this end may hail and
    stop such vessel or vehicle, and use all necessary force to compel
    compliance.

    I would think a search of the hard drive falls well within a "package".

    SirWired

    1. Re:The 4th does not apply to border searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For further reference, Boyd v. United States (116 US 616, 623) (Feb. 1, 1886) is the best example I can find of the Supreme Court upholding border searches as consistent with the 4th Amendment.

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=116&invol=616#623

    2. Re:The 4th does not apply to border searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Border searches are considered reasonable,...

      Not by me. Personally, I don't see how searching people at a border is any different than stopping people at random on the street or even selecting random houses to be searched.

      Certainly people expect to be searched at a border - but if people were searched at random then they would expect that too - so expectation of a search does not make it OK.

      Also, one could argue that border searches are effective at detecting and deterring certain crimes but random searches would also be effective at detecting and deterring crime (probably more effective than border searches, in fact) so effectiveness of deterring crime does not make it OK either.

      One could argue that someone who doesn't want to be searched could avoid international travel but, by the same logic, someone who doesn't want their house searched doesn't have to own a house.

      What it really comes down to is that few American travel internationally so, from a purely selfish perspective, Americans are OK with border searches but because they don't expect to be affected personally while they oppose other searches (e.g. house searches) that would affect them personally.

    3. Re:The 4th does not apply to border searches by BornAgainSlakr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      His point is technically correct in the sense that TSA does not believe in privacy even on domestic flights. Have you had a TSA note left in your suitcase letting you know that your bags were searched without your permission, without a warrant, without your supervision, and mostly certainly not in a discrete manner during domestic travel? I have.

      Of course, I am sure it is legal because somewhere, buried in the 4 pt. text, is a clause stating that you implicitly consent to your bags being searched simply because you bought a plane ticket. Much like holding a Florida driver's license means you implicitly consent to a sobriety test at any time. I am sure it will not be long before they are searching domestic travelers' hard drives. After all, Oklahoma City was domestic terrorism. Terror is everywhere.

      The cool thing is, though, you can encrypt your hard drive. You cannot encrypt your suitcase. And, like another poster said, you can always store your sensitive data on an iPod, a thumb drive, etc. That is the major problem with organizations like TSA and Customs that people do not seem to understand. They are always fighting a losing battle against people that are way ahead of them.

      --
      IANYL, IANAL, TINLA, IANAMD, IANAP, ...
    4. Re:The 4th does not apply to border searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has nothing to do with detecting or deterring crime. It has everything to do with Article I Section 8, which authorizes Congress to collect import and export duties (which was how our country was primarily financed until the Income Tax in the late 1800's). Border searches were enacted to enforce this power, and were seen as an implicit exception to the 4th Amendment by the founding fathers. The searches aren't random, and they aren't fishing expeditions; they are merely to establish what is owed upon property entering and leaving the country.

    5. Re:The 4th does not apply to border searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US laws apply only within the border. Since technically you are outside the border they have different set of rules.

    6. Re:The 4th does not apply to border searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Border searches were enacted to enforce [collection of import and export duties], and were seen as an implicit exception to the 4th Amendment by the founding fathers.

      Leaving aside the question of whether it is economically efficient for governments to stifle international trade, how much property can really be "imported" in someone's personal suitcase? Is some luxury car dealer going to somehow pack a few hundred foreign sports cars into his carry on?

      The searches aren't random, and they aren't fishing expeditions; they are merely to establish what is owed upon property entering and leaving the country.

      So what kind of "property" is someone going to have stored on their laptop's hard-drive? A thousand copies of Britney's "I'm not so Innocent" intended to be sold without paying the proper import taxes? How is looking through someone's hard-drive not a fishing expedition?

    7. Re:The 4th does not apply to border searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you understand "nexus to the border" then you will understand when and how you regain your Constitutional Rights. It does not occur automatically upon re-entry but upon reintegration in society, big difference.

    8. Re:The 4th does not apply to border searches by a1englishman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I recently took a trip back to the United Kingdom, via France. At no point during that journey did customs go through all my belongings, and ask me to fill in some form that disclosed how much stuff I was bringing back. I come back to the States, and it's like the Spanish Inquisition. It's like the rest of the West has moved on, yet over here, we're dwelling in the dark ages. Did you say "Witch?"

    9. Re:The 4th does not apply to border searches by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Yes, but happily they don't follow their own rules.
      I was in Texas and picked up a couple bottles of everclear (not for sale in California).
      Now, the TSA guidelines say anything over 140 proof may not be in checked luggage, and nothing over 1 ounce/3 ounce/quart baggy on carry-on. So I packed it in my luggage and took my chances.

      Got the search note, figured "Oh well, I'll drive next time". The bottles were still in there :-)
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  61. The main difference is.. by fred911 · · Score: 1

    That the carrier has no alternative when he is carrying clothing, papers and other physical items. As far as data is concerned it is unnecessary for the owner of the data to have a copy. It's trivial to cross boarders electronically, anonymously, and privately. That, in it self should negate the right of customs to browse hard drives for data.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:The main difference is.. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I don't regard travelling as particularly safe with respect to my laptop (there are a lot of opportunities for it to be lost or damaged). Before I leave, I scp my home directory (an encrypted disk image) to an Internet-connected machine. Before I return, I do the same (most of the time I travel to places with a fast Internet connection such as universities). If I were particularly paranoid, I could securely delete the local copy and restore it when I arrived at an Internet connection. This would only be slightly more inconvenient for me than travelling with the data. If I had any data I was worried about falling into the TSA's hands (as opposed to just being worried about losing) that's what I'd do. So what, exactly, do they hope to gain by doing this?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  62. client attorney privilege? by kanweg · · Score: 1

    Would patent attorney - client privilege be acknowledged?

    Bert

    1. Re:client attorney privilege? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would patent attorney - client privilege be acknowledged

      Dude, this is the US. They can render you to any foreign country they like to be tortured, they can arrest you without charges and deny you access to legal representation. They can wiretap you without a court order. Do you really think they will give a shit about attorney - client privilege?

      "Oh mister Jack-Booted thug, you can't look at my laptop, you see I am a lawyer, and I have client correspondence on there"

      The next thing you would hear is the sound of someone putting you in a diaper, and the hatch closing on a Gulfstream III bound for Cuba, if your lucky.

  63. But not a plausible reason by wiredog · · Score: 1

    for Keanu.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  64. MOD THIS UP, Antony-Kyre OWNED LIKE A LITTLE BITCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, that was one of the best smackdowns I've seen yet. Kudos.

  65. Just download when you get into the country by merikari · · Score: 1

    This is so stupid and wastes a lot of resources. There's so many ways to move information that it is just impossible to stop people from getting theattackplan.ppt accross the border. I'd like to hire the salesman who sold this stupid idea to the government.

    If someone wants to avoid this, they just bring an empty laptop or buy one when they get in the country. Then download the encrypted information from wherever.

    --
    My other SIG is a Sauer.
    1. Re:Just download when you get into the country by clam666 · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia...laptop...uhh... Let's see. Can't have the laptop spying on you, as it already does that. The government spies on us, so no joke there. The border is making up regulations whenever they want. I guess the joke would be getting shot with an AK-47 rather than a M-16. There's no joke there. The concept of this being inefficient or a waste of resources isn't really the point. The same doorknobs who think that the post office, IRS, and FEMA are efficient are the same people behind this. It's about the continued transfer of power from us to them. The basic premise is, government will go as far as you will allow them to screw with you. It's all about power. Think about the people that go into government jobs anyway. I'm not talking contractors trying to make a buck off the government tit, I'm meaning the dregs whose primary job is to get hired in a job that is impossible to be fired from. Why else would jackass postal employees and DMV employees act the way they do if it wasn't that thrilling power differential between you and they? It's not like you can get your drivers license or social security check from someone else. You have no choice and they know it. The low level peons punish us and keep us from geting to many lofty ideas by preventing the removal of these assholes. The border guards (or whatever we call them in America) know this stuff is idiotic...but screwing with someone over a nail file, or a laptop, or taking your shoes off just allows you to give one more inch into buying into the "Government is our all powerful overlords, we must obey them" mentality. It just makes sure you don't forget who is in charge. If you'll accept it, then it'll be that much easier to push a little more. We must want it that way. We do it for the children. We want our children to grow up seeing that it's ok to blindly obey a government gone FAR beyond whatever anyone would have agreed upon when the country was founded. If our children our children see us bend over just a bit more, then it'll be easier for them to bend over JUST a bit more for their children. The same happened when our grand parents sold our parents out, who sold us out. We have an insane level of tax laws that don't have any reality about how to fund government expenditures, just to control us. We have social security sucking away most of our money which will never come back to us, because our elders sold us out. We have every aspect out of control because they just went along with it. But I digress. Letting the government search our shoes, belts, laptop contents, future brain scans for "anti-social" behavior, instant DNA or blood sugar checks for mental or hormonal conditions, prior to preboarding is a good idea. Why not? It's for the children.

      --
      I'm a satanic clam.
  66. Border Jumper by shamer · · Score: 1

    I guess i'll just follow all of the illegals (from both north and south), and bypass this headache. ---or--- Keep all my personal,private data at home and dial into it... until they block internet traffic at the borders too.

  67. luckily... by bmajik · · Score: 1

    jonny was a data courier who could hold 40 gigs.. ... 80 if he was willing to play risky.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  68. reasonable suspicion by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

    Except the whole terrorist paranoia in the US (at least how the reaction to past events has influenced current policies) is completely unreasonable.

    --

    Constitutionally Correct

  69. We are talking about by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

    The land of the free, right?

    A friend of mine traveled to the US in September last year and he went through customs and every airport check (his dad and him flew to a few places to check the country out) and he went through each and every time with coins and a set of nail clippers in his pocket/carry on luggage.

    In South Africa (I know it is a different world down here) I flew with a Leatherman tool (one of the cheapo clones I got as a gift and not a word, nor a beep, while my wife had to surrender her nail file.

    Strange world...

    --

    Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity

  70. You're doing it the hard way. by Reziac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I wanted to get information across the border without being noticed, I'd put it on an FTP site and email the link and login info to myself, to a webmail account that I can access anywhere merely by memorizing the username and password. No need to even have the POP3 access info on the laptop, let alone the "incriminating data".

    In fact if transporting data is your only reason for entering the country, just upload the nefarious data to one of the free FTP sites, and email the link to your partners-in-crime. Why risk being caught at the border??

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    1. Re:You're doing it the hard way. by griffjon · · Score: 1

      Or, y'know, partition your hard drive and not automount the private section. Are they really going to go to enough trouble to find that? Or even to decrypt encrypted files if they're not sitting on the desktop?

      Not to say it's a good policy, or that my solution is anything but the oft-maligned security through obscurity, but just being realistic about the IT skill levels and time of TSA screeners.

      Maybe I should remove those EFF stickers like "Come back with a warrant" and "P2P is not a crime" ... and instead wrap my laptop in 4th amendement tape...

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    2. Re:You're doing it the hard way. by CodeMunch · · Score: 1
      But you are still doing it the hard way.

      Just webmail yourself a file from your webmail account.

      Hell, Just compose the webmail message with the attachment and hit "Save Draft" and GTFO.

    3. Re:You're doing it the hard way. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Or just unplug your hard drive and tell 'em the laptop is broken.

      Obscurity may not be a good policy in the long haul, but as you note, most non-experts can't see past it.

      But I agree, Komrade -- this is all getting WAY too invasive. Yeah, we have a right and duty to keep our borders secure FROM FOREIGN INVADERS. This should not translate to harrassing OUR OWN CITIZENS just because they chose to leave and re-enter their own country.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:You're doing it the hard way. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      True, but, I'm thinking that it's probably not a good idea to store incriminating files WITH an email account... obscure the trail by one step, by using an anonymous FTP that no one knows exists but you and your gang.

      Also, this lets others access it (if you give them the link and login) without having to go through YOUR email account.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:You're doing it the hard way. by houghi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Email the link? Put the link on tinyurl and remember the 5 last characters.

      That would still leave a trail directly to you.

      There is a better wau. Usenet. Encrypt a file into (a series of) pictures with something like steghide. Post the pictures to any (relevant) binary newsgroup.

      Delivery is done by the Usenet system, so there is NO link between the sender and the reciever. Encryption is done with gpg, so no real worries that even if people see there is something in it that they will be able to read it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:You're doing it the hard way. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I've seen TinyURL links longer than 5 characters, but that's a good thought regardless -- the key to the link could be hidden in an innocuous sentence (first letter of first word, 2nd letter of 2nd word, etc.) and even if someone figured THAT out, chances are slim to none that TinyURL would come to mind as what it belonged to. After all, what does "brlfq" mean to you?! :)

      I've seen nonsense posts scattered about Usenet that one wonders if are steg'd data and not just the crapflooding they appear to be. Of course there's no real way to test that notion; as you say, Usenet is great for hiding stuff in plain sight, with at best a very tenuous backtrail to the poster, and none at all to the receiver. Good system if you need to get the same data to a large network of otherwise-unconnected cells.

