Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Confiscating Data at the Border

PizzaFace writes "U.S. Customs agents have long had broad authority to examine the things a person tries to bring into the country, to prevent the importation of contraband. The agents can conduct their searches without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. In recent years, Customs agents have begun using their authority to insist on copying data brought to the border on laptop computers, cell phones and other devices. The government claims that this intelligence-gathering by Customs is the same as looking in a suitcase. In response the EFF is filing a lawsuit attempting to force the government to reveal its policies on border searches. 'The question of whether border agents have a right to search electronic devices at all without suspicion of a crime is already under review in the federal courts. The lawsuit was inspired by some two dozen cases, 15 of which involved searches of cellphones, laptops, MP3 players and other electronics.'"

630 comments

  1. Seriously.. by log0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Police state anyone? Things are getting worse and worse.

    1. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Police state anyone? Things are getting worse and worse. When they do that at the state border, then you're talking about a police state. I hope you have your exit visa for California to Nevada.
    2. Re:Seriously.. by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah we are so oppressed here, I mean people are getting sentenced to death for drinking alcohol and downloading documents on womens rights. Oh wait that's not us thats Iran and Afghanistan.
      Look the great thing about the US is that if you don't like how things are going you get out and vote. The next president might be able to pick three supreme court justices. Think about that when you head to the polls.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    3. Re:Seriously.. by edittard · · Score: 1

      ... but apparently they let Lore come right on in.

      Don't forget to tip your tuna!!

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    4. Re:Seriously.. by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      It's getting to the point where im not even sure if they remember *why* they are doing this... its becomming one of those "well, my grandad was %variable%, so was my dad, I guess i'll do it too!"

      I wouldnt be surprised if soon when some people resists that they are tried for impairing the policemans freedom to oppress you, and you know, cause it has "free" in it, people will be like "oh, its for freedom, thats ok"... wait, I forgot why we were doing this..."hmm"

    5. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google "boiling a frog". It might provide some insight as to why this line of thinking is dangerous.

    6. Re:Seriously.. by ShedPlant · · Score: 1

      I agree, but if the two major parties nominate Clinton and McCain, what hope is there of this worrying trend being reversed? This is why I voted for Ron Paul.

    7. Re:Seriously.. by Jamu · · Score: 0, Redundant

      'It honestly doesn't occur to them,' said Ford. 'They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.'

      'You mean they actually vote for the lizards?'

      'Oh yes,' said Ford with a shrug, 'of course.'

      'But,' said Arthur, going for the big one again, 'why?'

      'Because if they didn't vote for a lizard,' said Ford, 'the wrong lizard might get in.

      Still, it's better than living in Iran and Afghanistan.
      --
      Who ordered that?
    8. Re:Seriously.. by eepok · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Comparing a bad situation to something worse in no means negates or diminishes the badness of the original situation. By your suggested logic, you would never get a raise because there are still people who make less money than you... or are pressed into labor.

      And yes, this is one of the more overt practices of a police state. It's even more worrisome when people forget that the very philosophical and documented building blocks of the nation is a piece of paper that restricts the federal government from doing exactly what this article reports:

      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.


      This cannot be suspended except under marshal law and I've missed that memo if it's been announced. When the government stops recognizing their limitations and begins using forms of law enforcement and fear-mongering to bypass those limitation, then it's most definitely a police state.
    9. Re:Seriously.. by Atzanteol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I agree with your sentiment we must remember that a police state rarely happens over night. It's a slow process that is initiated by the people. Folks seem to have forgotten that they ned to protect their own rights, not ask the government to do it for them...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    10. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      .. things must have slipped quite far if you have to compare your country to Iran or Afghanistan in order to portray your country in a favourable light.

      This (data being copied at the US border) was communicated within my organisation (one of the largest banks in the world) quite some time back. We are no longer allowed to bring work-laptops when entering the US. Meetings were rescheduled to take place in Switzerland instead (sorry people of the US - you'll just have to endure jetlag more than was previously the case).

      The US is very rapidly turning into a developing country. What a pity. I do hope that you turn things around and regain the previously held title of "land of the free".
      Until then, we (the rest of the world) will be forced to continue reducing our exposure to you as it has turned out to be detrimental to business, economic growth and freedom.

    11. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "USA: Always better than ending up in Iran or Afghanistan" doesn't seem so great a motto...

    12. Re:Seriously.. by boisepunk · · Score: 0

      So does the ASCII pr0n that they're confiscating from me.

      --
      main(0)
    13. Re:Seriously.. by Speare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The current doctrine is focused on the keyword, "unreasonable." It's pretty reasonable to give the once-over to people (citizens and foreign nationals) entering your territory. I totally agree that data mining and archival of my bits is not "reasonable" but this hasn't been tested in the courts yet.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    14. Re:Seriously.. by Barryke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Use bigger fonts. only guards out of shouting range would see its actually porn.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    15. Re:Seriously.. by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 5, Informative

      How about you just tell us what you're talking about, instead of telling us to do a search on Google? If you want us to see your point of view, make an argument, not demand a web search. I see two reasons:

      1) Explaining takes a lot of time and in this case the explanation has been stated many many times and should be fairly common knowledge to the average Slashdot user.

      2) Sending people to look up a piece of data on their own forces them to find the answers for themselves rather than having them spoon fed as is quite common in the current US society. (And other places from what I hear.)

      Oh and the boiling frog reference?

      When cooking a frog live you put it in a cold pot of water and heat it slowly and the frog doesn't notice the temperature change until it's too late. If you were to just put it in the hot water it would jump out and thus be harder to cook.

      The US gooberment is boiling frogs as we speak...
      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    16. Re:Seriously.. by visualight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      STOP.

      Almost every time an injustice is reported, there's someone to point out how much worse it is some place else, as if that makes everything ok.

      If I posted counter examples of countries where people have more freedoms and used that to back up a claim of injustice here, you would probably counter with something like "so move there then..."

      BULLSHIT

      The proper response to this crap is to complain loudly, in court if possible, in the streets if not. When someone does so, you cheer them on, support them. Sarcastic comments like yours are "un-american".

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    17. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, cuz Gestapo-like behavior is a matter of *quantity*, not quality!

    18. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Until then, we (the rest of the world) will be forced to continue reducing our exposure to you as it has turned out to be detrimental to business, economic growth and freedom.
      This might actually be good for Europe. Europe can be the safe and free place to conduct business. I think the American paranoia will end up benefiting us Europeans for quite some time.
    19. Re:Seriously.. by smchris · · Score: 1

      Yeah we are so oppressed here,

      I guess that's the silver lining. We aren't the _worst_ country in the world yet and aren't likely to be the worst country in the world anytime soon. If that and a shiny piece of string keep you happy.....

    20. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This cannot be suspended except under marshal law and I've missed that memo if it's been announced.

      The United States has been in a federally declared "state of national emergency" since at least 1979, continuously. A large number of Presidential Executive Orders declare such emergencies with respect to specific events such as the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis and diamond smuggling in Sierra Leone, and under the National Emergencies Act these emergencies have officially been renewed over and over. For links to documentation on this assertion, see here, second paragraph. I'd like to ask each Presidential candidate whether we should maintain all of these "emergencies."

    21. Re:Seriously.. by presarioD · · Score: 5, Funny

      carry on citizen! Nothing to see here, the elections(R)[patent pending trademark of Diebold co.] are coming up so you can choose a candidate(TM)[owned by classified (for national security reasons) interests] by pressing an appropriate button at the Diebold Electronic Voting Machine(TM)and provided you've chosen wisely [Diebold co. safeguards your democracy and freedom(TM) for you] there will be the necessary voicing of your concerns about this issue. Once it gets properly acknowledged (>/dev/null) you will be notified. In the meanwhile, abstain from alcohol, pray to Jesus, don't touch children/gay/lesbian people, and don't be a teRRist hating america and our freedom and democracy(TM). We appreciate your business and looking forward to serving you again! Have a nice day!

      The above response is an automated response generated by our Complains Department Internet Crawling Machine. You have received this reply because your post scored +5 in the Homeland Security Dissatisfaction Scale(TM). Federal regulations require us to notify you that positive Homeland Security Dissatisfaction Scale(TM) Scores are automatically recorded along with your Unique ID (under Save America From Teh Internets Act anonymity on the internet has been eliminated for your...(stifling a laugh) protection). You might/will receive a notification and/or visit by DHS officers for an interview in order to clarify if you pose a threat to our way of life(TM) and to the safety of our society (silent "sieg heil" salutation in the background).

      --
      Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
    22. Re:Seriously.. by Pyrrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Still, it's better than living in Iran and Afghanistan.

      I'm really tired of hearing this argument. I'm an american, I love my country but I see things wrong with it and I know it could be improved.
      Yes, it's better here than it is in Iran. You know what? That's not good enough. I'd like to think that our country is being held to a higher standard than "better than Iran and Afghanistan."

    23. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god man this comment is so ignorant, you have already been brainwashed.

      --
      Nothing proper about you propaganda, fools follow rules when the set command ya.

    24. Re:Seriously.. by mi · · Score: 1

      Police state anyone? Things are getting worse and worse.

      Their authority to search you has been established since forever. Their copying (not, as the headline claims "confiscating") of your data for examination is only logical...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    25. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree that data mining and archival of my bits is not "reasonable"

      Hopefully, the courts will see reason. Until then, don't bring data with you across the border! Just zip your data up and FTP it to your server at home (and delete it from your laptop or whatever). Or better yet don't ever put your data on your laptop....just use the laptop as a remote terminal whenever you need to.

      Don't have a server running at home? Why not? It is ridiculously easy these days.

    26. Re:Seriously.. by runenfool · · Score: 1

      Sorry, if your company is forcing people to fly to Switzerland on the company dollar instead of you coming here ...

      where can I sign up? sounds like a great deal! Maybe we should become even more of a police state so I can get free trips to other countries? Win win win!

    27. Re:Seriously.. by utnapistim · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Son, every election is between a turd and a douchebag."

      --
      Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
    28. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gestapo did not confiscate anyone's laptops or MP3 players.

    29. Re:Seriously.. by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's better here than it is in Iran. You know what? That's not good enough. I'd like to think that our country is being held to a higher standard than "better than Iran and Afghanistan."
      Thank you. It's good to see that common sense is still out there, even if it's not as common as one would think.
      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    30. Re:Seriously.. by Barryke · · Score: 5, Funny

      People like you should experience some European countries firsthand.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    31. Re:Seriously.. by trolltalk.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Yeah we are so oppressed here,"
      I guess that's the silver lining. We aren't the _worst_ country in the world yet and aren't likely to be the worst country in the world anytime soon. If that and a shiny piece of string keep you happy.....

      Actually, in terms of the number of people in jail, which is probably a good way to gauge oppression, you are #1.

      Welcome to the 37-year "War on Drugs", which so far has cost more than any other war except WW2. Pretty stupid waging a war against your own citizens - sort of like pushing on a string.

    32. Re:Seriously.. by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Funny

      that's because we're still working on "as good as Canada".

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    33. Re:Seriously.. by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh yah? Well Iran and Afghanistan are better than living on the moon. There isn't any air on the moon. So if you like breathing air you'd better shutup and stop complaining!

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    34. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, once the military takes charge they can define the law to be anything they want it to be. So in actuality, yes warrants and all other parts of the government can be suspended. The military may, at its own option, only suspend certain priviledges because it has no intention of taking over for anything longer then a very short term. The forfiture of priviledges or rights under martial law is totally dependent upon those people wielding the guns and their intent and goals.

    35. Re:Seriously.. by wheel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, Canada does this, too.

      Last year while I was crossing at Sault Ste Marie the Canadian border patrol (whatever the agency is called) flipped through my journal, and then asked me to log into my laptop. They had me stand well out of visual range while they went through it. It was totally unexpected by me, and it left me feeling violated and angry.

      I checked my logs for USB activity during that time and there was none, fortunately. Actually a history of their session showed Gnome help had been accessed before they apparently gave up.

      Since, I've configured my desktop to prompt for both username and password. I have two logins: will and william (not their real names). will is my actual account, while william is essentially empty. From the "asked me to show a recent document" in TFA, I guess now I should have a little sample data to make it somewhat convincing.

    36. Re:Seriously.. by c0p0n · · Score: 1

      Only because there was none to be confiscated.

      --

      Your head a splode
    37. Re:Seriously.. by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm inclined to make an encrypted document titled "How to overthrow a government", but the unencrypted document would be nothing but the word 'monkey' repeated several thousand times.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    38. Re:Seriously.. by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      Still, it's better than living in Iran and Afghanistan.

      This statement would hold true if the U.S. were exactly like Iran/Afghanistan in all respects save that everyone received a free ice cream cone every other Friday.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    39. Re:Seriously.. by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The current doctrine is focused on the keyword, "unreasonable."

      Unfortunately, it's all too easy to turn "unreasonable" into "reasonable" by way of many small "reasonable" steps over time.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    40. Re:Seriously.. by Beau6183 · · Score: 1

      Only a sith deals in absolutes...

    41. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, right. Nobody would ever think of monitoring international internet connections now, would they? Echelon must be a myth.

    42. Re:Seriously.. by beamin · · Score: 1

      I'd love to know what the heck that's supposed to mean. "Because some European countries are better, so you'd know what to shoot for?" "Because some European countries are worse, so wanting to improve your own country is somehow wrong?"

    43. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Note that frogs are more intelligent than people. They will jump out of the pot even when the temperature only rises slowly. Snopes

    44. Re:Seriously.. by Intron · · Score: 5, Funny

      Aren't you aware of the obesity problem in this country?

      That's a terrible idea.
      Unless it's Ben & Jerry's Peanut Butter Cup, then ok.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    45. Re:Seriously.. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. Let's just show how ridiculous the parent's argument really is:

      Person 1: "Why are we eating at McDonald's again? This food is lukewarm and the service sucks!"
      Person 2: "Well, why don't you try eating out of a garbage can? McDonald's is MUCH better than eating out of garbage can! See? We're at the best place to eat in the world!" .... later ...

      Person 1: "Well, at Quiznos, they have these toasted subs that are yummy! They cost a little more than McDonald's, but the location down the street has great service, too."
      Person 2: Indignantly: "Oh, well, if you like Quiznos so much, why don't you just go eat there, then!"

      See what I mean, folks? See how ridiculous this sounds? I bet you couldn't stop from laughing. This is the same argument, people. No, it's not different.

      Please, please, people: Start thinking for yourselves and stop parroting what people on television, in the media, and in the political arena -- whoall have ulterior motives for saying what they say -- are saying!

    46. Re:Seriously.. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I suppose now that TC5 has boot device encryption I have no worries...
      As of yet I'm still not obligated to yield the password.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    47. Re:Seriously.. by zippthorne · · Score: 1
      Have you ever actually done the experiment? The necessary resources aren't exactly difficult to obtain.
      1. N*1 live frog(s)
      2. 1 4-quart pot
      3. N*3 quarts ordinary tap water
      4. 1 electric buffet burner
      5. 1 standard electrical outlet, connected
      where N is the number of times to repeat the experiment. Regarding ethics: if it's not too cruel for delicious lobster, it's not too cruel for tasty frog legs, either.
      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    48. Re:Seriously.. by compro01 · · Score: 2, Funny

      in which case you're a sith as you're dealing in absolutes. ;)

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    49. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Gestapo did not confiscate anyone's laptops or MP3 players.

      Whoa! Your really got me there. I was wrong to think that one abuse of power is in any way comparable to another abuse of power.

      "Files, please" is in no way equivalent to "papers, please." I was wrong to think that they could possibly be similar in any way.

      Thank you. From now on, I can happily tolerate any government invasion of my privacy, as long as it's not EXACTLY like what the Nazis did!

    50. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sarcasm is as American as apple pie. I call BULLSHIT on you. Not everyone is ready for hardy litigation or a f'ing revolt.

    51. Re:Seriously.. by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      Note that frogs are more intelligent than people. They will jump out of the pot even when the temperature only rises slowly. Snopes Wow. The one time I don't check...

      I bow to the power of Snopes.

      Regardless the idea of the government slowly "turning up the heat" on it's citizens still holds. I guess that makes a lot of us dumber than frogs right? ;-)
      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    52. Re:Seriously.. by sjames · · Score: 1

      I guess that's the silver lining. We aren't the _worst_ country in the world yet and aren't likely to be the worst country in the world anytime soon. If that and a shiny piece of string keep you happy.....

      yep, let's all join in the team cheer...."We are not the worst!!! We are not the worst!! YEAH!"

      Seems kinda pathetic actually.

    53. Re:Seriously.. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      This crap has been happening for a long time now. They would open briefcases and photocopy any documents you had, they got all excited if you had anything marked confidential. Many a businessman got pissed off at their rampant violations.

      It's why I tell everyone to put important data on micro SD cards and hide them very well or SHIP them to themselves via Fedex.

      you need to end-run these guys and the only way is either to adopt spy tactics and hide your data in things where they will not look or send it a different route.

      find the physically smallest storage technology you can and use it, then hide the media inside belts, shoes, other items. TSA agents are incredibly stupid and will not look hard for things like that.

      Yes it's sad to maintain your privacy you have to act like a spy.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    54. Re:Seriously.. by kryten_nl · · Score: 1

      ...by bullying Canada to make them change their laws?

      --
      For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
    55. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Gestapo did not confiscate anyone's laptops or MP3 players."

      If they are coping from MP3 players, just send the RIAA after them. But of course the RIAA wouldn't do a thing about it even if the they did copy your music. They can only fight people who don't have the financial resources to fight back.

    56. Re:Seriously.. by corbettw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No kidding. Once we can safely say "It's better here than Ireland or Sweden", then it will be a compelling argument. The Soviet Union was better in many ways than Iran or Afghanistan, but no one thinks of the USSR as a bastion of freedom and democracy.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    57. Re:Seriously.. by jsiren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The former, in some regards. Some European countries may have some things better (not all countries and not all things, mind you.) Because then you might actually say: "You know, if they have this, that, and the other in France/Germany/Italy/Portugal/Slovakia/Estonia, couldn't we do the same or better?" instead of "Well, it's still better than Iran and Afghanistan..." How about some healthy ambition?

      --
      Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
    58. Re:Seriously.. by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      Are you absolutely sure about that? Perhaps you could possibly notice that that was a question, and not indicative, or maybe not?

    59. Re:Seriously.. by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      And remember, copying isn't theft, as you still have use of the data afterwards. And since information wants to be free, they are only helping it along its natural path.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    60. Re:Seriously.. by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Still, it's better than living in Iran and Afghanistan. I'm really tired of hearing this argument. I'm an american, I love my country but I see things wrong with it and I know it could be improved. We're fucked. It's only going to get worse. Doesn't matter whose in charge - old white man, old white woman, young black man... all the damn same.

      We. Are. Fucked. :)
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    61. Re:Seriously.. by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      You could also drain the battery and keep the charger stored somewhere else, assuming you don't use it during the trip. They may not have one.

      Or put in a bootable CD and see if they figure it out ;-)

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    62. Re:Seriously.. by mea37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Regardless the idea of the government slowly "turning up the heat" on it's citizens still holds. I guess that makes a lot of us dumber than frogs right? ;-)"

      Only if you really believe that we're in the midst of a gradual erosion of rights that defies historical precident in American society.

      If you apply a little historical perspective, you'll find that these issues move back and forth over time, and that to a large extent a seletive focus on the negative combined with recent increases in the flow of information have created an illusion of a slow, steady march toward oppression. In truth I'd say the long-term trends have been positive.

      Not to say that we shouldn't question each and every increase in authority that government tries to claim for itself -- we should. But this "boil a frog" meme is nothing but tired, lame, non-productive alarmism -- on top of the fact that once you realize the underlying premise of the analogy is false, it starts sounding stupid.

      Should the border officials be allowed to copy data? Actually, maybe so. Crosing national borders isn't like moving about the streets freely; the search and seizure rules have always been different at the border than during, say, a routine traffic stop (and probably should remain so, though certainly that's a different debate altogether).

      If you believe that customs should be able to search for contraband and/or undeclared items upon which import taxes would be levied, then it is inconsistent to hold that they can't examine the data you're carrying. Of course, we expect them to follow certain rules -- just like we expect them not to confiscate your legally-owned-and-carried valuables.

      Does "examine" require them to "copy"? Maybe -- depends what they're looking for. That's where legitimate questions can start to arise. It should be clearly defined what their authority is, and it should be clearly defined what they are (and are not) allowed to do with any data they retain, how long and for what reasons they can retain it, etc.

      But that all has a lot more to do with controlling corruption amongst border officials than it has to do with unworkable cajun cooking techniques.

    63. Re:Seriously.. by ScrappyLaptop · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that people are seriously so far removed from nature that they don't realize just how ridiculous this is. A frog in water, with no solid support to push off of *cannot* jump out of a pot of water, hot or cold...anyone that has raised tadpoles has seen it first hand. Their webbed feet and back legs are made for *swimming*, as in "pushing a neutrally buoyant body through the water" and for hopping on land when absolutely necessary. Most of the time they crawl. As the temperature gets higher, being 'cold-blooded', they move faster becuase they can...until they reach some threshold above which it is *too* hot. Remember the last few years of people buying, buying, buying, often on over extended credit *because they could*? Well, I think we've reached the edge of the threshold. There won't be any "jumping out of the pot", just a bunch of cooked frogs and a few hungry predators higher up on the food chain.

    64. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we need Ron Paul as our next President. None of the other candidates care about our liberty or freedoms. There is a lot of mouth service from the other candidates on change. However, Ron Paul is the only candidate that has the voting record to prove that he is for change.

    65. Re:Seriously.. by StarfishOne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sooo.. where does this put the person carrying a work laptop legally in this case:

      - You carry a laptop from your company
      - For the data/software on the laptop, you've signed an NDA
      - Your laptop is searched at the border and data is copied and archived from it; this to me seems basically the same as your house being searched without a warrant

      Are you responsible for the breach of the disclosure agreement?

      Anyway: I guess it's time to carry almost empty laptops and access your company data over VPN/SSH/SFTP etc.

    66. Re:Seriously.. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

      Thanks, looks like we have nothing to worry about.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    67. Re:Seriously.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it hasn't been 37 years.
      Reagan introduced it.
      Of course religious asshats that can't mind their own business have been spreading lies and propaganda for a lot longer then that.

      BY the way, people in jail needs to be a per capita number, and it still doesn't indiactre oppression.

      And yes, the war on drugs needs to be stopped. My biggest disappointment was that Clinton didn't push that during his second term.

      I wish people who are pro marijuana would remember one simple maxim:
      "No matter how fair you think it is, what people think of what you do will be based on how you appear and act."

      I aften see these pro-marijuana people trying to get signatures, and that all seem to wear dirty clothes and smell "poignant". Here is a clue, where some nice pants and shirts and bath. Bathing includes Shaving/trimming, brush your teeth, and put on some deodorant. An occasion tic-tac can go a long way.

      This advice goes to gamers as well.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    68. Re:Seriously.. by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      for drinking alcohol

      You have a point about the others, but your country allowing one drug doesn't really make up for their eagerness to ruin the lives of people who use others.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    69. Re:Seriously.. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean, both of your example conversations seem entirely appropriate. If it's worse other places then enjoy what you have, if it's better in other places then go there.

      Makes sense to me. Why do we have to change McDonalds to be like Quiznos?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    70. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google "slippery slope". It might provide some insight as to why that line of thinking is most often fallacious.

    71. Re:Seriously.. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Who's going to pay for that ice cream? Benefits have costs you know. Ice cream in the desert is not cheap at all. We'll probably have our wages garnished under the guise of Income Tax until we all get to the point of "Why work at all? I could survive of of ice cream and let other people work to pay for it."

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    72. Re:Seriously.. by stretch0611 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The current administration loves a police state and took advantage of a tragic situation (9-11) to turn the US into one virtually overnight.

      --
      Looking for a job?
      Want your resume written professionally?
      DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
    73. Re:Seriously.. by the_fat_kid · · Score: 2, Informative

      ok, I'll let your "pro pot" slur pass.
      and you right, 37 years is much too short of a history.

      Harry Aslinger started this scam in the late 1920s.
      It was supposed to keep our white women safe from the "darkies" (his word not mine)
      He was apointed to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1931.
      by my math that is 77 years of lies, propaganda, and a war on our own people.

      google that one and pass the tic-tacs.

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    74. Re:Seriously.. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Look, if you have to compare McDonald's to eating out of garbage can to make it seem like a great place to eat, the food must not be very good, huh?

      Same with the U.S. -- if you have to compare our (remaining) freedoms with those in Afghanistan or North Korea -- well, what would you call that?

    75. Re:Seriously.. by perlmonky · · Score: 1

      Hmm.... I thought the US Constitution only applied to US Citizens inside US borders. There I go being naive again.

    76. Re:Seriously.. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      No, that's part of operation "better than Canada".
      See once we're "as good as Canada" then we'll make them implement our crappy laws so they'll be worse than us. We're just getting a jump start on phase 2.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    77. Re:Seriously.. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Police state anyone? Things are getting worse and worse.
      Let's not fool ourselves. This is about media file sharing. They're not looking for terrorist plots so much as downloaded copies of There Will Be Blood. Let's not forget who owns this country. The top priority for border enforcement is cheap pharmaceuticals and copywritten material.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    78. Re:Seriously.. by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      I mean people are getting sentenced to death for drinking alcohol [...] Oh wait that's not us thats Iran and Afghanistan.

      Right, in your country people are thrown into jail for smoking pot. You can relax.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    79. Re:Seriously.. by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Police state anyone? Things are getting worse and worse.

      Last October this happened to me when flying to Canada, but they're really free right?
      and on the way home i had to hear two Canadian ladies talk about how Americans do searches at the border and go on speels about 9/11 and Bush while im on my way home from Canada where they asked questions like "are you taking canadian jobs" i said no you ass, im training Canadians to do my job. then the proceeded to turn me back because of a 12 year old DUI when i was 16. Since then having a spotless record. but Canada is utopia and the US is satan.
      It was humiliating watching them go through my laptop and copying files from my cd burner. they wouldn't even let me see what they were copying or looking at. I had recently reformatted but still how the hell do I know if they were using undelete tools or whatever. Complete b.s. man

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    80. Re:Seriously.. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      WTF? Probably, but it isn't.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    81. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah we are so oppressed here, I mean people are getting sentenced to death for drinking alcohol and downloading documents on womens rights.

      How about 20 years for holding few grams of cocaine and a 5-10 year bid for just being in the same car? Or 2+ years for less than a gram of pot? Considering you can kill someone and serve less time I'd say that's pretty oppressive. Even sentences involving major financial crimes with millions of dollars rarely go past five years.

      No insult intended but I'm guessing you're a white male in his mid 20s or 30s with the lowest chance of getting caught up "in some shit" like our darker skinned friends. Ride as a passenger in a car with a black driver down a well travelled road in a white area to a get taste of oppression. Bonus for two or more minorities in the same vehicle with you.

    82. Re:Seriously.. by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Just encrypt your zip file with AES. 7-zip is Free if you don't trust proprietary Winzip.

    83. Re:Seriously.. by Knuckles · · Score: 1
      I'm no US citizen, but I think the US constitution lists or defines certain inalienable rights that are intrinsic to any human being (I am sure that the constitution of my own country does). For example, Amendment V,

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except ...
      . "No person", not "no citizen".

      If you are really right, then I'd suggest the US fix that clear error.
      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    84. Re:Seriously.. by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      For a global company the physical location of a meeting will often just not matter. I work in such a beast too, and many meetings consist of one guy from Australia, one from Shanghai, one from Paris, one from Berlin, one from Sao Paulo, and two from US. So Paris is just as fine for the company as NY.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    85. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Doesn't matter whose in charge - old white man, old white woman, young black man... all the damn same.

      Obama isn't black - he's a Milano or something.

    86. Re:Seriously.. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      "Well, living in America's better than being tied down on a board and having water poured into your lungs so you choke and almost die."

      Oh, wait. n/m

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    87. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The digital equivalent of searching isn't copying, it's examining the data. In the physical world, after they examine real stuff, they either confiscate it or give it back. In every case involving real-world stuff, one party possesses the stuff after the examination, either the owner or the examiner.

      If they're going to examine information and they want to draw authority from their right to search you, they must only look at the data and, only when they find something that is illegal, copy it and remove it from the user's HD. Their right to do this extends to a limited window of time as the person is passing through customs. They cannot copy the data for later review.

      That is the digital corollary to a physical search. Copying is not.

    88. Re:Seriously.. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I'm British, and I see things wrong with my country and want them to be improved. Some of them are already better than in the USA, but I still want them improved!

      UK improvements (no particular order):
      - Better public transport [already better than the USA here, worse than most of the rest of 'rich' Europe]
      - Less intrusion of privacy by the government [probably worse than the USA, but it's not clear]
      - Less intrusion of privacy by companies [better than the USA here, in line with everyone in the EU]
      - A better school education system [about the same as the USA here: a better academic curriculum, but a worse social/etc experience for kids, controlled too much by govt]
      - A better life for kids [about the same as the USA here, a UNICEF survey put the USA 22nd and the UK 23rd for quality of life for children. Out of 23 countries.]
      - Less violent crime [much better than the USA, but still unacceptable in a modern society. Why not aim for perfection?]
      - Less international military involvement
      - Less concern for terrorism
      - More renewable energy etc

      I wouldn't say I love my country... I don't think I can really love something that abstract. The land is my home (the shape, smell, weather, vegetation -- all familiar), but there are other countries I'd be quite happy to move to (and many I wouldn't). I think I love my city most, since it's a good part of my country and I have friends here that I wouldn't want to leave behind.

      This is completely off topic.

    89. Re:Seriously.. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      They do, in fact, look inside shoes. They make you take them off and x-ray them. However you are correct that belts or anything can hide an SD card, as they don't have anywhere near enough ferrous metal to set off a metal-detector. Or alternately you can hide it behind some metal that does go through the x-ray machine, like a metal belt-buckle or steel toe boots or cellphone.

      Now there's an interesting idea. Some cellphones let you expand memory with microsd cards, and it's possible they copy those when copying data off cellphones, but if they copy it via the cellphone you could easily make an SD card with a shortened file system, or just use part of the filesystem without allocating it, and have hidden files the phone cannot see.

      Of course, all this is completely stupid, as sending data encrypted over the internet is trivial and untraceable. You just get a webmail account that lets you use SSL, upload the encrypted file, email it to another account on the same service, and download it once in the US. Without the cooperation of the webmail provider, people, even people watch watching both connections and the webmail provider's connections, wouldn't even know the two people communicated at all. Even with the cooperation of the webmail provider, it's nearly impossible to notice, and even if you do notice it you can't arrest people for it or do anything about it, as it's not actually that suspicious.

      Meanwhile, I'm tempted to try to make it though customs while carrying two gymbags full of CD-ROMs on spindles. About 4000 of them. Open packages but nothing burned on them.

      Have fun copying, or at least attempting to copy, all those.

      I'd be sure to declare them and pay whatever taxes they want so they can't assert I was smuggling them.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    90. Re:Seriously.. by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Also, full-disk encryption with the recent Truecrypt 5.0 might be of use.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    91. Re:Seriously.. by Knuckles · · Score: 3, Informative

      people in jail needs to be a per capita number

      OK, per capita then:

      #1 is United States with 715 per 100,000 people.

      Then follows Russia, Belarus, Dominica, Iran, etc. until finally we come to the first Central European country, albeit until recently under soviet rule,

      #35 Poland: 210 per 100,000 people

      Then we have Uzbekistan, Israel, Bahrain, and others, until we come to the first Western European country. That is, a country which, similar to the US, has no war at its border and lives in prosperity. Just that they were a fascist state until 1975:

      #61 Spain: 144 per 100,000 people

      Then follows China, Bahrain, etc. USA's comparable neighbor incarcerates a sixth of the USA's number:

      #75 Canada: 116 per 100,000 people

      Now we enter a bracket that includes many Western European countries, and Saudi Arabia, until:

      #93 Germany: 96 per 100,000 people
      #108 Sweden: 75 per 100,000 people
      #119 Norway: 64 per 100,000 people

      And so on. Don't make me unfriend you again :)

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    92. Re:Seriously.. by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      I wish people who are pro marijuana would remember one simple maxim:
      "No matter how fair you think it is, what people think of what you do will be based on how you appear and act."