      BTW, tinyurl/brlfq actually goes somewhere legit. I wonder what else one could find by brute-force sequential TinyURLs? :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:You're doing it the hard way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encrypt a file into (a series of) pictures with something like steghide. Post the pictures to any (relevant) binary newsgroup.
      I just hope someone doesn't steganographically hide their kiddie porn inside of alt.binaries.pictures.sex.kids images. My head is spinning.
    8. Re:You're doing it the hard way. by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 1

      Or insert it into freenet, wait until at least one other node has your data then shut down freenet. In theory the data will still be in your node but encrypted and accessible!

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
    9. Re:You're doing it the hard way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently abcde goes somewhere nsfw :-)

  71. well said by Quadraginta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I sure get tired of the fools who think international borders should be treated as carelessly as the border between Nevada and California. I can only think they've lived so long in a world that seems totally harmless, like trust-fund babies who've never left the crime-free gated community, that they now naively think there's just no more evil left in the world. So they can't see all this fuss about actually, you know, making sure that folks coming into the country are not up to seriously bad things.

    They remind me a bit of the similar folks who fuss about the dangers of vaccines or chlorine in the water supply, because they've lived in a world with powerful antibiotics so long they no longer really believe that deadly bacteria exist and can kill you dead without some basic precautions at the similar "border" between one's body and the outside world.

    1. Re:well said by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 1

      The preceding apparently is someone unaware of the regulations trying to keep pest-friendly California from acquiring or exporting any more pests. "More than 33.5 million vehicles were monitored at the California border agricultural inspection stations in the 2000 calendar year..."

    2. Re:well said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I sure get tired of the fools who think international borders should be treated as carelessly as the border between Nevada and California.

      OK, so it would appear that the point you are trying to make in your comment is that international borders are different than state borders.

      Let's see if you actually support your point.

      I can only think they've lived so long in a world that seems totally harmless, like trust-fund babies who've never left the crime-free gated community, that they now naively think there's just no more evil left in the world.

      Well, it's not really clear that this has anything to do with the difference between international borders and state borders.

      You seem to be making two points. First, that the world is a dangerous place and, second, that placing borders around individual neighborhoods is effective at preventing crime.

      If anything, the safety of gated communities would argue for more control of local borders (that is, state borders as opposed to international borders).

      So they can't see all this fuss about actually, you know, making sure that folks coming into the country are not up to seriously bad things.

      You're not exactly a model of clarity here but your implied point seems to be that people cross international borders in order to do bad things but that people somehow don't cross state borders to do bad things - so international borders needed to be protected but state borders don't need to be protected.

      Broadly, this seems to be an absurd claim to make. Obviously, people who are destined to do bad things cross all kinds of borders - neighborhood, city, state, international, etc. There's no fundamental reason to think that protecting one kind of border is going to be any more effective that protecting another kind of border. In fact, earlier in your post you seemed to be arguing for the effectiveness of neighborhood borders.

      They remind me a bit of the similar folks who fuss about the dangers of vaccines or chlorine in the water supply, because they've lived in a world with powerful antibiotics so long they no longer really believe that deadly bacteria exist and can kill you dead without some basic precautions at the similar "border" between one's body and the outside world.

      OK, so now you seem to be saying that a person's skin is the border that matters?

      Hmm, now that I think about it, you don't seem to be saying that one kind of border is more important than another kind of border - you just love borders in general. If it were up to you, you'd probably have borders around absolutely everything: neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, even the kitchen sink.

      I don't whether you live in the USA but, if you do, you might want to look into this thing called individual freedom. It was actually one of the founding principles of the USA. Of course, you'll probably realize that, in your own view, this freedom thing is just really bad mojo. In that case, may I recommend moving to somewhere like North Korea or Iran? You may find that their attitudes toward freedom are much more in line with your own.

    3. Re:well said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah except starting in 2004 or 2005, they got rid of the incoming Ag(ricultural) inspection station inbound to California on westbound interstate highway 10 and replaced it with a US Border Patrol station, just like El Paso. There are also a few other "Border Patrol" stations very far from the border.

      For example:

      next to Camp Pendleton on Northbound Intersate Highway 5

      at three other locations on East-bound interstate 10.

      Strangely, once you pass the center of Texas and are east of San Antonio,
      the truck stops and Ag- inspections are more interested in looking for drugs
      in your cargo rather than checking to see if "yoo eez an uh-mer-ee-can".

      Strangely, every border patrol guy that stopped us was hispanic with a
      strong mexican accent: every one asked me "Are you an american citizen?"
      and it was very difficult to refrain from responding to them with a curt
      "oh, are you?"

      [ i travelled cross country with my horse in a trailer, requiring a stop
      at every weigh station, truck stop, and agricultural inspection station.
      The agricultural inspection stations tend to only be at the inbound state
      border. I remember always being stopped, even at 2 or 3 in the morning
      at inbound california, [the ag guy was japanese-american, I ran into the
      same guy five times over two months, usually at 2-3 am), and being asked

      ``Do you have any fruit?''

      ] /ec/ /kl/

    4. Re:well said by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      Had I mod points, they'd be yours. Well said. I hear far too much complaining about privacy from people raised with silver spoons in their mouths. On the flip side I hear far to much complaining from those who feel they've had to delve into the shady areas to get by.

      Yeah, it really would suck if you crossed the boarder and the customs official stole your future #1 Best Selling Novel off your jump drive. Well, you should have been holding the copyright on that before you were carrying it around. If you think a customs official is that interested in your digital diary, odds are you're very wrong.

      When it comes down to whether or not we catch a handful of people crossing the border with child pornography (in TFA), or something similar in a laptop, and the feds finding my music, diary, and schematic for a perpetual motion machine.... I'll take the extra searches. There are proper channels to safeguard trade secrets for your company and the like. Find them and use them if you need to.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    5. Re:well said by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that this is an exceptionally stupid approach whose only justification is to allow bureaucrats to exert power. It doesn't make anyone, anywhere in the world, any safer. It does confiscate some people's laptops...and possibly the guards take possession of some of them. Or maybe not. (Evidence lockers have been known to lose valuable evidence which isn't of any use for a trial.)

      It's so wrong-headed that I can't think of any intelligible purpose that it serves, other than to keep people subservient by letting them see that they could be inconvenienced far more than they are. (I.e., psychological warfare of the government against it's citizenry.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:well said by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. I live in California, and I've crossed the California border bazillions of times. Yes, indeed, California reserves the right to inspect your car and contents for fruit and stuff, and about 1 time out of 5 in my experience they actually do. But it's the most casual inspection you might imagine. You got any fruits and vegetables, sir? No? Okay, have a nice day.

      If I were seriously trying to import pests to do harm to California, this wouldn't be the slightest bit of a barrier. The reason California can get away with that is because nearly everybody who does cross the California barrier is a reasonable person who understands and agrees with the proposition that importation of fruits, vegetables and trees should be carefully monitored lest a new pest get loose and devastate California's agriculture -- which means devastating California's economy. Despite appearances, it's not Hollywood but the Imperial and Central Valleys (where they grow rice, almonds, oranges, etc.) that are the engine of California's wealth.

      Hence the only reason for the trivial "inspection" at California borders is more or less just to remind people who are willing to cooperate that they should check to be sure they're not carrying any possible pest vector in. It's useful. More than once I've come to the border and realized I had a banana or something in the car from somewhere else, and remembered only then that one should be careful about these things.

      The contrast with an international border, where the people coming in may have no shared goal of keeping the US prosperous -- may even want to destroy it -- couldn't be greater.

    7. Re:well said by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      You've got a pretty incoherent response here, which is not surprising, given that you accuse me of incoherence. (Folks quite often project their own deficiencies, as you probably know.)

      Only two responses:

      (1) First, your vague inability to distinguish between types of borders ("Obviously, people who are destined to do bad things cross all kinds of borders") doesn't even pass the laugh test. You've forgotten, apparently, that borders are not merely painted arbitrary lines that separate this patch of ground from that. The real meaning of a border is that it groups together people, and borders separate different groups of people. That the borders are very often fixed lines on a map simply reflects the obvious fact that groups of people tend to live together.

      Hence, the "border" around your family is your house. You naturally trust and understand people within that border -- your spouse, your children -- much more than anybody who generally lives outside of that border. And that's why, in law and tradition, you have the right to control that border. That's why you can say who comes in and who doesn't, and under what conditions, and even the police have to have a warrant and so forth to come in without your permission. The "border" around the people you work with is your company building and the various legal "walls" around the firm. Obviously, folks within that border -- your colleagues -- have a different level of mutual trust and understanding than people outside the border. That's why the company controls the border, by, e.g. giving only employees accounts on company computers and locking the general public out with a firewall.

      Similarly, at last, the borders around states and nations group together people with similar shared ambitions and ideas, and the level of trust and understanding between people inside the border -- in the same group -- is higher than it is between people who are outside the border. That's why the group inside controls the border. That's why the group inside controls the border between them and the rest of the world much more tightly than they would any internal borders, which do not involve such large changes in trust level. Kind of like how you might control the border between your family and the outside world (your front door) a lot more strictly than you control the borders within your house -- say, between the family room and your study. Any rules you promulgate about when and how the children can bounce around in your study are liable to be a lot less serious to you than rules you set about when and how strangers can enter the front door.

      You getting all this? Trying to make it simple, so you can reflect on your own life and realize how extremely important borders actually are. I realize I have to push through your 21st century slacker PC 'borders don' matter, man' ignorance, however. The crap you get loaded up on in school about how we're all just the same, really, underneath. Here's a clue: we're not.

      (2) Your final comment about freedom in the United States betrays a deep ignorance of American history and tradition. If you live in the US, as I do, you should take some time to read up on your heritage. You'll find it's certainly about liberty, but certainly not about license, or (worse), about liberty in silly inconsequential things (like "freedom" from having your laptop examined at a border) to keep you distracted from the fact that liberty in important things (like whether you can choose how you get medical care, or save for retirement, or educate yourself or your children) is being taken away.

      In that respect, I sure wish folks in the younger generation would realize how much a Potemkin village distraction these debates about "freedom" are. Your real, important freedoms are the freedom to work in the profession you like, and spend the results of your labor in any way you choose -- to buy top-quality medical care for your children, to blow on ten th

    8. Re:well said by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Dude, I would be the first to agree with you that the method by which the United States secures its borders and appropriately inspects passage through them is well and truly fucked. I've never dealt with US border agents and not come away loathing the entire bunch and wanting to have each and every one of their pinheaded arrogant asses fired and sent to clean pit toilets out for the rest of their incompetent, arrogant, futile, tax-eating Federal career. To think that these shitheads are supposed to be working for me makes me grind my teeth in rage. That the system needs some kind of serious reform is totally obvious.

      But I still agree very strongly with the principle that borders can and ought to be effectively controlled. That was my point.

      If you want to grant the proposition that borders should be controlled, and argue about methods for doing so much better, maximizing both effectiveness, courtesy, and a respect for individual freedom -- then we're on the same page. I'm only arguing against the vague childish -- dangerous -- We Are The World notion that international borders don't really matter.

  72. SmartCard by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is possible to encrypt the contents of the hard drive using a SmartCard, then mail the SmartCard to your destination in advance of your border crossing. By doing so, it would be absolutely impossible* for you to give them access to your data. And while they may have the legal authority to search your laptop at the border, they do NOT have the authority to break in to your destination address and take the SmartCard (without probable cause, warrant, etc.).

    * For the cryptographers and pedants in the crowd, feel free to substitute the word "infeasible."

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:SmartCard by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      But they can still refuse you entry.

    2. Re:SmartCard by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is possible to encrypt the contents of the hard drive using a SmartCard, then mail the SmartCard to your destination in advance of your border crossing. By doing so, it would be absolutely impossible* for you to give them access to your data. And while they may have the legal authority to search your laptop at the border, they do NOT have the authority to break in to your destination address and take the SmartCard (without probable cause, warrant, etc.).


      No. But if I'm understanding some other posters here, they DO have the authority to simply keep your laptop. That seems to be the problem with most of these "solutions": no, the Feds don't get to see your data. But you're out maybe $1500 worth of laptop that you'll never see again.

      Chris Mattern
    3. Re:SmartCard by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      So if they want to search your laptop, but your batteries are dead, it is encrypted, or is in some other way inaccessible, they steal it? Are you sure? Has that actually happened, ever, anywhere?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:SmartCard by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep, follow some of the links in other posts. They have discretion to confiscate almost anything. Technically, it's still yours; DHS is supposed to give it back to you when their investigation is complete or the laptop is no longer required for the investigation. There is, however, no time limit on how long DHS can take doing this. One of the articles linked to in this thread reports a woman's been waiting for over a year with still no indication of when they'll give it back.

      Chris Mattern

    5. Re:SmartCard by greenrd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does travel insurance cover this confiscation?

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
  73. why isn't the fact... by t-twisted · · Score: 1

    that it's without just cause being ignored? I see dozens of comments about whether or not your data should be protected or not, but nothing about the "whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner" is being discussed.

    It's ridiculous to think a laptop is innocuous or incapable of causing as much destruction as a bomb. But just as officials have no rights to search my car, my home or my person without cause, they should not be able to randomly search a laptop without just cause.

    See the forest, not the trees.

    T.

  74. just wondering by antixogh · · Score: 0

    what would happen if the border patrol and or customs agent were to discover you had illegal acquired software or media files, or even .torrent files all over your desktop? would said items considered stolen property? i doubt either of the fore mentioned staff would care, but in the effect one "had it in for you". as a side note i think it would be interesting to try and make your desktop look as incriminating (but still within the law) as possible just to waste their time.

    --
    -chris antixogh@gmail.com
  75. Hypothetical situation by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

    You are planning to smuggle valuable information out from / into the country. Do you:

    a)GPG encrypt it and scp it through TOR.
    b)Store it all as plain text in your laptop's "my documents" folder that you try to clear customs with.

    I know what I would choose...

    1. Re:Hypothetical situation by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You send it to your gmail account before leaving the country.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  76. No, they won't by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 1

    curious are they going to search every MP3 player, every Thumb drive, every floppy disc, or cd that enter's the country?

    No, they won't. Just like they won't inspect every laptop entering either, or every crate, or every suitcase, or every car, or every person. They don't have the resources for that. It will be like every other kind of inspection; random, and just enough of them to keep people on their toes and discourage them from breaking the law. The idea is to provide a chance that people might get caught; providing that chance provides risk, and that will turn most people off from illegal activity.

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
    1. Re:No, they won't by jimicus · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It will be like every other kind of inspection; random, and just enough of them to keep people on their toes and discourage them from breaking the law.

      Unless, perhaps, there was some sort of communications network they could use that can cross international boundaries without data being blocked. Sure, it might be liable to eavesdropping, but that's what encryption was invented for.

      I wonder how practical such a system would be to set up?

  77. Ridiculous by poptones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are not looking for passwords to nuclear reactor equipment - the clowns at the border probably wouldn't recognize such lists unless they were marked "passwords to nuclear reactor equipment." They're not even looking for bootlegged movies because they'd be detaining damn near everyone with a laptop.

    No, they are pretty much just looking for naughty pix of little kids - that's it. And much as someone might find that offensive, sorry it just aint "dangerous."

    It's encouraging to see ONE judge in this country got it right - _personal_ computers are an extension of our mind and deserve the utmost protection.

    1. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they are pretty much just looking for naughty pix of little kids - that's it. And much as someone might find that offensive, sorry it just aint "dangerous."

      Not so dangerous unless you're one of the little kids.

    2. Re:Ridiculous by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, they are pretty much just looking for naughty pix of little kids - that's it. And much as someone might find that offensive, sorry it just aint "dangerous."

      Tell that to the thousands of children who are victimized making said 'pix'. I could see someone arguing against this as an intrusive search and you and I might agree on those points, but that comment was plain idiotic. Pedophilia is real and dangerous.

    3. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, let me put a note on my to do list:

      1) Change the name of the files from "Number sequence to blow up Bush's/Cheney's fascist arse" to "List of codes for Grandma's super-duper TV remote control"

    4. Re:Ridiculous by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's a tragedy, but the answer isn't to throw away our rights to privacy - if we did that, there'd still be kids getting exploited and the customs agents and cops would be snooping around anything they felt like looking at.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    5. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might be interesting.

      I have a 300gb hard disk. The day I bought it, it was formatted to NTFS. As a linux guy I created many partitions (6 to be exact) in it, the first one as FAT32, the second one a swap, third one reiserfs to hold very very small files (Gentoo portage), fourth one is extended, fifth one is ext3 with a bootable Gentoo installation. The final one holds around 200gb - as FAT32 again.

      What is interesting is that Windows XP doesnot recognise any partition except the first one! The first partition (around 50gb) is the one and only partition it can see... effectively making my 300gb harddisk a 50gb USB harddisk on Windows.

      Nifty :) Whenever I copy anything from someones computer, I have to move it back to 6th partition "to clean it up again". I guess this feature will come in handy if I really have something I am afraid of showing to people.

    6. Re:Ridiculous by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I guess you didn't read his post. He did say that you may oppose the search as being intrusive or unconstitutional and they he might agree with that.
      What he was bent at and I feel justly so what the stupid comment that kiddie porn was just offensive and not dangerous.

      On a side note I have to wonder how they expect to find anything on a Hard drive with just a quick look?
      Heck you could zip up the data and rename the file as a .dll , .exe , .iff, or any other unknown file format. Heck run it through PGP and rename it.
      You would only catch the stupidest of people. Which would probably be a good number.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Ridiculous by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Even if that's true "this time", there's no guarantee that it will be true next time. When they aren't following the legal procedures and guidelines there's no reason to trust them to be honest. And they're not, whatever the courts say. If they courts say that they are, that just means that the courts are corrupt.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Ridiculous by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are not looking for passwords to nuclear reactor equipment - the clowns at the border probably wouldn't recognize such lists unless they were marked "passwords to nuclear reactor equipment." They're not even looking for bootlegged movies because they'd be detaining damn near everyone with a laptop.

      No, they are pretty much just looking for naughty pix of little kids - that's it. And much as someone might find that offensive, sorry it just aint "dangerous."

      Another thing it ain't is "gonna accomplish much of anything."

      Anyone who really thinks some bored customs/security folks are going to be able to competently identify the contents of, say, a 500GB drive with two hundred thousand files on it is smoking something. What're they going to do? Haul the laptops off someplace and spend an afternoon checking every directory and making sure the files are really what they're named? People like the one in TFA aside, they're not likely to find much doing this unless they're willing to take their sweet time holding someone while they fine-tooth-comb their computer to do so. For anything resembling a reasonable-length search at customs, any contraband's either going to be glaringly obvious to a non-expert who's going through the motions, or it won't show up at all.

      As one of the comments in the article says, this is just more fishing in the dark, like no-fly-lists or people demanding I explain why I'm wearing boots every time I fly in the winter.

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    9. Re:Ridiculous by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Sort of makes you wonder what the point is - flexing muscles to see if anyone cockblocks them?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    10. Re:Ridiculous by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Not really.
      You make the same mistake that everybody on Slashdot makes. You think that people know computers as well as you do. I just overheard a support call at my office where a user want to know if she needed to plug in her printer for it to work.
      Most people will not know how to hide their porn so they will get caught.
      Think about it. What kind of idiot would cross an international border with kiddie porn on their notebook to start with!
      Most people that commit crimes are actually pretty stupid.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    11. Re:Ridiculous by blueskies · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not so dangerous unless you're one of the little kids.
      uh, it's still not dangerous. Unless your Amish and realize that having your picture taken steals your SOUL!!!
    12. Re:Ridiculous by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Most people here don't bother actually reading posts anymore. They just let their knee jerk reactions rule them. He was no exception.

    13. Re:Ridiculous by mfnickster · · Score: 2

      Here is a picture of a murder being committed - Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald.

      Was Oswald harmed by the photographer?

      Was Oswald harmed by you looking at the photograph?

      Was Oswald harmed by the publishers who profited from the sales of millions of books containing this photo.

      No. Oswald was harmed by Jack Ruby (and for that matter, anyone Ruby might have been working for). A photograph of a crime is not a crime.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    14. Re:Ridiculous by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What're they going to do? Haul the laptops off someplace and spend an afternoon checking every directory and making sure the files are really what they're named?

      No, what will happen is some asshole tech company will sell the Feds on an "Anti-Terrorism Border-Defense Cyberscanning System". They'll just pull the drive out of your laptop, drop it into this gadget, and and let it do the fishing automatically while-you-wait. If it comes up with a red flag (say, potential kiddie-porn, nuclear secrets or whatever) you get cavity-searched and are never heard from again.

      There's a couple billion to be made right there, I'd say. All you have to do to make it work is teach the guards how to rip a drive out of a laptop without static-zapping it.

      Okay, so that's a stumbling block.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    15. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " No, they are pretty much just looking for naughty pix of little kids - that's it. And much as someone might find that offensive, sorry it just aint "dangerous." "

      whoa... it's a bit more than offensive. It's a fucking crime against humanity. If you don't find the thought of some little kid being molested disgusting and wrong then I guess that's why shit like that is floating around. I don't agree with random searches of people's laptops but that's a pretty good reason to do it if you're going to do it.

    16. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> "No, they are pretty much just looking for naughty pix of little kids - that's it. And much as someone might find that offensive, sorry it just aint "dangerous." "

      > whoa... it's a bit more than offensive. It's a fucking crime against humanity.

      Looking at a picture is a crime against humanity??? Jesus fucking christ! Think about what you're saying:
      "Looking at a picture is a crime against humanity."

      Try to get past the knee-jerk response. You have been conditioned to equate the evidence of the crime with the crime itself, simply because the crime is so reprehensible. Do you think it's a "crime against humanity" to watch a film clip of someone being assaulted or killed? If not, why not? Isn't that just as "dangerous" or more so? Does the First Amendment draw a line between one type of freedom of the press and another?

    17. Re:Ridiculous by instarx · · Score: 1

      They are not looking for passwords to nuclear reactor equipment [...] No, they are pretty much just looking for naughty pix of little kids - that's it. And much as someone might find that offensive, sorry it just aint "dangerous."
      How do *you* know what they are looking for? And besides, what they are looking for and what they find are two different things.

      As far as I know they are not restricted to looking only for child porn, so they can look for anything that gets into their heads. So yes, that IS dangerous. Maybe you do your banking online and they decide to look at your tansaction history to see if you bought anything expensive you didn't declare (they do that now when they search for paper receipts). Dangerous? You bet.

    18. Re:Ridiculous by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Nice strawman arguement. Because there is a market for child porn, kids get victimized. Take away that market and fewer will be victimized.

      We're way off topic now though, because as I've already stated I'm against these searches. I was merely reacting to the false premise that child porn isn't dangerous.

    19. Re:Ridiculous by WNight · · Score: 1

      You're a victim of propaganda. The net just isn't full of kiddy-porn. Millions of people rape children yes, but this imagined industry cranking out underage porn DOES NOT EXIST.

      If there really was kiddy-porn out there (more than vanishingly little) you'd see evidence. Police could display blacked-out thumbnails of the shots to prove their existence but they don't because there's hardly anything worth arresting anyone for, let alone going on a globe-spanning witch-hunt.

      Sure, some people take sick pics of their kids, and some people do share these for a while, but the victimization in the first place is the real crime and it happens even to children whose parents don't own a camera!

      Yes, this molestation needs to stop. But going after people downloading JPGs isn't going to keep a molester from molesting a kid. The scare over harmless pictures hides the real issue of widespread abuse. Now people froth at the mouth over a picture an underage girl took for her boyfriend, but actual molesters are often left with their children to offend again. The girl is on a sex-offender list for a photo, but many child rapists are ignored because there's no 'porn' in their actions.

      So yes, pedophilia is dangerous - dangerously used as a political weapon. Many molesters aren't even pedos, they just molest kids because they're easy targets but they'd molest an older target if given the same chance (helplessness). To jump up and down on the pedo-wagon just serves to blur the real issues.

      Not to mention, ruining the lives of those it touches. One under-age boy was arrested for possessing of CP, despite the girls being his own age. That's nuts! If he'd touched that girl it'd have been legal sex, but because he possessed a photo of her it was one of the worst crimes imaginable... Funny that.

    20. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably just being facecious, but I'll just note anyways that Amish don't believe that.

    21. Re:Ridiculous by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      Pardon me, but it's not a strawman. I was directly addressing your comment that it's "idiotic" to claim that a picture, in itself, is not dangerous. There can be any number of reasons for people to view photographs of crimes (including police investigation) which have nothing to do with creating a "demand" for such material. Yet you think the material itself should be illegal?

      Look, there are plenty of people out there who get off on violence. Does Hollywood contribute to this problem with violent movies? Do people watching "Bumfight" videos belong in jail along with the batterers out there?

      Alcohol and tobacco harm minors who get ahold of them illegally. Am I now "dangerous" for buying beer and cigarettes just because I contribute to a demand for them?

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    22. Re:Ridiculous by blueskies · · Score: 1

      Amos? What have I told you about staying off the English's intarweb? Jacob needs help spreading manure from the back of the wagon. Get away from the devil box and help him.

    23. Re:Ridiculous by blueskies · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the thousands of children who are victimized making said 'pix'.
      Do you have their email addresses? You should tell them that they will start to feel better now because a customs agent found their pix and destroyed it.
    24. Re:Ridiculous by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      I was merely reacting to the false premise that child porn isn't dangerous.

      Pictures aren't dangerous, and making child porn without committing an underlying crime isn't either. If it wasn't illegal, Hollywood would produce as much kiddie porn as the creepy people could want, the same way they make horror movies, and material produced with actual crimes wouldn't have a market.

      Because there is a market for child porn, kids get victimized.

      If they only went after porn that was produced using a victim, I might support it. Victims deserve to have control over the products of the crime - if someone steals from me I get my stuff back, if someone invades my privacy I should be able to destroy the material created. But we show depictions of murders, kidnappings, rapes, beatings, and theft on TV - why should fictional portrayals of one subsection of crime, one far less violent than murder, be deemed off limits completely?

  78. NO! This is a GOOD thing!! by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

    As soon as they 'inspect' your (fully legal DRM compliant) MP3 library, the RIAA will nab them for listening to music without paying royalties! RIAA sues TSA, DMCA meets Patriot Act, everything annihilated in a puff of un-smoke.

    Or, TSA pays the royalty, then we all hop back and forth over the Canadian or Mexico borders with millions of songs, bankrupting the TSA. Or TSA doesnt have to pay, and we *all* claim that running those MP3's through the player is simply a security inspection and not subject to DMCA.

    HA HA HA ITS FLAWLESS!!!!!!

  79. What about Amendment 4 to the Constitution ? by mikesum · · Score: 1

    Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. How is searching a computer even remotely reasonable ?