      I aften see these pro-marijuana people trying to get signatures, and that all seem to wear dirty clothes and smell "poignant".


      You really never thought about the possibility that you just don't pigeonhole people as pro-marijuana if they don't fit your prejudice? I'm sorry, but people all the way up to the Fortune 500 board rooms smoke marijuana (and do other drugs).

      There's no other way ...

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    93. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Hmm.... I thought the US Constitution only applied to US Citizens inside US borders. There I go being naive again.

      The Constitution is a document that spells out how we run our government, but it is based on principles that the founders declared to be universal, i.e. they will always apply to all people.

      The US government doing ANYTHING against those principles, to citizens or non-citizens, within its borders or without, is a betrayal of the whole concept of the Constitution. Gitmo turns the Constitution into "just a goddamned piece of paper!"

    94. Re:Seriously.. by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Obama isn't black - he's a Milano or something. lmao. Who gives a fuck?! Like it matters. ;)
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    95. Re:Seriously.. by wheel · · Score: 1

      I suppose I posted my own digression; I'm more concerned with how many other countries besides the US do this than specific countermeasures users can take.

      Is it just the US and Canada? Should we be concerned that this is becoming a global issue? What has your experience been?

      And besides, though I'm sure it's a great product, you TrueCrypt people are starting to remind me of the Ron Paul spammers.

    96. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So quit feeding the damned beast.

      What does it eat?

      Money.

      Seriously.

      A small government with limited powers wouldn't be able to do this kind of crap.

      When we start allowing the government to do things for us "for the good of the people", pretty soon all that power and money is going to be abused, and YOU will be at the wrong of of "the good of the people".

      How many of you who are outraged at this think it's a good idea to give the same government control of the US health care industry, and the power that goes along with that control?

      If you think the Bush administration is bad because of "unconstitutional wiretaps" and "torture" and "rendition", you've got to be an utter brain-dead moron to want to give that same government trillions of dollars more per year to run health care.

      Because the CIA and NSA didn't spring into being in Jan 2001. The very government workers who performed those wiretaps and did that waterboarding also worked for Bill Clinton's government. And if you think they're going to stop just because Hillary or Obama gets elected, you're are dumber than a box of rocks.

      Even if Obama wanted to stop it, the government is so large and powerful he couldn't. And if you think Hillary "FBI files" Clinton cares about anything but herself, you'd better shove a cork into your ass because the next time you shit the last of your brains will be gone for good.

    97. Re:Seriously.. by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Look the great thing about the US is that if you don't like how things are going you get out and vote. The next president might be able to pick three supreme court justices. Think about that when you head to the polls.

      If voting ever changed anything, they'd make it illegal. Personally, I'm not seeing anybody running this year that I'd like to see in office. Every last one of them has been bought and paid for by corporate America, every last one of them has their own personal agenda that they intend to implement over your dead body with your tax dollars. And none to date have had a single thing to say about any real issues, just the trendy sound byte shit that's guaranteed by their media consultants to make them look good on tv. I'd love to see, just for once, some real candidates run.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    98. Re:Seriously.. by Eggplant62 · · Score: 1

      Someone on Capital Hill needs to learn to fucking read:

              * Fourth Amendment - Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

              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.

    99. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Wikipedia points out, though, the experiment where the frogs did not jump was conducted at 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per minute, where the experiments where the frog did jump (that Snopes cites) were conducted at 2 degrees per minute, which is tenfold what the original experiment was.

    100. Re:Seriously.. by mlrtime · · Score: 1

      That would be between a giant turd and a douchebag.

    101. Re:Seriously.. by Instine · · Score: 1

      You do in the UK :)

      I went to the US recently (from the UK) on an interview. One of the things I was worried about was IP. Do I have any? If I get my hard-drive copied and/or viewed, what are my right re patents etc on anything viewed/copied?

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
    102. Re:Seriously.. by WNight · · Score: 1

      At times government oppression has been worse, but never before has the government had both the will and the ability to perform almost total surveillance. With speech-recognition scanning all of our phone calls, pretty soon listening in on public spaces, etc, it's going to be harder to do anything the government doesn't like. You know, like protest. Or vote for someone else.

    103. Re:Seriously.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      Steganography, hide the encrypted data in MP3s and large jpegs on cameras and MP3 players and also post the jpegs on social networking sites or picture sharing sites. Make torrents out of the MP3s and make a phone call to the receiver, alerting them to the download "gee whiz, what a great Indi-band song is in this torrent.

      As usual the Gummermint is just making the life of the average more difficult and aggravating without having any impact on the bad guys.

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    104. Re:Seriously.. by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Unless it's Ben & Jerry's Peanut Butter Cup, then ok.

      Terrorist!

      What part of 'Cherry Garcia' are you having problems understanding????

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    105. Re:Seriously.. by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      There's a time to think, and a time to act. And this, gentlemen, is no time to think.

      Il ya un temps pour penser et un temps pour agir. Et ceci, Messieurs, n'est pas le temps de penser.

    106. Re:Seriously.. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Police state anyone? Things are getting worse and worse. When they do that at the state border, then you're talking about a police state. Are you seriously suggesting (since this is only happening at the national borders) "police nation" as a more accurate and palatable term?

      You should look up "police state" in a dictionary sometime.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    107. Re:Seriously.. by sidb · · Score: 1

      Most people who don't trust Winzip probably don't use Windows anyway. And for actual security, simply encrypting a single file won't cut it because it has to be decrypted to disk to use, and then Windows will probably write another clear copy to the swap file. You couldn't count on such encryption to prevent a casual inspection either--if the customs goon noticed the encrypted zip file, he might just demand the password or threaten to confiscate your laptop. Using a steganography or hidden disk program like TrueCrypt might work, but that's going overboard for most people.

    108. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. police states occur almost overnight, when a country is taken and ruled by force. Examples include the former Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, plus any number of tin pot dictatorships in Africa and Latin America. Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy, BTW. I can't think of any examples of Democratic police states.

    109. Re:Seriously.. by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      I meant encrypt the zip before sending it through the Tubes to your file server. If Customs is going to make a forensic image or take your hard drive, yeah, they'll find deleted files or data fragments in swap. If you're that worried, wipe your data files, temp files and swap, and throw away the wipe program.

    110. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      boiling a frog is a slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. It should not be used in rational debate.

    111. Re:Seriously.. by Snuhwolf · · Score: 1

      The concept you're thinking of is called "incrementalism". Now we have another term to search on!

    112. Re:Seriously.. by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      And don't forget to "cat /dev/urandom > /dev/sda1" to wipe all traces of the wiper

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    113. Re:Seriously.. by rifter · · Score: 1

      Note that frogs are more intelligent than people. They will jump out of the pot even when the temperature only rises slowly. Snopes

      Snopes was wrong; see this comment for details, or just jump ahead to the wikipedia article. Two degrees per minute is pretty damn fast, and far faster than the gradual heating used in the original frog boiling experiment. Gradual is relative, I guess.

      If wikipedia is wrong it can be corrected by anyone. If snopes spreads urban legends how can we rectify the foolishness? I realize we're just screwed with MythBusters. That's pure entertainment.

    114. Re:Seriously.. by rifter · · Score: 1

      If you apply a little historical perspective, you'll find that these issues move back and forth over time, and that to a large extent a seletive focus on the negative combined with recent increases in the flow of information have created an illusion of a slow, steady march toward oppression. In truth I'd say the long-term trends have been positive.

      That is a very good point. After all, Washington's responses to Shay's Rebellion, and the Whiskey Rebellion, were pretty nasty. That's right at the beginning. The second president we had (Adams) suspended Habeas Corpus and prosecuted newspapers for printing things he didn't like.

      But that is why the checks and balances are there. The whole point is that even the founding fathers knew they were not perfect and natural inclination would lead men to abuse what power they were given. The only problem is in order for checks and balances to work people have to be willing and able to step up to the plate and do their duty when called upon. Which is why I blame Congress for failing to stop a runaway executive and instead opting to continue to abuse its power as well. As things stand, all three branches of our Government are out of whack and the Fourth Estate is complicit in the crime. The only solution there is to use the system as given and replace the faulty bits so we can get back on the road again. We got lucky before, so maybe this will actually happen.

    115. Re:Seriously.. by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Hey! Is /dev/sda1 your flash drive or your SATA hard drive?

    116. Re:Seriously.. by rifter · · Score: 1

      Yes, right. Nobody would ever think of monitoring international internet connections now, would they? Echelon must be a myth.

      Echelon, smeschelon. At least with this method, both the government and I can read my data together. Maybe like a bedtime story. The other way, they take my laptop (AND DATA!) and lock it up for years (or forever) and I cannot access it then.

    117. Re:Seriously.. by rifter · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That is in fact very informative. I had heard this claim by various conspiracy wonks over the years but never any details, so it smelled like a myth. We haven't quite had a full blown martial law except in limited circumstances (for instance, National Guard used to quell LA Riots, Blackwater used in New Orleans during/after Katrina). It does seem to me that for an emergency to warrant the temporary suspension of normal processes (and therefore technically a loss of rights) it would have to be pretty bad, and even then the effect of these suspensions should be limited. Blanket uses of the power is an abuse, which IMHO really is a use of a power that does not truly exist.

    118. Re:Seriously.. by rifter · · Score: 1

      Hmm.... I thought the US Constitution only applied to US Citizens inside US borders. There I go being naive again.

      Naive indeed. In any case the people in TFA were ALL US Citizens inside US Borders. The lady who lost her laptop was on her way *out* of the country, for instance.

    119. Re:Seriously.. by stm2 · · Score: 1

      "A frog in water, with no solid support to push off of *cannot* jump out of a pot of water, hot or cold"

      That is why experiments should be done with positive and negative controls when possible. In parallel to the slow boiling frog, there should be another with cold water.

      --
      DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
    120. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and if you want this future for you, press the "Hillary" button now.

    121. Re:Seriously.. by stm2 · · Score: 1

      You are not obligated to give your pwd, you have the option to go back and not enter into the country. (did you RTFA?)

      --
      DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
    122. Re:Seriously.. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      A four quart pot is really quite small. But if you're concerned, use a skillet, then. I can't believe slashdotters are so far removed from the kitchen that they don't even know what kinds of cookware would be available for the experiment.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    123. Re:Seriously.. by e-scetic · · Score: 1

      I sometimes think most Americans want a police state and not only fully realize where things are going but they embrace it. So it's the frog jumping into the boiling water. Most Germans at the time wanted a police state too, they were thrilled with all the uniforms, marching, rallies, etc. The you-know-who's where popular on account of their platform of Homeland Security and anti-terrorism. The dream was soured by the revelations of the death camps (not to mention discovering their own fallibility). The government has learned all the lessons from the era and continues to refine and improve.

    124. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here's one: German Democratic Republic

    125. Re:Seriously.. by MadCat · · Score: 1

      Not giving the password == not getting on your flight || being denied entry to the USA.

      So yeah, you don't have many options.

      --
      There is no sig...
    126. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?
        Like that was back in the 1960s, dude! Didn't the gestapo have USB ports and, like all of this shit back then?
      Wow! Like how did they survive? What kind of old Linux did they run back then?

    127. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be martial law.

    128. Re:Seriously.. by skeeto · · Score: 1

      Should the border officials be allowed to copy data? Actually, maybe so. Crosing national borders isn't like moving about the streets freely;

      This makes sense, until someday in the future computers inside the US are connected to computers outside the US in some kind of global international network, where the government cannot possibly know about or read everything that goes across this network. If this system existed, anyone wanting to transfer data without border gaurds snooping would use this global computer network and some kind of encryption software, onion routing, and/or steganography (once all this is invented too), and this border "security" would just be some kind of snake-oil, security theater bullshit.

      I can't wait for this global network to exist so they don't have to copy laptop data at the border!

    129. Re:Seriously.. by lpq · · Score: 1

      Should the border officials be allowed to copy data? Actually, maybe so. ....

      If you believe that customs should be able to search for contraband and/or undeclared items upon which import taxes would be levied, then it is inconsistent to hold that they can't examine the data you're carrying.


      This isn't exactly the same situation. In America, exactly what "contraband" can one carry in a laptop? What information is "illegal" to import that is not also available to be "downloaded" online?

      There is nothing of monetary value to the government to declare.

      The only thing they can search for -- is not "contraband", or "taxable goods", but *personal information*.

      If I brought several personal letters with me, or if I brought a diary or journal in my carry-on, does (or should) the government have the right to read my personal mail or open my diary and start reading my personal entries?

      If I tell the officer my computer has no password -- and he looks for contraband and finds none, can he demand I produce a password to uncover a hidden partition? Can they take me aside and start "waterboarding" me for all the passwords to all the websites I use...including financial sites?

      Part of the problem is that there is no official policy about what is allowed, or not, and there is zero oversight for abuses. If I refuse (or don't have) a password. How's about telling them that partition
      they want to access is only accessible with your boss's fingerprint? What if a partition on your disk is only accessible when "online" so that a password can be validated with a one-time password keycard?

      That may be the safest -- the 'private' info is stored in an encrypted partition with the key stored on your company's internal network (or for that matter, your home network!)

      But all this seems like alot of work to go through when the chances of being hassled are probably, literally a million to 1. It certainly isn't something random travelers should have to go through without probably cause.

      This nonsense of our "US-Constitutional Rights" are gone the moment we leave the US-terminal and enter the international zone is ridiculous. It seems next up might be people (non-ambassadors, of course), entering or exiting embassies.

    130. Re:Seriously.. by zazzel · · Score: 1

      "Europe can be the safe and free place to conduct business"?

      Where in Europe do you live? Must be out of reach of the EU. I live in Germany, and in recent years, we have had a massive shift towards a kind of "social" police state. Just ONE example: I'm a landlord, with three apartments on lease. I cannot choose my tenant freely, since there's "anti-discrimination" legislation. If I care to NOT accept a certain tenant because I think he won't pay his bills on time, I'm open to legislation: Maybe the guy is old, foreign-looking, obviously gay? Boom! He has a "right" to sue me into the contract. And the best thing: Shifting of burden of the proof - It's ME who has to prove I am not discriminating! So there was a time when an I was free to make a contract with whoever I like. That's gone!

      You know what's best? I've heard politicians argue in interviews, asked about the implications that this law has, that it "was not meant this way", and that "it's just to protect people". No, it's not! It's meant to intimidate, undermine constitutional rights, and weaken every sense of justice.

      If you want to put it that way, it's an Ayn Rand textbook 101 case! You will find every detail outlined in "Atlas Shrugged" (yes, I took the time to skim through it).

      If you are a tenant in Germany: wonderful, you don't even have to pay your bills. Most smaller landlords will be bankrupt before they have sued YOU out of THEIR property. It usually takes 12-24 months and thousands of Euros, plus the damage your tenants will do to your apartment.

      This kind of legislation is being put through in all EU countries, plus the police state cream on top: Like sharing passenger flight data with the U.S., without any data retention policies, or complete connection logs of all phone and internet connections in the EU.

      A wonderful, safe and free place to do business indeed.

    131. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Police state anyone?

      Police state? Try state of war. I also suggest you familiarize yourself with U.S.C. Title 3, Chapter 4, Sec. 301, the President's "general authorization to delegate functions" - which is sourced by U.S.C. Title 19, Chapter 4, Sec. 1467. The legal authority cited by the CBP.

      That being said, in the history of executive orders given during a time of war by a U.S. President, there's not much new here. It's just another executive order being made during a time of war. The three major differences are 1) we didn't have any of the technology we enjoy today. 2) the enemy exploits the same technology we enjoy today to coordinate their attacks 3) the enemy has already struck our homeland killing thousands of Americans and exploited weaknesses in our Airport security to do it.

      > Things are getting worse and worse.

      Totally disagree. As long as terrorism is being defeated the possibility of there being future terrorists is lowered considerably and such eye-brow-raising executive orders to protect the homeland would be rendered unnecessary. Everybody wins (except the terrorists, they lose)!

    132. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was a turd sandwich...

    133. Re:Seriously.. by chrish · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't the MPAA and RIAA (and BSA, etc.) flip right out over this? Clearly these are illegal digital copies that the customs agents could be viewing/listening to/using/whatever without valid licenses.

      Just another reason for me not to travel to the US. If I need a passport, have to pass through pointless and invasive searchings, etc. I'm going to travel somewhere interesting.

      Isn't the US tourism industry at all concerned by this crap?

      --
      - chrish
    134. Re:Seriously.. by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Technology certainly has changed the game. Not all technology is anit-privacy, though. The main difference is that while those in power have been looking at how they can play with the new rules, the average citizen has not.

      For example, in the 90's, when I was first exposed to PGP, the typical reaction I heard to having a reasonable and easy-to-use encryption scheme for email was "if I have nothing to hide, why bother".

    135. Re:Seriously.. by mea37 · · Score: 1

      the government cannot possibly know about or read everything that goes across this network

      For someone arguing the anti-authority case, you're being hopelessly naive.

    136. Re:Seriously.. by mea37 · · Score: 1

      In America, exactly what "contraband" can one carry in a laptop?

      That is a good question. As I said, it should be clearly defined what they're looking for. If they can't define what they're looking for, then they shouldn't be looking. Same is true for a physical search.

      What information is "illegal" to import that is not also available to be "downloaded" online?

      What physical item is "illegal" to import that I can't also have shipped in a container, where it will probably go unnoticed?

      So what?

    137. Re:Seriously.. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't you need a legal declaration of war for that?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    138. Re:Seriously.. by lpq · · Score: 1

      What physical item is "illegal" to import that I can't also have shipped in a container, where it will probably go unnoticed?

      Physical items are possibly illegal to 'smuggle' in -- drugs being common if you are coming over the Mexican border. Illegal weapons, illegal aliens (they have to go through Area 51 first!)...etc. But AFAIK, unless I'm a spy carrying around nuclear or bio-warfare secrets, or the floor plan to the president's bunker under they white house, complete with ventilation system access points where one could introduce the toxin. The,..you wanna see explosive lithium power cells...wait till you get a load of way my laptop disperses the toxin! ... Uh...You
      sure you want the password on my laptop?...ok...you don't mind if I stand outside, do you?...

      Supposedly there isn't much in the way of information that I would be likely to 'smuggle in' in a laptop that it wouldn't be easier to exchange in illegally traded P2P files using stenography. The whole RIAA/MPAA thing -- chasing after copyright violators -- what a joke. It's great at dissuading them examining the bitstreams too carefully -- just chalk it up to different mp3 or mpeg-2 encoding techniques...amazing the bandwidth you can hide in a standard DVD. The genius would be to embed the next Al-Qaeda plans in a widely distributed movie as
      background noise. With the right decoder, anyone could go down to BlockBuster or Hollywood and rent the
      DVD to get the plans...

      But smuggling in active plans for terrorism on a laptop? That's just plain dumb.

      Information isn't illegal in the US, so again, what information could be considered 'contraband'? I suppose if someone could answer that, then the 'contraband' program wouldn't be nearly so effective. I mean, our contraband program is so secretive about what information is contraband that no one really knows what it is that is being banned! .... Yeah...right. In the US we ban information by having no word or description for it, so it is impossible to talk about that which one has no words for....very effective.

      But those laptops...could be sneaking in new words or something...then what'll we do?

      Oi vey!

    139. Re:Seriously.. by mi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      One of the things I was worried about was IP.

      Imaginary Property? You at the wrong forum to express worries about that...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    140. Re:Seriously.. by skeeto · · Score: 1

      I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. It is naive to think that I can't send data in or out of the country without the government being able to read it or even know that I did it? When done properly, there are many ways to share information with other people where it is either extremely difficult or impossible for middle parties to read that information. Add in onion routing, and now it is nearly impossible to tell who is talking to who.

      Just as 1+1=2, with a properly handled one-time-pad, it is impossible for anyone to read your cyphertext. This is a mathematical truth.

    141. Re:Seriously.. by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      This seems to be a poor analogy. It is much more difficult to relocate to a different country than it is to choose a different restaurant. You lose your network of friends and family, and you may be surrounded by people who speak a different language and follow different cultural norms.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    142. Re:Seriously.. by shentino · · Score: 1

      And it's better leaving it in the hands of a federal judge *on the payroll of the federal government*?

    143. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no no, make it several thousand instances of monkey, m0nkey, monk3y, Monkey, monKey and so forth, randomly chosen for a non-'monkey' rate of about 50%.

    144. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. See both joint resolutions 23 (Public Law 107-40)[1] and 542 (Public Law 93-148)[2].

      1. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00023:|TOM:/bss/d107query.html
      2. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d093:HJ00542:|TOM:/bss/d093query.html

    145. Re:Seriously.. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They will jump out of the pot even when the temperature only rises slowly.

      Frogs always jump out of water, especially if there's a risk it might contain soap.

      Oh, you meant the small greenish animals, not the vaguely humanoid creatures found in certain parts of Europe.

      My bad.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    146. Re:Seriously.. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      and I can compare anything to anything. Doesn't matter if it's McDonald's or the best $100 a plate 5 star restaurant. Guess what? I can compare both of them to eating out of a trash can.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    147. Re:Seriously.. by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 1

      Does no one watch South Park while awake?
      Try again: a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

  2. Same as this? by esocid · · Score: 1

    Is this the same deal as this older post on /.?http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/08/1641209 I thought the supreme court agreed about the legality of this.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:Same as this? by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if the Supreme Court has agreed to this and the Customs agents are making copies "for security", then the Supreme Court has ruled that making a digital copy is not stealing. When customs searches my bag, they don't get to keep anything form it unless there is something legal there. SO if they are allowed to make a copy, and that doesn't count as seizure of my property, then my digital copy of some music or a movie isn't theft either because I didn't seize any property. I hope EFF uses this in an RIAA case. The best way to take on a bad policy like this is to apply it to as many things as possible. I wonder if I can make a copy of what is on the customs office computer, if having a digital copy isn't a seziure of property.

      --
      We are all just people.
    2. Re:Same as this? by whyde · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The big issue here is the dangerous idea that ideas are dangerous.

      Far distant dystopian future: With transporter technology, customs "copies" you at the border and keeps a copy of you in stasis for further questioning/interrogation. "You are free to go. Your copy will stay behind for questioning. Don't worry--you won't feel a thing."

      I keep thinking back on a USENET posting titled The Legend of Ruritania (this may not be the official link, but is the oldest preserved copy I could quickly locate).

    3. Re:Same as this? by westlake · · Score: 1
      So if the Supreme Court has agreed to this and the Customs agents are making copies "for security", then the Supreme Court has ruled that making a digital copy is not stealing.

      Border guards have - and always will have - very broad discretionary powers. International travelers have lived with that knowledge since the beginning of time. So has the Supreme Court.

    4. Re:Same as this? by Barryke · · Score: 1

      Exactly what i didn't dare to say out loud, even here.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    5. Re:Same as this? by Buran · · Score: 2, Funny

      When customs searches my bag, they don't get to keep anything form it unless there is something legal there.

      You got THAT right.
    6. Re:Same as this? by celle · · Score: 1

      Even if the scotus won't acknowledge a civil violation its definitely a copyright violation as the unique data is copyrighted to you. Given the courts statements about copyright I think we'll be seeing lots of copyright hypocrisy here soon to match the civil hypocrisy already evident.

    7. Re:Same as this? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      Ah, but how do you know if it's you or the copy that's being set free?

    8. Re:Same as this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the government takes something, it's not stealing. It is confiscating, taxing or whatever, but not stealing. We may not like it, but there it is, there are all kinds of things that the government is allowed to do that we would -never- be allowed to do. So if it is not stealing when the government copies a file (it's called investigating then), that doesn't mean that -we- can do it. Seems unfair, but there it is. Your comparison doesn't hold up, because the situation is quite different.

      So, rather than copy music like mad and try to use this defence in court when caught, you might want to protest against this, call your representative or whatnot. Might be a whole lot more effective. As other people keep bringing up, the danger of a terrorist attack is not that great. The 9/11 attacks were horrible, but do not justify the kind of measures now being taken as they are not proportional. Lots more people die each year in car accidents than by terrorists attacks. If we approached traffic deaths the same way, cars, planes and trains would have been outlawed and everyone would be riding a bike wearing a helmet and other protective gear.

    9. Re:Same as this? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      there are all kinds of things that the government is allowed to do that we would -never- be allowed to do... Your comparison doesn't hold up, because the situation is quite different.

      The situation is only different if you believe that government's power is a mandate from god or a rule by military force, however if you believe that the government is granted it's powers by the people, then the people in fact do have those self same powers. After all we are the ones granting them, so we must first posses them ourselves. The government can levy a tax in order to provide services, I can invoice for services rendered. The government can wage war, I can kill in self defense. You say "allowed" like our rights and liberties are something that are granted by the Constitution,they are not. Our rights are inherent in being human.(even the right observed by the Fourth Amendment) As I've said before, the difference between "allowed" and an inherent human right is central to a free society.

      So, rather than copy music like mad and try to use this defence in court when caught, you might want to protest against this, call your representative or whatnot. Might be a whole lot more effective.

      I agree. I meant to say that I would like to see that defense used in already existing cases as a form of protesting the absurdity of this policy.

      --
      We are all just people.
    10. Re:Same as this? by syousef · · Score: 1

      You do realize that this kind of sci fi can't happen. Forget that the staggering amounts of data required make even today's large storage capacities look tiny. Lets suppose you can dedicate a large piece of land to data storage (at least temporary). There's still quantum mechanics to overcome, and you're still limited to conveying the information at no more than the speed of light in a vacuum.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/interviews/bormanis/page38.shtml

      The transporter is actually more of a theatrical device required for storylines in shows like Star-Trek to make space exploration look more like a Western.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    11. Re:Same as this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that this kind of sci fi can't happen. Forget that the staggering amounts of data required make even today's large storage capacities look tiny


      You may be staggeringly large, but my quantum state can be represented in merely 70kg of ordinary matter.

      Even less once you realize that the interesting state is not stored in the limbs or what I ate for breakfast.

  3. Old news? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    Were the summary written "EFF files lawsuit against data searches", it would make sense, but the summary freely admits that this has been happening for years. I could swear I've seen it discussed on Slashdot before.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:Old news? by peipas · · Score: 2, Informative
  4. TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank heavens for TrueCrypt.

    1. Re:TrueCrypt by Syntroxis · · Score: 1

      Encrypt your data and go to Gitmo!

      --
      Wherever you go, there you are.
    2. Re:TrueCrypt by Joe+U · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Truecrypt:

      1. There is no encrypted data, I just didn't format that partition yet.
      2. There is no encrypted data, that file must be corrupt. What did you do to my computer?
      3. Here's the encrypted data, it's a copy of my tax forms for 2006. There is no hidden partition.

      Pick one.

    3. Re:TrueCrypt by mrogers · · Score: 1

      1. We know there's an encrypted file or partition somewhere, you have Truecrypt installed. 2. See 1, and remember, lying to us is a crime. 3. We know Truecrypt supports hidden partitions, we read about it on Slashdot.

    4. Re:TrueCrypt by Yetihehe · · Score: 4, Funny

      3. Here's the encrypted data, it's a copy of my tax forms for 2006. There is no hidden partition.
      4. Holds hand before custom: You: This is not the partition you are looking for Custom: This is not the partition we are looking for.
      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    5. Re:TrueCrypt by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Pick one.

      And the Govt will try to prosecute you for having "data smuggling software" on your computer.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:TrueCrypt by arevos · · Score: 1

      Whilst the rights guaranteed by the US constitution are being increasingly ignored by the US government, we're still not quite at the stage where custom officials can indefinitely detain an individual without evidence.

    7. Re:TrueCrypt by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      Whilst the rights guaranteed by the US constitution are being increasingly ignored by the US government, we're still not quite at the stage where custom officials can indefinitely detain an individual without evidence. No, but I'm sure they can hand you over to someone who can.
      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    8. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the U.S. Customs agents have the legal right to rape you anally.
      United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152-53 (2004); United States v. Johnson, 991 F.2d 1287, 1291-92 (7th Cir. 1993).

    9. Re:TrueCrypt by compro01 · · Score: 1


      Pick one.

      And the Govt will try to prosecute you for having "data smuggling software" on your computer. who says it has to be on the computer? i have a 2GB flash drive i could hide under my tongue or various other difficult-to-search places.
      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    10. Re:TrueCrypt by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Truecrypt program on your USB key for the partition on your harddrive?

      Put it inside a zip file inside of my "Softwares" directory and name it something like "aol instant messenger installer.zip"? Not likely to stand out among the other 300 software installs I've saved up over the years.

    11. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Your encrypted partition ( random bytes / high entropy ) will look very different from an unformated one ( zero bytes or simple patterns )
      2. Nobody will be fooled by an unusually large, seemingly random random, file, especially if you also happen to have encryption software installed; besides you might well be considered guilty until proven innocent.
      3. Why is your encrypted partition 10GB for 100k of files ( tax return ) :-)

    12. Re:TrueCrypt by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1
      1. We know there's an encrypted file or partition somewhere, you have Truecrypt installed.
        • Prove it to a jury. Per Truecrypt: No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be distinguished from random data).

      2. See 1, and remember, lying to us is a crime.

      3. We know Truecrypt supports hidden partitions, we read about it on Slashdot.
        • Ah, but what can you do with that information? Nothing.
        • I know you think reading Slashdot makes you cool, but it doesn't offset the fact that you're a tool.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    13. Re:TrueCrypt by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      2. Nobody will be fooled by an unusually large, seemingly random random, file, especially if you also happen to have encryption software installed; besides you might well be considered guilty until proven innocent. Windows Vista has built-in encryption software.

      3. Why is your encrypted partition 10GB for 100k of files ( tax return ) :-) Because I expected to fill that partition with more information than what's currently installed.

      You don't want to resize partitions unless you have to - in most cases, you overestimate the need for something and create a 2GB partition and only end up storing 10MB of old data. When I picked up the Truecrypt toy, I wanted to have a secure storage that someone wouldn't be able to break into without knowing at least three of my passwords but only ended up using it to store a list of passwords and basic financial documents.

      In my set of Truecrypt volumes, some have hidden partitions and others don't. Unless you have prior knowledge of the Truecrypt volume, you do not know which one is which and will be chasing wild gooses looking for such partitions.

      By the way - zeroing out the "deleted space" will corrupt data. It poisons potential evidence (i.e. that child porn picture may have been added after the drive was zeroed) and risks having customs become liable for unnecessary data loss (i.e. you can't be sure that modifying data won't cause accidents.)
    14. Re:TrueCrypt by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      Odds are, wherever you're going will have Internet access. Why not just:
      ()delete Truecrypt
      ()scramble/zero over the files
      ()re-download it when you need the data back

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    15. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't install Truecrypt. Run it from your usb drive.

  5. Corrupt by stupidflanders · · Score: 1

    Nice laptop you got there! Mind if I take a look? *browses through 100Gigs of torrents* Hrm... um, yes, I'll need to take this in. Please step out of the car, sir. *returns to office to watch the entire first season of Northern Exposure*

    1. Re:Corrupt by TheMeuge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, that's the case with the confiscations:

      "Hey nice laptop you got there. We need to hrm... search it... will have to take it down to forensics... we'll send it to you when we're done..." ... a year later...

      "Where's my laptop?"
      "Still searching..."
      "Can I get it back"
      "No! National security... 9/11... terrorists... child pornography... gay marriage... cats and dogs living together... enough key words yet?"

    2. Re:Corrupt by stupidflanders · · Score: 1

      You forgot: "mass histeria", "this is not the laptop you are looking for", "from my cold dead hands", etc.

    3. Re:Corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Rule of thumb: Anything which government confiscates will NOT be given back, EVER, regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty. Cars, computers, cash, houses -- there is no shortage of examples where government has wrongly confiscated the posessions of an innocent person. As government expands in power and revenue year after year, this practice will only multiply. Today, all they have to do is simply accuse a person of (for example) intent to sell drugs, and that person's car is as good as gone. Forever.

      In today's age of huge government and absolute power, it is wise to anticipate this. Plan accordingly, because although it isn't statistically likely, you could very well be the next one to be falsely targeted.

    4. Re:Corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if they copy media files... it seems to me that some industry groups might want to do something about that... This looks like a job for the riaa & mpaa folks.

    5. Re:Corrupt by Damvan · · Score: 1

      In the county I live in, when the county Sheriff retired, it was found that he had taken home with him over the years, several hundred firearms from the evidence lockers, and it was even found that he had the deputies perform raids on people who owned guns he desired. After the story broke, he returned them, minus about a hundred that were "missing", and was not prosecuted, fined or jailed.

    6. Re:Corrupt by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      I see you've been through MSP International Airport...

      --
      [End Of Line]
  6. Does the 5th ammendment apply? by illumin8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just have a question for any legal scholars or experts in this field:

    Does the 5th ammendment apply if I have strong encryption on my laptop? Can I simply refuse to give them the passphrase, or will I end up in Gitmo?

    --
    "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    1. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by TheMeuge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As far as I understand, they cannot arrest you, because you haven't committed a crime, but they can refuse you entry into the country.

      But IANAL.

    2. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by mrogers · · Score: 5, Informative
    3. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by mxs · · Score: 1

      That depends.

      Are you an American citizen ? If so, you may be afforded human rights under US law. If not, well, you have no rights.

    4. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by value_added · · Score: 1
      I just have a question for any legal scholars or experts in this field ...

      Well, you've come to the right place. I'm certain the Slashdot audience consists of constitutional scholars, department heads in the Department of Homeland Security, employees of Customs and Border Inspection, and lots of ordinary folks who just happen to have law degrees and keep up with relevant legislation.

      Or maybe not.

      The article, however, does offer the following comment:

      If conducted inside the country, such searches would require a warrant and probable cause, legal experts said.

      In contrast to many Slashdot articles, this one is especially worth reading, notwithstanding that the last article on the same subject was fairly vague on the nature and extent of the searches (when it wasn't discussing a particular legal case) and provided few examples that anyone could relate to.

      I point out the value of the article also for the benefit of those ready and eager to chime in with multiple, redundant TrueCrypt suggestions to save everyone else the wasted screen real estate. Put another way, this is serious, folks. More depressingly, the subject of the lawsuit is a FOIA request, and doesn't seek to address the legality of what is happening.
    5. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Although I'd like to be naive enough to say "oh, thats good, now there isnt anything they can do aslong as I Rot13 my middle name"

      It may work a couple times at first, some guard thats new at it, kinda nervous about looking like an idiot "fine fine, just go"...

      But, eventually they'l have some weekend classes, telling them how to bypass user/Admin passwords (which is pretty easy on Windows, Mac and Linux when you have direct input, nevermind snagging the HD and scanning it with another PC)... Windows doesnt demand that you specify a Root/Admin password, most users dont even know that the account exists, and a lot of new Linux distro's dont either (not sure about Mac)... how many of you use a BIOS/EFI password? not sure about EFI, but BIOS passwords can be reset with a simple jumper which is almost always labeled directly on the motherboard [J16 - Reset BIOS Password]

      And taking it a step further to any corporate/public encryption systems/techniques/algorithms would have to be documented and either distributed to the government at design, or demanded by at a per-incident basis, which is probably the only legitimate reason for giving a Corporation the same rights as a human (Google or Slashdot that topic)...

      Possibly the best option if you are really paranoid, is uploading your "risky" material to a server, and download it at your destination... but... me personally?... I'd rather kick the guard in the balls and make a run for it...lol

    6. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by splutty · · Score: 1

      2 different questions here with 2 different answers.

      First: When you try to enter the US, you're actually not (yet) under the US jurisdiction, and cannot in any way use the US constitution as protection. You can refuse them anything they want, and they can refuse you entry into the country, and you'll go right back on the first plane out.

      Second: If you try and enter the US with encrypted data, you can not use an encryption stronger than 54-bit DES (IIRC), which is regulated under the US ammunitions law. This however will only apply *after* you've already entered the country. So they might let you in, but they'd also be in their right to then arrest you for breaking said ammunitions law and importing/exporting using an illegal crypt.

      --
      Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    7. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by janrinok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure if you are joking, but I'll bite....

      Are you suggesting that the Constitution only provides safeguards and rights for US citizens in America, and not everybody else who might be there? Can I still expect the police to provide the same level as protection to me and my property as they do for others?

      If the answer is 'No', then why should anyone other than a US citizen consider complying with your laws - surely they only apply to Americans and not to the rest of us?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    8. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      I think it'd look suspicious and piss off a lot of people in the security screening line if they're actually taking apart people's laptops to get at the motherboard, just to get a password.

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    9. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      If you try and enter the US with encrypted data, you can not use an encryption stronger than 54-bit DES (IIRC), which is regulated under the US ammunitions law.

      I'm calling bullshit on that one.

      1. It was munitions, not ammunition.
      2. exporting the software.
      3. its been modified so it only applies to a few countries now.
      4. you're free to use software of any encryption length- you just can't export it
    10. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      What you think they'd do it out in the open?... no no, these sort of things always happen in little 8x8 rooms with a steel door with wire windows...

      "Just give us a moment while our technician looks over your computer, please stand behind the line sir, this will be just a moment"

    11. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by initialE · · Score: 1

      Your 5th won't allow you to protect someone elses secrets, only your own. Seems inappropriate to me.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    12. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by teslar · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't pleading the 5th just make them confiscate your laptop instead?

    13. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

      They can simply refuse to allow the laptop into the country. And, possibly, you.

    14. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by frogzilla · · Score: 1

      "A federal court recently ruled that passwords are protected under the 5th amendment."

      True if you are a citizen of the United States of America. I don't imagine the USA constitution applies to foreigners. I would guess that you have no recourse whatsoever if they decided at the border (in an airport for example) that you are suspicious in some way and that they want your laptop and its data.

    15. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      which is regulated under the US ammunitions law
      IIRC crypto was transfered from the munitions list to the restricted commerce list by Bill Clinton (was later amended to provide stronger controls for said commerce list, but is no longer on the munitions list - as far as i am aware).
    16. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by belmolis · · Score: 1

      A US citizen has an absolute right to enter the United States. So long as you can establish that you are a citizen, they cannot refuse you entry. They can, however, seize anything you have with you that they wish to search.

    17. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by enosys · · Score: 1

      Do they have to let you into the country if you refuse a search?

    18. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and this helps non-US citizens visiting the US how...?

    19. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by chris+mazuc · · Score: 1

      This really is pretty relevant... from the article:

      <i>U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerome Niedermeier ruled that a man charged with transporting child pornography on his laptop across the Canadian border has a Fifth Amendment right not to turn over the passphrase to prosecutors.</i>

      --
      E pluribus unum
    20. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because suspected terrorists have rights in the US. Not giving your password must immediately mean you are hiding something that is a threat to national security. You know, I didn't know about this border gotcha. I am now officially never coming to the US. The country is despicable.

    21. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, you can refuse to co-operate, and you may even have that right. Of course you run the risk of being denied entry to the country as a result.

      Personally, as a non-American, I have no real qualms about my data being searched at their border. Of course I would rather it not happen, but I can see why it might be advantageous from their perspective. What really concerns me is the *copying* of data. I have a hard time imagining what legitimate benefit that would provide to the border guards. If they need more time to search for kiddie porn or whatever they can take that time while the person crossing the border waits. That's how it works in the physical world. I've had my car searched extensively crossing the U.S. border and that, as inconvenient as it is, is the way the system works.

      Of course, as has been pointed out, any data a person didn't want to have searched could be easily stored online and accessed after crossing the boarder. I suppose they hope to catch the technologically inept.

    22. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by mxs · · Score: 1
      An excellent question.

      On the sixth anniversary of the imprisonment of detainees at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, a United States judge threw out lawsuit brought by four former British detainees against Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officers for ordering torture and religious abuse, ruling that th the detainees are not "Persons" under U.S. Law, which according to another judge, means that they are less than "human beings". (from http://presscue.com/node/39281)

      Any questions ?

      (note that if you haven't passed through border control on airports yet, you are not technically uin the US yet).
    23. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by janrinok · · Score: 1

      OK I can see where you are coming from, but it is a rather pessimistic (but not entirely surprising) view. These are individuals who were not detained in the US but on the field of combat. I will not enter into the debate as to whether they should be considered to deserve PW status or not - in most countries it is a categoric 'YES' but the US wants to view this differently for the time being. (Incidentally, how does the US view the status of its own personnel whom might be taken prisoner? Yep, I thought so....) But people who are detained in the US for whatever crimes they might be accused of are not 'usually' sent to Guantanamo Bay. So the constitution, abused and distorted as it might currently be, does appear to apply to all people in the US and not only 'citizens' of that country.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    24. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by splutty · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clearing that up. My memory wasn't quite up to date on that one obviously :)

      --
      Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    25. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But of course, you *can* refuse to give your password. And then they *can* refuse you the right to cross the border. That what happens, when you're living in "Land of the Free".
      I suggest you should be seeking political asylum en Europe or Australia, while you still can.

    26. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes...but you need to remember the purpose that US customs is suppose to serve. They are suppose to prevent specific items from entering or leaving the country, so if they can not verify that your laptop is safe they can prevent it from entering the US. I had a friend who's favorite comment about customs was, they can legally take your car apart and have no obligation to put it back together.

      How it is suppose to work:

      Custom Officer tells you what is legal and not legal to enter the US with and you tell them what you have. If there is anything you possess which is not allowed in you are suppose to be able to surrender it (drugs, cuban cigars, etc..) and then proceed into the country. If there are items which require special processing you can opt for the special processing (Garlic from Russia needs to be fumigated, $200 back about 8 years ago, I left them keep it) or surrender it. They should not be able to arrest you unless you lie, ie..try to smuggle something past them.

      The problem I see with them copying data is that the data should either be allowed or prohibited. Ie, they should be required to make a determination at that moment and either allow you to enter with your data or require you to dispose of the data before entering. In either case their should be no reason for them to keep a copy.

      If you take the favorite data discussed on Slashdot as an example, Porn. If you're bring your porn collection back into the country they should need to make a determination as to the legality of the collection in the US. If the subjects be a little too young for the US then they should require the data be expunged from your laptop or the laptop be surrendered before you enter the country. If the porn is all legit then they should just pass you on your merry way. Some of the stuff is bound by Copyright and the custom inspector would be breaking the law if they make an unauthorized copy. Maybe someone should take a CD collection across the boarder and then report customs to the RIAA.

    27. Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? by mxs · · Score: 1

      OK I can see where you are coming from, but it is a rather pessimistic (but not entirely surprising) view. I'll give you that. Then again, optimism just sets you up for disappointment ;-)

      These are individuals who were not detained in the US but on the field of combat. Which, by the ingenious thought-construct "War on Terror" is everywhere -- a war like that need not be formally declared, and fields of combat would be anywhere terrorists could be.

      Add to that that whenever you enter the US you are automatically assumed guilty of something (after all, why else would you need to have your photograph and your fingerprints taken like a common criminal ?), and there does not seem to be much of a difference left.

      I will not enter into the debate as to whether they should be considered to deserve PW status or not That was not the debate I was curious about anyway. The debate I'm curious about is how those people are not "persons", i.e., are not human. If the law had stated "This does not apply to PoWs" or some other law defines "PoWs are not people, persons, or humans under US law", it would be a slightly different (though no less abhorrent) story.

      - in most countries it is a categoric 'YES' but the US wants to view this differently for the time being. Yes. It's a common technique in the US currently -- just reassign the meanings of words. Torture is not torture when the US government does it, or when is performed in a way. Therefore, the US does not torture.
      You can sidestep that issue again when you qualify that with "the US government does not torture people" when you simply redefine the meaning of "people" or "persons".

      (Incidentally, how does the US view the status of its own personnel whom might be taken prisoner? Yep, I thought so....) Actually, by defying Geneva conventions, the US is not doing much to protect their own citizens or military personnel when they are being taken as PoWs. After all, why adhere to those conventions when you cannot expect the same treatment in return for citizens of your own country ?

      I wholeheartedly support fingerprints and pictures and DNA samples being taken from US citizens that travel abroad upon entry into my country (and any other sensible country). Naturally, this would not apply to Mexicans, Canadians, or other countries where you are not automatically assumed to be guilty of something just by traveling there.

      But people who are detained in the US for whatever crimes they might be accused of are not 'usually' sent to Guantanamo Bay. True. However, the original question was whether you can plead the fifth at border control. The argument would be that the fifth could be construed only to apply to US citizen (=people), not foreigners (=less than people). If you decide to try to plead the fifth on an encryption key, could that not be considered a hostile act by a non-citizen ? Would that not qualify you for an all-expenses paid trip to the bay ?
      (and if you ARE a citizen, good luck getting representation before entering the country ...)

      So the constitution, abused and distorted as it might currently be, does appear to apply to all people in the US and not only 'citizens' of that country. The problem wasn't so much people already in the US, but people about to enter the US but held up at the airport border security checkpoint.
      It takes a bit more cunning to subvert the constitutional rights afforded to people for people on US soil, though that's REALLY not much of a problem either when you're a foreigner. Just quote the Patriot act and be done with it. That filthy foreigner was probably planning to bomb something anyway, so nobody really cares.
      Next up is "charging" (well, detaining really) US citizens for terrorism-related suspicions.

      Yes, my view is pessimistic, but then again, as history has well shown, the only way to avoid abuse of power is for that power not to exist. Therefore, looking at the worst-case scenario is really the best course of action when evaluating the current state of something.
  7. Lube 16GB usb drive. Insert as directed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe I've said enough... ;-)

  8. A line has just been crossed... by jamar0303 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, this is going overboard. If this starts happening on a large scale, I'm buying a bunch of microSD cards and storing everything important on those instead (easier to hide).

    I think more than a few corporations will object to this, though, if only because sensitive data really shouldn't find its way into the hands of these people... who knows what might leak?

    --
    OSx86 FTW
    1. Re:A line has just been crossed... by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      I'm buying a bunch of microSD cards and storing everything important on those instead (easier to hide).

      ... and they'll just get the rubber gloves and go searching inside ...

    2. Re:A line has just been crossed... by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      Not what I was thinking of, but thank you for the mental images...

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    3. Re:A line has just been crossed... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this is going overboard. If this starts happening on a large scale, I'm buying a bunch of microSD cards and storing everything important on those instead (easier to hide). I bet those ATA drives hurt like motherfuckers.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:A line has just been crossed... by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      There are alternatives that don't involve the sacrifice of anal virginity.

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    5. Re:A line has just been crossed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just tell them you're violating the law if you give them the laptop. On top of which refuse to provide any passphrases or login information. If you're laptop falls under the applicable controls, doing that would probably violate the law as well.

  9. Really? by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 1

    I've taken a number of international flights over the past few years. Every time I re-enter the US, I've never even had my bags searched by customs... Nor did anyone that I was flying with (that I noticed, at least).

    1. Re:Really? by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Thats cause you never see them again, they are all stuck in Gitmo.

  10. pretty sad by nguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's pretty sad when Americans need to travel with blank laptops for fear of having their data seized by US border agents; in the past, that sort of thing was necessary when traveling behind the iron curtain.

    It's also pointless, given that data can be stored easily and encrypted on the Internet, on flash drives (some of which are tiny), or even hidden steganographically.

    1. Re:pretty sad by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's pretty sad when Americans need to travel with blank laptops for fear of having their data seized by US border agents...

      Which also brings up the following line of questioning by border guards: "Why are you traveling with a blank laptop? You wouldn't keep a blank laptop around unless you had something to hide."

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:pretty sad by gsslay · · Score: 1

      So you fill up your laptop with generic rubbish that you can delete once you're through customs. Like 5 hours of video capture of you sitting on the plane. Or 10,000 copies of the Bill Of Rights.

      Though I suppose they could look suspicious too. As could anything if you're paranoid enough.

    3. Re:pretty sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is better to fill up your laptop with safe wholesome patriotic content.

    4. Re:pretty sad by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      It is better to fill up your laptop with safe wholesome patriotic content.
      Yes, every patriot should have full episodes of the Colbert Report!!!

      Only then you're handed over to some other feds for copyright infringement......
    5. Re:pretty sad by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      You could just say it's a recently bought laptop. The day that excuse doesn't work I'm so out of here.

    6. Re:pretty sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though I suppose they could look suspicious too. As could anything if you're paranoid enough. And that's the problem. We have human beings in charge of using "gut feelings" about people at the border, in airports, etc. All it takes is a single prejudice or stereotype to make you appear suspicious. We will never be free of this problem so long as human beings, with all their rage, insecurities, and superiority complexes, are in charge of herding other human beings. Any system that allows people to use their personal opinions of others to incriminate them is broken.
  11. Are you americans awake there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Like I need another reason NOT to go to Amerika. Shit, I'm 20 minutes from the border with absolutely no desire to set foot in that country at all.

    You think Britney is bad? I'm sitting up here watching this train wreck in slow motion. You guys do have a constitution and guns still. That's more that we can say. Are you going to do anything about that police state, or watch America wimper into the abyss?

  12. Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Backup a few of your CDs onto your laptop, and when Customs copies the data, tip off the RIAA. Let them fight with each other.

    1. Re:Copyright by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

      IANAL:

      I think that could fall under entrapment-like (entrapment applies to law enforcement only last I checked) laws. Boobytrapping someone intentionally with illegal content then turning them in I think would get you in a bit of trouble. Any lawyers care to comment?

      --
      -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    2. Re:Copyright by Barryke · · Score: 1

      A government like the USA is not a prosecutable entity, therefore much laws don't apply. Same idea as rogue warriors, aka "illegal mercinaries" that are kept in nonexisting USA prisons. They don't have rights because they where not given an entity. The holocaust also carried this idea.

      Godwinrolled by accident.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    3. Re:Copyright by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I think if you tell them -- "Whoa there TSA buddy, there are CDs on there. If you copy them, you're violating the rights of the RIAA and are liable to lawsuit." then it ain't entrapment. They knowingly choose to violate the rights of the RIAA.

    4. Re:Copyright by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      How would this be entrapment? You didn't encourage them to do anything. Entrapment requires persuasion. It would be a different matter if you said "Come on, copy it, go ahead. I won't say anything."

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    5. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that entrapment? If you have copied all of your CDs to your hard drive for your own listening pleasure and they copy your hard drive they have broken the law. You didn't set them up, they did it all on their own. Of course you may also be breaking the law because you copied the CDs in the first place.

    6. Re:Copyright by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      IANAL

      I would think that once you got safely back to your home country you could sue them for any of your own documents that were copyrighted (preferably using the strongest way your country has to register a copyright).

    7. Re:Copyright by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      Backup a few of your CDs onto your laptop, and when Customs copies the data, tip off the RIAA. Let them fight with each other.

      I was just thinking the same thing.

      Kudos to the customs agents for finding an efficient alternative to P2P. If you can't download 'em, just take 'em from a passing traveler. I love America!

      --

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

    8. Re:Copyright by keith_m043 · · Score: 1

      I know this was meant as a joke, but it strikes me that the RIAA is more likely to argue what this situation is a reason why people shouldn't be able to rip their own MP3s, all those copies of their content floating around in NSA databanks being a threat to their moneymaking ability.

    9. Re:Copyright by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      So then could I collect from them on my own copyrighted works as well?
      If I crank out a few tunes before each trip it could pay for itself.

    10. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who is protecting us from the pedophile border guards, copying and looking at porn when they aren't busy?

      And how about trademark/patent/business secrets/security violations by border guards, etc.?

    11. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't they sue you for "sharing"?

    12. Re:Copyright by Nushio · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you don't actually know what they're doing, since they ask you to type in the User/Pass and step away from the Laptop.

      --
      Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
  13. Sick the RIAA on 'em! by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously they're just trying to steal MP3s!

    1. Re:Sick the RIAA on 'em! by JeepFanatic · · Score: 1

      Seriously ... wouldn't this be considered to be a copyright violation that the RIAA would want to bring suit against the customs dept? Imagine the judgement they could get for the volume of files that has been copied.

    2. Re:Sick the RIAA on 'em! by vtscott · · Score: 1

      And our porn. Did the government contract electronic surveillance at the border to the geek squad?

    3. Re:Sick the RIAA on 'em! by rk · · Score: 1

      Remember, the RIAA tends to go after the sharers, not the downloaders, so they may actually bust you for "sharing" your music with Customs. :-)

  14. I had an insightful reply typed up... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 3, Funny

    But it was confiscated.

  15. Don't copy that floppy! by mrogers · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are Customs and Border Protection officers bound by copyright law like us mere mortals? Would they be violating the DMCA if they circumvented the measures I've put in place to protect my data (such as /bin/login and the screws that hold my laptop together)?

  16. Copying my mp3's... by downix · · Score: 1, Funny

    **calls up RIAA**
    Hey, you want to know the biggest mp3 copying racket inside the US?.....

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:Copying my mp3's... by e54748s · · Score: 1

      **RIAA speaking**

      Universities and Retirement homes.

      --
      There's no "i" in team but there is a "u" in slum.
  17. before 1984... by owlnation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Presumably the prequel to 1984 would have shown Big Brother to be a charismatic politician preaching what a democratic majority wanted to hear. The need for security only reasonably matched the need to protect against Oceania's enemies... He was respected, and his election was a free choice. He then began to change little things slowly.

    Or...

    A prior honest President genuinely though the security measures were necessary. Then a corrupt Big Brother saw that the mechanisms created could be exploited and was attracted to power. He then said all the right things and got himself elected. The tools to control were already in place.

    Well, today in the US, and especially the UK, those mechanisms are already firmly in place. Even if your current government is not evil, there's nothing stopping the next one so being. With the new powers one can wield what evil person wouldn't want to gain control? One eventually will come to power. It is inevitable.

    It's probably already too late.

    1. Re:before 1984... by shadowcabbit · · Score: 0

      Even if your current government is not evil, there's nothing stopping the next one so being.

      Uh, no. See, there's this thing called a ballot box? Not sure if you've heard of it. That could, hypothetically I mean, stop the next government from being evil...
      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
    2. Re:before 1984... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1984 neither needs nor wants a prequel. It is not supposed to be a novel, it is supposed to be an explaination of Orwell's view of humanity. Thank you for trying to build a political message about the current political climate into the book, just like everyone else has done since it was released.

      "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever." - George Orwell

    3. Re:before 1984... by owlnation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. You missed my point... and you need to read some history.

      The mechanisms to control society are firmly in place. If you are evil, this has to be attractive. There WILL be evil people trying to get into power. Now, or soon.

      Now these evil people are not going to base their campaign on "hello, I'm evil, vote for me". They will SEEM to be perfect candidates. Just as Hitler did, just as Mussolini did, just as many other examples did.

      The difference is, right now, the infrastructure is already in place. Once in power you can be evil all you want and there's nothing to stop you, short of revolution -- which bearing in mind the obesity, alcohol dependency, and apathy of most US and UK citizens, won't be successful.

      Again, there WILL be evil people trying to get into power. The temptation is too great, government has far too much power. Those people will not seem evil. One of them will eventually succeed in gaining that power.

      Or foolishly, like the Germans in the 1930's you can assume everything will be fine and the ballot box is the voice of truth. The government is not the problem really, of course politicians are greedy and corrupt -- all of them. Always are, always have been, always will be. It is those who are accepting and trusting of them that are the real danger to society.

    4. Re:before 1984... by kitgerrits · · Score: 1


      1984 is already all around you, you simply haven't noticed it yet.
      People have stopped watching the real news and now watch 'Fox at 8' or whatever it's called these days.

      The fact that America actually believed that they were winning in Iraq was pretty interesting, since the rest of the world thought otherwise.
      The US keeps making 'Significant Progress', but fails to mention all the setbacks that keep happening in between.
      The reason these setbacks are not reported to the US public is because the stations themselves have an agenda of their own and none of them wants to be chastised for broadcasting 'unpatriotic news'

      I have studied in the US and in Europe and there are a number of very distinct differences in what the History books say. (2 industrial revolutions, WTF?)

      The US government, at the moment, doesn't change history in the books (probably due to technical difficulties), but it -does- manage to lose important government documents that might contain 'unwanted information'.

      OK, I'm done ranting now...
      I'm going to home, where they can show nipples on daytime public TV.

      --
      "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
    5. Re:before 1984... by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Although I have little faith in the voting system as it stands now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college

      Regardless of that, how many people voted for Bush (the first, and/or the second time) and how many of them regret that now?

      I presume that you are old enough to remember *before* Bush right?... and how quickly things have changed? in one term, nevermind two?

      Been following the legislation he's pushed through? its far more simple, and thus far quicker for the next Presidents to enact even more (heinous) legislation.

    6. Re:before 1984... by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Thank you for trying to build a political message about the current political climate into the book, just like everyone else has done since it was released.

      That is why the book is good. It does not get old.

      If you read the book as a frozen `explanation' fixed in the past and so on, well, then you are not a good reader.

    7. Re:before 1984... by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Hitler was blatantly evil (at least if you were a Jew or Eastern European, and bored enough to read his book).

      He also didn't win an election. The Nazis won at best 42% of the popular vote. Hitler did not win the Presidential vote. He was appointed as Chancellor by Hindenburg (who was a moron, and an old, tired moron at that) to avoid yet another election and more fights in the streets, even though the Nazis had already passed the peak of their popularity.

    8. Re:before 1984... by stoofa · · Score: 1

      Whether or not you see 1984 as a novel or as Orwell's view of humanity, his novel/view of humanity bears a striking number of parallels with contemporary politics/humanity so the original poster's reference stands as valid comment. What is worth remembering when drawing the comparison is that, contrary to the myth of how people think Orwell's Big Brother government operated, IngSoc never sought to gain control of everybody. The majority of people (the proles) were left to amuse themselves with alcohol and porn. They were free to bitch about the way life was down the pub because IngSoc knew that this was all their protest would ever amount to. Big Brother sought out the 5-10% of society who were the more radical thinkers and activists and concentrated all their efforts solely upon them. In this regard, what the US and UK governments are currently doing is far more sinister than 1984 due to its scale encompassing everyone.

    9. Re:before 1984... by naoursla · · Score: 1

      Which just supports the GP post that evil people try to get into power and they may not follow the obvious path.

    10. Re:before 1984... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks! I can pick the rich guy who goes on about terrorism and national security or I can pick the rich guy who goes on about terrorism and national security. I feel better now.

    11. Re:before 1984... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      bearing in mind the obesity, alcohol dependency, and apathy of most US and UK citizens

      I would object to your characterisation, but I'm a fat, drunk Brit who couldn't give a toss.

      :P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    12. Re:before 1984... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The ballot box has it's limits. All the evil government has to do is look good long enough to be voted in. Then they have 4 years to work their evil and cancel the next election.

      Every dangerously abusable power granted to the government is a tool to help such an evil administration pull off their coup before the deadline.

      A good and wise administration doesn't want such easily abused power and lack of oversight because it understands that whatever good it might accomplish with them is more than offset by the huge vulnerability they create.

    13. Re:before 1984... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The prequel to 1984 would be Animal Farm.

      Animal Farm tells how a democratic society gets turned into a totalitarianism one, while 1984 tells of what happens after.

    14. Re:before 1984... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and where is 'home'? my... friend... wants to know.

    15. Re:before 1984... by mithras+invictus · · Score: 1

      I don't think those people would make themselves electable. They just need to keep politicians that can't be bought or blackmailed out of the system and this is yet another source of blackmail material. (this theory would explain the number of political scandals)

    16. Re:before 1984... by shadowcabbit · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly why it's your responsibility and mine to vote for the people who are not evil, and to know fully that they are not evil before you elect them. They do exist, really. Might be harder to find them because they're not (as noted below) rich white and consuming the majority of the media coverage, but they're out there.

      Yeah, you're right-- the structure for control is there and has been for a while. Around 1776, matter of fact, in the US. The right person can do great evil with only the slightest control. Which is exactly why it is the purpose of the electorate to choose someone who won't do that.

      Don't blame me that you're not willing to find someone who isn't evil, and instead accept the candidates you're fed. In the US there's 350 million people. Someone there must be altruistic enough to run the country. Find that person and elect that person. That is the job of the voter-- that has always been the job of the voter. Not "pick the least offensive of the media-sponsored evildoers". But "pick the guy who will do the most good out of all of your choices-- oh, and did we fail to call attention to the big fucking blank space where you can write in whoever the hell you actually want?".

      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
    17. Re:before 1984... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      The mechanisms to control society are firmly in place. If you are evil, this has to be attractive. There WILL be evil people trying to get into power. Now, or soon.

      Now these evil people are not going to base their campaign on "hello, I'm evil, vote for me". They will SEEM to be perfect candidates. Just as Hitler did, just as Mussolini did, just as many other examples did.


      That's what governments do. It doesn't matter if you were an Egyptian god king, Emperor of Rome, China, or Japan, or elected to the Roman senate or any "democratic/republic" senate. Once you are in there, you've got the tools to reorder society. You know; I want some one to run on the kinder gentler police state platform. They'd win in a landslide election. Face it people, most citizens like the things police states stand for. It's when those police states go from the warm fuzzy protecting "us from them" to "annoying the hell/scaring the hell out of us for their own benefit" that we have to change them. Here is a trick question for you. How many police states were changed from within to something we'd recognize as democratic or republican?

      On a related note, we've been edging toward becoming a police state since the Red Scare and the cold war. Every effort to fight those evil communists put systems into place that could make it easier for a domestic party to take charge. Sooner or later we'd need someone to take charge to take care of something. Once that happens, the next guy might not even bother with an excuse for "taking charge."

    18. Re:before 1984... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Thanks! I can pick the rich guy who goes on about terrorism and national security or I can pick the rich guy who goes on about terrorism and national security. I feel better now.

      Hey! This is America! What about the rich chick who goes on about terrorism and national security?

    19. Re:before 1984... by thatblackguy · · Score: 1

      I think the prequel is 'Animal Farm' ;)

      Ok, so not exactly but I can't believe the number of times I've said "That's exactly like Animal Farm."
      Especially the part where the pigs say "do what I say you don't want the farmer/terrorists to come back do you?!"

    20. Re:before 1984... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're describing is portrayed to some extent in V for Vendetta. With the extra ingredient of creating a fake national crisis in order to win that democratic election.

    21. Re:before 1984... by sjames · · Score: 1

      People have stopped watching the real news and now watch 'Fox at 8' or whatever it's called these days.

      Part of it is that there's not a whole lot of real news to watch.Sadly, I have found The Daily Show to be one of the better sources of real news and political commentary these days. I agree with Jon Stewart that that should not be, but nevertheless, it is. The truly sad part is that The Daily Show makes no effort at all to be a credible news source (in fact, quite the opposite) and still outperforms most of the supposed serious journalism.

    22. Re:before 1984... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    23. Re:before 1984... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm ... at least one of the current governments you mention IS evil.

  18. Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant by Iowan41 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is also unconstitutional. But these days we are encouraged to snigger, and call 'nuts' the one candidate out of the pack who says that the federal government should be made to obey the Constitution.

    1. Re:Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it is unconstitutional as well, but the Supreme Court disagrees. The excuse is that technically, they don't consider the borders to be inside the country, so the constitution doesn't apply.

      Of course, this is totally unsupported for most amendments, because they are framed around limiting the government, not protecting people, so it shouldn't matter where in the world you are, the government is forbidden from doing these things. But I guess what the law says doesn't matter when you can get a judge to disagree with it.