  80. Unreasonable. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    ...and this is the problem with "originalism." Divining out what would have been considered "unreasonable" search in 1787 compared to what is unreasonable now is absurd--not least because inspection of personal effects at port of entry was not a matter of law for another century.

  81. Suitcase doesn't contain company secrets by ClubStew · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else carry company secrets in their suitcase? Granted, my laptop personally doesn't have anything highly confidential, but there are many people that would have company secrets (hopefully secured better than the US government protects their laptops). So, yes, searching a suitcase and a laptop are very different.

  82. reasonable suspicion hah... by w00tb0t · · Score: 1

    ahh,.. Reasonable Suspicion, well I better take all the "got root" , "I read your email", and "Hacker" stickers off of my laptop. Hell, and would I let the stupid airport security touch my laptop, ZOMG It's got that Linux thing that hackers use,... next thing you know I'm under gunpoint.

  83. storage devices? by moankey · · Score: 1

    So does this also include storage devices like USB drives or any other storage device or just laptop contents?

    1. Re:storage devices? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      So does this also include storage devices like USB drives or any other storage device or just laptop contents?

      I'm pretty sure if the court upholds it for laptops, it'll be essentially upheld for everything on your person.

      I can't see your USB drive being classed as anything different.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:storage devices? by dido · · Score: 1

      During my run-in with these folks, they said that they would also inspect any external media that I had in my possession, of which I had several, including an external drive that is as big as the one inside my laptop. They never got around to doing this though, but I imagine they might do this with others as well.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
  84. Rephrased by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    So you're asking what percentage of idiots are stupid? I'd guess there's a good correlation there.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  85. according to the courts by Bored+MPA · · Score: 1

    A US citizen cannot be compelled to produce a password for decryption, and I do not believe they can be sent away under existing law for possessing legal technology (it may require a suit or a lawyer to enforce your right to enter though).

    Most policy options to attempt to set up such a system would fail on numerous legal grounds or leave big enough loopholes (you can always upload your encrypted data and wipe your drive) that a border-targeted reduction of civil liberties would not be valid from a security or commerce clause standpoint. Not to mention that it would fail from a political capital standpoint--you are selectively targeting international business folks and any false positives forcing US citizens or visitors to relinquish (or mail back) laptops would be extremely damaging.

    My guess is that this policy gets challenged or changed very quickly.

  86. Re:Ridiculous, so then one way ALL can NIX by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    this stupid search mandate is to teach ALL (even the perps) to put the data on an SD or mini-SD card and declare that all suspicious data is NOT on the computer (and if it is regularly true, then let the statistics argue to dispense with or repeal that law/order). Or, get them to be regularly found downloading the "illegal" files from the web and not being findable on the laptop.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  87. In other news... by halber_mensch · · Score: 1

    US Customs has identified the anal cavity as a container for excrement, and thus reserves the right to fu^H^Hsearch any anuses entering the country.

    --
    perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
  88. That's the point. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The constitution, 4th amendment included, applies to all people, not just citizens, on U.S. soil and that includes the soil beneath the customs hall.

    Were that not the case, we'd have little need for N379P.

  89. Idiots by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

    The only people who will get caught this way. Idiots.

    Are they going to mount my iPod as a disk and look at the files
    I hid on the drive ?

    Are they going to remove the flash card from my camera and look
    at the files I'm smuggling ?

    Nothing on that drive sir, I'm going to stream the data over SSH
    once I get setup in the country.

    This isn't about security, it's a hostile act against man.

  90. I can't power up the laptop ... by schwit1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the first TSA guy took the battery. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/28/1944208

  91. addendum: a decent lawyer by Bored+MPA · · Score: 1

    A decent lawyer for non-citizens needs to denote the difference between a suitcase and a laptop--a suitcase can contain physical objects that may be dangerous or damaging to "commerce" or security. A laptop only contains information, information that under current law can be transferred across our borders in encrypted format. Without similar laws and right to inspect-or-refuse for encrypted communication, there is little rationale for mandating inspect-or-refuse at borders.

    imho, privacy needs to expand in the information age, not shrink to include red-scare ideas of the right to inspect everything we do and track all our communications over some vague threat.

    1. Re:addendum: a decent lawyer by UseTheSource · · Score: 1

      imho, privacy needs to expand in the information age, not shrink to include red-scare ideas of the right to inspect everything we do and track all our communications over some vague threat.

      I agree. There are plenty of analogues of real world circumstances in the digital world, but too often legal concepts that apply outside of the digital world haven't extended there. In most cases, I think most people would agree they should.

      For example, there is a trend among employers to install VOIP phones for office phones. Since calls you make are now just "data" traversing your employer's system, somehow the legal issues around wiretapping evaporate, and your employer can now legally eavesdrop on any personal calls you make from work without your consent. I suppose the part of your employment contract that says you can have no expectation of privacy when using company computer systems constitutes their "consent", but if you were using a regular landline, the eavesdropping would be illegal.

      In a similar vein, how are searches of laptops at border checkpoints any different in concept than searching someone's briefcase full of paper files? Whether on paper or in an electronic format, my 4th Amendment rights (should) still apply.

      --
      "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
      "We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
    2. Re:addendum: a decent lawyer by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Since calls you make are now just "data" traversing your employer's system, somehow the legal issues around wiretapping evaporate, and your employer can now legally eavesdrop on any personal calls you make from work without your consent. ... if you were using a regular landline, the eavesdropping would be illegal. You do know it was this way long before VoIP, right? Companies can and do monitor the conversations of employees on their private phone network, just as they can monitor your email. It's been this way as long as internal phone systems have existed. If the company doesn't have an internal phone system, then they CAN'T monitor your phone conversations. The limitation is practical, not legal. If you go over to a friend's house and use his phone HE can monitor your phone conversations as well, assuming he's equipped to do so. Generally, don't have privacy on things you don't own.
  92. International Business by malkavian · · Score: 1

    May be a little put off by this. After all, a lot of corporate types just love to travel with their laptops, as they've got all kinds of presentations on there. Some of which are treated as commercial secrets.
    Yes, it's a false sense of security, but a lot of the non-IT people are happier if they have their false sense of security (when it doesn't hurt the real picture), but this seems to shout loud and clear that business travellers shouldn't bring Laptops to the states. You just know the obstreperous security staff on the boring stretch are going to pull you over just to relieve the boredom, and go through your laptop, just because they can.
    This is going to put a crimp in your travel times (possibly miss your connection if they're actually feeling like a good old look through to see what's there).
    You then have your commercial secrets out in the open with someone who definitely isn't going to be held by any NDA.
    Whether it's a valid worry or not, it's enough to make people with a smattering of tech knowledge and a fair amount of business acumen think twice about taking anything mobile to the states (no pre-made presentations on a machine, no great demos that are tried and working on a particular platform that your clients don't YET have, so on, so forth).
    Net effect? The government can pat themselves on the back for riding roughshod over and claiming their abilities overriding politeness and fair conduct. And something that'll help chill overseas investment and the flow of commerce into the States. At exactly the time that all the trade that can be drummed up is needed..

    1. Re:International Business by British · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought too: trade secrets. I'm sure "Skip" at the NSA will be more than happy to sign a NDA before inspecting the laptop, with hundreds of impatient travellers waiting behind me.

      Also, it should go the other way. If I own a company, and trade secrets are stolen & stuffed in a laptop, the TSA should be fully responsible for confiscating the laptop if it tries to leave the country. I mean, after all, you ARE inspecting the laptop for something, right? Stolen secrets are a bad thing.

      Also, top secret government information is stored on laptop. Imagine the hilarity that ensues when top government brass shows Skip the TSA employee the powerpoint presentation for invading Iran. I mean, the gubment inspects its own laptops, right?

      If you're going to be sifting through EVERY laptop that passes in & out of the country, you are now liable & responsible for many many wonderful new things. If not, what the heck are you inspecting laptops for in the first place? Fun?

  93. Depends on the scope... by Sourcehack · · Score: 1

    If they are simply searching your laptop in real time for illegal content then that is the same thing as going through your luggage (they can open sealed envelopes already, ect, ect) The problem would arise if they were using any kind of imaging software to make a permanent record of your hard drive or anything on it. That would be the same thing as ceasing items out of your luggage at random for later perusal which is something they cannot do. From what the artical says it does not appear they are doing anything like that they are just looking through the contents of the drive live, looking for issues same as they do your suitcase, so for now at least it seems on the up and up.

  94. Travelling with a disassembled computer by Xelios · · Score: 1

    3 months ago I flew from Canada to Germany to attend university here. Since I'd just put together a new computer a few months before I decided to take a risk and bring the parts to Germany with me, in my suitcase. Everything was packed in seperate boxes, mixed in with my clothes and cushioned by some cheap apolstery foam I bought at WalMart. Two hard drives, motherboard, cpu, memory, graphics card, cables and 22" widescreen LCD monitor, all packed into a suitcase full of clothes.

    At the airport I started worrying that it may have been a bad idea, I was sure this thing would look like a bomb, or at least be suspicious enough to warrant a lengthy inspection. Long story short, I arrived in Germany (after landing in Frankfurt, connecting to Munich and then Dortmund), lowe and behold there was my suitcase, unopened and on time. Everything survived the trip, even the monitor.

    But needless to say, I won't be trying that on flights through the US any time... ever.

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
  95. Image this drive? by p5 · · Score: 0

    So, they want to look at my laptop with all my sweet work items. However, could they employee a tactic to image the drive to "check later" due to time restrictions?

    They will have to taze me multiple times and then knee on my back until I stop breathing, wh00ps.

  96. Anyone figured out how to do this? by Happy+Lemming · · Score: 1

    Let's take this to the logical extreme and say that all laptops shall be scanned upon attempted entry to the USA. How? Develop automated search tools and hire a whole mess of junior-grade IT slaves to work them? This could halt rising unemployment and open new opportunities for residents of border states.

  97. Corporate Espionage by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    I wonder... would it be so hard to get either one of your employees hired by the TSA, or bribe someone working security?

    Most corporate laptops have some ID on the case. Find the one for your competitor, and "inspect" it. Then hide behind the federal government.

    Perfect (non-)crime!

  98. As much national sovereignty that's given to China by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    ...I'm fine with any inbound(and outbound) flights with an origin(or destination of any sort) in that region of the world getting a full inspection. It is only fair that we look for our national security that business wants to give up too easily.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  99. FACISTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya just like if I had my medical records, rummaging through those wouldnt violate my privacy, or If I was a doctor and I had my patients files, rummaging through those wouldnt violate doctor patient confidentiality (please sense my sarcasm here). Same goes for attorney's working on a case. What if an attorney defending someone against a politician or the government itself, wouldnt this stop the attorney from going out of the country, or soon, on any airplane at all? Would this not be a Nixonian way for them to spy on the competition and suppress freedom and justice? Why dont they just scan our thoughts as we move around (you know they would if they could and will when they can)?

  100. Legislating futility and folly by zappepcs · · Score: 1

    There is nothing that this process will find except for stupid people. That is hardly what they need laws to find. Stupid people are, by definition... well, stupid.

    Lets think about this for a second: Hmmm, they might inspect my hard drive? Okay, I'll put everything on thumb drives and put it in my checked baggage. What? You think they might check that? Okay, I'll encrypt it as part of a MP3 audio file that plays fine on 'my' mp3 player. This argument goes back and forth till you finally understand that if I WANT to bring electronic documents across the border without you inspecting them, I damn well will do it. In fact, I can get so ingenious about how to do this that it will cost the US government a huge chuck of their budget to search inbound travelers and cause such inconvenience that the tourist industry will be bankrupt in less than a year.

    Wow, is that a portable game-boy-girl-thingy? Yes, want to play donkey kong?
    Oh, this? it's just an FM radio officer.
    oh that? That's just my portable personal air ionizer officer.
    Ahhh, yes, these 57 thumb drives are just my MP3 collection... honest
    Yes, this is a new camera I got for christmas. yes, that is just a spare battery pack
    Oh, this, just a lighter case .. very kewl, you can program it to display your favorite team name
    Yes, I'm in school ... that's just a calculator
    Oh, yes, I'll take off this bolo tie to get through the metal detector, sure
    That is my phone charger, yes.
    oh, that is just a travel alarm clock.
    oh, this, this is one of those personal breathalyzers... so I don't drive drunk.
    Yes, silly, I know, but my 3 yr old really thought I should take the tv remote control... kids, shrug

    No officer, this laptop does not have a hard drive. company policy requires that it be shipped separately by insured courier to protect proprietary IP kept on it.

    No, I don't know the password.

    And so it goes until they have to nearly give EVERY passenger a body cavity search to ensure that no 'bad' electronic documents get through the border, and the TSA has become the largest employer of IT staff for checking anything that might be a thumbdrive, and of course the contents of all that possible data storage.

    What's next? Searching your GMail account at the border crossing to ensure that6 you did not use it to store encrypted graphics files cleverly named something.xls ?

    This is a game that they CANNOT afford to play. It is too easy and to cheap to thwart their efforts. They need to stick to the tried and true 'probable cause' methodology.

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
  101. Not just US by Xest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Canadian customs and immigration checked through my laptop also. In fact, I say also but US customs and immigration has never actually checked the contents of my hard drive as Canadian customs did but they have made sure it turns on and isn't a bomb instead however.