    2. Re:Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Simple pavlovian association.

      1) Arrange things so that the one visible candidate with anything like a sane view on the constitution is very publicly batshit insane.
      2) Hook his insanity to anyone who shares his views on the constitution.
      3) Sit back and watch the ostensibly sane people accept that the constitution is for nutjkobs like that.

      If you take a cattle prod to a monkey every time he goes near the bananas, sooner or later he'll decide he no longer likes bananas, no matter how much goddamned potassium they've got.

    3. Re:Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant by parcel · · Score: 1

      these days we are encouraged to snigger, and call 'nuts' the one candidate out of the pack who says that the federal government should be made to obey the Constitution. If I beat puppies, and donate my time serving meals to the homeless, the people calling me "evil" might not be referring to the charity work...
    4. Re:Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant by westlake · · Score: 1
      Looking inside your suitcase without a warrant is also unconstitutional

      There has never been a time or place when your baggage couldn't be searched when you crossed an international border. Only diplomats could claim an exemption and only as a courtesy between states.

    5. Re:Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      If their only reason to believe that you beat puppies was a completely fabricated lie, and they didn't bother to see if it were actually true, then they're just being easily manipulated.

    6. Re:Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

      I'm a British citizen living in the US and I now carry a copy of the constitution when traveling, it wont help or stop them but atleast if I'm un-coperative I can site verse and go down in flames, along with the American dream of freedom.

      --
      In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
    7. Re:Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant by corbettw · · Score: 2, Informative

      is also unconstitutional Not at border crossings, it's not. Border agents have pretty much always been free to open up your luggage and rummage through it, this just extends the analogy to laptops and such.

      If you have sensitive data that needs protecting, store it on a server, not your laptop. Then access it over SSL. It's not rocket science, it's barely even computer science!
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    8. Re:Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant by parcel · · Score: 1

      If their only reason to believe that you beat puppies was a completely fabricated lie, and they didn't bother to see if it were actually true, then they're just being easily manipulated. I like Paul's stance on the Constitution, and especially privacy, but I personally think his economic policy is nuts. So, unless the information posted on his own campaign website is a "completely fabricated lie", I don't see any manipulation.
    9. Re:Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      What makes you think his economic policies are nuts? They worked pretty well for the U.S. (or at least better than the current economic policy is working) before the creation of the Federal Reserve, and unlike most of the candidates, he can back them up with logical arguments based on his studies of economics. Perhaps your only rationale for why they are "nuts" is because they represent such a big change from the existing views on economic policy?

    10. Re:Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant by parcel · · Score: 1

      What makes you think his economic policies are nuts? They worked pretty well for the U.S. (or at least better than the current economic policy is working) before the creation of the Federal Reserve I believe the year 1907 would disagree.

      Economic policy is in a constant state of flux, everything that's here now has been put in place for a reason, and you'll find a great deal of debate on nearly all of it. I disagree with quite a few of Paul's stances, deregulation being probably the largest. You are of course free to your own opinion. I won't even accuse you of being manipulated, or scared of stability!
  19. The simile doesn't fit... by TheOnlyJuztyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The government claims that this intelligence-gathering by Customs is the same as looking in a suitcase."
    I'm pretty sure copying data off of your laptop or blackberry would be more like looking in your suitcase and then confiscating everything in it. Which probably wouldn't fly with many folks.
    1. Re:The simile doesn't fit... by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure copying data off of your laptop or blackberry would be more like looking in your suitcase and then confiscating everything in it. Which probably wouldn't fly with many folks.

      It's not confiscation, any more than copyright violation is theft. It's copying. In the case of the border guards, it may be copyright violation (you probably don't have authority to give them permission to copy everything), and it may be industrial espionage, but it's not confiscation.

  20. no sensitive data on live gear, use VPN by Barryke · · Score: 1

    Do not carry data that sensitive on live gear, they've invented more secure connections like VPN to keep data where it is more safe.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
    1. Re:no sensitive data on live gear, use VPN by couchslug · · Score: 1

      A fine idea, considering the government isn't the only threat if your stuff gets stolen.

      I'd be happy to show the government everything on my laptop. I'm not stupid enough to keep sensitive info on the machine...

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  21. OT: TrueCrypt 5.0 by DollyTheSheep · · Score: 1

    TrueCrypt 5.0 came out recently. Guess, you will be sent home then for not complying with some rules you don't know.

  22. ridiculousness by erbbysam · · Score: 1

    This is just a bit ridiculousness, you cannot actually expect to find anything of use for national security, anything of that nature, I'd imagine, would be sent over an encrypted channel into/out of the US. The only thing that they are doing are searching, without warrant, American citizens for "contraband data", and combine that with the current state of our copyright system, you can probably find cause to confiscate every single piece of modern electronics coming over the border. Go truecrypt 5 :)

  23. wtf by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aside from the privacy and civil rights concerns, this is seriously unacceptable to just about any company with trade secrets. What is the point of the most paranoid security policies on company notebooks for internationally traveling employees, if they can't cross the border without their sensitive data getting searched?

    Industrial espionage, including by the US, is a very real concern.

    1. Re:wtf by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Yeah... I have plenty of NDAs covering information on my laptop. Most of the companies are US-based, but not all. Under the NDA, the only time I can be compelled to provide information is under a court issued warrant.

    2. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you will enjoy your government sponsored vacation in Cuba.

  24. Scared... by pipatron · · Score: 1

    I was recently invited to visit some family in the US of A, but because of things like this, I'm not sure it would be wise to go. I mean, I'm running linux on my laptop. Obviously I'm a terrorist and communist. I also have a metre of hair, but fortunately no beard. Maybe my blue eyes will get me a free pass though.

    Well, the thing that they are able to stop people from entering the country isn't a problem. The thing that they can do this without any rational reason at all is.

    --
    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  25. Happend to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This almost happened to me a few weeks back.
    Went over to the U.S. to install a product at a clients offices.
    They asked me to start up me laptop to have a look.
    Knowing that I had more then my fair share of DivX and mp3 this came as a bit of a shock.
    And then I thought of all the questions i would get if i booted into my default Kubuntu.
    Luckily I had WinXP left on a small partition so when the GRUB menu came up i just scrolled down to the bottom and booted windows.

    The security drone never reacted to the GRUB menu or the fact that the XP system was completely blank. No book marks, no files, nothing.
    5min later he was done and i got the laptop back.

    So why they let people that have no clue about computer do a forensic-test-in-a-minute is beyond me.

    If they REALLY wanted idiots to do it they should have a custom made Linux boot disc that scan the system for any "black listed" files.

    1. Re:Happend to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So why they let people that have no clue about computer do a forensic-test-in-a-minute is beyond me.

      Because even a clueless agent can see that if your computer starts up, it must actually be a computer - and not a laptop shell that's been gutted and stuffed with drugs.

  26. Copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me get this straight...

    Border agent's copying things off your laptop is equivalent to looking through a suitcase?

    I guess that copying MP3s is equivalent to listening to the songs in the record store.

    Thanks US Border agents!

  27. start carrying infected memory sticks by waynemr · · Score: 0

    Find the most evil, vile malware possible and lace some memory sticks with it. Then, let them have at it.

    1. Re:start carrying infected memory sticks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u mean the last measure operating system, right?

  28. files on my laptop include by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    saddams_wmd_secret_storage.rar, iran_atombomb.rar, bin_ladin_saudi_homeaddress sorry i work in the white house.

  29. Copyright by Fear13ss · · Score: 1

    So, if my laptop were to contain copyrighted works such as my music collection does. If they were to make a copy of this work wouldn't they themselves be guilty? Someone should send the RIAA there way!

  30. Just how secure is their storage? by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't give my business partner access to all my files so now the border agents are demanding access to them. There's sensitive company information in the files. What's to stop some one from hacking their system and gaining access to my company's information? I keep certain machines off the internet to avoid any possibility of hacking, do they do the same? Let's say a border agent copies legally bought music from my MP3 player then posts it on the web, am I responsible since it was my responsibility to keep those files secure and off the net? There's a massive potential for abuse over and above the looking for embarassing photos on some one's hard drive. We aren't talking FBI or CIA here. Most agents are underpaid and poorly trained. There's still a lot of confusion about what's allowed on planes and there is a lot of abuse in body searches. If the agents are already getting their jollies from patting down well known actors then what are the odds they'll be digging through personal files looking for dirt?

    1. Re:Just how secure is their storage? by TechForensics · · Score: 1

      How about keeping your sensitive stuff under heavy encryption on a secure website or machine at your offices? And uploading sensitive stuff obtained abroad under the same encryption to the same site?

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
  31. yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and they will keep the device in question.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by oni · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is *exactly* why truecrypt has hidden volumes. And there is no way - I mean, mathematically no way - to tell if a hidden volume is actually there. So you give them the password to the parent volume, which (if you're smart) you've filled with innocent-looking data.

    2. Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      And there is no way - I mean, mathematically no way - to tell if a hidden volume is actually there.


      I don't know if Customs would be smart enough to catch it, but personally, I'd wonder if your hardware indicated you had a 40 Gig disk but all the partitions I could see added up to only 10 Gig.
    3. Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by mikael · · Score: 1

      Is there a danger than decrypted data stored in RAM could be swapped out to a swap drive partition?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      I don't know if Customs would be smart enough to catch it, but personally, I'd wonder if your hardware indicated you had a 40 Gig disk but all the partitions I could see added up to only 10 Gig.

      Doesn't it show a 40 gig HD? The partitions are hidden.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    5. Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by statusbar · · Score: 1

      Typical windows laptops nowadays come shipped with hidden partitions which contain the system restore cd.... So they don't add up anyways.

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    6. Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, that's why vista and linux (via luks and whatnot) are all set to make it fairly simple to encrypt your swap

    7. Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a danger than decrypted data stored in RAM could be swapped out to a swap drive partition? You can encrypt your swap partitions. Modern Linux kernels have built in encryption. This is what Ubuntu and SUSE use. You can encrypt just about everything, including your swap partitions. My system has everything except for my /boot partition encrypted.

    8. Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I will admit, on a Windows box, it is hard to get the blessed thing to tell you the size of your physical disks. It'll tell you the model number though, and you can Google that to tell you how big it is.

    9. Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by kharchenko · · Score: 1

      I think this just shows how far we've come. I don't actually have anything to hide, but would enrcypt, hide partitions and jump through all sorts hoops to hide perfectly legal but clearly private information from your own government. Now you'll be standing there in front of a customs agent with a guilty look that any trained professional will recognize, even though you obviously did nothing wrong. Great!

    10. Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      I will admit, on a Windows box, it is hard to get the blessed thing to tell you the size of your physical disks. Start -> Run -> compmgmt.msc

      The physical sizes it shows are precise but there's an incorrect usage of GB and GiB. In some cases, you have unmountable partitions which may be for Linux rather than being encrypted.

    11. Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by oni · · Score: 1

      personally, I'd wonder if your hardware indicated you had a 40 Gig disk but all the partitions I could see added up to only 10 Gig.

      You must think the people who created truecrypt are complete idiots.

      If you have a 40G disk, you put a 40G encrypted partition on it. You can then put a hidden 10G partition inside that. If the hidden partition isn't mounted, then it cannot be seen. It doesn't appear to take up any space. When you mount the primary parttion, it will have 40 gigs of free space, and you can write 40 gigs of files into it.

      Of course, if you actually wrote 40 gigs into it then you would have just overwritten the 10 gig hidden partition. For that reason, if you know there is a hidden partition then you need to mount it as well in order to protect it. When you mount the 10G hidden partition, then the primary would show only 30G.

      Like I said, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to tell that a hidden partition is there. You haven't even read the manual for truecrypt, but you just assume that you're so smart, that you've thought of something the truecrypt programmers aren't able to think of? That's fairly arrogant of you. If your intention wasn't to be arrogant, then your post should read, "I'm not familiar with truecrypt, how does it hide a 10G partition on a 40G disk without it being obvious because it takes up 10G of space?" See, that a question that isn't presented in a way that assumes you're smart and everybody else is stupid.

    12. Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase by Mazin07 · · Score: 1

      You should read up on how TrueCrypt stores hidden volumes.

      If you create a standard TrueCrypt container file (often *.tc) of 4GB and give it a hidden volume of 1GB, when you go to mount the regular volume it will still appear as 4GB. TrueCrypt itself does not know if there's a hidden volume there. Corruption of your hidden volume is *very* possible, unless you explicitly tell TrueCrypt "yes, I do have a hidden volume that shouldn't be overwritten, and here's its password." The hidden volume looks like random free space.

  32. Story in the Washington Post by Ardipithecus · · Score: 4, Informative
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604763.html?hpid=topnews

    "Eventually, he agreed to log on and stood by as the officer copied the Web sites he had visited, said the engineer, a U.S. citizen who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of calling attention to himself."

    Then explain why you were checking all the Iranian sites. "Oh, the cable, of course. Please step over here sir."

  33. Confiscating or Copying? by pete-classic · · Score: 0
    Wait one minute. I'm not saying I agree with this policy one bit. But we on this site are always going on about how copying isn't stealing because you aren't depriving anyone of anything.

    Given this logic, how can you describe "copying data brought to the border" as "Confiscating Data at the Border"?

    According to Merriam-Webster:

    confiscating

    1 : to seize as forfeited to the public treasury
    2 : to seize by or as if by authority


    (I'll leave looking up "seize" as an exercise to the reader.)

    -Peter
    1. Re:Confiscating or Copying? by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given this logic, how can you describe "copying data brought to the border" as "Confiscating Data at the Border"?

      Well, given that in TFA, one "Udy" had her employer's (Radius) laptop stolen by customs, I think we can say "confiscated".

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Confiscating or Copying? by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      My gripe was specifically about the Slashdot story . . . which is why I quoted it.

      -Peter

  34. What about? by interactive_civilian · · Score: 3, Interesting
    TheMeuge said:

    As far as I understand, they cannot arrest you, because you haven't committed a crime, but they can refuse you entry into the country.
    Just out of curiosity, can they refuse you entry if you are US citizen? Considering it is your home country, there isn't exactly another home country to send you back to, is there?

    If they CAN refuse you entry, what happens if the country they send you back to denies you re-entry? Do you just spend the rest of your life hopping back and forth on planes until someone gives in?

    I honestly, don't see how they could deny entry to a US citizen, for any reason. Can someone please clarify?

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:What about? by Barryke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try this http://www.news.com/Minnesota-court-takes-dim-view-of-encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html
      "A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent."

      When i am crossing the USA border with encryption that is not crackable with ease - like keys over 1kb long - the enforcers (beleive to) have enough reason to put me in jail, either to annoy, prosecute or study me. And besides that: rumor has it that even when one uses or develops heavy encryption outside North-America soil, they might want to jail that person when it visits the states later on.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    2. Re:What about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they can...but they could confiscate the property.

    3. Re:What about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the PATRIOT Act was first floated, there was some alarming discussion of a clause that would allow the government to strip any US citizen of their citizenship (and deny them reentry, or throw them out of the country if they were already here). I have no idea what happened to this clause or if it got into the final law. Does anyone have more info?

      (posting AC for obvious reasons...)

    4. Re:What about? by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Some rulings are meant to be overturned...

      There have been enough high-profile thefts of laptops lately compromising personal data to drive the counter-argument that could be used to overturn this ruling.

      "When sensitive data is present on a laptop, the possessor is failing due diligence to NOT use encryption to protect that data."

      Nor does that mean to simply hand over the keys to DHS at the border. That sensitive data is the property of my employer, the owner of the laptop. The keys to that data should only be turned over in accordance with company policy. If company policy says to always hand over the keys to DHS officials, so be it. But the moment there is a company policy, the company is responsible for the consequences of that policy, and you are merely responsible for carrying it out. In addition, the company is responsible for the legality of that policy.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:What about? by statusbar · · Score: 1

      So the presence of Internet Explorer's "SSL.DLL", which is encryption software, may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent! I KNEW microsoft was up to something fishy!

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    6. Re:What about? by DM9290 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try this http://www.news.com/Minnesota-court-takes-dim-view-of-encryption/2100-1030_3-5718978.html
      "A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent."

      When i am crossing the USA border with encryption that is not crackable with ease - like keys over 1kb long - the enforcers (beleive to) have enough reason to put me in jail, either to annoy, prosecute or study me. And besides that: rumor has it that even when one uses or develops heavy encryption outside North-America soil, they might want to jail that person when it visits the states later on. The article is misrepresents the ruling. The Minnesota appeals court found that what a person was using their computer for, encryption or otherwise was RELEVENT to the facts of the case.

      Not all admissible evidence is "evidence of criminal intent".

      In fact I would argue the availability of encryption software and the NON-USAGE of it, is evidence of innocence (or at least proof that the accused is no hardened criminal and deserves some leniency)!

      They never said that the encryption is necessarily evidence of wrong doing. Only that it is admissible as evidence. It would be for the jury to decide whether or not it proves anything; guilt innocence or otherwise.

      ""We find that evidence of appellant's Internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him,""

      He was convicted for the actual testimony from the girl. There was no evidence he has even encrypted anything at all. The defense was attempting to have the conviction thrown out on the basis that somehow this evidence was irrelevant and tainted the verdict. The evidence was slightly relevant (barely), and it was not prejudicial anyway, so the trial was fair.

      Even if the appeals court found the evidence completely irrelevant it wouldn't have reversed the ruling, since in light of the fact that nothing had actually been encrypted it is absurd to think that the jury somehow had a reasonable doubt about the girls testimony but the existence of unused PGP software erased that doubt.

      No way did a judge say "evidence of encryption software = evidence of criminal intent".

      the only way to exclude evidence is to prove it is absolutely irrelevant or that it is so misleading that it would threaten the validity of the verdict. (or that it was obtained by government misconduct).

      at the end of the day most good prosecutors who have a good case aren't going to harp on little minutia of barely material information. They are going to confuse the jury into thinking that somehow this detritus is supposed to prove something, and if you get some jury members fixated on the idea that encryption software that hasn't been used is supposed to prove something they might just acquit because they lost the crowns line of reasoning.

      for whatever insight it gives into the mental state of the user of a computer it is tangentally relevant and would be admissible unless it was misleading or too confusing. evidence of general behavior around an object relevent to the crime (the computer) is somewhat relevant.

      the existence of microsoft word would have been deemed admissible. it also proves no crime per se. But some newspaper might say "microsoft word is evidence of criminal intent!"

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    7. Re:What about? by dpilot · · Score: 1

      The moment it becomes a company policy issue, the whole matter becomes between the government and a US Corporation, for whom they have a heckuva lot more respect than they do for you or me. The moment companies put in place policies, and as soon as you show the company policy letter with your laptop, and the moment it's BIG companies (Boeing, GE, GM, etc) doing it, things will moderate.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  35. Pssst... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You may not have noticed this, but governments generally have rights that don't apply to individuals. For example, the government can legally jail or even kill someone, while you as an individual can not do the same.

    1. Re:Pssst... by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Oh yes you can, you just gotta be good at it. :D

    2. Re:Pssst... by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For example, the government can legally jail or even kill someone

      With restrictions such as due process, that is. Unless you're going to come out and say "oh well, the government can jail or kill whoever it wants with impunity". The funny thing is that citizens have similarly restricted rights, for instance, they can kill in self defense.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:Pssst... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Unless, quite obviously, you happen to work as an executioner or a gaoler.

    4. Re:Pssst... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      governments have no 'rights', they have entitlements granted them by the people. Even their 'right' to exist exists only at the will of the people (in theory of course).

    5. Re:Pssst... by Damvan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Due process only applies if you are not declared an "enemy combatant" at the whim of the President. Since there is no due process for that declaration, then yes, the government can, at least, can jail whoever it wants with impunity.

    6. Re:Pssst... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would rebellion against the government for "suppression of your rights" be considered "self-defense"?

  36. Useless! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    A smart guy will just upload his data in an encrypted form to a webpage or something.

    Then, he gets to the US, downloads the data via TOR (or a similar approach), and still be safe.

    One characteristic of terrorists is that they're smart (until they commit suicide, that is :P ). They're not going to be encumbered by those stupid police state tactics.

    I'm sure all this data confiscation is done just to fool citizens into believing they're safer than before.

    1. Re:Useless! by binaryspiral · · Score: 1


      I'm sure all this data confiscation is done just to fool citizens into believing they're safer than before.


      Hadley... the board patrol just needs more MP3s for their iPods.

    2. Re:Useless! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Terrorists don't commit suicide. There all cowardly. They use religion or some other belief to convince others to do it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  37. How Long Before... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    How long before Microsoft and the BSA manage to get checks for "illegal bootleg" software included in the searches.

    And then the RIAA and MPAA will demand that "illegal content" be stopped.

    Every special interest group that can tie their interests to computer data will want in after that.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  38. Cell Phone Search by jaredcat · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've been subjected to this myself.

    I live in San Diego, about 10 miles from the Mexico boarder. A lot of San Diegans, including myself, go down there all the time for clubs and cheap shopping. On the way back to the US, I've got about a 5% chance of being stopped and taken to Secondary Inspection-- I've been in Secondary 5 times in the past 5 years. The first agent who you speak to when going through the normal process can flag you to be in Secondary if he thinks something is suspicious or out of order.

    Usually Secondary just involves a more detailed search of my car and 30 minutes of sitting in a waiting room with a bunch of Mexicans. One time in Secondary was quite different. In this case, the first guy asked me where I went in Mexico on this trip. I couldn't pronounce the name (Via Bueneventeura in Chapultapec, Tijuana), and I guess he thought I was making it up or telling him a story. He put a note on my windshield and directed me towards Secondary.

    For some reason this particular Customs agent in Secondary didn't believe that I am who I said I am. He kept asking me why I would go to a foreign country without my passport (at the time, you only needed to bring a driver's license and that is all I ever brought with me). After asking me questions for over an hour (literally, what hospital was I born in? where did I go to elementary school? etc...) and looking me up in various databases, the guy starts going through my stuff.

    The customs agent wanted to search my smartphone (Sony Ericsson P910i at the time), but he didn't know how to use it. I asked him what he thought he could possibly find in there that could be contraband. At any rate, he didn't know how to search my phone, and I wasn't going to help him. There was a big toothmark in my phone from where my dog chewed on it, and I told him that because of the damage to the touch screen, I couldn't actually go through the files on the phone anymore. He wasn't too happy with that answer, but he accepted it anyway.

    Another hour later I started complaining to one of the supervisors on the floor-- I had been sitting in this smelly waiting room for 2+ hours with no access to a bathroom, and there was no apparent reason to keep holding me. By now the agent must have confirmed in at least 12 different databases that I am a US citizen, born and raised. I'm also just about the whitest nerdy white guy with a Boston accent that you could ever hope to meet; not exactly the archetype of a foreign agent or drug smuggler. The supervisor finally gave me leave to go.

    Of course my car had been turned upside down-- glove compartment and everything else turned out. Rather than complain again, I just wanted to get out of there.

    Since then I always bring a passport, and I definitely don't go across the boarder as often as I used to since that experience.

    1. Re:Cell Phone Search by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 1

      >>Since then I always bring a passport, and I definitely don't go across the boarder as often as I used to since that experience.

      One of these days I'm going to be crossing it, and will not come back. I'm looking at Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, and Australia. There are things about each I don't like, such as Iceland forcing everyone to submit DNA samples to a database.

      We're either making steps forward, or steps backward. I'm hopeful things will get better with new leadership.

    2. Re:Cell Phone Search by east+coast · · Score: 1

      not exactly the archetype of a foreign agent or drug smuggler.

      Tell that to Christopher Boyce and Daulton Lee.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:Cell Phone Search by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      Me? I'm looking at Japan. Sure, I'm not Japanese, but I look close enough, and I've had a fascination with that country as long as I can remember.

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    4. Re:Cell Phone Search by wonkavader · · Score: 2

      Spend some time there before making any rash decisions. You may pass here, but you won't there, and you'll find some glass ceilings and doors. Japan is surrounded by people who look like them. They know how to tell who's Japanese and who's not.

    5. Re:Cell Phone Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I definitely don't go across the boarder as often as I used to since that experience

      Don't look now, but that may just be the entire point. One of the tell-tale marks of authoritarianism is locks on both sides of the border door: not just coming in, but also going out. Clearly, harassing innocent civilians is an effective way to discourage them from crossing the border.

      Consider the trend over the past 100 years. Those locks are only going to get stronger, until ultimately, only the power elite will hold the right to come and go.

      Ideally, the authoritarian government keeps the subject class ignorant of what's outside the borders. Why? Because hat way, it's a hell of a lot easier to control what the subject class knows and believes.

    6. Re:Cell Phone Search by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      I have. I believe there's only been one time where someone could tell that I wasn't a local- everyone else spoke Japanese to me and assumed that I had spent too much time in America (and told me as much- I've been told as much once at a train station) when I started speaking English. It could just all be an act, though (but a very good one).

      Of course, that was over many short-term visits as a tourist. One look at my name would give away the fact that I wasn't Japanese. I'll have to be honest- I'd rather deal with whatever glass ceilings Japan has in store for me if America goes any further downhill.

      I'm turning 18 next year and I plan to vote- I still have hope for this place, and like you said, I don't want to make any rash decisions (I'm only a teenager, after all).

      I've lived in America for a large part of my life (and China for a smaller part) and it's sad to see it go down this path.

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    7. Re:Cell Phone Search by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      "There are things about each I don't like, such as Iceland forcing everyone to submit DNA samples to a database."

      What sort of conspiracy theory is that?... Ive been Googling for awhile now and I still cannot find any documents saying that its a manditory procedure, only that various studies to try and trace Icelandic history... but... "forcing?"

    8. Re:Cell Phone Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, that was over many short-term visits as a tourist.

      Short term visits don't mean squat. That's different from actually living there. Hell, in Beijing, I passed for Chinese at a restuarant there; and I'm Italian!

    9. Re:Cell Phone Search by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      Ooook... Can't find any possible explanation for that that doesn't involve mind-altering "stuff"- I've met a lot of Italian people and they look nothing like the average Chinese person.

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    10. Re:Cell Phone Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been to Iceland and based on how closely knit the population is I don't why they'd need more than 1 DNA sample for the whole country. :P

    11. Re:Cell Phone Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Since then I always bring a passport, and I definitely don't go across the boarder as often as I used to since that experience.
      So, it works. They have got you scared, and you are no longer willing to leave your "free" country.
    12. Re:Cell Phone Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for sharing, weeaboo

    13. Re:Cell Phone Search by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      He's only 18 --- if you're that young, and "look" like a local, you have a VERY good chance of integrating very well into a society within 5 - 10 years. It'll never be 100%, but it can be pretty close.

      It doesn't get easier as you get older. Everything about you slowly gets more 'set in stone' - your accents, your mannerisms, even your circle of friends. If you want to leave, the best time to do it is when you're young. I'm now in my early 30s and possibly interested in leaving my country of birth - I realise I would've been much better off doing it ten years ago.

      He'll also likely know within five years if he's made a mistake or not, allowing him to move back again still at a very young age. At worst it'll have been an adventure and a life experience second to very few things.

      Judging by the description, he probably isn't likely to fit 100% into American society either, I'm guessing, so what's to lose?

    14. Re:Cell Phone Search by wikinerd · · Score: 1

      I definitely don't go across the boarder as often as I used to since that experience

      A prime example of how security paranoia hurts the economy. The economy runs better when people move around and spend their money. If they are afraid to move freely because of overzealous agents, spending decreases and the economy halts.

  39. Just another reason to encrypt by Bobb+Sledd · · Score: 1

    Just one more reason among many to download and use TrueCrypt. I've been using it for a long time now, and as long as it is as strong as it claims, I have been generally happy with its performance.

    On the topic though, I recently traveled to a foreign country and had my laptop with me. No one searched nuthin'. I even had a pair of sharp multi-tool scissors with me in the laptop bag, in the cabin, the whole way, and no one ever even caught it... At least 8 flights internationally. ...except a month later, when I took the very same laptop from Texas to Florida, the scissors were confiscated on a flight then. Go figure.

    I'm sure it is GW Bush's and Bill Gate's fault colluding with the RIAA somehow... I just haven't figure it out yet.

    --
    "They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
  40. Encrypt by DeanFox · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Good timing with the Truecrypt 5.0 release. This is search/seizure without cause and is against basic rights but this shouldn't be too big a deal. It isn't for me.

    I travel with everything inside a Truecrypt hidden volume. My OS is exposed in the regular volume along with browser cache showing activity to news.google.com. That's it. The rest of the system is contained within a hidden volume.

    I've been asked to turn my PC on and type in my "password" and I do so cheerfully. They see exactly what I allow them to see: The OS with browser cache to news.google.com. They seem satisfied and I get waved on.

    I can play this game and I win. I'm not waiting for the courts to tell me what is/isn't right/wrong. I already know what's right/wrong. It's irrelevant (to me) how this all plays out in the courts. No thief, public or private gets my data.

    -[d]-

    1. Re:Encrypt by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to run a virtual machine ,and in that a browser, with the disk image on the encrypted volume for easy deletion.

      And, if you are super crazy, encrypt that partion too.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    2. Re:Encrypt by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      I don't get it;

      are you talking about traveling outside the country? I've traveled various places inside the US and they've never asked me to log into my laptop. I once got asked to turn on my cell phone. Once with my laptop they dragged some white cloth material over it, in the cracks, etc; which presumably was for detecting chemicals that shouldn't be there or something. I've never been asked to show them anything.

      However, planning to go to Europe this summer, maybe I should look into this Truecrypt after all.

    3. Re:Encrypt by DeanFox · · Score: 1


      You're right about domestic travel. But this article is about customs and border crossings. My electronics have never been "search" domestically. I've had to turn them on but they haven't been searched. Although every time I've come back from the UK my laptop was searched and the data seized. Well... the data "they" thought was valid.

      This method is mostly secure from snooping and the basic copying I've run into so far. All my data and daily programs are on the hidden volume but there's always the windows swap files, etc. Those are still on the standard volume I open up at their request. But, I've never had them do a bit copy of my hard drive or go so far as looking at the swap file etc. So far they've just copied the browser history files, Word documents, picture folders etc...

      Even still and just in case, on those rare occasions I need total privacy I use a VM machine in the hidden volume D:. This way 100% of all activity, including the swap files, etc. are contained within the hidden volume that cannot be discovered.

      I'm not paranoid. I'm private. It's none of the states business reading my latest love letter, poetry or diary entry.

    4. Re:Encrypt by DeanFox · · Score: 1


      Super crazy huh? LoL. The last time a co-worker call me paranoid I said "I'm glad you feel that way. Strip naked for me and walk around the office." All I got was a blank stare. I said, "What? Are you paranoid? What are you hiding?" For some reason the discussion abruptly ended and he never called me paranoid again. I still haven't figured that one out. Maybe he figure that was private? [/sarcasm]

      And BTW: I actually do. When I want to be assured total privacy from things like the swap file(s) I kick off a VM from the hidden volume. Just call me crazzzzy.

    5. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem for me, as someone who will probably be travelling from Europe to the US for work in the next few years, is that I can very easily win at keeping my data deniable and/or secure using stuff like Truecrypt.

      However, they can very easily win at destroying my life. Even if they just denied me entry and shipped me back home, my employers would find out, and I'd be considered a travel risk. Thats what really bugs me.

    6. Re:Encrypt by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      And are you 100% sure that VMWare (or other VM of choice) isin't using any of your swap either?

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    7. Re:Encrypt by DeanFox · · Score: 1

      And are you 100% sure that VMWare (or other VM of choice) isin't using any of your swap either? I'm sure it is. In that the swap file of the standard volume might contain data indicating I ran VMWare (VM of choice). I'm comfortable admitting I ran a particular program if that fact ever showed up in the swap/page. However, the safety of using VM as a secure sandbox has been discussed on several sites. What I'm seeing from the "experts" is:

      Any VM is a safe browsing sandbox, so long as you take no action to give that VM access to or control over files on the host system. Assuming the host computer is secure, no external computer can gain access to it without authenticating to it. The VM is an external computer. Coupled with the fact my VM is contained within a hidden volume I'm reasonably certain I'm covered. Am I 100% certain? No. Am I 100% convinced my privacy is secure from border/police searches? Yes.
    8. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for admitting to sexual harassment in the workplace. Our legal team will be in touch!

  41. Re:What about that old buzzard in Paris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a guy in Paris who is without a country. Been living in the airport for decades.

    And by the way, even though the Supreme Court says passwords are protected by the 2nd and 5th Amendments, they've also ruled if you're at the border under control of Customs the Constitution doesn't apply because you aren't in the country.

  42. Who Does It Apply To? by WebmasterNeal · · Score: 1

    Does this apply to US citizens coming back into the US or to foreigners entering the country? I can see how something like this could happen with foreigners, not that it's ok to do necessarily.

    --
    "During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
  43. Expectation of Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It the laptop is password protected, there is an expectation of privacy and they would require a search warrant.

    See Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967)

  44. WTF? by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looking for data being smuggled over the border? What a ridiculous idea...
    Who would go to the trouble of transporting data on physical media, when it can be transmitted over the internet?

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:WTF? by Rampantbaboon · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing. If you know your data will be copies, why take anything sensitive when it's just as easy to use the tubes.

      Unless they're monitering every packet going in and out of the country, which means they really care about what's going on in that call center in Bangalore. The US wants to lead a global economy with the caviat that the Globe= USA, and maybe a bit of Canada, just so long as it's not the Quebecois(sp).

    2. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Load the thing up with every virus, worm, malware whatever before crossing the border.

    3. Re:WTF? by Phos_ed · · Score: 1

      Who said you'd have a good internet connexion (or any connexion at all) on the other side of the border? If you were mitbeaver (he Asked Slashdot yesterday: "Best Laptop for Going Around the World?"), you certainly wouldn't rely on teh internet or worse on the submarine cables heading home.

    4. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Who would go to the trouble of transporting data on physical media,
      > when it can be transmitted over the internet?

      This is today my friend. Tomorrow there will be internet border customs as well.

  45. Saddest of all is the futility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only an idiot is going to keep incriminating evidence on their person anyway. The authorities may just as well go ahead encourage everyone to use bootable CD's and SSH for personal/private/illegal stuff.

    1. Re:Saddest of all is the futility by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Yeah?... what about that funny website you visited that had joke image of someone killing Bush, sure its in your Temporary files, *maybe* you didnt even see it, *maybe* it wasnt even you who went to the site... *maybe* we'll just hold you in this cell until we figure that out...

      You may not, but I know many that do (including myself) that have a few blueprints/schematics for non-terrorist/explosive devices, could that not be seen as possible terrorist activity or envolvement? You expect the border guard to know its a schematic for stabilizing the signal to noise ration in your WiFi?... wait... is that even legal?...

    2. Re:Saddest of all is the futility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah?... what about that funny website you visited that had joke image of someone killing Bush, sure its in your Temporary files, *maybe* you didnt even see it, *maybe* it wasnt even you who went to the site... *maybe* we'll just hold you in this cell until we figure that out...

      There are no temporary files with a bootable CD unless you're using swap! Think border officers know how to grep a swap partition?

      You may not, but I know many that do (including myself) that have a few blueprints/schematics for non-terrorist/explosive devices, could that not be seen as possible terrorist activity or envolvement? You expect the border guard to know its a schematic for stabilizing the signal to noise ration in your WiFi?... wait... is that even legal?...

      Why would you be crossing the border with a schematic for an explosive trigger on your laptop? Of course that's _always_ going to be suspect! As for a schematic for a wi-fi card, that could also be cause for alarm.


      The point I was making is that because of the searches; rather than traverse a border with the data physically stored on a device, anything private or remotely suspicious will be retrieved from the net over an encrypted connection. Searching data at the border is not only utterly pointless but counter-productive. Furthermore, border staff are not skilled in electronics or computer forensics. A determined terrorist could hide a schematic within an innocent looking service manual and take it in right under their noses, they probably wouldn't even notice an unmounted partition.


    3. Re:Saddest of all is the futility by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      "Why would you be crossing the border with a schematic for an explosive trigger on your laptop?"

      Aww shit, well you got me there, I was originally going to say something like "non-terrorist related devices" and felt compelled to slash it with some explosives (as in "non-explosive")and make a mess of it...

      but hey, even if I did, thats not a crime (yet) either... unless I also have a drawing of me using the explosive device to blow up a schoolyard or a Brinks Truck.

      As for the rest of your comment... my response is simply... "why should I have to?" if im not a criminal, why should I act like one?

    4. Re:Saddest of all is the futility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if im not a criminal, why should I act like one?

      Otherwise you risk being inconvenienced. Just as anti-piracy measures make life difficult for paying customers to the point where it's easier just to pirate the damn software, so it is with these border searches. Security theater is an expensive joke. Many slashdotters could hide anything on a system and waltz right through all but the most thorough computer forensic checks -- without even using any publicly available security software.



  46. Let's go to prison. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    They don't have to send you back anywhere. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operate detention centers (read: prisons) around the country for people with problematic status.

    So, no, there's no need to send you to Gitmo.

  47. That problematic new digital paradigm... by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

    First it was the music industry and the movie industry complaining about easy copying of their content.

    Now it's regular people whose digital information can be copied in full by law enforcement on crossing the border. Law enforcement can then take as much time as it wants examining the data bit by bit, reading your creative writing, sex videos with your wife, planning outlines, trade secrets, the next edition of "Harry Potter" if you are JK Rowling, etc.

    The old rule is that you have no privacy interest when you cross the border. But now the privacy intrusion has the potential to be far greater than ever before. Maybe we need a new rule. Or maybe we just need to keep our info encrypted. Or save it on a flash drive sealed inside a swallowed condom.

  48. Confiscating? Slashdot just can't learn terms by noidentity · · Score: 1

    U.S. Confiscating Data at the Border

    How the hell is copying your data confiscating it? Come on, when you download a song, you aren't stealing it (confiscating it), and the same goes for when they copy your data. Sure, it's fucked up that they keep a copy, but it's not confiscation unless they keep the laptop or delete the data on it.

    1. Re:Confiscating? Slashdot just can't learn terms by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      I wondered how long it would take someone to point this out. Here's the definition of confiscate:

      TRANSITIVE VERB:
      Inflected forms: confiscated, confiscating, confiscates
      1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
      2. To seize by or as if by authority. See synonyms at appropriate.

      ADJECTIVE:
      (knf-skt, kn-fskt)
      1. Seized by a government; appropriated.
      2. Having lost property through confiscation.

      So, unless the border agents remove the data from the digital device such that owner no longer has a copy or seize and keep the device, it's not being confiscated.

      No I don't think it's right for the government to do this but it's no wonder most people hear absurd complaints like this and blow off the rest of the message because the complaint is stupidly wrong in it's basic facts.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    2. Re:Confiscating? Slashdot just can't learn terms by corsec67 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Except that for some parts of the article, they did look at the data on the device and then delete it:

      But after her phone was returned, Mango saw that records of her daughter's calls had been erased.


      It shouldn't matter what the data is, the point is that they deleted data after looking at it.
      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    3. Re:Confiscating? Slashdot just can't learn terms by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Agreed, if they copied then deleted data, or simply just deleted it, then "confiscated" and "destroyed" are appropriate terms. I should have at least STFA (scanned TFA).

  49. Random data? by davidwr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Next time I cross the border, remind me to carry a suitcase full of DVDs full of random data labeled "one-time pad disk 1," "one time pad disk 2," etc.

    Let them waste their time copying those disks.

    When they ask what they are, I'll tell them the truth: They are unused one-time pads that are designed to be used to encrypt corporate data. If they ask, I will also tell them truthfully that if they leave my sight they will not be used.

    Oh, I'll also include a disk that has nothing but a copy of the Bill of Rights on it, just to see if they are paying attention.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Random data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've had coworkers who've carried a metal suitcase with gigs of radar data. It's close enough to random, that it's almost impossible to compress. We've never had much of a problem, but anyone who wants to verify our story wouldn't have trouble. Laptops covered with explosive residue (from seismic work) are a much bigger problem, even with clear credentials it can take a while to explain things.

    2. Re:Random data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time I cross the border, remind me to carry a suitcase full of DVDs full of random data labeled "one-time pad disk 1," "one time pad disk 2," etc.
      We hope you enjoy having your name on the no-fly list.
    3. Re:Random data? by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'll also include a disk that has nothing but a copy of the Bill of Rights on it, just to see if they are paying attention.
      That's awesome... Actually, next time I travel, I should turn my Windows laptop volume up full blast and make the startup WAV file simply me reading the 4th ammendment into a microphone...

      (We have to use Windows on our work laptops)
      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
  50. Same as looking in a suitcase?? by werelord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I remember correctly, Kevin Mitnick was imprisoned for 5 years, 4.5 of them pre-trial; 8 months of solitary confinement, for copying files "worth" 160k (actual value much less)..

    And now its "same as looking in a suitcase"??

    obviously "who" does it makes a difference.. The government has your best interests at heart, honestly!!

    1. Re:Same as looking in a suitcase?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      $160K was just the cleanup costs at DEC and you're acting as if he never evaded a federal warrant or the all the other serious laws he broken. He's no hero.

      Mitnick, 37, pleaded guilty in March to four counts of wire fraud, two counts of computer fraud and one count of illegally intercepting a wire communication.
      And that's just the plea bargain, he's believed to have caused millions of dollars in damages. There's so many myths about this guy, he should have his own Snoops page.
  51. it happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    customs took my flash drive into the away from me for 30 min because they said they wanted to copy it. they also took my paper notebook away for 30 min. I suspected they photocopied the entire thing. I felt very violated. especially since I'm a US citizen. border agents in other countries have never treated me like this.

    1. Re:it happened to me by jamar0303 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Use microSD cards and a reader instead. There's nothing in the reader, and the microSD card is easy to put away.

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    2. Re:it happened to me by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      And what exactly are they looking for? Do they really think their going to look at somebody's calender app and find something like "Tuesday: Destroy America"? And who would bring along world domination plans in a non-encrypted laptop across borders when they could just as easily access the files over the internet? No only are the searches futile and constitutionally illegal, they're a huge waste of my money as a US citizen.

    3. Re:it happened to me by QCompson · · Score: 1

      And what exactly are they looking for? Do they really think their going to look at somebody's calender app and find something like "Tuesday: Destroy America"? From the arrests which have occurred so far, it looks like they are searching for child pornography.
    4. Re:it happened to me by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      Then why don't they say that's what they're doing? It sounds incidental to me.

  52. The "We're Better Than X" Fallacy by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah we are so oppressed here[...] Oh wait that's not us thats Iran and Afghanistan.


    Sir, this is a despicable argument.

    The point is not that the US is "better" than some dictatorship or chaotic hell-hole.

    The point is that the US today is much worse than the country defined by the US Constitution and bravely won by its founding citizens.
    To compare the US to a dictatorship or chaotic hell-hole is an insult to every American who has fought and died to protect the ideals of the US Constitution.

    As for your right to vote, it's true that the citizens of the US have not yet been asked to relinquish it. Instead, elections are a circus of toadies funded by powerful interests. The US has been brought to its current state by people who were ~elected~. Think about that if you decide that your Constitution expresses ideals worth fighting for and even dying for.

    Great people conceived the US Constitution. Brave people have defended it and died defending it. The measure of the success of the US is NOT weather it is better than some dictatorship or chaotic hell-hole. The measure of the success of the US is whether it is the nation that the Constitution intended it to be.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    1. Re:The "We're Better Than X" Fallacy by dbuttric · · Score: 1

      Thank god for a really good argument, and comment on this post.

      Thank you!

  53. I have a Mac laptop by doginthewoods · · Score: 1

    Can they access that from their most likely PC based computers? If they cannot, then what? Am I required to tell them how to do it? What if I have a particularly nasty Windows self actuating replicating data destruction type virus on my Mac, as defense against those who want to steal my data, and it gets into their system and it destroys their data base? Then what? Didn't they ask to copy all my data?

    --
    Republican leadership = Idiocracy
  54. They're just making a backup for you... by Loibisch · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're not confiscating your data, they're just trying to help by creating an off-site backup for you. So if your harddrive goes kaboom you can go to the customs office, ask them nicely and they will hand over a copy of the data you had with you at your arrival.

    Aren't they a nice bunch?

  55. Nothing new here, calm down, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I recall, under long-standing International treaty and law, a nation has the right to control anything and everything that passes its borders. In pre cybernetic days, this meant that all documents could be searched, reviewed, etc. Historically this has been an excellent intelligence gathering activity. Oh yes, and this includes mail, packages, as well as the baggage of persons crossing the borders.

    Did I mention that this applies to ALL nations ? And they ALL do it ?

    The only exception was to materials under 'Diplomatic Bag' seals, which was a loophole in the law that allowed a container to be defacto 'foreign soil' and so pass through these borders inviolate. That's right. Only the various departments of state and ministries and whatnot are technically exempt from this activity. In ANY nation.

    All governments therefore have the right to surveil your electronic storage media, paper documents, perform cavity searches, and whatnot. It's just that most of them don't. And historically they don't because they want the commerce, tourist trade, etc.

    I recall an FBI security briefing in the 1980's that commented that defense executives visiting France were being actively targeted by the French secret service, to the point that a few of them had fallen to 'honey traps' (baited with une belle femme) and had the contents of their laptops, floppy disks, documents, etc. copied while they were *cough* otherwise engaged. I was encouraged to double encrypt all data that I carried with me as it was subject to inspection and copying at any and all borders that I would pass through.

    Fortunately I don't work in that industry any more, so I don't care that my annual budget spreadsheet or snippets of code can be copied by the Forces of Darkness. It'd confuse them just as much as it confuses everyone else who sees it.

    1. Re:Nothing new here, calm down, move along. by cp.tar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As I recall, under long-standing International treaty and law, a nation has the right to control anything and everything that passes its borders. In pre cybernetic days, this meant that all documents could be searched, reviewed, etc. Historically this has been an excellent intelligence gathering activity. Oh yes, and this includes mail, packages, as well as the baggage of persons crossing the borders.

      Searching and reviewing != copying and archiving.

      Let me just say, I live in a former "communist country". And this sounds exactly like the bad old days my grandparents sometimes talk about.

      The way I see it, you guys are being screwed. Slowly, but oh so absolutely.
      I know I won't be coming your way any time soon.

      Boiling a frog, indeed.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    2. Re:Nothing new here, calm down, move along. by Hatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I recall, under long-standing International treaty and law, a nation has the right to control anything and everything that passes its borders.

      Under the US constitution, the people have a right for their papers to be secure from unreasonable searches. Considering that data itself cannot be a threat to anyone, it's pretty clear that this search is unreasonable. And even if data could be a threat, there are so many ways for data to enter the country that interdiction at the border is not a reasonable strategy to stop it.

      All governments therefore have the right to surveil your electronic storage media, paper documents, perform cavity searches, and whatnot.

      Except for the US government, who is specifically forbidden by its constitution. And really, just because everyone does it doesn't make it right.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Nothing new here, calm down, move along. by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      "As I recall, under long-standing International treaty and law, a nation has the right to control anything and everything that passes its borders. In pre cybernetic days, this meant that all documents could be searched, reviewed, etc. Historically this has been an excellent intelligence gathering activity. Oh yes, and this includes mail, packages, as well as the baggage of persons crossing the borders."

      But, what about "Diplomatic Seal" or "immunity from search" our Diplomatic Pouches? Those seemingly were off-limits. Not that there was not background neutron scan in the point of entry. But, I suppose that the former Soviets or any current government fills their attaches with scan-detector paper to test whether or not the US or other governments are bombarding their agents and diplomats with device detection or device neutralization energy.

      Now, I wonder if these days the US will demand to inspect the laptops of foreign diplomats. If not, then what's sooo special about THEM. Let's see: they maintain nation-level contact, could object, and even hint at declaring intrusiveness as some grave matter or worthy of declaring an act of war.

      Now, let a US resident/citizen/national try to declare an "act of war" against the US government when faced with the seizure and inspection of his/her laptop. Such a person would be tossed in the clink.

      Oh, by the way: does anyone for one SECOND think the "inspected" laptops of the copied drives haven't been specially fitted with keystroke devices, beacons and other "nifty gadgets"? If you think you've been bugged, toss the machine or have a bug sweep run on it. Not that this will deter or distract them. But, it WILL be some proof you were illegally tapped. (Assuming you're not already a person of interest...).

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    4. Re:Nothing new here, calm down, move along. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Canadian government is also forbidden to do illegal searches by Constitution. Recently someone got of due to the fact that he was searched on a hunch by the border guards (they had no reasonable suspicion) even though they found 50 Kg of cocaine. http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n880/a12.html of course it will probably not stand up to appeal.
      Another interesting decision found while googling above is http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1988/1988rcs2-548/1988rcs2-548.html where someone got of for not being informed of his right to a lawyer as soon as customs decided to search him.
      Canada's constitution is a bit weaker as whether illegal evidence is admitted is based on whether it brings justice into disrepute. Also the constitution is a bit more modern than America's as it was put into place in 1981.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Nothing new here, calm down, move along. by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      "Under the US constitution, the people have a right for their papers to be secure from unreasonable searches. "

      While you are correct the USA defines Customs areas as not American soil and as such they can do whatever the f' they want. They routinely use this excuse to hold people without any charges or rights for some years now.

  56. It's an open question by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

    There was an article just a couple days ago on here about a case where a Federal Magistrate held that a password was protected.

    In my opinion, it was sound reasoning. The court said that the Fifth Amendment applies only to testimony. By giving the password, the defendant would in effect be testifying (1) that he had the password and (2) that he had access to the content protected by the password. Both of those admissions could be incriminating, so the government could not force him to reveal it.

    That was just a ruling from a lower court though. It is not a precedent that any other court has to follow (though they may find it persuasive, as I do). We can't predict how other courts will rule.

  57. Windows at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't give my business partner access to all my files so now the border agents are demanding access to them. There's sensitive company information in the files. What's to stop some one from hacking their system and gaining access to my company's information? Nothing. In fact if they're running Windows, then the EULA for 2000 SP3, XP SP2, and later versions grant full access rights to MS or their designated reps. Considering how tight a lid MS keeps on product activation keys and other tidbits, there's probably no greater assistance to corporate espionage than having your competitor run MS Windows at work.
  58. A few solutions, take your pick by Butterspoon · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Leave a Knoppix CD in the CD drive. When asked to boot up comes a clean Linux system. Officer nods at it and waves you on.
    2. Two partitions. TrueCrypt. Nuff said.
    3. Full disk encryption with TrueCrypt 5.0 with a keyfile as well as a pass phrase. Don't bring the keyfile with you - pick it up from gmail or wherever in a cyber cafe when you arrive. Perhaps even have it put there by a cron job after you should have arrived. When asked to boot machine tell the officer - honestly - that you cannot, because for security you are travellling with a locked machine that even you can't open. Although this might cost you your laptop in an extreme case, you can't get done for lying or misleading a customs officer, and they can wedge you hard on that charge alone.
    --
    pi = 2*|arg(God)|
    1. Re:A few solutions, take your pick by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      When asked to boot machine tell the officer - honestly - that you cannot, because for security you are travellling with a locked machine that even you can't open. Although this might cost you your laptop in an extreme case, you can't get done for lying or misleading a customs officer, and they can wedge you hard on that charge alone.

      Having a laptop confiscated is not the worst that can happen. You are missing the rather important point that when you cross borders, you are completely at the mercy of the officials. I am not referring solely to the US, but to all countries' border controls.

      If you are ever silly enough to try to pull something like this at any border crossing, please write back and tell us how many microseconds it took for them to decide to refuse you entry to the country. And remember that depending on local laws, more damaging options may be available to them. (And, in the case of the US, that you will no longer be eligible for the visa waiver scheme as you will not be able truthfully to say that you have never been denied entry to the US.)

  59. Frightening Power by rueger · · Score: 1

    I've always felt that Customs agents were considerably more frightening that real police. They can certainly do any number of things on a whim that a cop would never consider. Well, outside of The Shield anyhow.

    There are more and more people, myself included, that wind up avoiding traveling to the U.S. From outside of your borders it looks as if I need to worry not just about routine customs abuse like having my car torn apart, but also being shipped to Syria for torture, and now having sensitive data pulled off of my laptop.

    And again, in the present climate it can be hard to know what data Homeland Security might see as abridging "National Security" even if it's legal in my own country.

  60. Job Opportunity by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Flash drive mule.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Job Opportunity by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Flash drive mule. And since we don't have cyberbrains yet...Johnny Colonic?
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    2. Re:Job Opportunity by powerlord · · Score: 1

      If I still had any mod points that would definitely be worth a "+1 Funny".

      Thanks, I think I'll be chuckling all day.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    3. Re:Job Opportunity by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Must have been lost in the shuffle. The kids today just don't appreciate good old-fashioned rectal humor.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  61. Virii, trojans, and worms. Oh my! by jjh37997 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Want to fight back? Buy a cheap laptop off eBay and fill it with the most dangerous viruses and trojans you can find. If you don't know how to do that just visit a lot of Russian porn sites without patches or a firewall.

    1. Re:Virii, trojans, and worms. Oh my! by TurinPT · · Score: 1

      So... you have a laptop filled with viruses. Now what?
      You're gona waste their time with spyware slowing down the startup?

    2. Re:Virii, trojans, and worms. Oh my! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, assuming they take the data and look at it later, just have a few strategically placed and appropriately named compression bombs...

    3. Re:Virii, trojans, and worms. Oh my! by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      Now you hope that you infect them if they copy data from your computer. A slim chance probably, but why the heck not?

    4. Re:Virii, trojans, and worms. Oh my! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOoooo I hadn't thought about that one. Just a simple tgz named something like "contact_list" that blows up to 1TB in size could be fun (for bonus points fill it with repeated copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights).

      I might have to go make one of these or fun and see how small the compressed version is. :)

      The trick is to have a double layer on it though, so they HAVE to run uncompress the outside envelope completely in order to figure out its a waste of time. Otherwise as soon as it fills their hard-drive they can simply look at the output file and see its useless/irrelevant.

  62. Put it all online by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    The irony with such tactics is that it will discourage businesses taking in their computers to the country and in many cases just mean that the important will be left online, using secure connections. European countries already distrust the USA over spying on corporate data, I doubt this is going to help the situation.

    As if we really needed another method of damaging our economy.

    I can't wait until the destroyer of nations leaves the office.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  63. not "searched" ... "confiscated" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its one thing to know that a customs agent (of any country) might see your company's trade secrets as you may be able to convince yourself that the trade secrets are sufficiently complex no agent will be able to remember enough to do harm (although they might be able to take some insider trading profits from simple knowledge such as relates to M&As).

    Its quite another to know that a customs agent might seize and retain complete copies of your company's trade secrets. Particularly if you remember that US CBP's legal justifications for such searchs (now extended to seizures) are exactly the same as the legal justifications most other countries use for their equivalent agency. There are more than a few countries who are political friends of the US while still engaging in massive industrial espionage to the point of having been caught using their own government's agents to do so.

    Not to put to fine a point on it, but if you're Boeing can you ever again risk letting one of your employees carry either a laptop or physical documents when traveling to Europe? Or if you're a pharmaceutical company can you ever again risk letting one of your employess carry either a laptop or physical documents when traveling to India or a South American company? Yeah, didn't think so.

  64. Use TrueCrypt. Problem Solved. by ThatDamnMurphyGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Keep your pr0n, browser (firefox -profile), vlc, in a hidden TrueCrypt volume. Let them search like idiots. Give them the password to the bogus volume when they force you into it.

    Hell, TrueCrypt 5.0 is out, and it even runs on OSX now.

    1. Re:Use TrueCrypt. Problem Solved. by javaxjb · · Score: 1
      Keep your pr0n, browser (firefox -profile), vlc, in a hidden TrueCrypt volume. Let them search like idiots. Give them the password to the bogus volume when they force you into it.

      Wouldn't it be more entertaining to select various types of (legal) pr0n to have ready as examples of current documents so that you could choose whichever might seem to be most offensive to the current customs officer? Keep a file window around sorted by descending date and have a script that would run (appropriately enough) touch just before arrival at customs against your selected documents/images.

      --
      Programmers in mirror are brighter than they appear
    2. Re:Use TrueCrypt. Problem Solved. by ThatDamnMurphyGuy · · Score: 1

      What someone really should do is two factor volume encryption. It would limit you to having an internet connection, but if you couldn't decrypt anything or use a major part of the HD because your keyfob pin is useless without the companies RSA server to auth it, then they'll get nothing.

  65. Please tag usbbuttplug by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thanks

  66. Something is rotten... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So, by leaving and the wishing to re-enter the country, your constitutional rights are suspended? What if you go somewhere like a US Embassy (which is technically considered US soil and under US jurisdiction) in another country and get let in there? Does that re-instate your constitutional rights?

    Under what jurisdiction are these detention centers? I assume that, since you can be held without trial, access to an attorney, etc. without even having been accused of a crime (because if you are accused then they can just let you in and arrest you on the spot), the detention center must be somewhere outside of US jurisdiction in order for them to be able to strip you of rights that the Constitution and various laws and court cases forbid them to strip from you...

    Something doesn't smell right about all of that.

    The way I see it, there should be 2 choices: 1.) you are accused of committing a crime, they let you in, you are arrested, and then you get your day in court, or 2.) you are not accused of a crime so they let you and in and you are free to go. There really shouldn't be any middle ground there, if you are US citizen returning to the country.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Something is rotten... by contrapunctus · · Score: 1

      What if you mailed the laptop to yourself. If it's encrypted there is no one from whom to ask a password (if they even open the package).

    2. Re:Something is rotten... by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      Google is your friend.

      http://www.ice.gov/pi/dro/facilities.htm

      Something doesn't smell right about all of that.

      You're right that doesn't smell right, because I didn't say or imply any of it.

      The bottom line is /you/ being allowed into the country and /your stuff/ being allowed into the country are two very different questions. In short, YES, borders ARE exceptions and have codified as such since the Tariff Act of 1789 that established the Customs Service--and with it the authorization to search, seize and/or levy duty upon any goods crossing the border.

      Now, there is the problem of non-citizens when neither this country nor their own is particularly keen on letting them in. So, they have no visa, residency or citizenship for this country and their own refuses to take them back for reasons that don't particularly thrill us either. Short of a fly-over and pushing them out with a parachute, what do you think happens? Hmm? Three hots and a cot, babe.

    3. Re:Something is rotten... by radish · · Score: 1

      That's my understanding (although I'm not an expert, I do come and go from the US a lot). The only 3rd option is to hold you while determining whether or not you are a citizen. If that's in doubt they may need some time to decide.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    4. Re:Something is rotten... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Processing Center that is controlled by the Department of Homeland Security sounds like something Adolf Hitler would have appreciated.

    5. Re:Something is rotten... by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 1

      You'd get a letter from US Customs notifying you that your package is being held and asking you to present yourself in person at their facility to retrieve your laptop.

  67. attention US: by Coraon · · Score: 1

    "You'll get my data, when you pry it from my cold dead hands!"

    --
    -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
  68. Alexandria by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

    Isn't this how the great library at Alexandria was created? They had a tax on all books brought through the port that required the owners to let local scribes make a copy. Finally, a positive-spin comparison between the current administration and the Ptolemaic dynasty of ancient Egypt. If it was good enough for the third century B.C., it's good enough for today.

    1. Re:Alexandria by lareader · · Score: 1

      Indeed - and this is why privacy concerned citizens used primitive but effective data destruction measures a while later.

      Seriously, though, there is a difference between taking a copy of an intentionally published work (just as quite a few Western nations do) and taking a copy of all the correspondence people have.

  69. This post shows how low we have fallen by TarPitt · · Score: 1

    When I was growing up in the 1960s, we were taught the US was the freeset country in the World.

    Now apparently the standard is "We are not as bad as Iran"

    Proof that if you lower your standards enough, anything can be made to look acceptable

    --
    If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  70. Real frog-boiling by mi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The US gooberment is boiling frogs as we speak...

    Because "we the people" not just let it — we demand it to, and vote out people, who are opposed to it...

    When the Federal Income Tax was first introduced in 1864, it was only 3%. We are now boiled up 35% (having touched 88% in 1942) and you don't seem to scream.

    So, pardon me, if I don't object to Customs Agents copying (not "confiscating") data for examination too much — they've been searching through travelers' material possessions since their "service" was introduced...

    We are now facing a very real danger of Ms. Clinton getting elected — because, as analysts say, of support for her among single women, who "desperately need" the "schools, mass transit, childcare", that she promises to deliver them. What those analysts — and everyone else — omit, is that those women want all of these benefits "for free", or, as we know, at somebody else's expense.

    In other words, don't accuse the government — it just follows the people's wishes...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Real frog-boiling by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In other words, don't accuse the government — it just follows the people's wishes...

      The people in this case being Big Business(tm) and Rich People(tm).

      Though I will agree that we've certainly done this to ourselves.
      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    2. Re:Real frog-boiling by wgoodman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, depending on income, you could pay up to 91% tax starting in 1954. Of course in 1954 money you'd have to be making over 1.4 million today before you hit that tax bracket, and even then only income above that amount is taxed at the higher rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_of_1986

    3. Re:Real frog-boiling by Venik · · Score: 1

      In other words, don't accuse the government -- it just follows the people's wishes... In other words, people's wishes are for a more socialist society. You know, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". There is nothing wrong with having free higher education, nationalized medical care, better public transportation system, or affordable and accessible childcare. You were a child once, remember? Maybe even a college student. Almost certainly one day you will be old and sick, staring at some mind-boggling hospital bill, or a denial-of-coverage letter from your insurance company, or a CNN "breaking news" report saying Medicare finally went bust. A bottle of arthritis pills will cost half of your monthly pension. I don't think you'll be spending too much time typing away on your computer. America is supposedly the richest country in the world. But we are neither the healthiest nor the smartest developed nation in the world. Not by a long shot. Why, you ask? We have some brain defect that makes us go bananas at the thought of paying 35% tax, and yet allows us to tolerate with remarkable ease health insurance industry, half-a-trillion defense budget, our president's private war and all the other wonderful things other people buy with our 35%. Perhaps the high taxes we pay are only half of the problem. How this money is spent is the other half. If we had free higher education and free medical care, I wouldn't mind paying 40% in taxes. It will actually save me money.
    4. Re:Real frog-boiling by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Danger? nice fear mongering, asshat.

      Of course taxes pay for those things, d'uh. By somebody else's expense, you mean everybody's expense. The people that want them pay taxes to you know.

      Everyone needs schools. An educated populace is good for everybody, regardless if the have children or not.
      Lower crime, more new business, industry growth, health, etc.

      If you are actually paying 35% of your total income in federal taxes, you're an idiot. More likely, you don't understand the tax code.

      Here is a question for you:
      Is it possible to go into a new bracket and take home less money?

      If you answered yes, you are wrong and I suggest you actual make an effort to educated your pea brain about the tax system before opening your yap again.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Real frog-boiling by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      "Free Health care", you mean like in the UK where the doctors are saying that the elderly, the fat, smokers and other groups whose behavior (or age) the doctors think make it unproductive to spend the resources to treat?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:Real frog-boiling by tinkerghost · · Score: 5, Informative

      So, pardon me, if I don't object to Customs Agents copying (not "confiscating") data for examination too much

      I realize it's slashdot so you didn't read the article, however, it does quote a woman who's laptop was taken with the assurance it would be returned in 10-15 DAYS. That was a year ago and she's still waiting & being stonewalled. I don't know about you, but if I was on a business trip & had my laptop taken for 10-15 days - my trip is pretty much shot.