    I've never taken my laptop round Europe with me so I can't really give any experience of other customs. I've not actually had British customs itself check my laptop at all though, simply putting it through the scanner in it's case was enough for them although I'd imagine they may check it if I was coming into the country as a foreign national or if I seemed slightly more dodgy!

  102. Wow! Aggressive much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Antony-Kyre politely corrected in a spirited debate about the extent of the 4th Amendment.

  103. It is irrelevant as to what you think is by Tran · · Score: 1

    reasonable. Obviously this was thought of early in the US's history and has been clarified.
    Of course, if you still think it is unreasonable, you are free to pursue a political careeer and/or convince as many others of the same thougt and change the law or intent.

    And as an ex-foreigner I have experienced many border crossings where thorough searches have been the norm. Though it seems that in recent - last 10 years - international travel within Europe has become easier, whereas travel into the US has become harder.

    I have no real problem with the law itself, but more with the way it gets used. From first hand observation and second hand stories of close friends, some of the border/customs officials are on real power trips and courtesy is rarely exhibited by any of them.

  104. Things are getting tough in Belarus by Jafar00 · · Score: 1

    I was about to say the border Guards in Belarus, well known for being class A a-holes, are getting tougher these days. That was until I started to read all this stuff about the US. Remind me never to visit.

    --
    RebateFX.com - Spread rebates for Forex traders
  105. Huh what? by sirwired · · Score: 1

    What it really comes down to is that few American travel internationally so, from a purely selfish perspective, Americans are OK with border searches but because they don't expect to be affected personally while they oppose other searches (e.g. house searches) that would affect them personally.

    It has nothing to do with the complacency or acceptance of Americans for laws that do not affect them. It has to do with the fact that border searches, are, in fact, a reasonable exercise of power by the government of a sovereign nation. All nations have the power to control the people and objects that cross its borders. Period.

    Is the request that all those entering the country show valid identification also unreasonable? Under your logic, it would seem to be.

    If the 1st Congress passed a law authorizing border searches, I would venture that there was some clown in the late 1780's that tried to argue the same thing, and lost then too.

    SirWired

    1. Re:Huh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All nations have the power to control the people and objects that cross its borders.

      Well, most nations impose substantial control over certain border crossings. On the whole, though, most national borders are quite porous.

      Leaving aside the technical questions, just because a nation has the power to do something, it doesn't mean that the nation should do it.

      Is the request that all those entering the country show valid identification also unreasonable? Under your logic, it would seem to be.

      Here's the problem. Any argument for controlling international borders also applies to state and local borders. If you can keep someone or something out of a country then you can also keep it out of a state, city or neighborhood.

      If the 1st Congress passed a law authorizing border searches, I would venture that there was some clown in the late 1780's that tried to argue the same thing, and lost then too.

      Along with the clowns who opposed slavery and thought women should have equal rights.

    2. Re:Huh what? by sirwired · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem. Any argument for controlling international borders also applies to state and local borders. If you can keep someone or something out of a country then you can also keep it out of a state, city or neighborhood.

      Why does any argument that applies to national borders also apply to state and local borders? I see no reason for this to be the case.

      Along with the clowns who opposed slavery and thought women should have equal rights.

      Heh. You got me there. However, I should point out that there is no nation currently on earth that does not exercise some measure of control over its borders. (I must admit, I don't know about the Vatican... they may leave that up to Italy.) Even at the time of the Constitution, there were nations that realized slavery was a bad idea, and that women should have equal rights.

      ***

      I expect that a government that did not reserve the right to control its borders would not be around very long. If a government does not reserve the right to stop or search those entering its borders, then they would have no authority to stop an incoming army.

      Yes, many borders are porous (The U.S. Canada border being a famous example), but that does not diminish the right to enforce it at will.

      SirWired

    3. Re:Huh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does any argument that applies to national borders also apply to state and local borders? I see no reason for this to be the case.

      Why would it not be the case? Is there any real difference between a local border and an international border? Is there some law of nature that illegal items can only be transported across international borders?

      If a government does not reserve the right to stop or search those entering its borders, then they would have no authority to stop an incoming army.

      Based on that logic, the 4th amendment would prevent the US government from doing anything about an invading army once the invading army was completely across the border into the US.

      As I see it, the question here is whether there are compelling reasons to ignore the 4th amendment for border crossings. Certainly, there are going to be cases where probable cause exists to search someone crossing an international border. In some cases, probable cause might even apply to everyone crossing a particular international border - for example, the border between two countries at war.

      In general, though, I'd like to see the same 4th amendment protections at an international border as walking down the street: sure, if you have probable cause to think that I'm in possession of something illegal then go ahead and search me (whether I'm on the border or on the street) - but simply crossing an international border should lead to the presumption that I am in posssession of something illegal.

  106. And what if... by TransEurope · · Score: 1

    ...i'm not a tourist, but a buisnessman? No buisnessman ever can visit his partners in the U.S. without fearing industrial spying at the airport. Remember that industrial spying is a official commission of your CIA (and maybe others).

  107. Good to know this by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now, next time I visit the States, I know how to be prepared. I will create folders like "goatsePr0n", "My Cunning Plan to Drop a Bomb On George W. Bush", and "Allahu Akbar" . . . and fill them with pictures of Hello Kitty.

  108. IANAL.....But..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't inspecting a laptop without suspicion constitute unlawful search and seizure?

    I mean, it's pretty much the same thing as a traffic stop, albeit regarding a laptop and not a car.

    I've been pulled over and (usually warned, but occasionally ticketed) at all hours of the day and not been asked if it was O.K. to search my truck.

    I have only once been asked if my car could be searched, and the officer had enough probable cause to search it without question, since I had 1500 rounds of ammunition sitting on my front seat. The fact that he asked me about the ammo wasn't suprising, but the fact he asked for permission to search was. Now, I completely understood the officer's request to search, given I had ammunition on the front seat and not a bag of chips. That alone resonably constitutes PC. He told me who he was, why he pulled me over (it was obvious to both of us), and took my DL, registration, and insurance info. After I handed it to him, he asked me about my ammunition. He asked if I had ever been arrested, if I could legally posses firearms or ammunition, and if I had firearms in my truck. Then he asked if he could search my car, and after I said "Yes", he had me step out of his car and sit in his (before you say anything, he pulled me over and found ammunition-alot of it, so it was prudent to have me sit in the car and not just stand behind him). No handcuffs or anything. Just a 5 minute wait. That's it, and I was on my way. Funny thing was, I had obviosly run a red light (the turn lane next to me had a green, but I had a red and went through the intersection with the cop facing me), yet all I got was a handshake and a "Have a nice day". No ticket.

    Now, the officer that stopped and searched me OBVIOUSLY had probable cause to do everything that he did (I mean, 1500 rounds on the front seat?), but searching someone's laptop simply because they entered the country is NOT suspicious. It's not unusual for someone to enter the country nowadays with a laptop of somekind of electronic device.

    However, if they swab it down with the little cloth wand (which is what they are supposed to do) that they then test in somekind of small mass analyzer and it comes up POSITIVE, then there is suspicion, but if they get a NEGATIVE reading, what suspicion is there?

    Those agents need to get laid by a real woman, and not get their jollies from someone's steamy e-book instead.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  109. So what if the battery is dead! by fuzzylollipop · · Score: 1

    Just make sure the battery is dead or removed and you can't show them anything.

  110. Guess it's time to fiddle with GRUB by n00854180t · · Score: 1

    I have so much stuff on my laptop, none of it even remotely illegal, that it would probably take them a good 45 mins to an hour to "poke around". It seems to me that if I decide to travel from now on, I should probably set up an empty Ubuntu install, and edit the GRUB menu not to show my real Win or Ubuntu install (and not mount the other (encrypted) partitions). After I'm at my destination, re-edit the GRUB menu and/or re-mount the partitions. Though they might suspect something if the drive size looked odd (50GB drive, 10GB partition for instance). Might be best to just completely detach the harddrive and leave a live CD in there, or put one onto a USB key or something. Though really, the nicest thing would be a modified boot loader that silently (no notification, so they can't be like "Oh hey press that and enter your password or off to Gitmo for you.") would wait for a key press at the normal menu, and give a password prompt...on success of the password it shows all the OSes.

  111. Precedence to inspect, will be precedence to copy by shanec · · Score: 1

    Precedence is the true problem here, not searching for kiddie porn.

    It's quite reasonable to say that customs inspectors do not have time to dig through someone's laptop. In the future, as the number of international flights continues to rise, the time a customs inspector has to look over your luggage will drop significantly.

    Therefor, it's quite reasonable to presume that at some point in time in the future customs officials will have at their disposal a mechanism to quickly backup the hard drive for "inspection" by a third party. Of course this will be made easier with some new standard that is required in all "portable computers."

    The problem then is not if the customs agent is reading your personal documents. The problem becomes what does the third party, contracted to review all data, do with that data while they have posession? Share your love letters with the FBI? Share your medical data with your insurance companies? The possibilities are endless, and it all starts with the expectation that customs officials have the "right" to view all data on your person.

    Shane

  112. Physical vs. virtual by dten · · Score: 1

    A briefcase is a physical object that contains other physical objects that can be used in physically bad ways.

    The contents of a hard drive are not physical objects, they are pure information, that can not be used in physically bad ways. To police them is to police thought, at least in the context of a border crossing.

    Analogy fails.

  113. "resonable" is admittedly a slippery concept by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Your luggage is subject to search on domestic flights for good and sufficient reasons. The ability to smuggle a bomb onboard an aircraft in checked luggage was an obvious and stupid hole in airline security. (There are still plenty of obvious and stupid holes left, but this is certainly a start.)

    This is all legal because it is considered to be a reasonable exercise of power for the government to protect its citizens in this manner. Your carry-on luggage and your clothing have been subject to search for decades, why should checked luggage be any different?

    However, it would likely be considered unreasonable for a TSA agent to demand a search through your laptop hard drive, since the contents of your hard drive have no bearing on the safety of an aircraft.

    At the border, OTOH, the customs agents are charged with (among other things) the preventing the importation of contraband into the U.S. Illegal materials are illegal whether they be in a magazine or contained on a laptop hard drive.

    What separates a "reasonable" search from an "unreasonable" one? I believe in the legal world, a "reasonable" search would be one that narrowly serves a legitimate government interest. Random searches of people on the street "just because" are unreasonable because they are too broad. Searching those that would board an aircraft specifically for items that could cause harm to those on board the plane is sufficiently narrow to be "reasonable".

    SirWired

    1. Re:"resonable" is admittedly a slippery concept by BornAgainSlakr · · Score: 1

      My domestic point was that they do not care about privacy at all, would likely start searching laptops (not necessarily for the security of the aircraft, but just because we will let them when they ask), and that none of the measures make us any more safe.

      As far as the border goes, searching laptop drives is only going to inconvenience the innocent and maybe catch the random, idiot child pornographer. It is a stupid exercise and totally beyond what a Customs agent should be looking for.

      Back to domestic searches...

      Let's assume there is a good and sufficient reason to search bags. Fine, let's go in a private room and you can search it while I am present and able to observe that the TSA agent is acting appropriately and that my rights are being at least somewhat respected. They do this in Turkey, by the way, and the security staff there is far and above more professional and courteous than TSA...at least, that was my colleague's experience there.

      In order to do that without hiring tons of new people and without making people miss their flights, you have to recognize that it is not how many bags you search, but simply that you search bags. You do not need the massive, inefficient security centers and unsupervised bag searches.

      I whole-heartedly disagree with the public, extended searches they perform in the security line. It is absolutely inappropriate to open someone's bag, wand them, make them take off pieces of clothing, etc. in full view of everyone else in line.

      You give up all your privacy and even dignity when you fly these days because TSA and Customs are going down an endless road. First, we X-Ray. Then we open suspicious bags. Then we search bags without the owner present and no suspicion. Now we search laptop hard drives. I am not using a slippery slope argument here, they are doing it for me.

      Going back to the assumption of the need to search bags, how many bombs were involved in 9/11? Zero. How many contraband items at all were involved in 9/11? Zero. How would bag searches have stopped 9/11? They would not have.

      Approximately 200,000 people have died in auto accidents since 9/11. Do we really need to be afraid of the extremely minuscule chance that someone is going to hijack or blow up a plane? Does security really need to be anything more than passive checks of destinations, maybe random (or even profile) interviews in the terminals, maybe passive explosive residue checks, and maybe some metal detectors? Especially considering the fact that there is always a way around any security measure you implement?

      Does the government really have good and sufficient reason to search my bags? No. It doesn't make anyone any more safe from highly improbable terrorist events.

      --
      IANYL, IANAL, TINLA, IANAMD, IANAP, ...
  114. So what would stop me by kneemoe · · Score: 1

    what would stop me from simply emailing/ftp'ing the files to myself/home machine (encrypted if necessary), then wiping my drive and installing some crapware OS (win98) and then walk through the border with all these "dangerous files?" just sounds like they're creating more problems then solving, that doesn't sound like *my* government

    --
    My Sig Sucks
  115. oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    data is not thought, neuromancer.

  116. It's more analagous to a diary by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

    If I enter the US with a (paper) diary, are the customs agents allowed to read the diary, and make a photocopy of it?

  117. Too specific. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    You're arguing the wrong thing. TSA doesn't have constitutional authority to do *anything* they do. (except, maybe the sniffer, depending on how invasive it is.)