      Further reading of the article shows someone detained for 1.5 hours while the entire contents of their phone was reviewed --- and then missed call logs deleted for the time in question. Add to this the refusal of the department to provide any information via FOIA requests and you have a very fishy situation.

      The obvious questions are:

      • Who reviews it and for what?
      • Under what circumstances is it passed to whom?
      • What safeguards are in place to ensure the security of the data?
      • What happens to that data?
      • How long is it retained?
      • What recourse is available if the data is released to the wild?
      None of those questions have ever been answered by Customs, and that's a frightening prospect. The only comment that they had was that their agents are 'trained to handle confidential data'. Of course, according to the last GAO report, they lost over 400 of their own laptops the previous year.

      I know several people who carry data on laptops that, due to legal restrictions, cannot be shared without a court order. So, where does that leave them? Even Federal employees cannot demand that you break the law.

      As for the briefcase argument, I do not believe that they sit there with a photocopier & copy the entire contents of a phone book, but they have copied SIMM cards.

      As for your argument about money & following the peoples wishes, well, perhaps if the government hadn't lost $1B in cash in Iraq, we could afford to actually fund the school projects that are already mandated. Also, I doubt that 'the people' are wishing that the government continues to increase the restrictions on copyright. That is definitely a big business wish. Pay attention to where the money comes from and goes, big business has more influence right now than the people in terms of what is actually being passed into law.

    7. Re:Real frog-boiling by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Saying, muttering, yes, always have.

      Not actually doing anything or turning anyone away. Nor bankrupting sick people.

    8. Re:Real frog-boiling by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      When the Federal Income Tax was first introduced in 1864, it was only 3%. We are now boiled up 35% (having touched 88% in 1942) and you don't seem to scream.

      In 1864, the United States was an agrarian natiton with little industrialization. Urban industrialized nations require more governance than a land sparsely populated with farmers who work mostly by manual labor.

      By the standards of the contemporary industrialized world, the U.S. is lightly taxed, and citizens of other nations laugh at our tax whining.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    9. Re:Real frog-boiling by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      You'll note the grotesquely confiscatorally high income tax rates were applied by men in Congress who had already earned their millions . I.e old money.

      So it barely affected them. But it did have the effect of keeping new competition for power down while giving them, the members of Congress, the new guy's money to spend at Congresses' discretion!

      Oh how sweet it is! To use the product of some other guy's effort in the service of one's own power goals!

      Eh, deconstruction's a bitch. Pay no attention. Go on back to your populist rhetoric.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    10. Re:Real frog-boiling by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The defense budget without the two wars is expected to top three quarters of a trillion dollars this fiscal year.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Real frog-boiling by Venik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One cannot blame British doctors for realizing the obvious. It is unproductive (from a cold capitalist point of view) to treat the old, the fat, and the smoking. But they treat them anyway because treatment is paid for by the people and guaranteed by the state. The situation is different in the US, where health insurance companies routinely deny coverage to these "risk groups" and even people with health insurance cannot obtain approval from their HMOs for medically-necessary procedures. The funny part is that the vast majority of those opposing nationalized health care in the US will experience on their own skin the ugly side of the "health maintenance" business.

    12. Re:Real frog-boiling by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      I've been dealing with it for a couple years now.

      I hit 50, and my hypoglycemia reversed into Type 2 diabetes (overactive pancreas finally started falling apart), and I developed heart problems. A job change, and my health insurance didn't carry over. The new job's health insurance wouldn't pick me up because I now have pre-existing conditions. Yes, I can get 'health care', if you wanna call it that, as a single paying 'member', at a cost of my monthly take home pay. No, this coverage will NOT cover my 'pre-existing conditions' or anything they can claim is a problem caused by said conditions, plus the deductable is just this dide of outrageous.

      For what it's worth, I've been in favor of national healthcare for decades.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    13. Re:Real frog-boiling by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I've been dealing with it for a couple years now.

      I hit 50, and my hypoglycemia reversed into Type 2 diabetes (overactive pancreas finally started falling apart), and I developed heart problems. A job change, and my health insurance didn't carry over. The new job's health insurance wouldn't pick me up because I now have pre-existing conditions. Yes, I can get 'health care', if you wanna call it that, as a single paying 'member', at a cost of my monthly take home pay. No, this coverage will NOT cover my 'pre-existing conditions' or anything they can claim is a problem caused by said conditions, plus the deductable is just this dide of outrageous.

      For what it's worth, I've been in favor of national healthcare for decades.

      It is illegal for the insurance provider at your new employer to refuse to provide coverage, if you were covered by the insurance at your previous employer. That is assuming that you left one employer and went to work immediately for another. I am not sure how the law works if you were unemployed for awhile and allowed your insurance to lapse. So, your story is bullshit, unless you left out being unemployed for awhile. I know this is fact, because I have type II diabetes and I changed jobs recently with no problems in changing from one insurance provider to another.
      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    14. Re:Real frog-boiling by rifter · · Score: 1

      I think what the poster mangled saying was that people will elect Clinton because she promises to deliver the things which by her own admission she has not delivered on (she's been working on it for 35 years! Why does she think it is a positive point?) while forgetting that she will also be doing the things that she HAS been working on "for 35 years," i.e. a decrease in civil liberties.

      Incidentally, as Senator she has voted for the PATRIOT ACT, the authorization of force against Iraq, and the authorization of force against Iran. She did apparently vote against the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which, given her record to date was actually surprising. Of course, Obama voted against all of these things, except the PATRIOT Act, (he was not a Senator when it was passed). However, both Obama and Clinton voted to renew the PATRIOT Act.

    15. Re:Real frog-boiling by hav0x · · Score: 1

      Because "we the people" not just let it -- we demand it to, and vote out people, who are opposed to it...

      When the Federal Income Tax was first introduced in 1864, it was only 3%. We are now boiled up 35% (having touched 88% in 1942) and you don't seem to scream.

      So, pardon me, if I don't object to Customs Agents copying (not "confiscating") data for examination too much -- they've been searching through travelers' material possessions since their "service" was introduced...

      We are now facing a very real danger of Ms. Clinton getting elected -- because, as analysts say, of support for her among single women, who "desperately need" the "schools, mass transit, childcare", that she promises to deliver them. What those analysts -- and everyone else -- omit, is that those women want all of these benefits "for free", or, as we know, at somebody else's expense.

      In other words, don't accuse the government -- it just follows the people's wishes... I'd like to meet the people or person who thought it would be ok for them to copy my personal, possibly confidential, data.
      The idea that it is the same thing as searching your suitcase is just ludicrous. I just dont't see their point in that comparison.

      Not being a citizen of the US I don't really care for Hillary, "single women" group lobbyists or your "Federal Income Tax" nor do i see any relation to these border "taps".
      As for the "copying" vs "confiscating", i'd have my data (encrypted or not) destroyed before delivering it in either case, and in my opinion the "copying" is actually more unsettling for reasons that someone who throws mass transit and childcare into this discussion might not grasp.

      Oh well, it's not like i had plans to visit the US anytime soon.
      Now the plan is to avoid it like the plague.
    16. Re:Real frog-boiling by freitasm · · Score: 1

      "Now the plan is to avoid it like the plague."

      And what US citizens don't realise is how true this becoming. I know a lot of people who rather travel through European routes instead of having to go over the US air space and having to be fingerprinted, photographed, asked questions, searched through, having personal material copied, thoughts inquiried without any reason except because the border agent thinks it his God given right to do so.

    17. Re:Real frog-boiling by dave562 · · Score: 1

      He probably allowed his coverage to lapse and didn't get COBRA in the interim period.

    18. Re:Real frog-boiling by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow! A real Commie-agitator on Slashdot... Somewhere an empty noose is swinging on a lamp-post waiting for you...

      In other words, people's wishes are for a more socialist society.

      Yes, there is a strong push towards it. Those "wishes" don't make it right, however.

      You know, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

      No, you are confusing things. "To each according to his need" is a Communist, rather than Socialist ideal. Nothing wrong with it in itself, except that all known attempts to achieve it in practice involved mass-murder on unprecedented scale. Which is why you belong on that lamp-post I mentioned at the beginning.

      There is nothing wrong with having free higher education, nationalized medical care, better public transportation system, or affordable and accessible childcare.

      There is nothing wrong, except "free" is impossible. Somebody (the rich minority) is paying for it. But the majority is voting for it so, of course, the boiling will only get worse — it is self-perpetuating. The only thing stopping the majority from voting themselves more and more of the minority's money, are some scruples and the minority's protests. Those barriers continue to erode as the temperature in the pot is rising.

      You were a child once, remember?

      Yes, I was. And the only reason, I lived my childhood in a "free" kindergarten, was that our Commie-government would not let us escape to this "brutal" Capitalist world. It was not until 1990-ies, that we were able to emigrate.

      When I speak against Socialism, I know, what I'm talking about. You, on the other hand, are posting out of your ass.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    19. Re:Real frog-boiling by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      I had to look COBRA up, here's the link for others benefit.
      http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_cobra.html

    20. Re:Real frog-boiling by iroc409 · · Score: 1

      FAR more of our budget is spent on social welfare than the war - PERIOD. More than half the budget is for social programs. The war isn't bankrupting us, lack of responsibility for ones' self and lack of oversight is.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2007

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008

    21. Re:Real frog-boiling by mi · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Of course taxes pay for those things, d'uh. By somebody else's expense, you mean everybody's expense. The people that want them pay taxes to you know.

      Those poor people don't pay enough taxes to cover the costs of those things. They need richer people to help them pay for it. That's the point — her promise to provide ever more of those things (US already more per pupil than most countries, for example) at the rich minority's expense is extremely appealing to the poorer majority. But one person — one vote, so the minority loses... Slowly.

      Everyone needs schools. [...] regardless if the have children or not.

      That may or not be a valid argument, but it is an off-topic one. Hillary's support base is among people, who need those service for themselves and/or their children. It is bad enough when some rose-eyed idiot votes to increase everybody's taxes to help someone else. But it is the worst, when "those in need" have the power over "the rich" purses themselves.

      Which is why I have this disenfranchising proposal: if you are now, or have been within the past 5 years a recipient of public assistance, you are not entitled to vote. This may not eliminate the beneficiaries of school subsidies, but, at least, the more egregious cases of Welfare and MedicAid recipients will not be deciding, whether their own incomes should be increased.

      Here is a question for you:

      Indeed: Have you ever knowingly and volunteerely paid more in taxes, than you had to?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    22. Re:Real frog-boiling by theophilosophilus · · Score: 1

      The people in this case being Big Business(tm) and Rich People(tm). Nice group of stereotypes. Don't forget unions (tm) and special interest groups (moveon.org, ACLU, etc.)(tm)

      But the most likely stereotype at fault in this situation is Joe Sixpack (tm) who doesn't mind if they search a bunch of A-RABs if it means he can make it to bowling league without getting nuked.
      --
      Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
    23. Re:Real frog-boiling by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is a strong push towards it. Those "wishes" don't make it right, however.

      Kissinger? Is that you?

      Put another way, not you, nor the government has the authority to tell the people what is "right". If the people desire it, the government's responsibility is to not play political power games with their big buddies and deliver it. Anything else is fascism. So get your militant liberal bullshit out of here.

      --
      I hate printers.
    24. Re:Real frog-boiling by Rudd-O · · Score: 1

      I was one of those people that preferred an European route, last year. I went to Zürich to interview for a company whose name everyone Gnows, and given the choice between U.S. transit and European transit, I chose the latter, for fairly obvious reasons. Gitmo sounds no fun -- you may call my fear unwarranted, but I'm entitled to it and, given the choice, I'd rather not risk my liberty.

      --
      Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
    25. Re:Real frog-boiling by Venik · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, there is nothing worse than someone badmouthing the country he was born in. The funny thing about Russian Jews, who finally "escaped" to America, is that whenever someone asks them about their nationality, most say that they are Russian. People who are ashamed of who they are don't have the moral right to criticize anybody.

    26. Re:Real frog-boiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most (western) countries with socialised/free healthcare have a private healthcare industry running in tandem; and the quality of care in the private industry is miles above the public system. Most likely you would sign up for private healthcare even if public were available, if you could reasonably afford it.

    27. Re:Real frog-boiling by mi · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, there is nothing worse than someone badmouthing the country he was born in.

      Really? Nothing worse? How about murder? Is not that worse than badmouthing a country?

      People who are ashamed of who they are don't have the moral right to criticize anybody.

      Says who?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    28. Re:Real frog-boiling by mi · · Score: 1

      Put another way, not you, nor the government has the authority to tell the people what is "right". If the people desire it, the government's responsibility is to [...] deliver it.

      Really? You did not think this through very well, did you? How about the majority voting to kill someone they dislike?..

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    29. Re:Real frog-boiling by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      The people have as much control as they want to have. Blaming evil "Big Business" and "Rich People" is just a cop out; a way to justify personal inaction. If we were to demand what we claim these powerful parties are taking from us, we will get it. They simply can't resist it, because all their power comes from us. At any time, you may stand up and tell your fellow man what you want, why you want it, and why you think he should want it too. Once you accept that the system is set up to help you, not to hinder you, then you can actually start making a difference.

      Still, it's going to be hard to convince the average, relatively wealthy, contented middle-class citizen that he should be outraged at how he's being mistreated...

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    30. Re:Real frog-boiling by lareader · · Score: 1

      If you are a normal person in US - or in most Western countries, you will have received some form of public assistance within the last 5 years. Depending on the definition of public assistance, your suggestion would disenfranchise a vast majority of people.

      I would rather propose the more radical alternative that if you have, within the last time period since the last election which you now wish to participate in, paid an equal amount or more taxes than you have received in public assistance (public schooling should count here too) you are eligible to vote.

      No other considerations (age, religion, even nationality may be disregarded if we aim towards a more capitalist society). If you pay more taxes than what you receive as a ten year old (do note that public schooling should be counted here), you are by definition a productive member of society. I see no real reason why we should disenfranchise some voters because of their age (or rather, why the current arbitrary limit is there).

      I don't see why receiving a school subsidy should not be considered public assistance.

      As an aside, this will have a strange effect with regards to children that receive home / private schooling, but that is A-OK in my book. It is not like allowing "underage" voters will dramatically lower the quality of political discourse - in fact, I'd approve of pandering to a currently powerless minority in society in addition to pandering to their de facto owners.

      Personally, with regards to your last question, I have refrained from seeking tax exemptions on activities where I could have gotten them - I think that fits the bill. Of course, most of my taxes these last years have been on the realized profit of my stocks during my university years, and thus the possible exemptions would have been quite small, but still.

      The proposed system would most likely have disenfranchised me during my youth and university years - I do not know if that is a good or bad thing.
      I do hope you understand the effects of such a system, though, as it would be to my immediate benefit to deny future public education assistance to others in order to make my own education more valuable. Long-term, this would mean a lack of people with the necessary education and would cause lack of growth possibilities, but in the short term it would be good for my salary and job opportunities - many people seem only interested in the short term.

      Full disclosure: Currently living in Sweden. This system would disenfranchise at least 20-30% of the population here, as a rough estimate (mostly children, the people out of work, the really poor and the elderly).

    31. Re:Real frog-boiling by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It is unproductive (from a cold capitalist point of view) to treat the old, the fat, and the smoking.
      Umm.. No. In a capitalist point of view, it is productive to take their money. I don't mean that in a greedy way either, the doctors wouldn't care who paid what as long as they paid for the services performed.

      I'm betting what you were trying to say is that from an insurance point of view, it is capitalistically unproductive to afford treatments to them. But insurance isn't capitalism by design, it is an attempt to use capitalism to introduce socialistic principals. (not in socialism but in profiting from pools of risks associated by societies of varying risks)

      but there is so much misinformation out there that is isn't funny. These medically necessary procedures usually are outside the normal treatment regime for the illnesses and the treatment is never the only treatment availible, just the one being denied unless they classified the illness incorrectly in the first place. Oh, and BTW, nothing would be different in the UK for the most part.

      So the only thing left is the risk groups being denied insurance. Sort of seems like they are attempting to force them into a less risk of a group. But even this is falsely presented. It isn't that they are denied insurance, they are denied insurance at costs they want to pay with the benefits they want which is actually a lot different then not being able to get insurance.

      It is all just a bleeding heart manipulation of facts and circumstances where it sometimes isn't done on purpose but ends up this way. The goal seems to be a range from oh poor me, to pushing an agenda of some sort. But here is something that is true and different between the US and UK's medical. The US spent roughly 10 times as much for cancer research and treatment research then the UK did in 2006 with their efficient health care. After adjusting for the differences in pay, inflation, and costs of goods, the best this number can be brought to is 5 times as much. And before you go on about the EU supplanting research, it was taken into consideration when those numbers were produced. Actually, on average, all of Europe spends less in these areas then the US does.

      Now the question might be, is this because all their money is spent covering people? Is it because they don't need cures, they got free treatments? I saw once where someone claimed it was because all the UK's medical researchers went to the US for better pay but the study already accounts for that when they produced the 5 times as much. The bottom line is that they just don't spend as much on the research so keep that in mind when demanding a system like theirs. The research and cures or successful treatment's won't stop coming out/in, it will just take longer which could mean the difference between you getting your cancer cured and living or your kid having that luck in 50 more years.

      Oh look, I used those touchy feely things too.
    32. Re:Real frog-boiling by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I guess you could argue the degree of need or retiring of more governance.

      But the reason we are lightly taxed has a lot to do with all of our whining which has also the positive effect of being one of the most prosperous nations on average. Sure, you will find times when other countries wax us, but you won't find it consistently.

    33. Re:Real frog-boiling by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Now correct me if I am wrong, but if you don't go past the gates on your fly through or connector stop, your not subjected to the customs and all you have to do is grab your next flight down another terminal. There are lounged and stuff on the plane sides and all and you shouldn't at that point, have to show anyone much more then your boarding pass.

      In 2006 I went to Stockholm Germany to visit childhood friend who stayed after his military duty was over in the early 90's. Then I went to hawaii via the US (I don't know why they booked it that way but they did) with a stop at Newark NJ, and a connector in LA. For all they knew, I was a foreigner when coming back but we had free reign at the terminal which included going into the lounges and all. Of course we had to pass through a metal detectors before going back on the plane but it is nothing like searching or fingerprinting us or declaring items in customs.

      Either I was treated special because I was somehow identified as an American (i had the same type boarding pass as everyone else), or the fear everyone else is seeing is mostly made up. Now in Hawaii, I hit customs and went through everything and the trip back home subjected me to some pretty invasive stuff, but going through the US was pretty easy, non confrontational, and non invasive in comparison. Maybe I have my flights confused. I was bordering buzzed/drunk the entire time.

    34. Re:Real frog-boiling by Venik · · Score: 1

      Most likely you would sign up for private healthcare even if public were available Do you have the numbers to back up this statement?
    35. Re:Real frog-boiling by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      We don't need the government wasting money on helping people, with charities and all sorts of nonsense.
      They should be out there getting troops killed and maimed, that is the purpose of government, to waste taxpayer dollars making enemies abroad, so they can waste even more taxpayer dollars fighting them off.
      More brilliant is to cut taxes, and borrow money to spend, to kill and maim troops. This is being done so successfully that the interest on this debt is on track to exceed the entire military budget. Two birds, one stone. Great job!

    36. Re:Real frog-boiling by Anzya · · Score: 1

      Just a tip, but you might want to check out LCHF. It has recently been approved by the Swedish goverment as an alternaive treatment for type 2 diabetes. Found an english version of the news for you here http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/search?q=annika+dahlqvist

      --
      "This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
    37. Re:Real frog-boiling by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that 'the people' want bread and circuses every day.

      'The people' want all gay people put in a penal colony somewhere on an island.

      'The people' want all foreign-looking fellow citizens impounded until they can prove they have credentials.

      And you'd better look up Fascism at a credible reference somewhere. You discredit yourself the way you bandy around the term.

    38. Re:Real frog-boiling by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      That was a year ago and she's still waiting & being stonewalled. I don't know about you, but if I was on a business trip & had my laptop taken for 10-15 days - my trip is pretty much shot.

      The cover story was written in such a fashion that it's pretty obvious it wasn't your typical laptop.

      No, the Secret Service does _not_ want to archive the email forwards you get from your weird aunt.

      We'll never know the full story of why this woman's laptop contents were so pernicious. The only thing we can be assured of is that this anecdote (which is essentially the only value this 'story' has at the level it has been shown to us) will be bandied about forever by non-profits soliciting money to 'save' us from dark forces only THEY can protect us from. Don't you get those 'scare' junkmail solicitations?

    39. Re:Real frog-boiling by Kelsen · · Score: 1

      Kissinger? Is that you? Put another way, not you, nor the government has the authority to tell the people what is "right". If the people desire it, the government's responsibility is to not play political power games with their big buddies and deliver it. Anything else is fascism. So get your militant liberal bullshit out of here.


      Dude, can you read what you wrote? Do you grasp that the GP *is* one of the people, with all the rights attendant - including the right to express an opinion. Your post is bewildering.

      RFT!!!
      Dave Kelsen
      --
      "They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up." -- Chris Rock
    40. Re:Real frog-boiling by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      But the reason we are lightly taxed has a lot to do with all of our whining which has also the positive effect of being one of the most prosperous nations on average.

      Most prosperous? Let's see. The U.S. is only ranked twelfth in the U.N. Human Development Index, behind a bunch of nations with higher taxes. Seventeenth in the Human Poverty Index, again with a bunch of heavy taxers ahead of us.

      We have the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world. We're 42nd in the world in life expectancy.

      Hell, we're only eleventh in car ownership per capita, I thought we'd clean up there. Our home ownership rate is behind at least those of Belgium, Ireland, Norway, Spain, Slovenia, and Israel - and given the current mess, we've probably fallen behind several more nations.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    41. Re:Real frog-boiling by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yea, and that is why all those other countries are considered an economic superpower.

      12th place out of 177 countries human development index is bad. It is also skewed by differences in life expectancy and welfare reporting. Under weight and premature babies in the US, and countries like Denmark spend an enormous amount of effort in being saved which typically ends up with them living past a day and being recorded as an infant death instead of a fetal death. In countries like Sweden, noraway, the UK and all, they get reported as fetal deaths still. This skews the life expectancy which is going to be more important in the poverty index you mentioned. But if you look at the top 11 in this list, you will see countries that offer inside there social network things that we calculate as welfare like public health which inflated our values while deflating theirs. Winning a contest because of differences in reporting values doesn't seem like much of a triumph.

      The poverty index is loaded to start with, it considers infant mortality at a much higher scale which is also skewed by reporting issues. But more importantly, because we are generally richer, placing weight on the population below a median income level artificially limits us. As poverty is concerned, it makes no difference if you at a median income level or not because larger salaries which directly effect the median income level has no direct relationship with a person being in a state of poverty. Nice try though, but any country with larger salaries and larger amounts of rich people would be set back by default because of their methodology.

      As for the infant mortality rate, well I addressed this above. but I think I probably should say something here too. The differences in treatment policies and reporting are responsibly for the majority of this. The UN standards go something along the line of 1000 grams and below that isn't considered a live birth if they die. I think it is under 2500 grams and it is low birth weight and under 1000 grams is considered fetal death and not a live birth after 20 weeks. But this isn't a difference in medical procedures or quality of care as much as it is a difference in reporting. And when the reporting doesn't match up, the numbers can't be accurately compared. And when the number can't be accurately compared, then using them for basis of indexes it pointless because it isn't an accurate reflection of the results. Hence why these studies above are inaccurate.

      Life expectancy is effected by this somewhat too. Not to as great of an extent as the other studies and indexes are through. But there is an underlying cause that isn't present in other countries, Accidental deaths. The rate of accidental deaths from whatever reckless actions out freedom and wealth afford us just isn't as high as other countries. The cars and transportation systems are just as safe, but we are taking more chances and dieing more often at younger ages.

      As for Car ownership, I don't know those number to be accurate or enough about them to claim an inaccuracy. But given the current political climate, Global warming, the investment in public transportation and so on, it appear that not being on top isn't a negetive thing. Hell even the article you pointed to suggested that.

      As for home ownership, Again, I don't know enough about the numbers to make any statement one way or another. Lets assume it is true, accurate and means what it says. We are at least equal to or surpassing other countries in considerable scops. Even with the UK, past Canada to the north, Way past Germany, France, and Denmark. But you know, I said one of the most prosperous nations on average. This would allow for other countries to "pass" us and when you don't take skewed reporting for a basis of an index, we seem to come out even higher. So lets look at some real solid facts and see how they look to you.

      Lets start with the UK which it's people have a life expectancy rate of seven tenths of a year more then the US. (78.7 compared to 78 years average.)

    42. Re:Real frog-boiling by PaddyM · · Score: 1

      We should all make our passwords this before we arrive at the border:
      Therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papers,andeffects,againstunreasonablesearches
      andseizuresshallnotbeviolatedandnoWarrantsshallissue,butuponprobablecause,supportedbyOathoraffirmation,
      andparticularlydescribingtheplacetobesearched,andthepersonsorthingstobeseized.

      If enough people did this, maybe those agents would get tired of doing these unconstitutional searches.

    43. Re:Real frog-boiling by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "To each according to his need" is a Communist, rather than Socialist ideal. Nothing wrong with it in itself, except that all known attempts to achieve it in practice involved mass-murder on unprecedented scale.
      Perhaps because all known attempts originate from the same Communist school of thought, the one labelling itself "Marxist-Leninist"? You know, the one that interpreted terms such as "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "class war" quite literally. If you consider them to be analogous to modern evangelical Bible literalists, then it follows that there are less radical strains.
    44. Re:Real frog-boiling by Rudd-O · · Score: 1

      I was also borderline drunk all the time, but the trick, it seems, is to fly only with carryon luggage. No checking of luggage -> very, very quick boardings and transfers. I was subjected to customs stops though. Every single stop asked what was the huge bomb-like device I had in my hand suitcase -- it was a 110V-220V transformer for my electronic gear.

      --
      Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
    45. Re:Real frog-boiling by hacker · · Score: 1

      While I am a staunch privacy advocate (just read my blog for more examples going back 7+ years), I have to object to the statement you said here:

      and then missed call logs deleted for the time in question.

      If they are taking the phone and removing the SIM card, copying it with a SIM duplicator, and then analyzing the contents of the phone itself, it is ENTIRELY possible (and probably likely the reason) that there ARE no "missed call" logs on the phone, because the phone was not turned on when it was being analyzed.

      If I turn off my phone and 20 people attempt to call me, they'll get my voice mail. When I turn the phone back on, those "missed calls" aren't automatically appended to my call log... since my phone never received them. I will, however, receive the voicemail notification, which I can then check and review.

    46. Re:Real frog-boiling by hacker · · Score: 1

      As for your argument about money & following the peoples wishes, well, perhaps if the government hadn't lost $1B in cash in Iraq, we could afford to actually fund the school projects that are already mandated.

      The correct figure is actually $9 billion, not $1 billion.

  71. Funny stuff... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first thing I'd do while smuggling data INTO the US would be to let it go through customs. There's no way I'd GET IT OVER THE INTERNET while I'm already here.

    Terrorism is the new Communism, it's a free ticket for the government to break the law. I am not scared of terrorists, there's a much greater chance that I'll be killed by heart disease.

  72. Fingerprinting was bad enough by NP · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When fingerprinting of all visitors was introduced - I decided that I won't visit US as long as you guys keep doing this to me.

    I have politely declined to visit two conferences in the US when invited by my employer.

    And I really don't have any second thoughts about not visiting US when I read about this.

    1. Re:Fingerprinting was bad enough by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Exactly, but when you explain this to people they usually think you're crazy.
      People don't recognise the value of their privacy anymore these days, which is a sad thing.

      At least with THIS new travesty, you can explain to your boss that there is the chance that valuable company secrets could leak from the US customs dept and that's one of the reasons why you (or I) wouldn't want to go to the USA.

      I have been a bit sad about this for years, I always wanted to go to the US once and play the tourist, wanted to see the french quarter in New Orleans and some other places as well.
      Too bad :/

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
  73. Re:What about that old buzzard in Paris by barzok · · Score: 1

    If you aren't in the country, then Customs should have no jurisdiction either, as agents of the US Gov't.

  74. National security by MrNougat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, you know, they're just trying to keep us good citizens safe from outsiders bringing terrorist acts to our nation. Our borders must be secure.

    Of course, there might be one or two that slip through, or people already inside the borders who begin terrorist activities. We should probably do this same kind of thing at state borders, too.

    And the big cities. I mean, New York has already been attacked. Chicago has the tallest building in the nation. And there are plenty of huge metropolitan areas that could be ripe targets. We should make sure that our big cities are safe.

    Speaking of buildings, we should probably also conduct these searches whenever someone is entering a large building. That would certainly relieve the fears of the people who have to work in (or near!) high-rises every day.

    But you don't have to enter a building to do something bad. Just being out on the street, you could have some kind of chemical or biological weapon, or a dirty bomb. (Remember Jose Padilla? We're lucky we caught him.) The police should be able to search public spaces, including the people in them, at their will. Really, you're in a public place, you should expect to be inspected.

    Okay, we've got all that covered, but that's all defensive. If we really want to rid this world of the threat of terrorism, we need to go to the source. Let's see ... terrorists are people ... people need food, clothing, shelter ... I've got it! Since terrorists must live somewhere, we should be able to search anywhere that people live. Don't we have the right to know for sure that our neighbors aren't planning to drive a truck full of explosives into a crowded shopping mall? (Oh, yeah, I forgot shopping malls, them too.)

    That's going to take a lot of resources. A lot of people. We'd have to really get the citizenry on board here ... really drive the message home that every citizen is a security officer ... get people pay attention to every little detail, and report things they think might be suspicious.

    Not everyone can keep that up, though. I mean, we're people! We have jobs and families! We shouldn't have to bear the burden of constant vigilance; if everyone has to give up their regular lives in order to become a police officer, the terrorists have won!

    We live in an age of technology! We can develop a giant database, and fill that database with information collected by audio and video recording equipment. We can install that surveillance equipment in all those places above I've demonstrated that terrorists can be found, have them all feed into the database.

    National borders, state lines, cities, public buildings, city streets, shopping malls, private homes.

    In all seriousness: I would much rather live in fear of terrorism than in fear of my own government's attempts to prevent it.

    --
    Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
    1. Re:National security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen!

  75. interesting consequence there... by MadJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is the US government actually saying that copying files from one device to another is the same as looking through suitcases?
    Then, in that aspect the whole argument of the RIAA that 'copying cds is illegal' is debunked by the US government.
    You could easily say the following: 'Copying CDs is the same as looking at them in a store' and get away with it.

  76. Potential IP violations in this process? by Ganghiss · · Score: 1

    I'm just waiting for someone to slap them with a copyright violation after they copy the computer data. All it would take is something simple like a simple text document of a manuscript. I may have missed the memo on it, but I don't recall an exemption for government agencies in regards to IP violations.

  77. Didn't you see the movie? by beamin · · Score: 1
  78. "Developing" by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    The US is very rapidly turning into a developing country.


    See, this is one of many places the use of "developing" as a euphemism for "less-developed" falls apart. Even if, in the general case, it were reasonable to describe most less-developed countries as "developing" (that is, approaching the level of development in the more advanced countries), it clearly isn't a good way to describe the regress of the most developed country of the world.

    (And, really, "developing" isn't a good description for LDCs in the general case, either; while some are narrowing the gap the the most advanced countries, very many are developing, if at all, more slowly than the most advanced countries and falling farther behind; calling them "developing" countries is a misleading euphemism that obscures the real conditions.)
  79. And the easy answer is . . . by wirehead_rick · · Score: 1

    When leaving abroad don't bring any data with you that could be inspected upon your return.

    Any new data you acquire abroad should be uploaded via the Internet. Set up a server at home and only open one random port to SSH via a firewall with a port forwarding feature. Use sftp to upload your data that you don't want inspected before travelling back home.

    Now wasn't that easy . . . (and completely legal). No games played, no headaches and no fear.