    The big irony is that the airport search queues were perfectly legal when the airlines were running it: they have the right to specify the terms and conditions of ticket sales as long as you're informed of those terms before purchase. Obviously, there are certain rights you still couldn't sign away (like, an unlimited liability waiver), but I somehow doubt anyone would consider it unreasonable that they ask you to prove you aren't putting other passengers at risk. But as a routine measure for domestic flights, the government really has no authority (except what it has usurped) to violate people's right to be secure in their persons and papers. Unless you're going to argue that routine air travel is sufficient cause to issue a warrant for such search.

    I often wonder what the result would be if, when they requested you show them something, you simply said, "No, thank you." And handed them a copy of the Bill of Rights if they demanded action. Sadly, my own cowardice regarding the results prevents me from trying it.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:Too specific. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      you have no checks/balances in this so you CAN'T fight it ;(

      object at all - and you're "on the list" for good. how is THAT for a chilling effect?

      this government is not dumb; they have thought about exactly how to grab your rights and make you afraid to fight back.

      very sad. I wonder if america will take its constitution back? I wonder if it will happen in our lifetime or the next generation or the one after that? very sad indeed. the world used to look to us as a sort of model of freedom and individual rights. now, we are a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  118. Re:Ridiculous, so then one way ALL can NIX by UseTheSource · · Score: 2, Funny

    this stupid search mandate is to teach ALL (even the perps) to put the data on an SD or mini-SD card

    Next up, cavity searches at customs checkpoints for flash drives hidden on one's person.

    --
    "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
    "We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
  119. It's like papers + software by davidwr · · Score: 1

    A computer hard drive is like a stack of unlabeled DVDs which might or might not be commercial and might nor might not be bootleg

    PLUS

    A stack of papers containing your diaries, bank statements, letters, corporate/employer-confidential material, etc. and which might or might not contain plans to blow up airplanes and child pornography.

    Now, does case law allow customs to inspect unlabeled DVDs for bootleg movies?

    Does case law allow customs to inspect papers for plans to blow up airplanes and child porn?

    Barring a statute that gives computers more protection, I would expect judges to follow any binding precedents for the paper analogs. If there are no binding precedents, I would expect them to take non-binding precedents in the paper world under consideration.

    Now, as far as doing a physical inspection of the laptop to make sure it's not a bomb, no question, they have every right to do that.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  120. Uh oh... by Pasajero · · Score: 0

    That means I have to get rid of that "You have 10 seconds to enter password" custom logon screen...

    Seriously, not only do I have to remove my shoes, belt, jacket and cap but now I have to standup holding my clothes and pants in one hand, type a logon password with the other and wait for an officer to scan over thousands of files on my laptop just enough to either run half-naked to my connection across the airport or let it go while I put everything back ???

    Geeez... I'm not sure who's worse: US companies treating their customers like criminals or your goverment doing the same to tourists. The only clear thing is: Illegal workarounds seems to be more convenient -and efficient- in both cases. No wonder people do them more and more.

  121. You will be killed for your insolence by thegnu · · Score: 3, Funny

    Lord Vader does not skip lunch, fool!
    *CTHHHHK* ...
    *KHHHHH* ...
    *CTHHHHK* ...
    *KHHHHH*

    Now bring me my burrito!

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
    1. Re:You will be killed for your insolence by mfnickster · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I will have the penne a la arabiata... No, I do not need a tray to kill you. I can kill you without a tray!"

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    2. Re:You will be killed for your insolence by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      I find your lack of red sauce disturbing...

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    3. Re:You will be killed for your insolence by sqldr · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not, but he always goes through the same difficult routine when he tries to order it:

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sv5iEK-IEzw

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
  122. Guess I'm keeping the old iBook by greed · · Score: 1

    Here I was wondering if I should sell my iBook G4 or keep it.

    Looks like I'm keeping it. And keeping it clean.

  123. When will truecrypt be available for OS X ? by Builder · · Score: 1

    Like the subject says... when ? I'm really looking foward to that, but then, last I checked GPGMail still wasn't available for Leopard :(

  124. *ssholes by Count+Sessine · · Score: 1

    How about the legality of searching your laptop and breaking it? That's exactly what the DHS inspectors did to my brother-in-law's laptop at the airport when he went on a trip. They left a nice note saying that they broke it during the inspection and that there was no legal recourse.

  125. Idiotic? Try this... by poptones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Molesting a child is a harmful act. So is molesting and adult.

    Images of child molestation are not child molestation. Looking at an image of child molestation no more makes one a molester than does watching bank robbery footage make one a bank robber.

    And pedophilia may be real, but its no more "dangerous" than homosexuality or heterosexuality. We all have feelings every day it would be bad to act upon - most of us are rational enough to avoid doing the wrong thing. Assuming all "pedophiles" (which, in this society, would mean pretty much any male who has ever looked at a 15 year old and thought "wow that's hot") are simply out of control, irrational animals unable to control their actions is the very height of idiocy.

    1. Re:Idiotic? Try this... by stubob · · Score: 1

      Please run for some political office, preferably under the Sane, Logical Person Party. You have my vote.

      --
      Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
    2. Re:Idiotic? Try this... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      I guess you missed the part where I said that I think these searches are overly intrusive. I was merely opining on the fact that child porn is most certainly dangerous to it's victims. Try to read what I wrote and not just jerk your knee ;)

    3. Re:Idiotic? Try this... by yndrd1984 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      I guess you missed the part where I said that I think these searches are overly intrusive.

      Which isn't what he was addressing.

      I was merely opining on the fact that child porn is most certainly dangerous to it's victims.

      Which is incorrect. Cartoons, computer animations, and video with deliberately underage-looking actors all count as child porn - but don't have actual victims. Wanting to look at any of those isn't anymore dangerous than watching TV that depicts murder, drug use, or prostitution.

      Try to read what I wrote and not just jerk your knee ;)

      If you're going to be insulting, then I'll reply in kind: try some reading comprehension first.

    4. Re:Idiotic? Try this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's the general theory on that: child molestation can be done for the act itself, and for profit. Eliminating the profit motive hopefully helps prevent child molestation in some instances. It's kinda like making it illegal to knowingly receive stolen goods -- the idea is to cut down on theft. It won't stop kleptomaniac, but it will help stop people who shoplift with the intent to resell.

    5. Re:Idiotic? Try this... by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. Pedophilia means the primary or exclusive sexual attraction towards prepubescent children.

      A 15 year old doesn't fit the category, especially not if it's a girl since they tend to enter puberty earlier than the boys. Now, if someone primarily, or exclusively, thinks that 12 year olds are "hot", then that fits the description.

      What makes it problematic is lack of an acceptable outlet. Sure, most people control their own sexuality to avoid doing stupid things most of the time. That's somewhat different from making it -all- of the time even when you've got no acceptable substitute available.

      You say most people probably at some point or other saw a 15-year-old that they found attractive. True I guess, but most of those people -also- see attractive 17-year-old, 20-year-olds or 30-year-olds (depending on your own age and preferences I guess), so just because -SOME- people you find attractive are off-limits ain't much of a problem aslong as there's a large selection of people who are not off limits and which you also find attractive.

    6. Re:Idiotic? Try this... by WNight · · Score: 1

      But pedophilia isn't the right term for 98% of the child molesters. They aren't clinically pedos, they're opportunistic rapists who simply have access to children. Pedophile just sounds better for the news than "Guy who had sex with and took pictures of a hot chick who lied about her age and is only 16."

      This doesn't stop anyone from using the terms incorrectly though, and labeling underage people who send pics of themselves to their underage partners the same as serious child rapists. This is wrong and harmful not just to them, but to the real child-victims of non-pedo molesters who just aren't as newsworthy.

      We (the USA/etc) are on a witch-hunt to remove any pictures of the naked skin of a young human, but seem to give very little attention to actual cases of kiddy diddling.

      A father would get a far greater criminal sentence for taking a nude picture of his daughter (non erotic) and labelling it "Isn't she pretty?" than if he was caught repeatedly having sex with her. In the latter case he might not even lose custody. Weird isn't it?

      And of course places like Second Life are having a fit trying to figure out how to catch people who have virtual sex with short avatars... (Won't you please think of the virtual children!) This couldn't conceivably affect a real child, but people (err, scum sucking pedos) are getting reported for a crime more serious (in our legal climate) than gang-rape and murder of a real person.

    7. Re:Idiotic? Try this... by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Actually, most people mess around with the labels. Including you it seems :-)

      Someone who "messes around with" a 15-year old isn't an opportunistic rapist, not if the girl consents. Yes, I know that the law in some jurisdictions label such "rape" or "statutory rape", however keep the old joke in mind: "How many legs does a horse have if you call the tail a leg ?" -- answer: "4 -- calling it a leg doesn't *make* it a leg."

      There is essentially -nothing- in common between the experience of a 15 year old girl who chooses to have sex with her 18 year old boyfriend on the one hand, and a similarily aged person who is -raped-. It may be the in some jurisdictions both are illegal. But both being illegal does -also- not make the two situations the same or even similar.

      Laws also claim 15-year olds aren't "capable" of consenting, so thus coersion is assumed. There's fine reasons for keeping the law that way, but there's no reason to believe REALITY works that way. 15 year olds are infact perfectly capable of consenting or rejecting any number of ideas, including, but not limited to, having sex.

      In sane jurisdictions there's exceptions for if the partners are similar in age or development. It makes precisely no sense at all to punish a 16-year old for sleeping with a 15-year old, it's essentially random chance who is the older one and in any case girls (mostly the younger part) tend to be more mature than boys in the 13-18 age-bracket anyway, perhaps due to the earlier puberty.

    8. Re:Idiotic? Try this... by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      Assuming all "pedophiles" (which, in this society, would mean pretty much any male who has ever looked at a 15 year old and thought "wow that's hot") are simply out of control
      Actually, no. Pedophilia means the primary or exclusive sexual attraction towards prepubescent children.
      A 15 year old doesn't fit the category, especially not if it's a girl since they tend to enter puberty earlier than the boys.

      That's his point - in this society, the concept of "pedophile" has been systematically confused with all sexual conduct with minors. I have seen plenty of guys called "pedos" online when they mentioned how attractive a young starlet is (e.g. Lindsey Lohan a few years ago, Mary Kate + Ashley, etc.)

      To the average person, there's no difference. Fortunately psychiatrists know the difference, and (most) police do too. Being attracted to adolescents is perfectly natural; that's what puberty is for. But there's a big difference between simply being attracted to someone and sexually abusing them.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    9. Re:Idiotic? Try this... by Eivind · · Score: 1

      You do it too, to some degree: assume that any sexual contact is abuse, or atleast you say there's a big difference between being attracted to someone and abusing them. This is true, offcourse, but actually, depending on your definition offcourse, many if not most adolescents have a sex life, and a tiny fraction of that (which is still too much, but let's keep a perspective, yes ?) is any kind of abuse.

    10. Re:Idiotic? Try this... by WNight · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean that a 18x15 relationship was rape, the opportunistic rape comment was about most child molesters not needing children, anyone helpless would do, but kids are easy.

      My comment about the pedophile label isn't that it's right, or to imply that 18v15 is rape, it was merely to say that "The News" prefers the term over more accurate descriptions because it's short and catchy. (Like AIDS.)

      I certainly don't think minor statutory rape is rape, I especially don't think it's pedophilia.

    11. Re:Idiotic? Try this... by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I didn't use the term to refer to teens having normal sexual relationships with each other. I was thinking of the molestor/harasser/sexual predator who targets teens - the general public would classify him (or her) as a pedophile, whereas the police and criminal psychologists would not.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    12. Re:Idiotic? Try this... by Eivind · · Score: 1

      The police could disappoint you.

      When I was studying computer science in University, we had an interesting subject on Computers and Society, that consisted basically of a load of guest-lectures by very different people to different aspects of the influence of computers on society.

      One of these lectures was by Inger Marie Sunde, then chief of the Norwegian Special command on economical crime and computer-crime.

      She said a lot that made sense, but ALSO made the (to me) incredible claim that in USA alone, 400 children are abducted every year after contact with pedophiles on the Internet. (this was 6 years ago, when internet-usage was much lower than today)

      I found the claim hard to believe and asked for a reference for it, which she, offcourse, couldn't remember off-hand, but promised to send to me by email after returning to her office.

      Turns out that 400 was right. But none of the rest was.

      Unless, offcourse, you want to count "16 year old girls runs away from home together with her 18 year old boyfriend with whom she often chatted on the Internet" as a case of "child abducted after contact with pedophiles on the internet".

      Extremely misleading, and it gets worse -- according to the source, many of the teenagers run away from home because of abuse at home of some kind. So actually, many of the cases are examples of children -escaping- from abuse rather than entering into it.

      And this wasn't a run-of-the-mill cop either -- but the boss of the department responsible for computer crime. And it was in Norway, not USA. In general the pedophile-hysteria is somewhat more moderate here than over there.

  126. What companies have data deals with the Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time something like this comes up I wonder what companies have data deals with the Government. Or does it become public record?

  127. When I went to Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Canadian citizen I was able to travel to cuba, as a canadian citizen I also smoke pot :O I had friendly stranger (head shop) sticker on my laptop which one of the guards noticed at customs in Cuba. They gave me a proper "search" of bags and everything then attempted to get at my laptop. The problem was that the power is different down there and I had no batteries left on it (or so I said). I have bricked a laptop in the past using it through a power converter overseas so I flipped shit on them (FLIPPED) when they tried to plug it in. They eventually gave up but I was concerned as if they got onto the laptop I have photos and all sorts of stuff that are for my and my gfs eyes only.