    --
    -- Mean People Suck
    1. Re:And the easy answer is . . . by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      MOD PARENT UP

      I had the same reaction as you when I heard this story on NPR a week or two ago. Why would anyone in this day and age carry sensitive information on a laptop across an international border? I'd make sure I had nothing important on my laptop at the border, then download the sensitive information when I've reached my destination, and upload anything I needed before departure. I know that heavy-duty forensic analysis could probably resuscitate anything I put on the hard drive, but that's not what we're talking about here.

      Isn't this one of the ways we've always thought that the Internet would destroy geographic borders in the long run?

      Moreover, you could always pull the hard drive, ship it by FedEx or some other carrier, and replace it with a clean "dummy" drive before crossing the border. Seems to me that whatever efforts the Customs and Immigration people adopt could easily be foiled by someone with malicious intent while annoying the hell out of ordinary businesspeople and tourists.

      Just what information are they expecting to find on random laptops anyway? Plans to build a nuclear device that I can get from the Internet like this?

    2. Re:And the easy answer is . . . by bratwiz · · Score: 1

      For that matter, you could always store your sensitive stuff on a second hard drive and then just unhook it before coming home. Then they only see one drive and its not the main one. Are they going to open every computer to see what else is inside? Or you could mount a USB drive inside the case and wire it up internally with a switch.

      But those are all subversive tactics. In fact, most of the tactics described here, from mailing it home ahead of time to uploading it to your home server and then wiping the laptop version-- are all subversive tactics. By employing any of these tactics you are essentially saying, "Yeah, I know what I'm doing is an attempt to foil the search by the customs/border agents." Which is tantamount to agreeing that you have something to hide when the REAL issue is that they ARE searching electronic data and COPYING IT TOO, which should be screaming constitutional class-action lawsuit and bringing corrupt officials up on charges.

      What they are doing is re-creating the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany here in America. And we're all a bunch of pussies letting them get away with it.

      How many people here wonder how and why the German people sat back and let the Nazis take over? Wonder why nobody stood up and did anything to stop it? Or the Russians let people like Lenin and Stalin take over-- or the Tsars before them?

      Same reason as you and me are allowing it to happen here in the United States, today, now, in our own backyards.

      How can you stop it? I don't know-- banding together is the only way I can think of. But people today have too many petty self-interests and the politicos know that all they have to do is wave a red flag in front of some set of groups and we're all busy fighting amongst ourselves. Or play the terrorism card. Or the drugs card. Or say its "in the name of the children". Or some such asinine thing. And they'll have us so busy pointing fingers at each other that we won't think to point those fingers at them.

      The things that unite ALL of us are FAR GREATER than the things that divide us. And yet we allow ourselves to get bogged-down by the merest mention of race or gender, or scared silly of the terrorist boogeymen. And if that doesn't work, they rock our economy so we have to worry about things at home.

      There are forces that are actively taking over our country, whether there is a defined plot to do so or not. And in the end it wont matter whether it was declared or not, it will just be gone.

      Remember those immmortal words spoken by that great American patriot-- George W Bush (ugh, I can't believe I even wrote that):

      "If we change the way we do things, then the Terrorists have won."

      I believe that was right before he started us down a completely unprecedented path of... changing things.

      Remember how he vowed to catch Osama Bin Ladin "Dead or Alive"?

      How's that coming?

      Bin Ladin is a perfect Snowball in great Orwellian tradition.

      Just remember, two legs good, four legs bad.

  80. When did Customs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get taken over by the Geek Squad?

  81. what about NDAed documents?? by amigabill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OK, so what about having NDAed documentation that you've agreed not to share with anyone? For example, nonpublic specs for CPUs, graphics chips, etc. that you're using in a system design, and you take work with you for something to do on a plane to visit a supplier or manufacturer or something like that? Look up the BGA pattern as a refresher to talk about metal spacing, via sizing etc with a PCB fab, but you've signed an NDA to keep the document including that PGA spec secret? What is the procedure for that kind of thing? PGP such files? FileVault them on OSX, though after logging in those files can then be copied...

    1. Re:what about NDAed documents?? by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      New excuse for all future leaks- "there was this time my laptop was searched at Customs..."

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    2. Re:what about NDAed documents?? by Ajehals · · Score: 1

      I would assume that that kind of information would be especially useful to whoever goes over the data that is obtained. Especially if the data pertains to a non-US based company. Searching and duplicating data at points of entry to a country will most likely be a boon for those agencies whose functions include industrial espionage. I don't think its the right way of doing things, it certainly isn't subtle, but it is a logical action to take. Border entry points are not US soil so an individuals legal position and protections are not clear, persons wishing to enter the US have to submit to whatever requests that customs officers make, if they don't, entry can be denied, that is a rather nice barrel to hold someone over if you think getting hold of useful data is likely. I am sure there is some intention to prevent the importation of illegal items as well (pornography, banned books, banned documents, terrorism related documentation), in fact that is probably the primary goal, but access to trade secrets is probably on the list somewhere too.

      As previous posters have noted, it is probably best to ensure that the laptop you travel with does not hold sensitive information (Be sensible, your company's new logo probably is OK to take, your latest blueprints for a new avionics package for China's MiGs's should probably never be stored on anything that might end up in US government hands). If your data really is sensitive and you must access it abroad, take a laptop with the sole role of using it to access a secure extranet (and for god's sake don't store the credentials on the laptop or on anything you carry with you). If your laptop leaves your sight, make sure you have it checked to ensure it has not been interfered with, (there are ways of making tampering evident that may be sensible) before you use it again. Do not (especially if you are foreign) travel with encryption utilities or encrypted data, this will look suspicious. Ignore the many posters previous suggestions of using truecrypt, its functionality is well known and again, you don't want to look suspicious. If you want to be really safe, ensure that your extranet access is only available if you call your home office and tell them to enable it (have a plan to deal with you being coerced into calling, preferably something that doesn't put you at risk). With all that in mind, remember that your your concern should be for your own safety before your loyalty to your company, so try to keep things in perspective.

      My personal policy and that adopted by my company is simple, no sensitive data (we mark things as to how sensitive they are and handle them appropriately) that travels outside of our offices does so in an unencrypted form, no data may be transmitted over any public network (regardless of type, if we don't control the wire and all the endpoints its public) unless it is appropriately encrypted, no data of any type may be carried across international borders (it prevents any risk to our people in transit). We also actively avoid flights through the US, partially because some people are uncomfortable with it, partly due to the fact that you are required to actually enter the US to get connecting flights (which is insane) which has its own problems.

      As for working on sensitive document on the flight, well I wouldn't, but then as I said, it really depends on the value of the data you are talking about and the level of privacy you find acceptable. I guess for US citizens (who have little choice about entering the US), this is probably more of a problem. I should also point out that if I had passed data to another organisation under an NDA that prevented disclosure, if I became aware that data was confiscated or accessed by any party or agency without a warrant (or maybe even if there was a warrant issued because someone did something stupid....) I would count that as a breach and take whatever action's I would have taken in the case of the NDA having been breached intentionally (loss of contract, a monetary penalty, or legal action). Hell, If I found out that sensitive data had been worked on in what is essentially a public place (like an aircraft, or an airport terminal), I'd be fairly incensed, and would look at my options.

  82. Confidentiality? by alyosha1 · · Score: 1

    How does this behaviour interact with data-privacy statutes, such as HIPAA? For example, imagine you're a doctor carrying a laptop with patient data on it. Now you have a responsibility to protect that data and only transfer it to appropriately authorised bodies, with your patients consent. Are the border agencies acceptable bodies? What about if you're, say, a UK doctor entering the US? Wouldn't the Data Protection Act be violated?

    Any lawyer wannabes care to chime in?

  83. Jackboots without a clue by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 1

    I don't know which I find more disturbing.
    Them wanting to search my iPod, or the thinking that the bad guys would need to deliver digital data in person.

  84. "Sharing isn't Stealing" reasoning? by Poseiden · · Score: 0
    I wonder if the government attorneys are going to use the reasoning that 'sharing isn't stealing' that PiratPartiet is promoting. I wouldn't be surprised as this is exactly what they are doing. Are the RIAA/MPAA going to go after these customs agents for copying MP3's? Certainly not.

    How long are these agents going to hold the information for? Indefinitely, I'd suspect. Just throw it into the Big Blue over there at Langely.

    Furthermore, I'd like to comment on the overall direction we are headed. We as citizens have a right and a duty to overthrow our government when our government no longer suits us. Government is for us, we made it! So overthrow it! Stop paying your taxes and start yelling on street corners. Nobody is going to stop the corrupt politicians but you, so run for an office if that suits you. Nobody is going get out the message that we need change, NO, not just change in Iraq war and small changes that our current presidential candidates are proposing - BIG CHANGES. We here at slashdot have been following the story of decline in privacy, freedom and liberty for how many years now? Accept that no matter what your job title is, no matter what your paycheck is, no matter how fat or skinny or unconfident in your whatever-abilities - you have to start fixing this problem.

    You choose your own level of involvement.

    If you want this fixed, do it. Every single one of us has the ability to become an international leader for change, justice and peace. Don't be afraid of quitting your job, you will be provided for. Don't be afraid of selling your house, you will be provided for. Do whatever you possibly can for the causes you believe in, and nothing else.

    Nobody else is going to do it.

  85. Re:What about that old buzzard in Paris by fohat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's a guy in Paris who is without a country. Been living in the airport for decades. I've never heard that story before so I had to Snopes it. http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/airport.asp
    I'm surprised to see that this is apparently true. Crazy stuff.
    --
    Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
  86. Please explain why that's flamebait? by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is that flamebait? This isn't just searching for contraband, this is looking back through web history files, email and sensitive "thought data" without bothering with either probable cause or a warrant. Any reasonable person has a right to resent this type of intrusion, not to mention confiscating expensive equipment without due process.

    More frightening than the act itself is the attitude of creeping intrusiveness justified by people who went through the American educational system. I don't think anyone in the history of the world imagined themselves being part of an emerging police state. In almost every instance it was a gradual process where the principles were acting on some type of perceived imperative. The people involved believed they were justified. The GRU, the Stasi, the SS and a thousand organizations like them started with a social imperative.

    Don't think we'll ever be that bad? If there are no checks and balances, no oversight and no way to challenge over-reaching policy what's stopping us from getting there? There has to be a line even for terrorism. This far and no farther. Instead we keep kicking that can farther down the road.

    It's not the actual policy. It's not this little thing or that little thing, it's the attitude that the ends justify the means underlying each little step.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Please explain why that's flamebait? by amohat · · Score: 1

      Thank you. But:

      Who among us will lead the fight for change?

      Who among us will rally around whoever is courageous enough to lead?

    2. Re:Please explain why that's flamebait? by fbjon · · Score: 1
      When I was younger, I wanted to travel to the United States, because I thought it'd be fun and cool.


      But later, I started to hesitate, because of an increasing unease with how things turn out over there.

      Now I don't want to go at all, because the place is just too scary.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    3. Re:Please explain why that's flamebait? by mastershake_phd · · Score: 1

      Who among us will lead the fight for change?

      Ron Paul?

      Who among us will rally around whoever is courageous enough to lead?
       
      A few, but probably not enough.....whoever it is.

      Historically, it seems most police states are overthrown by an external force, or collapse on their own.

    4. Re:Please explain why that's flamebait? by Unoti · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you like country music, hip hop, or want to drive an SUV through mud while drinking bad beer, this is THE place to be.

    5. Re:Please explain why that's flamebait? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I'm not in a position to have my career affected by my innocent presence on an FBI "Watch List" or some other fascist equivalent. In fact, as somebody who has covered controversial subjects on a couple of occasions, I'd be surprised and perhaps a little insulted if I wasn't on somebody's shit list.

      Some of my friends, however, are in a much different situation. A couple have sensitive government jobs, and their careers could be damaged or even ended if they were denied a flight across U.S. territory on security grounds, or if they had trouble at the border.

      Their personal contact information is on my PDA. Must I now "sanitize" the device before I dare cross into the United States or bear the responsibility of harming my friends and their families?

      It's past time somebody had the guts to slap these dirty little Nazis down. Freedom has never been free, and those of us who treasure the sacrifice made by our ancestors to hand us a democratic society based on openness and the rule of law must stand up and remind the drones of that fact. If we don't, then we're all headed for a very, very ugly place indeed.

      The next time somebody says, "If you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about", every computer they or their family uses should immediately be confiscated and everything on them except actual passwords, bank account numbers, etc. made public.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    6. Re:Please explain why that's flamebait? by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      The thing that gets me is I have been to the USA a number of times. Prior owning a laptop I often had a wallet with personal details and maybe an address book/filo-fax.

      Will customs copy these when you cross over the border? I don't see a distinction between the two. Ok checking to ensure it is safe is one thing I can understand but physically copying the data is out of order.

    7. Re:Please explain why that's flamebait? by jthill · · Score: 1

      it's the attitude that the ends justify the means underlying each little step.

      Subcultures used to prosperity are facing the rising tide of poverty, now. It's the half-smart, the half-wit cliques who now can't find productive jobs at the wages they imagine are their due. And they certainly couldn't stomach honest welfare, no. That would embarrass them in front of their peers. So, since they can't find any way to produce or even pretend to produce good things, they have to protect us from bad things. In the absence of actual bad things, they'll make them up; when that becomes unpersuasive they'll make them.

      These people don't care about ends. Social status is the only thing that matters to them. That social hierarchies are an evolved mechanism that we share with, say, chickens, makes it a tough nut to crack.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
  87. Cellphone contacts ? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can they copy cellphone contacts ? That is a private, and sometimes valuable, information !

    Also, can they copy data I have the copyright on ?

    I am a programmer, I sometimes carry source code with me, supposing I didn't encrypt them, could they copy it ? Knowing that my job contract makes me responsible in case I provide valuable company IP to someone without authorization, am I liable for this ?

    If there is an old copy of the anarchist cookbook on my hard drive (hey, I've been young and silly once upon a time!), can I be charged with terrorism ?

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:Cellphone contacts ? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      the anarchist cookbook is a great view into that time period and the mind think that was going on.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  88. Just keeping the /. bullshit straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when a bunch of 1s and 0s that comprise an MP3 are copied, there is no theft; yet somehow when a border agent copies some bits the data is somehow considered confiscated? Invasion of privacy, sure, but how is the owner deprived of their data?

    Bad headline...

    1. Re:Just keeping the /. bullshit straight... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      how is the owner deprived of their data? when the data is deleted or the media is confiscated?
      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  89. active countermeasures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One way to inhibit this unconstitutional search & seizure activity would be to make it very, very costly. Could I install a folder full of cybernastiness on my laptop such that when the customs droids "borrow" it for inspection, various viruses get installed on their systems? Is it possible to craft a wipe-disk exe that would take down their system if it was copied from my laptop?

    1. Re:active countermeasures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it possible to implant a bomb into a harddrive sothat when a particular file is read the head has to move over a certain area of the disk and detonate the explosive. Mayb the head could be like a switch for the bomb if it moves to far from the center boom!!!!

  90. If I don't even have time to read my email... by commodore73 · · Score: 1

    How the hell are these jackasses going to have the resources? And what are they going to do if they find something they don't like? Some time ago on a trip from the US to Canada a Canadian agent asked me to search my hard drive for all media (I think he was looking for child porn). I complied, but it felt very funny, plus there are so many ways to hide things. Are they going to frisk and cavity search me to copy every USB key? And what if I just put the data on a server before crossing to download after? What a hassle and waste of resources; there's no way to plug the holes.

  91. Re:Seriously..10th amendment by eclectic_hermit · · Score: 1
    The 4th amendment is not the ONLY amendment being violated. The 10th amendment was intend to protect our privacy, and ALL other rights that are no directly stated in the constitution...

    .

    10th amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    .

    Granted, this amendment has not held up in court, but that just furthers the sad state of affairs and shows us how little those words mean to those in power...

    .

    P.S. IHMO, those who say that things are bad, but not as bad as other countries just tells me that we have lost to the terrorists.... I mean after all, their goal was to change our way of life and show us that we did not have the freedoms that we claimed we had....

    It is apparent (to me) that they were right....

    .

    Dons an asbestos shield painted like the flag!!!

  92. It's an Election Year by starX · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What a great time for us to make sure those running for office know that we're not voting for anyone who won't make reversing all this fascist crap a top priority!

  93. Re:What about that old buzzard in Paris by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

    Well, the 2nd Amendment is really your last stand for protecting a password...

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  94. that will never happen by biggknifeparty · · Score: 1

    As good as Canada? You would need to increase your taxes significantly! The greedy rich elite will never let that happen. The rest will be too stupid to unionize and demand progressive change... gotta love ignorant media controlled masses...

  95. Too many laptops have "sensitive" information by yuna49 · · Score: 1

    I don't usually reply to my own posts, but I just wanted to add that I think way too much sensitive information is carried around on laptops already. I'm especially appalled whenever I hear of laptop thefts from accountants, insurers, health professionals, and the like, who are carrying around hundreds or even thousands of personal records oftentimes indexed by SSN. Get rid of the SSN's, put the data on secure storage, and access it over encrypted channels. Don't carry around my tax or medical records on your laptop.

  96. Equivalent of photocopying paper documents. by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

    It's not the same as taking paper documents, but it is roughly equivalent to making photocopies of all of my paper documents. Which is a complete violation of privacy. What if I have all the plans and ideas for my next invention, that I haven't patented yet? What if the security clerk is actually a technical person, realizes what they are looking at, and steals my idea? Do I have any recourse?

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  97. Boiling a frog? by webweave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The government is a bully who says "deal with it" knowing no one will do a thing.

    I'm not an American and I don't live in the US anymore but I do keep an eye on what's happening. My satellite TV is good enough to bring me "FSTV" (Free Speech TV, if you have DishNetwork its there around 9000) Last night they ran the amazing film "America: Freedom to Fascism" by Director Aaron Russo. It knocked me over and even though much of the info was not new to me the way he put it together really put a punch in it. http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ or find it on torrent. Ron Paul does a pretty good interview about the Federal Reserve.

    What possibly could be a threat in data that Customs needs to confiscate it? Are Customs being used to provide data to the government? Are Customs being used to provide information for American companies? Are Customs being used just to get Americans accustomed to the idea that they have nothing private?

    1. Re:Boiling a frog? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      The government is a bully who says "deal with it" knowing no one will do a thing.
      Maybe make sure that your hard drive is full of files with the extension .MP3 (or replace with your favourite format) created from /dev/urandom.

      Good luck trying to figure out if they are scrambled or just random noise...

      The US government (as with any other government) is really good at shooting sitting ducks, but when it comes to elusive ferrets they are left behind.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Boiling a frog? by webweave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The US government (as with any other government) is really good at shooting sitting ducks, but when it comes to elusive ferrets they are left behind."
      Like they can prevent someone like me, a 125lb. programmer with glasses from boarding a plane with a bottle of water but Osama, oh yea where's Osama?

    3. Re:Boiling a frog? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      I would be the first to show the US their error in their ways. How about I show up with 200 dangling mp3 players hanging from my neck, each with a hidden trojan. As they continue to search through each one by one, their pc gets more and more infected, with malware running taking up space, but not doing anything....then crash...there goes the system.

    4. Re:Boiling a frog? by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Nothing has been private when entering or exiting the US for a very long time, same as most other nations. That being said, how else are customs agents supposed to get porn while at work?

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    5. Re:Boiling a frog? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Eric Rudolph was on the lamb for over 5 years before he was found in a state inside the US that we were looking for him in. He wasn't found because of any tech savvy law enforcement techniques or or ultra secrete crime prevention techniques but because someone ratted him out and the FBI actually acted on the information before he moved to another safe house.

      Now, those crime prevention and law enforcement ideas might have prevented him from killing as many people but they did nothing to capture or kill a person under our own nose. So think about that realistically when offering your 125lb smartass programmer comments on the subject. Stopping you from getting on a plane when there might (*however small of one) be a threat would be akin to the feds being able to stop Eric Rudolph from killing people with his abortion bombs, which was something they were attempting to do at the time they happened.

      Osama my ass. Get real!

    6. Re:Boiling a frog? by wikinerd · · Score: 1

      Are Customs being used just to get Americans accustomed to the idea that they have nothing private?

      Schools exist for the same purpose, to make people behave in accordance with orders and consider surveillance a normal thing. One more reason to homeschool the kids. And then people wonder why the youth lacks skills... Of course they do since schools only teach obedience, rather than the sciences and the arts.

  98. Bad analogy by Zaharazod · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Sorry, but snopes says no.

    (FWIW, I agree with your point.)

    1. Re:Bad analogy by rifter · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sorry, but snopes says no.

      (FWIW, I agree with your point.)

      Snopes is wrong. Or at the very least they did not properly reproduce the experiment. The experiment was supposed to show that raising the temperature *gradually* will eventually result in a cooked frog. That is what the original experiment, performed by G Stanley Hall, provided. Snopes.com did an experiment where the temperature was raised incredibly quickly and declared "myth busted." Sorry, but that is not how science works. If you want to invalidate results, you need to reproduce the original conditions of the experiment, not make up things out of your ass. If you want to perform a different experiment, that is fine, but it has to make sense. Boiling frogs quickly and having them jump out does not prove that a frog will not allow itself to be boiled slowly.

  99. They don't keep the electronics? by fedders · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So, you illegally try to enter the country and we give you back all your stuff? Maybe it would be a dis-incentive if the computers and iPods were kept rather than just copied. And I'm only half-kidding.

  100. TrueCrypt.org by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    http://www.truecrypt.org/

    Also record their badge numbers, names and ranks. Their work locations and another other information such as what they said. Document, document. Then communicate your interactions with the puppets of Big Brother State Power, the officers and other agents of State Terrorism in action against 99.999999999% of people who are NOT terrorists. By communicating each incident in detail the terrorism of State Power can be revealed and potentially checked (limited).

  101. Let me get this straight... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So if the US Customs agents make copies of all my MP3s, isn't that "stealing" the music, as defined by the RIAA? Are they going to end up paying $7,000 per song they have copied when they are brought to court??

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
    1. Re:Let me get this straight... by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      A government force who's out to protect us from terriorists overrides any coporate power/regulation, duh.

    2. Re:Let me get this straight... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      No, the RIAA will sue you for giving others copies of music. After all: you had the choice of not getting on that plane, do were not under absolute imperative to give the customs your MP3.

  102. Re:What about that old buzzard in Paris by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    Statelessness is an interesting phenomenon. Apparently there are UN conventions on preventing people from becoming stateless such that those who are signatories have to grant alien and/or refugee status to those who would otherwise be in limbo.

    Also, most people have probably heard this but if you're interested, Tom Hanks was in a movie called The Terminal that was basically a film about this guy with some liberties taken.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  103. a ?simple? solution by vladilinsky · · Score: 1

    I know this can't help the citizens of the USA, but for people in the rest of the world if we don't like the way the USA treats us we could stop doing business with them, or more practically start putting the mechanisms in place so we don't have to deal with them. It would not take much to force a change. from my point of view the USA is positioning itself very close to how England was before the yanks got mad and spoiled all there tea. i.e. taking in resources and then selling them back to the country that they came from at a profit. The point of this is they are vulnerable if we start selling our resources to other countries.

    To sum up what I am saying is if you don't like it don't put up with it we are enabling this sort of behaviour by continuing on as normal and that does no one any favours

    / I like the people of USA, just not there government, actually I don't like my own government ether

  104. They spy on that, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Who would go to the trouble of transporting data on physical media, when it can be transmitted over the internet?

    They're already spying on all of that, remember? Giant wiretap on everything? And given how much they talked about "terrorist chatter" right after 9-11, I'd hazard a guess that one of the things it does is to keep counts of how many times certain suspect words and phrases show up.

    Good thing I have no data worth stealing, but don't think for a second that I'm trying to excuse this idiotic policy.

  105. How many border agents does it take ... by Skapare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... to image copy one hard drive in a year?

    Sheesh! These guys must be totally incompetent idiots if they can't make a copy of a hard drive within a day, and return the laptop. If they think the owner might use that data to commit a future crime, then keep the hard drive and return the rest of the laptop. If they think the owner might commit a crime even without the data, then arrest the owner. Just keeping laptops makes no sense.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  106. I know this might be unpopular... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    ... but who wants to go the US anymore anyway? Is your respective home country not interesting enough? Do you REALLY want to spend time with obese plebians rolling down the queues at Disney Land THAT much? Is seeing the Statue of Liberty THAT important? You can do both of those in Paris, by the way. Plus, see some of the finest works of art in the world. I have no reason to ever go back to America, and I most likely never will. You can thank George W."Knee-Jerk" Bush and his entourage of corporate sponsors and Yes-Men for that. I sincerely hope a lot of people feel the same way. No chance of a trade embargo against the US until it's a little more democratic and forward thinking, though. Maybe you guys should cut off some people's heads? I here that gets attention much better than any whinge-bag online petition.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  107. Virusize it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Load the thing with MyDoom et. al., and every bit of spyware/adware you can possibly put on a completely unprotected Windows PC.

    When they ask you for the PC, just hand it over and say "Copy away, boys!"

  108. The innocent become the victims by EdIII · · Score: 2, Interesting
    These are excerpts from the the Washington Post:

    If the government's position on searches of electronic files is upheld, new risks will confront anyone who crosses the border with a laptop or other device, said Mark Rasch, a technology security expert with FTI Consulting and a former federal prosecutor. "Your kid can be arrested because they can't prove the songs they downloaded to their iPod were legally downloaded," he said. "Lawyers run the risk of exposing sensitive information about their client. Trade secrets can be exposed to customs agents with no limit on what they can do with it. Journalists can expose sources, all because they have the audacity to cross an invisible line."

    So basically, there is a great amount of harm being done to ordinary citizens, and valued guests of our country in the pursuit of deterring terrorism and uncovering crimes? The positions stated seem quite reasonable to me and I believe that harm is being done to these people. This is not just an inconvenience to a traveler, but the risk of actual harm to persons and businesses. One could argue the kid being arrested is just hyperbole, but attorney-client privilege, trade secrets, and Journalists sources are pretty damned important to protect. Is US Customs being held to the same level of accountability and standards that US Courts are held too? Since the last time I checked those 3 examples are all protected, even in a court.

    Hollinger said customs officers "are trained to protect confidential information."

    Uh huh. About as well trained as the members of the Geek Squad that were caught? The medical staff that disclosed George Clooney's Records? The fantastic individuals that lost whole hard drives full of sensitive data from Los Alamos? The trained individuals responsible for the inordinate number of complaints against of them on yearly basis? Much easier said then done. Unless that comes with PRISON TIME as a consequence for failure, I won't believe these "trained" customs officers WON'T be making copies of naughty pictures, MP3's, etc.

    Shirin Sinnar, a staff attorney with the Asian Law Caucus, said that by scrutinizing the Web sites people search and the phone numbers they've stored on their cellphones, "the government is going well beyond its traditional role of looking for contraband and really is looking into the content of people's thoughts and ideas and their lawful political activities."

    Whether or not you buy the argument that a laptop can be similar to a suitcase, in that they are both containers for unique items equally subject to search, computer files can reveal our deepest secrets, private thoughts, ideals, political motivations, and religious beliefs. Depending on the person, it can be like reading a very private diary, or a sterile perusal of a inane content found in most public libraries, the determination of which can only be made after the violation of privacy.

    If conducted inside the country, such searches would require a warrant and probable cause, legal experts said.

    Interesting point and quite true. ONLY at the BORDER would this right be effectively suspended for US citizens, and of course no rights, courtesies, or dignities extended to foreign guests. To gain access to the US, one would have lay prostrate with no rights whatsoever, subject to whims of the well trained guardians.

    I of course I am interested in how long it will take for the legal interpretation to be applied inside the border for law enforcement to apply to any search of a person. When entering City Hall or any other City building subject you to these same security measures? After all, all progress can seen as incremental...

    Kamran Habib, a software engineer with Cisco Systems, has had his laptop and cellphone searched three times in t

    1. Re:The innocent become the victims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To gain access to the US, one would have lay prostrate with no rights whatsoever, subject to whims of the well trained guardians.


      That's exactly like it is, as a foreigner entering the US, I have found many (though not all) of the customs agents to be complete assholes. The rudeness with which this one US customs guy at Montreal (and yes this is at the point of departure, not arrival, not even in the US) treated my deaf traveling companion was breathtaking. I really badly wanted to not just challenge him, but to deck the guy, but I had to bite my lip and mentally pipe his comments directly to /dev/null.

      You are completely at the mercy of the custom guy when you enter, you can't do or say any thing at all, whereas they can do or say just exactly whatever the hell they like, so you can imagine the kind of people the customs service attracts.
  109. Because, by thepotoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    In ten years, you won't be able to send data over the internet unmonitored. The basis for this new law will be that "you can't physically take data across the border without it being searched."

    Damn, I really, really, hope that's just my tinfoil hat talking.

    --
    Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    1. Re:Because, by StarfishOne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you really believe that you're sending data over the internet unmonitored right now?

  110. Interesting by alextheseal · · Score: 1

    It says people, not citizens. So pretending you can do this willy nilly to people from others countries does not fly. They are saying this can be applied to any person by extension, citizen or non-citizen.

    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo. In case it isn't abundantly clear, Americans in general (I am an American but do NOT fall into this category) basically say a big F U to any non-citizen and even a lot of citizens. Guantanamo anyone? Apparently we only have to treat people correctly if they are a citizen, and a "good" citizen at that. None of that "inalienable rights" crap that the patriots^H^H^H^H^H terrorists keep spouting!

      My view:
      _EVERY_ human being deserves the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of ancestry or geographic location. While we shouldn't go invading the rest of the world to force our views and laws on them *cough*Iraq*cough* we damn well should set the example by treating visitors (and citizens!) of our country well. That means habeus corpus for _ALL_. _NO_ torturing or "harsh" interrogation tecniques. Also means _NO_ special perks for being a politician, etc. Your happy butt can wait in the line like the rest of us peasants.

      All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

    2. Re:Interesting by alextheseal · · Score: 1

      It's not just your view, it's the view of the Supreme Court that the Constitution meant exactly what it says and that it specifically made a note of what things people have and what things citizens have. It's in Black and White on the page.

  111. How is inbound data a threat!? by AnomaliesAndrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I didn't RTFA, but I've heard a lot of buzz about this issue.

    I understand wanting to control the export of data, but how could bringing data into the country possible be a security (or otherwise) risk? It's not like fruit or animals, which do pose an ecological risk. What exactly are they looking for? Did the RIAA/MPAA put them up to this?

    The government could scan a bazillion laptops and still miss the terrorist communications occurring on the internet, in secret code, encrypted, and embedded in other files, or on CDs sent through the mail. And even then, I'm at a loss for what data could possibly pose a threat to the country.

    The supposed terrorists aren't just going to send Osama bin Laden to Ellis Island with his Outlook Contacts Folder unencrypted.

    This is about as helpful to the country as electronic voting and bill of rights toiler paper.

    --
    Move all sig!
  112. Curious... by C10H14N2 · · Score: 2, Informative


    Customs inspections began during the administration of GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1789 to be exact. It was the FIFTH act of Congress. You might think they all had a pretty accurate inkling of the intentions of the framers at that juncture.

    1. Re:Curious... by celle · · Score: 1

      Read it, it only affects foreign nationals and was instituted to deal with certain problems of the time. A government that doesn't trust it's citizens, what's the point of being one again?

    2. Re:Curious... by celle · · Score: 1

      Besides I haven't heard of federal law trumping a constitutional amendment. Somehow federal law declared unconstitutional seems to come to mind. Although it seems the last 60-80 years or so the constitution has been relegated to little more than a piece of old parchment that's valued for the material than what's written and defined on it.

  113. US may monitor data in transit at exchange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe US law allows the government to monitor and record data of anyone (citizens or non-citizens) that happen to go through the Internet Exchanges in the US and the data does not have to originate or terminate in the US.