    My Solution: As this is first news that they are just starting this in the U.S for me I have from now on (since cuba) travelled, with my laptop to both school and abroad with the following setup. My laptop has a fairly easily removable harddrive, so I just carry 2. My main drive is completely encrypted and stashed with other electronics such as my camcorder. I then plug in the dummy 20 gig drive and boot a mighty clean O.S. Anybody can see and look through the drive and I look less suspect as I offer any needed passwords.

    To make this better: Looking for a case or system to hold the encrypted disk that in the event of seizure a button can be triggered to physically erase or destroy the disk.

    But I am not into anything illegal so that might be extreme ;)

    probably 10000 ways to get around this if you truly were into criminal activity so the U.S just like the Cubans were just out to uncover pics of my gf and me or other things that are private to me.

  128. Ah, you are confusing "reasonable" with "competent by sirwired · · Score: 1

    I will be the first to admit that aviation security in the U.S. is a poorly done pile of crap. It is makes swiss cheese look as solid as a brick of lead.

    However, the legality of a bag search is not affected by how neat or nice they are about it, or if it is done in your presence. (The lack of witnesses might affect the admissibility of any criminal evidence found, but that is another matter.) The legality of a bag search is not affected by the fact that there are oodles of other ways to do very bad things to an aircraft.

    Also, the only clothing one is required to remove in public in a TSA line is your coat and shoes. (This was not always the case, but a few nasty incidents changed that quickly.) You are allowed to request that a search of your bags or your person be done in private.

    My point is that a search of your bags prior to them being loaded onto an aircraft is a reasonable exercise of government power, and therefore legal.

    It appears the search at Customs in the original article was a random search, and it appears to have worked. (Certainly they do not inspect the contents of every laptop entering the country.)

    SirWired

    By the way, the Lockerbie bombing was caused by checked luggage. All international luggage from the U.S. was either scanned/searched or subject to passenger-matching shortly afterwards. (meaning, if you didn't get on the plane, your luggage had to be pulled) This practice was merely extended to Domestic luggage after 9/11. As another related side note, there is actually no requirement to search or X-Ray all luggage. However, since the only legal alternative for the airlines is to passenger-match every single bag, which would delay the aircraft terribly in the event of a passenger missing their flight. This was done after 9/11 prior to the whole TSA apparatus being in place, but no airline would choose it.

    SirWired

  129. 4th Ammedment is fine... by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable [emphasis mine -mi] searches and seizures

    Kinda vague, is not it? What's reasonable? Up to the courts, really...

    And the courts have determined, that such "administrative searches" are Ok "as long as they are "conducted as part of a scheme that has as its purpose something "other than the gathering of evidence for criminal prosecutions."

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:4th Ammedment is fine... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      conducted as part of a scheme i think this counts..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:4th Ammedment is fine... by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      The courts need to be reminded for whom they are employed. Too often, people believe that they work for "The Government" when they hold offices of public interest. They are part of the government, but are not employed by them. They are employed by the people, and as such, we are ALL their masters. They are our subordinates, and not the other way around.

    3. Re:4th Ammedment is fine... by mi · · Score: 1

      The courts need to be reminded for whom they are employed. Too often, people believe that they work for "The Government" when they hold offices of public interest. They are part of the government, but are not employed by them. They are employed by the people, and as such, we are ALL their masters. They are our subordinates, and not the other way around.

      All branches of government work for us — not just the Judicial Branch, but also the Executive (typically referred to as just "The Government"), and the Legislative.

      Rarely feels that way, though...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:4th Ammedment is fine... by mrv20 · · Score: 1

      So what exactly is this other purpose? If they're not looking for evidence of illegal activities I see no reason to search anybody's laptop.

      This isn't a security check to see whether it is a functional laptop instead of a cunningly disguised weapon - you can gather that information from being shown the login prompt, and the X-ray / chemical scanners are a far better way to determine this.

      --
      "Algebraical symbols are used when you don't know what you are talking about" - BCS
    5. Re:4th Ammedment is fine... by mi · · Score: 1

      So what exactly is this other purpose? If they're not looking for evidence of illegal activities I see no reason to search anybody's laptop.

      Not sure... But if one can refuse to be searched and fly back, there is hardly anything new here.

      The "other purpose" can be: "not allow any child pornography to enter the US". Or terrorism manuals...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:4th Ammedment is fine... by mrv20 · · Score: 1

      That sounds rather like searching for evidence of illegal activities to me, unless you are free to turn round and fly back after they find them.

      --
      "Algebraical symbols are used when you don't know what you are talking about" - BCS
  130. I think ... by SlashDev · · Score: 0

    ... for those who claim, this is intruding on personal life, it's the same as looking through your suitcase. Now that you know ahead of time, leave your personal info OFF the laptop.

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
  131. Re:Ridiculous, so then one way ALL can NIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you know there are these new high capacity Micro-SDHC cards smaller than a fingernail? Now, I can fit 4GB so far up my anus that it would take a really thorough cavity search to uncover my private data.

  132. This is going to be worse than ISP tech support by kjkeefe · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can see it now...

    "Please power on your laptop, sir"

    *click*

    "Sir, I'm sorry to inform you that this border does not support linux. You will have to return to your place of origin until such time that you install the latest version of Windows Vista Ultimate, Now With Extra Neato Security! (tm)."

    /facepalm

    My favorite was the time the Linksys tech support person told me that my router doesn't support linux. To which I responded, "The router is RUNNING linux, you know-nothing dweeb!" That call was not very productive...

    --
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
  133. Going down the drain.... by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Our rights are going down the drain. We, in the United States, seems to slowly going by the way of an state. What the heck is the fourth Amendment doing? I hate child porn but there are other methods of getting these people. If this occurs there will be sudden stop of all business travel and it will make the flight stoppage after 9/11 look small. Not every person has porn on their laptops but definitely have important information on those laptops and confiscating these laptops for no good reason will not help.

  134. Congress vs. Parliament by mi · · Score: 1

    The House of Lords was called the Senate (wealthy provincialism is no barrier to having a fine library of Latin works) and the commons was called the House of Representatives.

    I'm pretty sure, a single-chamber Congress was seriously considered. The two-chamber result was a compromise between large States, who did not want their larger taxes to be controlled by smaller States equally, and the small States, who did not want to be marginalized on important issues.

    The two-chamber approach solved it by representing in Senate equally and in Congress proportionally. Which is why there are more Senators from Rod Island, than there are Congressmen :-)

    I don't think, this was a result of trying to emulate the British arrangement...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Congress vs. Parliament by Jerry+Beasters · · Score: 1

      "The two-chamber approach solved it by representing in Senate equally and in Congress proportionally. " What? There is no distinction between the Senate and Congress. Both the Senate and House are parts of Congress. You mean the House.

  135. I got one word.. by dementedWabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Guantanamo. Where the rights of the world are pissed on en-masse. Nothing to see here folks..

  136. next pda's phones and .... by josepha48 · · Score: 1

    ... any electronic device that one has. So that ipod could be searched for whatever, as well as your cell phone, or pda or any other device that stores data of any type. Weee.. that will speed things up at customs :-O

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!
    Does slashdot hate my posts?

  137. Re:Ah, you are confusing "reasonable" with "compet by BornAgainSlakr · · Score: 1

    Well, I had to take my belt off and show the tops of my boxers once. You are right, though. That has stopped. However... If there are ways around security, as you mentioned there are (and there always will be), then there is no security and privacy intrusions in the name of security are not reasonable and should not be legal. I think that is a really hard concept for people to wrap their minds around. There is no security, and no one can provide security. Terrorism, despite the efforts of governments to make us think otherwise, is so rare there is really no reason to even worry about it. When it is not rare, think Iraq, there is something fundamentally wrong and terrorism is just the symptom. "Fighting terror" and "securing us against terror" is just reactionary and idiotic. Even using Lockerbie as an example... Everybody said: "Hey, we're checking bags now! That would have stopped Lockerbie!" Did airline terrorism stop? No. Nobody addressed the core issues. So why bother?

    --
    IANYL, IANAL, TINLA, IANAMD, IANAP, ...
  138. Re:Ridiculous, so then one way ALL can NIX by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    They'll search your ass via supercavitation... (LOL)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  139. Everyone install this.. by JimDaGeek · · Score: 1

    Go now and download TrueCrypt. It is free, open source and runs on Linux and MS Windows, and this month version 5.0 will run on OS X.

    I use it at work, and on my Win and Lin boxes at home. As soon as 5.0 comes out, I will be all set. ;-)

    --
    General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    1. Re:Everyone install this.. by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      My previous employer used SafeBoot on laptops.
      It was connected to an internal server for periodic keys exchange.
      Other than that if i typed the password 3 times wrong while booting up, it would trash the hard-disk with zeroes.
      The whole disk was encrypted before Windows XP NTOSKRNL took over, so the decryption happened before allowing control to XP.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:Everyone install this.. by JimDaGeek · · Score: 1

      Not bad. Though for me I need more support than just MS Windows. Also, I don't want to trust my ultimate privacy to closed source software. For me there is always that little fly buzzing around saying, "you just don't know what the code is doing". I am not an OSS zealot, though for somethings like my private data, voting, etc, I think it is the only way to go.

      From a corporate perspective, SafeBoot sounds cool. One problem though, just writing zero's across a drive will not stop the data from being read if someone really wants to read the data. Several passes are needed with random garbage to be certain.

      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
  140. thank you internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree with this in every way possible.

    But with laws like these, only idiots would get caught. I would just dump the data where it can be publicly accessed (encrypted of course if sensative) such as an ftp server, http upload site, etc. Once I arrive at my destinaion, download the data, and now you have it. Ahh, the wonders of the digital age.

    But seriously, screw you US Gov. for interfering further into my personal life.

  141. Slavery by MacDork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would have been hypocritical for our founders to then limit recognized human rights to citizens only.

    Yet, they decided slaves weren't people. Nope, not hypocritical at all.

  142. Instead of just talking about this, do something by Flavio · · Score: 1

    Vote in the primaries for a candidate that cares about civil liberties and individual rights.

    Of all the Republican and Democrat candidates, only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich care. The others range from being downright fascist (such as Rudy "9-11" Giuliani and McCain) to the run-of-the-mill Patriot Act supporters (everyone else).

  143. Steganography by kramulous · · Score: 1

    If I needed to hide something, I'd use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

    --
    .
  144. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? - Avoid US by kill_-9 · · Score: 1
    gstoddart wrote on Slashdot, thus:

    I wouldn't be willing to try to stand behind an NDA with my company at a US border -- but then again, I don't plan on presenting myself to one any more. Over the last few years, I have decided that there really isn't a compelling enough reason to travel to the US. The level of draconian crap and complete loss of rights which can ensue is just not worth the exposure or the risk. It gets echoed a lot here on Slashdot, but an awful lot of people simply will not travel to the US again. You said it so well! I'm a scientist, and I've been invited to visit research institutions in the US by fellow scientists. Friends have also invited me to visit them for holidays. I'd love to go. The US has got great research institutions and it is a beautiful country. But I've declined the invitations. It's just not worth the hassle of having to submit one's self to being violated by the post-911 policies. I'll just be an armchair traveller to the US, thank you very much.
  145. Demand a brain dump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can they also cross examine you, perhaps using effective interrogation methods
    dumping the contents of your long term memory? What differentiates data stored
    in neurons from data stored on hdd or flash?

  146. Well, so much for traveling to the US then... by MadCat · · Score: 1

    This basically re-inforces my ideas on not going to the US again, ever. After 9/11 I regularly had to go there for work, and the whole half-undressing in public so you could shove your shoes and your belt through the x-ray machine was annoying. Then came that whole exercise, plus the silly things like showing your underwear, also having to put your socks through, and then the most excellent liquid ban.

    Guess I'll go spend my cash on vacations to Australia.

    --
    There is no sig...
  147. just store everything online, nothing on the HDD by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    Sure... they can inspect all they want on a laptop with the hard disk removed.

    Another possibility is to use the laptop only as a client and have everything stored on a secure server.

    What if they find a company's secret on a business laptop and then they go to sell info to competitors? ow can we be sure that they are not misusing their inspection powers?

  148. Only laptops? by esocid · · Score: 1

    Or does this apply to you if you happen to have just a hard drive in your belongings, or say if you have a desktop that you need to bring with you if you are staying for an extended period of time? I RTFA and all the references seemed to be at Laptops and their respective hard disks.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  149. Password? by PhearoX · · Score: 1

    Oh lord... I can't wait to try this on my next trip out of the country. I've never had my laptop inpsected, but you better believe I'm changing my password to something regarding statistics about my genitals.

    "We need your password, sir."
    "No."
    "No, really. We need your password."
    "My password is a salted hash of the length of my cock."
    "Sir, we still need your..."
    "RAAAAAAPE!!!! PERRRRRRVERT! I NEED AN ADULT!"

  150. Re:Sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is to my understanding that GB citizens can be held accountable for breaking their own counties laws while in another country that allows suck acts.