  114. The beauty of disk encryption by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Encrypt everything. Send it back and forth to your home across the internet already encrypted. When the border guards ask you for your papers, present the Nazi pigs a nice clean system.

    Face it guys, we have to study how the french did it in WWII and update it for the 21st century. The Nazi party didn't die, it took hold in the U.S.A. and has been slowly asserting itself.

    We have to present evidence anonymously because even though we may have freedom of speech, we have to watch out for trade secrets, copyright infringement, and the lawyers. Blow the whistle and lose your home and livelihood, no jail time, nope, just homelessness and poverty. So, they can destroy you without even making you a martyr.

  115. That is not the point by Lord+Grey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can play this game and I win.

    This "game" should not even be played in the United States of America. The fact that you feel the need to hide that which need not be hidden is a true metric of just how far the U.S. has gone down the wrong road.

    If the U.S. government was a spouse, the entire world would be telling us to get a divorce on the grounds of an abusive relationship.

    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
    1. Re:That is not the point by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      If the U.S. government was a spouse, the entire world would be telling us to get a divorce on the grounds of an abusive relationship.
      The only problem is that you're married to the government equivalent of Drew Peterson
  116. Data in my shoes by psychicsword · · Score: 1

    that is why I store all sensitive data on a flash drive that I hide in my shoe

    PS I am kidding

  117. Re:What about that old buzzard in Paris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Except, Snoopes says,

    The sad truth is this: After fighting for years to leave the airport and apply for citizenship elsewhere, Nasseri was afraid to do so when the opportunity arose. Belgium offered Nasseri the chance to settle there, but he refused. "Now, I think he will stay in the airport until he dies," Bourget concluded softly.
    I feel for the guy, because it's clear he has mental problems, but he made this choice, it wasn't force on him.
  118. Legal ways to protect your data by reccall · · Score: 1

    I recommend: 1)Booting to a desktop with a picture of yourself in tighty whities waving to the camera. That should get you on your way fast. 2)Install sound theme (max volume settings) with such classics as "I love it when you touch me there!" and "You don't want to do that, Dave." 3)Use 98 but ensure that it blue screens when they want to do anything, reply to this post with your suggestions on how we might do this. 4)Obscure distros, the more obscure the better 5)Boots to a command line 6)Windows loads to Norton battling AVG battling McAfee in which one can pop up more virus warnings. Your welcome.

  119. shrinkwrap countermeasure by KnightTristan · · Score: 1

    Easy to avoid ... Just shrinkwrap your laptop and put a note on it: READ CAREFULLY. By removing the wrapping of this object you agree, on behalf of your employer, that you will not copy the data found on this device in any form or by any means blablabla, nor that you will inspect said data in more detail than to confirm that it is indeed data blablabla ... Furthermore, you owe the owner of the object 120 USD to replace this shrinkwrap (+ administrative costs) ... and a smile too.

  120. It's already the case by Zollui · · Score: 1

    All internet activity is logged, scanned for keywords and analysed first by a computer and then if necessary a human monitor.

  121. I can carry nearly eighty gigs of data in my head. by stinkydog · · Score: 1

    Overheard at the airport:

    Johnny Mnemonic: No dice?
    Homeland Security: No. But I can get it out
    Johnny Mnemonic: How?
    Homeland Security: A general anesthetic, a cranial drill and a pair of forceps.
    Johnny Mnemonic: I could die, right?
    Homeland Security: It's gonna kill you anyway.If I take it out, you'll probably survive but lose some fine motor skills.You might not remember anything for more than three minutes.

    --
    âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
  122. Vacation video... by $1uck · · Score: 1

    So if I use a fancy digital camcorder to record some very "private" vacation movies with the girlfriend or wife. Then TSA has a right to not only watch it, but keep a copy?

    Seriously wtf? This is not right on so many levels.

  123. War on Drugs by trolltalk.com · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm pretty sure it hasn't been 37 years.
    Reagan introduced it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#History

    Wrong: Richard Nixon, 1969. Its been that long ...

    BY the way, people in jail needs to be a per capita number, and it still doesn't indiactre oppression.

    Look at the figures and weep. The US, on a per capita basis, beats everyone else.
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita

    The neighbours to the north and south manage to be MUCH lower ... feeling oppressed yet?

  124. Whay comparisons to Iraq or wherever? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    It used to be that Americans would say "Well it's better than living in UK", or some other top shelf company (Sweden, Australia ...).
    Now people say "Well it's better than living in Iraq", or Rwanda etc. (though I think Rwanda has better cell coverage)

    Americans, you have lost your aspirations.

    Want some goals to aspire to?
    Perceived corruption http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html USA ranks 20th.
    Press freedom http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=824) US ranks 31st.
    Privacy http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597 , got beaten by Philipines.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Whay comparisons to Iraq or wherever? by rifter · · Score: 1

      Perceived corruption http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html USA ranks 20th.

      20th! Damnit W and K Street need to work harder then. I'm pretty sure they were shooting for #1. :D

  125. Call in the RIAA! by tbcpp · · Score: 1

    They are copying data from mp3 players? Call in the RIAA!! The Feds are running a darknet!

    --
    Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
    1. Re:Call in the RIAA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      project a.k.a darknet , more than meets the eye !

  126. Iceland by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    They did not force anyone to do anything and, moreover, the program in question was only looking at native Icelanders. Adding a non-native to that database would not only be pointless, it would defeat the purpose entirely.

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1217842,00.html

    1. Re:Iceland by Altus · · Score: 1


      I dont know... might be interesting if you interbreed with the locals. not useful now but down the road it would be interesting to see what made it into the pool.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    2. Re:Iceland by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      I tried that a year ago. All that made it into the pool was a few gallons of Brennivín.

  127. Entry Denied by dj245 · · Score: 1

    My father is a Customs and Border Protection inspector at the Canadian border. As I understand it, if you are a US citizen living in the US they cannot refuse you unless there are exceptional circumstances- things like a huge bag of explosives, drugs, or smuggling of persons. In most of these cases you would be arrested.

    Canadian persons with felony convictions are not normally allowed in, and vice versa. If you're a US felon you aren't going to be allowed elsewhere unless the other country is very lax or other circumstances (French Foreign Legion for example).

    I may be missing an obscure loophole (like the movie Terminal), but in no circumstances should you be caught between countries with nowhere to go. Your citizenship country should always take you back, no matter who you are, and if you are into illegal activities you will be accepted somewhere and placed in jail.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  128. If your tinfoil hat is talking by Nursie · · Score: 1

    Then you've made it wrong and the voices are still getting through.

    I recommend another layer of foil.

  129. Easy to avoid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just do what I do: plaster images of goatse, lemonparty, etc all over your computer. Background images, screen savers, mouse cursors, inline attachments in all your emails, embedded pictures in all your documents, default browser home pages, customized application splash-screens, etc. The funny thing is that I don't even travel through customs!

  130. Hey This could work in our Favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well this is a bad thing, but I was also thinking that this could work in our favor....to some extent.

    U know those corrupt politicians and those making the law, well if they ever decide to take a vacation outside of the country and take their laptops with them well under this law we should be able to search them. Like when the President goes on tours to different countries, when gets back we can search the laptops of anyone with the administration.

    According to this we should have the right to search anyone, politicians included.

  131. what about HIPAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's say that I have a medical image of a human subject on my laptop. The main point of HIPAA is that personal helath information (PHI) be held secret. Breaking confidentiality has a $10k price tag. So I customs says they have the right to copy, can they be sued for $10k per infringing image X number of times it is copied (perhaps even copied into RAM). What about access controls? Do we get to know who looked at our data?

    Poetic justice; the word for this is "copies"!

  132. laptops covered with explosive residue by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Can you not call ahead and get the laptop pre-cleared?

    I would think the bigger hazard would be the poor guy who bumped against your laptop before clearing security. He wouldn't be able to explain himself at all.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  133. Re:pretty sad, damned, damned sad... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    I will have to remember that. Take my disks with me, but NOT ONLY WIPE them, deSTROY them. Keep my good data for use over the border, then wipe, destroy, and discard the disk. Or, mechanically smash it and dangle it in their fucking faces.

    Just be sure to keep a live boot Linux disk for the time you'll be sitting in the terminals on the way back.

    But, then I suppose they'll presume the live boot is custom with SOME of the data kept before the main hard drive was destroyed.

    Time to learn Chinese or Japanese or Korean and move there, I suppose. As long as I'm not a criminal, a country is a country. I am a being, born into a place not of my choosing. Life is short. NO ONE OWES allegiance to SHIT unless they personally ascribe to it. People should be able to live and work where ever a government/country conceivably could accommodate as long as the applicant has a clean record, learns the local language, contributes, and a few other things. Too bad governments and wealthy stage this conflict to "shake out the cobwebs", which often translates into imperialism, use of citizens as fodder/troops of invasion, and other things.

    Maybe it would be interesting if businesses having to leave their laptops at home on business to the US would find some way to punish the US for dicking with the citizenry. Smart criminals would just encrypt their data multiple times and import it over the web, or have it come in on a freight truck that is NOT going to be quarantined for weeks while various US agencies sift and pore over data in some goddamn easter egg hug.

    Copying data at the border is just to reinforce that the slippery slope is slipper SLOP that we have been feed by IV, not by spoon. And will CONTINUE to be IV-fed, or we will be "disconnected from life support"...

    Another possibility is to reduce the data to encrypted images (steg?, QRC codes? blobs?) and bind them as documents. Or, maybe we can just ask for diplomatic immunity by taking on freelance work or some other government for travel duration purposes...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  134. Find this by symbolset · · Score: 1

    This product: SuperStick does not trigger the metal detector. It stores 4GB of data that can be encrypted with TrueCrypt.

    So if you're smuggling data the safest way to get it across the US border is to take a few of these and insert them in your 5Kg bricks of cocaine or bales of weed. They'll be fine.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  135. Mac Laptop security tips by sertsa · · Score: 1

    1. Get a mac.
    2. Assign a password to the root account.
    3. Set up at least two limited user accounts ;-)
    4. Change login screen to show blank fields for username and password
    5. Enable File Vault for your preferred account
    6. Throw a couple of unimportant files on the desktop and change the background image to a pic of your familty, significant other etc. of the dummy account
    7. Boot all of the programs in your dummy account to make sure you don't get any registration screens etc.
    8. Install Firefox and set it to clear out your history / cache etc when you quit.
    9. If you want to cover the online email issue set up a generic account with a free service provider, then sign up for junk mail from a couple of websites.

    If I can figure this out, I'm sure the terrorists can too!

    1. Re:Mac Laptop security tips by lareader · · Score: 1

      "Citizen sertsa, thank you for volunteering for our Cuban Defense Force.

      Your anti-State propaganda has been noted, and you are now convicted of aiding and abetting terrorism, both abroad and internal.

      Please report to the Department of Peace as soon as you are able - if you are unable to travel to a nearby office, never fear - we will soon dispatch transportation.

      Yours,
      ,
      Department of Peace."

      Seriously... why are you helping the terrorists? (note: written sarcastically)

  136. Vacation in USA? No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I decide to spend my vacation in the USA, I face the risk of...

    ...having my credit card record scrutinized
    ...having my luggage broken into
    ...being sent back with a returning flight, at my expense
    ...ending up in a secret database of potential terrorists
    ...having my fingerprints taken
    ...being scanned in other ways for some secret biometric database
    ...having my laptop copied, its contents "searched"
    ...having a finger thrust into where my food usually exits my body

    All this, for my own "security". I have visited the USSR. Not even they could offer this much "security".
    See also http://pi.gn.apc.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597

    I think Orson Welles once said that "The work of the police is only easy in a police state."

  137. Pervert's Dream Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a voyeur, I'll apply for a job as customs agent. Imagine all those vacation pictures to nude beaches and other private pictures!

    captcha: archival

  138. copyright your personal data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Add (C) to all your personal data then sue them under the DMCA for illegally copying copyrighted material...... ...well I can dream can't I?

  139. Re:Seriously..10th amendment by Jurily · · Score: 1

    P.S. IHMO, those who say that things are bad, but not as bad as other countries just tells me that we have lost to the terrorists.... I mean after all, their goal was to change our way of life and show us that we did not have the freedoms that we claimed we had....

    It is apparent (to me) that they were right....


    +1, Terrorist.

  140. Well, darn. by BForrester · · Score: 1

    That's the last time I courier sensitive terrorist data over the border via laptop. If only there was a way to send this data electronically...

  141. Copying Data NOT the Same as Looking in Suitcase by bratwiz · · Score: 1


    When inspectors look in your suitcase they can (presumably) take all the time they need/want, but when its done, unless they are specifically confiscating something, you walk away with your suitcase and all your contents intact.

    When inspectors look into your hard drive, cell phone or other electronic device, its the same thing-- UNTIL they copy it-- and then its not the same.

    They can THEN use that data at their leisure, for as long as they like and however they like, and combine it, shape it, roll it and smoke it into any form they want forever afterwards. They can't do that with your suitcase.

    That's the difference. You just can't do that kind of thing in the United States...

    of Nazi Germany...???

    Oh right then, Carry on.

  142. ... when you can't beat 'em, bring 'em down by phorm · · Score: 1

    In many cases though, it seems that becoming "as good as Canada" in many senses entails bringing Canada down by instituting US-style copyright laws, etc.

  143. That would be "Animal Farm" by /dev/zero · · Score: 1

    Animal Farm tells this story pretty well, I think.

    Gordon.
    --

    He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
    -- J.R.R. Tolkien
  144. Full disk encryption with 2 factor authentication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FreeBSD offers full-disk encryption using the GEOM ELI framework.

    The 2 factor component: something you have, something you know.

    Something you have: CD-Rom ISO image or USB key with the bootstrap information and the encryption key on it. (Hell, for crossing the border, I'd keep the ISO image located on my corporate VPN and download it AFTER I had passed customs).

    Something you know: password.

    Otherwise, you boot it up and...nothing...a hard drive filled with garbage.

    I'd just say, "FSCK! My hard drive just died!"

    Who is to say anything different?

  145. Is it too naive to think this can work? by bill_wye · · Score: 1

    Vote with your feet/wallet.

    Don't visit or buy goods and services from a country whose policies you disagree with.

    If it can work at the retail level, why not at a national level?
    Then again, this requires people to look for alternatives. If only there was a local version of Alienware...

    --
    The nose doesn't cause the tail.
  146. Re:Seriously.. I wonder: would "Skull in a Vice".. by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    suffice? (other than to rhyme?)

    Slowing wracking the brain in reverse in a vice until the skull pops is just as effective (and faster) than boiling a frog... in hot water.

    We could boil it in syrup, and make it a sweet departure...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  147. field day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with them making copies and seizing data , they (the gov) could be opening pandoras box , just think of all the trojan, virus , worm , spyware writers out their that always wanted to get into their systems, now they can do so without the need to get through any kind of security measures.

  148. Johnny Mnemonic... so prescient... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    so there really is a premise for Johnny Mnemonic then... data smuggler...

    currently, you could bring your data in on SD cards wrapped in cling-film and jammed up your jacksey...

    I'd like to see them try and do that type of search without probable cause...

    "oh yeah... we caught him in customs with 40 SD cards of HQ ripped movies stuffed up his backside... tough guy, was 20 hours before he had a motion, and then we had the evidence..."

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  149. Re:Seriously.. [And here I was thnking a new 9/11] by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    would be what it takes to shift the world banking systems and major stock systems OUT of the US to Shanghai or Europe.

    It would be an interesting thing to see bung-holed US foreign policy (and domestic policy) screw up the US power position. We won't have to worry about sub-prime lending market woes. Just enslave the US to the rest of the world by deepening investment but moving the movers and shakers to places like Switzerland, Dubai, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and so on.

    It seems of recent :

    Prince Andrew rebukes America over Iraq - Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/05/nandrew105.xml

    I wonder if the UK has any royals or officials who can warn the US about over-spying on domestics.

    (I no longer submit to the slash firehose....)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  150. Re:pretty sad... steganographically by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Well, it won't be long before we travel and find the US-Customs trojaning our rigs with the USB-Bundestrojaner in our lap(tops). Even if you flash (drive) you di(s)ks, you will still be asked to unsheathe your (p)assword and boots and straps you log in.

    Talk about the US government made of domestic and domesticated hingeladers (hind-loaders).

    (Wow, I could not find in Google: Hingelader, hingelader hind loader, or German hind loader in a attempt to find the correct spelling of her hingelader)

    Oh, make sure you disable all device ports in your kernel when you travel. Set a fake DES or wipe routine in motion. Make the bun-loaders think you are hiding something. Tell them its your home-made porn you copyrighted in an NDA with a foreign government that will take a dim view of its confidentiality being breached...)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  151. Even better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have it play the Apple 1984 commercial.

    Or maybe a speech by Adolf Hitler.

  152. Re:Encrypt.. .But, isn't it illegal to export by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    encryption of certain ages or types?

    If you travel and do so for work or personal reasons and take the wrong encryption into China, the US will federally punish you if it finds out upon your return to the US.

    China would probably punish you IF they had cause to single out YOUR laptop for inspection upon ENTRY. If you return to the US TOO SOON, it might sideline you into a secondary inspection and then determine you had some strong encryption tools you illegally "exported".

    I don't know whether a partition merely encrypted constitutes export of tools, but I have to assume that for the partition to accept new or display existing data some back-and-forth encryption and decryption is going on, and so might any government.

    This is just NOT a pretty picture. I can imagine a few people being turned into the TrueCrypt versions of Bobby Fischer. Wanted for exportation, banned FOR life from playing WITH electronics... Or banned FROM life for playing WITH electronics.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  153. Re:A few solutions, take your pick... Mwo? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    On that ALONE the government (via it's own geeks and attorneys) would nail ANYbody following that advice. At least, in my mind, the government prosecutors would claim premeditation to defeat, test, tamper with and attempt to nullify homeland security.

    It's just a matter of time before we are -- strike that --this becomes -- a condomnable nation.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  154. They can always win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The problem for me, as someone who will probably be travelling from Europe to the US for work in the next few years, is that I can very easily win at keeping my data deniable and secure using stuff like Truecrypt.

    However, they can very easily win at destroying my life. Even if they just denied me entry and shipped me back home, my employers would find out, and I'd be considered a travel risk. Thats what really bugs me.

  155. Re:Job Opportunity... But, if yer ass gets caught- by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    better hope that mule up yer ass goes away by ass-immo-lation... Don't forget preparation H...

    KY Jelly (in personal amounts) is permitted in carry-on luggage by the TSA. So, at least THEY won't border or make it "custom" to be on the periphery of parts of yer ass... Don't forget the digital Scabine or Kwell cream after handing over yer machine.... don't want any "bugaboos" dropping in on yer ass...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  156. Business by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

    Many may think this is to do with national security or the encroachment of individual privacy but the reality is a bit more under handed. Right now the USA is facing a massive amount of international trade competition and "information" is big money. I will give you an example, the USA is looking at tendering for a multi billions dollar wheat contract with Kuwait but doesn't know what other countries are doing (kick backs, brown bags etc). So when a company official from a competing country comes in to the USA they may or may not have data on their phone or laptop regarding wheat contracts. You can bet your kids that customs are going to be instructed through shadowy channels to get a copy of that information one way or the other. The French and English are masters of this type of corporate espionage, but as we can see the USA are very ham fisted and obvious Company officials from large international resources companies are now well versed in security (if they are not they will soon go broke) and do take very extreme measures now to keep all dealing hidden.

  157. Ways to have fun with this by Alari · · Score: 1

    Ways to have fun with this:

    Install Linux - to do anything, they'll have to go get the one guy who knows Linux, if they even have one.

    Have an "EULA" style agreement pop up when the computer boots, with the only options being "Agree" or "Shut down" - have the text of the "EULA" be the Bill of Rights, relevant court rulings, etc.

    Put a directory on the desktop named "Private - Confidential" - have a bunch of nested directories beneath it, each one conveying a sense of increasing security, and hinting at severe punishments for violators. Have the last "directory" really be a file with the icon changed so it just looks like a directory, the file name could be something like "If you're actually taking the time to read this, you have no business looking in here and are about to commit a (felony/whatever)" - the file could even be a flash file with really obnoxiously loud music (so you can hear it from the next room over ;) and a flashing "You're a felon!" message. (Or whatever) - bonus points for coding an application that does all that PLUS takes pictures of the user via the laptop's built in webcam... =D

    Get the largest laptop hard drive you can and fill it to the brim with various sized files created from /dev/random or other sources, so they have to waste their time copying and investigating a ton of junk. Leave the files in 'obvious' places with file names that would want to make you check them out but convey a sense that you will need some special process or application to investigate them. ("Hmm, it's named .ISO, but it won't mount on a virtual drive... Guess I'll have to try to burn it." or "What the hell is a .XYZZY file?" =)

    Nest compressed password-protected files (containing /dev/random or copies of the various US legal documents), dozens deep, with both common and obscure compression formats. (Mix them up, and be sure to 'accidentally' change the extension on a few.)

    - the fun stops here -

    Or, tell them "No," they may NOT look at the files on your laptop, though you'll be more than happy to turn it on or open it up to prove it's not a bomb. If they insist, ask them, if there were a diary in your luggage, would they take it and photocopy every page before letting you board the plane? No? Your computer is no different. (I know it is different, but at the same time, it isn't.) If it comes down to not boarding the plane or letting them violate your privacy, and it's within the realm of possibility for you to skip that flight, skip it. (I know most people's lives would be pretty much destroyed by the vengeful facist assholes if they stood up to them, but if you can survive this, and you'll know if you can, do it.)

    Take the issue to the airline, to the airport, write letters to the media and politicians, post about it on Slashdot, etc. Complain, loudly, about any and all ill treatment. If you're flying somewhere for business, especially if they've altered their business practices or processes due to this BS, convince them to do telecommuting or alternate modes of transportation. Why should they keep paying people who are shafting them and their employees? If the company they buy widgets from tried to pull this kind of stuff, would they keep buying from that company?

    Don't fly. It's expensive, cramped, and every aspect of the 'service' you receive is better described as 'servicing'. Seek alternate routes. (I know it's not really the airlines fault, but they COULD stand up for their customers if they wanted to. But right now they'd rather not. What does that say about how airlines think of their customers?)

    --
    I use Windows... like a two dollar wh.. why don't I just go ahead and not finish that sentence.
  158. Legal Limbo by fullback · · Score: 1

    US courts have always held that no one has any rights or legal protections at a port of entry because no one has entered the country until they have passed through the port of entry. It is an intentionally created limbo, and it has been that way for hundreds of years.

  159. I can't wait ... by constantnormal · · Score: 1

    ... until they catch one of the hundreds of thousands of deep cover terrorists (that's why we have hundreds of thousands of "persons of interest" on the TSA watchlist, right?) smuggling terrorist plans stored as song lyrics in iPods. Or steganographic hidden messages in cellphone photos.

    But you know, THIS IS CLEARLY WORKING, as no Saudi terrorists have flown airliners into buildings since 9-11.

    Or perhaps the credit is due to the tens of thousands of American soldiers putting their lives on the line every day in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent the terrorists from swimming the Atlantic and do serious harm to us back home.

    Perhaps in only a few generations, the thousands of years of Islamic history and culture will be overturned and the Islamics will see the wisdom in the separation of church and state.

    Of course, in a few generations it's entirely likely that we will have abandoned the separation of church and state, driven to extremist craziness by decades of ideological fools shouting over the TV and radio.

    --------------------
    Yes, this IS a rant.

  160. What about protecting confidential data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet none of these fucks have ever had to actually take steps to protect confidential data? Do they even know what things like NDAs are?

  161. The Reason This is Most Offensive... by el_munkie · · Score: 1

    is that it will do nothing to achieve the stated goal. It wouldn't be acceptable if it could net some intelligence, but it is even less so since it can't.

    Why can't it, you ask? Might they just collar J. Random Jihadist as he crosses the border to do some evil deed he has all mapped out on his laptop? No. Because no terrorist worth a damn would transmit data that way. If you had to move sensitive data into the country, you would send an emissary to whatever conspirators you had already in the country with a one time pad in his head. He could then relay it to the conspirators, and you could have a perfectly private channel of communication into the country. No amount of NSA supercomputing can crack anything encrypted this way.

    This kind of security theater does nothing. In this instance, there is probably a more sinister motive.

  162. Re:What about that old buzzard in Paris by anthonys_junk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After years of what amounts to wrongful imprisonment and emotional and mental torture, this poor guy developed mental problems, he couldn't make a choice, because of what had been done to him. There, fixed it for you, sadly enough.
    --
    Barbara Felden claims prior art on the flip phone, sues Motorola, Nokia.
  163. Wake up and smell the rot!!!! by tumblebug · · Score: 1
    The phrase "if you're doing nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" does not cut it any more because one of the major problems is that you have PEOPLE enforcing all of these laws. The way one officer enforces a law can be different to the way his officer-mate enforces the same law. For example - you are pulled over for just being over the the speed limit, if that officer is in a "good mood", he/she may let you go with a warning. If he/she is in bad mood, they're more likely to book you. The "letter of the law" states that the speed limit is X....but the APPLICATION of that law is what varies. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes it isnt.

    The same thing applies to the way recorded data is interpreted or used by one person may not be the same as the next person.

    Whats really sad is that the concept of trust is slowly leaving the world - our leaders have successfully ramped up the "culture of fear" to the point where they can do almost whatever they like and we are too busy watching our mortgage/job/neighbours to stop them. It doesn't matter if you believe their rehetoric or not, the fact is that THEY believe it, and they are the ones making the rules.

    The one thing we've all forgotten is there's WAY more of us than there is of them (yes I know that's from "A Bug's Life" but it applies here). They've got us all believing that we can't do anything about it when in fact, when you get right down to it, we can all march into our places of government and physically pick them up and take them out if we REALLY wanted to.

  164. jerking their chain by datadip · · Score: 1

    The security mindset is quite a piece of work. 2 experiences for sharing 1993: I used to travel with lots of maps for my work in relief and development. Back then you could buy the military JOG's at any map store. (they were reclassified at the start of the latest round in the Gulf). On returning from a high profile assessment mission for the US Government. the customs agent tried to seize my maps. I told her they were published by the US govt, purchased in the US and being returned to the US. On top of that I was a contractor to the US Gov. She still insisted on seizing my maps and I refused. We stared at each other and she relented. Flash forward 2004. Dealing with lots of data and maps for relief and development. The US Gov bureaucrats arrive and start classifying anything they touch. Essentially if they touch it it is now classified because it comes from country X. It does not matter that you buy the map sheet on any corner for a few pennies. Or that everyone already has it and it is posted on the web for any and all to use. They touched it it is now classified , in their own minds. I guess I am just just SOL the next time I travel. they'll probably think they have hit the mother lode with what is on my laptop. Won't matter if I point them to the websites they can download their own copies of the same. When my bags used to set off explosive detectors I made sure I kept copies of my work ID s that showed i worked around explosive disposal sites and told the screener ahead of time. Usually worked without a hitch. What kind of reaction would I get were I to now announce, I have detailed maps and data on Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and Iraq in my computer acquired legally and legitimately for my legal and legitimate work? Since I removed the mystery does the USG have the right to seize them just because they want them? Can I refuse until they legally demonstrate that my possession of these constitute a threat to the USG versus being a gee-whiz event for their droll work?

  165. Well, I know what I'm gonna do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I know what I'm gonna do next time I'm heading over to the states for any period of time...

    Format my laptop, and place all my important data on this nifty little usb drive that doubles as a keychain flashlight. Carry a linux install cd with me, of course :-)

    Customs: I'd like you to to log into you're computer for me...
    Me: I can't.
    Customs: *huffs up a bit, and looks menacingly at me* Why?
    Me: There Isn't any Operating system Installed.
    Customs: ...

    The way I figure, it will either get them to waste their time trying to copy a couple gigs of nothing, or they just shrug and let me pass. Either way, it's all good.

  166. Legal by jumpinp · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't they be liable for copyright infringement.

  167. Danger?! ROTFL!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy shit! Schools and transit! Man that's pretty darn bad and evil. I'm pretty worried about THAT stuff.

    Seriously, what's your damage? LOL ...

  168. Govt is the snake providing the apple to Eve! by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    The bible was right, but it wasnt a historical book, it was a prediction of the future.

    And our garden of eden has been taken over by 10000000000 snakes called LAWYERS giving us ROTTEN apples to all the EVES.

    Wake up women! And you spermless men who eat too much soy.

    The govt likes to keep every one busy WORKING to pay OUR credit card debt so we have NO TIME for any REVOLUTION!

    I say fuck em all, especially those pension funds, dont pay a cent back to the banks, watch it all fall. Fight club was right on!

    The fractional reserve banking system is dead, US is bankrupt, with those cable cuts to Iran, something fishy is coming.

    "We see that the Federal Reserve's H.3 Reserves of Depository Institutions shows that for the last week of January, both on a seasonally adjusted and not seasonally adjusted basis, all the financial reserves (required reserves to support the fractional banking system) were negative. In other words, the fraction in fractional reserve has disappeared."

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/Current/

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  169. What did they install on the PCs ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1
    The PCs/phones/... are out of your sight, what did they do with them other than steal your files ? Install a key logger or something - to sniff your passwords when you next go on line ?

    I am starting to think that after crossing borders: PC should be reinstalled from known media.

    BTW: If you told them that /dev/random contained a lot of data - how much would they copy ?

  170. a question. by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 1

    I am an artist.

    I create original works, and keep them on my computer.

    I own the copyrights to my work.

    now, if i were to add some sort of digital rights management to my own files, and the boarder guards were to copy my data, would I be able to sue them for copyright infringement AND violating the DMCA?

    finally....a way that the DMCA can be used for good!

    --
    -I only code in BASIC.-
  171. Transit flight via the USA? No way! by KayakFun · · Score: 1
    Mod parent up, please.

    And since the US does not have transit zones, this includes flying via a US airport. The 'normal' immigration and security checks already take so long that it's very easy to miss your connecting flight, when you are singled out for laptop inspection you will certainly miss it. So do not fly via or to the US for any reason.

    When everybody stops flying to the US, they will know they went too far. For me the (security) delays on a transit flight already made me decide to stop flying there.

    Good luck on your island of security and privacy invasion. Let's keep the rest of the world civilized.

  172. Doesn't anyone remember the Cold War? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    More frightening than the act itself is the attitude of creeping intrusiveness justified by people who went through the American educational system

    It seems like the United States is becoming every value we were taught to despise as children, and sacrificing everything we once held dear. WE say that Islam is this dangerous threat, but are they really that much more dangerous than a determined, educated, and intelligent set of western adversaries such as the Soviet Union or NAZI Germany? I don't think so.

    --
    This is my sig.
  173. USA travel will go the way of the dollar by KayakFun · · Score: 1
    You mention 'trade embargo', but staying out of there is more a civilization and democracy embargo.

    The USA is the country for people who don't care about civil rights. All others stay in the civilized world.

    USA tourism and business travel will go the way of the dollar: avoid it like the plague.

  174. Anyone write Congress? by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    To all who posted:

    If you haven't written your congressmen/women, then do it now. Kvetching about it on /. may be fun venting, but it's not going to change anything.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  175. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of brain damage must you have experienced to mod parent off topic? It's spot on.

  176. desktop background is ? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    A picture of fightclub scene towards the end where the buildings go down.

    Im sure that will send a royal poker up your a hole.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  177. Peek vs. Take by pentalive · · Score: 1

    So, pardon me, if I don't object to Customs Agents copying (not "confiscating") data for examination too much — they've been searching through travelers' material possessions since their "service" was introduced...


    The difference being that if Mr.Customs agent examines my luggage all that happens is he sees, one time, what my dirty underwear looks like. If Mr.Customs copies my files he has those copies to examine at his leisure for as long as he likes.

    Perhaps Customs could spin this as the new "US Government Offsite Backup Program".