  151. Again, you confuse reasonable with useful by sirwired · · Score: 1

    The question posed is: Does the security of air travel, as currently implemented, constitute "reasonable" search under the 4th amendment? The question is NOT: "Is air security effective in reducing terrorism?"

    Attempting to protect citizens during a particularly vulnerable time (there is no escape from a violent incident several miles above the ground) is considered by the courts to be a legitimate government interest. Moreover, the searches, as currently implemented, are considered to be a "reasonable" expression of that interest. That's it when it comes to legality.

    Are searches done in a useful manner? Are they a waste of resources that would be better spent elsewhere? Is there any point? All those are policy questions, which is beyond the scope of the legality of the measures. An "unreasonable" waste of resources does not make the searches "unreasonable" exercises of government power.

    SirWired

    While irrelevant to the question of the legality of airline security, it is really impossible to determine the effectiveness of the measures because deterrent effect cannot be measured without controlled experiments which are unlikely to be carried out.

  152. Other devices by technopinion · · Score: 1

    If they're that worried about what's on your laptop, they'd better start inspecting every mp3 player, digital camera, and oh, now that you can get 12 Gig microSD cards, every cell phone too. Never mind the fact that I could probably hide terabytes of contraband in microSD cards inside my wallet, belt, socks, pockets, etc. Can't wait to see how long the lines are going to get at security.

  153. I'm having trouble following you by sirwired · · Score: 1

    I'm a little confused why you think that an international border is not different from an internal one... They are fundamentally different entities. There are of course the obvious legal distinctions: namely the Feds have exclusive jurisdiction over the national border. Not so state and local ones.

    The first thing that comes to mind is that the U.S. government has no direct control over what happens outside of the border. Without inspections, there is simply no reasonable way to ensure that illegal persons and/or goods do not enter the country. There is no visibility as to where those people or goods came from. Within the country, there is the law enforcement apparatus of the U.S. tasked to capture criminals, prevent the manufacture of contraband, etc. Since the U.S. cannot stop the manufacture of contraband abroad, how exactly do you propose that it be prevented from entering the country? One shipping container looks just like another. Without ID checks, how do you ensure that those crossing the border are not known enemies? Inside the U.S., the IRS can obtain probable cause for tax problems if your return doesn't match the W-2 your employer sent in. How is Customs supposed to verify you are paying proper duty on your goods without examining them? If probable cause were required, where would it come from? Again, one shipping container looks just like another.

    The control of the national border is a legitimate government interest, and searches and ID checks are a reasonable way of exercising it.

    I also don't get where you get the idea that the 4th amendment is ignored at the border. You do have those protections, they just are not nearly as strong. Your possessions cannot be permanently seized "just because", you are not subject to a body-cavity search as part of a random check. You are protected against "unreasonable" search and seizure, but reasonableness is held to a different standard to fit the circumstances.

    At the border of the country, searches that would be unreasonable in downtown Chicago become reasonable. The random (and not so random) inspections that are carried out are pretty much the only way (short of extensive operations on foreign soil) that Customs and Immigration laws could possibly be enforced.

    Part of the reasonableness standard is determining if the same legitimate ends (securing the border of the country) can be achieved through less intrusive means. What is your less-intrusive alternative to the inspection of people, possessions, and goods at the border?

    Based on that logic, the 4th amendment would prevent the US government from doing anything about an invading army once the invading army was completely across the border into the US.

    Once an invading army is through Customs, how would you stop them? Up until the point the guns come out, what is your less-invasive alternative to stopping them at the border through simple ID and cargo checks? The 4th amendment affords them full protection once they are through the border. They can drive throughout the country at will, as long as those weapons stay out of plain sight.

    SirWired

  154. LAPTOP CAPERS by psibrman · · Score: 1

    More Bush fertilizer! Only 377 more days left. Thank God almighty, we'll be free again at last.

  155. A Scary Plausible Scenario Is .... by Blue_Wombat · · Score: 1

    That you are travelling on business with your laptop, and have US firms as either suppliers, customers and/or competitors. You have commercially secret information on your laptop. The US Government accesses this, returns the laptop, and lets you in. But, they also pass a copy of this information to some US firms to "help them compete" - possibly costing you millions. This is not far-fetched. In the past the French have been notorious for this - to the extent of bugging business class seats on Air France, and having the French intelligance services pass on key commercial information (eg bid strategies/prices) to french firms. If you have naughty pix of little children then I have no sympathy - you deserve what you get. But, if you have legitimate commercially sensitive information (eg we will bid $52 a share for a share in a Russian Oilfield), you don't deserve to lose contracts and possibly your livelihood because Exxon was tipped off and raised its competing bid to $53.

  156. The law says: by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Any civil servant or magistrate acting outside of the lawful purview of his office, is acting as a private citizen.

  157. Another Idea by Kyokushi · · Score: 1

    Create a partition on your HD, but don't mount it. I don't think people will found an unmounted partition that easy. Better yet (if you're feeling brave and using preinstalled windows), resize your restore partition and put your truecrypt container inside. (for plausible deniability) What does everyone think?

  158. They will confiscate my laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fine. I will download the Death Star Schematics from my google-drive in the nearest cybercafe.

  159. Re:Ridiculous, so then one way ALL can NIX by instarx · · Score: 1

    this stupid search mandate is to teach ALL (even the perps) to put the data on an SD or mini-SD card and declare that all suspicious data is NOT on the computer (and if it is regularly true, then let the statistics argue to dispense with or repeal that law/order).

    Oh good grief. Do you really think that if they go to the trouble to search your laptop for files that they aren't going to make you empty your pockets or your bags while they are at it?

    And secondly, there is no "mandate" or "order" or "law" to search laptops. The point of contention is that they have assumed the ability to search your data just like they search your suitcase. There isn't a law to repeal.

  160. Re:Terminal A - X-ray scan by msmalcelj · · Score: 1

    The answer is: X-ray scanning. At the airports, notebooks are scanned separately. Any such modification would probably be noticed. At least in Europe.

  161. Murky Waters by EdIII · · Score: 1

    This is a really interesting development. The court was right to rule that way, based upon what was presented. They were viewing a laptop to be no different then a suitcase. It many ways it is not. The court only ruled on a small point, while missing the bigger picture. That is not entirely their fault, as not every judge has a real grasp of cyberspace in the first place. It is about how the argument is presented to the court. Our cyberspace, which includes all areas of the laptop, must be viewed as important as the real space around a traveler. This ruling by the court is both good and bad. It is good, in that they are least discussing it, it is bad in that they ruled on an argument that was based on a fallacy. The rights of a person in cyberspace, must be treated with the same level of transparency and protections, though in many ways, it is just not the case.

    A suitcase can hold many different items. Some of those items, can themselves, be containers for other items (zip files). Some of the items, may be designed to contain information like a book or other papers (word documents, jpgs). Some of the items may serve a specific function (system files, drivers). So we have to look at every item in the suitcase, and inspect each one of them. What the court did not rule on, is what is permissible do with various different items. An opaque container that is locked, may be found unacceptable, since the contents must be inspected. A book, in of itself, is considered inspected. Reading the book, would be improper. Flipping the pages of the book quickly would show that is not a container itself (a word document containing an ASCII representation of a zip file). Lingering on an open page, would violate the privacy of the traveler. One could also make the argument, that even knowing the title of the work could be an invasion of privacy too (inspection of file names).

    Many posters seem to be caught up with Operating Systems, encryption, interfaces, and other various technical details. The posters that are raising questions about the difference between SEEING a document on the desktop and READING the document on the desktop are seeing the big picture here. Encryption is merely the act of locking an opaque container around another item. Steganographic methods of concealment are akin to having a gun look like a toothpaste container and a comb being a shortwave radio. Encryption is overt, and would most likely be found unacceptable since it prevents the inspection of the item. Steganographic methods, being covert, would have to detected like an X-Ray machine. On another note, key escrow could be seen as being no different then those TSA "friendly" suitcase locks.

    The manner in which the data is inspected is what will matter the most, and will probably be the most abused.

    The government already has rules and procedures for fruit coming into the country. The obvious reasons are health concerns. Under the same logic, the government can attempt to inspect a laptop for data that could lead to "health" problems with computers and networks in the US.

    Forgetting the legal or philosophical arguments, the real problem here is that is absolutely impossible for a human being to inspect a laptop within a few minutes. Even ones trained in forensic methods. A suitcase can only hold so many items, and can be inspected quite quickly. Ignoring that obvious problem, let's assume they can do it.

    You can't possibly go by filename or extension, since that is meaningless. I downloaded "Girl takes 3 foot horsecock into her pleasure tunnel" off bittorrent and got a full studio produced adult film with some VERY talented lesbians in it. Detaining some guy over a name, will yield thousands upon thousands of false positives. Costly, and legally risky since there would be plenty of press coverage and legal expenses on a good portion of those detainments. Not to mention putting a huge dent into tourism.

    So if you can't reasonably assume anything from the data being presented from the int

  162. What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's foolish not to find out about the laws and customs before you travel to foreign countries."

    That's not very practical, since most people who live in a country don't know the laws. If you're going to the UK, do they have the right to look at your laptop? Who would you call to find out? Do you call a british law firm? Who? Would they be willing to tell you?

    It's like saying "you should understand every last clause of everything you sign from Comcast to renting a case, and you're stupid if you don't". Well, yes, but when I'm at the rental car place, I usually don't have a lawyer with me, and until I got there, I have no idea that'd I'd need a lawyer to advise me. Or I can just walk.

    So tell me the sequence of events *in detail* how your scheme would work. Use a real example. You're traveling next week to Spain and you want to take your laptop, and you're not sure of applicable laws.

    Go....

    ==WRITE ANSWER BELOW THIS LINE==

    1. Re:What are you talking about? by sholden · · Score: 1

      There are these things called embassies and consulates. If you are traveling to the UK you ask the British Embassy - probably at same time you check if their are visa requirements. So for what you can't bring, 30 seconds of looking at a UK consular web site gives: http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/downloadFile?contentID=HMCE_CL_001734

      For what the laws you'd either ask the consulate or whatever arm of your own government gives advice on travel - both of those will know the differences which is what you really care about.

      As for Spain, their website is spectacularly uninformative so I'd call the local consulate/embassy and ask about restricted items. There's no need to ask about whether they can search my laptop - the US can I'd be entering/leaving there anyway. My assumption would be that they can search anything they want to, and throw me in jail for not jumping when asked - unless I was told otherwise when I asked.

      I'm not going to call the consulate and waste their time and mine to answer your question though...

  163. Freedom just slip slip slipping away. by icbkr · · Score: 1

    I'm starting to suspect that there may really *be* a subtle conspiracy by the cons to move us closer to fascism and further from democracy. This ain't helping. And just how is the gov't paying qualified people to inspect my PC? Or is the dude with the beepy wand thing going to be running grep scans of my drive?

  164. EU Data Protection by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1

    This raises some issues with EU Data Protection Law. This protects private data about EU citizens. Turning over private data is a breach of EU law and this law is trans-national, applies anywhere in the world if the data is about EU citizens.

    Therefore this raises the question, Can a US border guard compel somebody to break the Law of another country? If the answer is yes, then EU law would make it illegal to take a laptop containing personal data to the US in the first place.

  165. How long will this last? by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    I can't see the U.S. govt. these days basing its decision on trivial matters like freedom, justice, or our Constitution, but I can't imagine that business travellers would stand still for this very long. They're fine with the rabble having no rights, but as soon as they have to disclose their plans to secret paradigm-shifting project X to a Customs Agent, they'll scream bloody murder about free markets and open competition.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  166. Still wrong, by poptones · · Score: 1

    No, if someone consistently sees 12 year olds has hot that makes the person a hebephile, not a pedophile. Pedophilia is the attraction to *children.* Not young people who look like small adults, not teens who essentially *are* young adults.

    But neither is the point. The point is, if you have watched fox news or oprah at all since the dawn of the Clinton era, you will see that "pedophilia" has become the new cultural term for "anyone attracted to anyone notably younger or anyone under the age of 18." Men of 50 are called "pedo" for chatting up 19 year old interns and boys of 18 are called "pedo" and end up on sex offender registries for banging their 16 year old girlfriends.

    But even greater than that, while it is perfectly fine for Mademoiselle to run a hot cover featuring a 14 year old model in some skimpy thing, doing so *on the internet* will not only get one labeled an abuser of children it will also net one jail time and a lifetime of persecution on "the list." And don't even think about taking a picture of a NAKED kid - no, even art in this context is strictly not allowed. Thus, the "kiddie porn" those airline clerks are looking for is NOT simply trophy pictures of some fellow returning from his sex vacation in bangok, but could even include a tourist returning from the beaches of brazil with a hard drive full of vacation pics or a photographer returning from an art gig in ukraine.

    And THAT is the problem - soon as it was codified into law, the scope of what may be considered "porn" has increasingly widened along with our attitudes about "children." Films that were perfectly legal 20 years ago could never be made today - meaningful dialogue has been all but squashed because of a witch hunt mentality fostered by a mainstream media terrified of "the internet" and looking for any way to compete even if it means breeding fear and contempt in the citizenry at large, and an elite of politicians looking for any means at all to hang onto their jobs by securing votes.

    You try to address reality by pointing out pedophilia is not what I say it is. The problem is, you assume reality is defined by a dictionary. It isn't - the reality is we as a culture have all but lost contact with *any* meaningful reality when it comes to the issue of young people and sexuality.