New Bill To Rein In DHS Laptop Seizures

twigles writes with news of a new proposed bill that seeks to curtail DHS's power to search and seize laptops at the border without suspicion of wrongdoing. Here is Sen. Feingold's press release on the bill. The new bill has more privacy-protecting safeguards than the previous one, which we discussed last month. "The Travelers Privacy Protection Act, a bill written by US Senators Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., would allow border agents to search electronic devices only if they had reasonable suspicions of wrongdoing. In addition, the legislation would limit the length of time that a device could be out of its owner's possession to 24 hours, after which the search becomes a seizure, requiring probable cause."

Comments

No, no good enough.

[Animats]

Probable cause required after 24 hours? No. Probable cause must be required before search.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Kamokazi]

If they have probably cause, they can do a hell of a lot more than search your laptop anyway. Very, very few cases would exist where they have probable cause before crossing the border.

Think in computer terms. You can't block spam, spam, and only spam. Sometimes you have to block non-spam to catch most of the spam, or you block nothing but the most obvious spam, and still have a trashed inbox.

Yes, there is an order of magnitude of difference between a penis pill e-mail and a terrorist, but the general principle is the same. It's a pain in the ass to sort through your junk mail box to get that legitimate message, just like it would be a royal pain in the ass to have your laptop siezed for a day.

I think this is a fairly reasonable compromise, assuming the terms for the laptop return (expedited shipping to whever you are going to be) are favorable and reasonable suspicion is truly reasonable.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Celarnor]

Think in computer terms. You can't block spam, spam, and only spam. Sometimes you have to block non-spam to catch most of the spam, or you block nothing but the most obvious spam, and still have a trashed inbox.

The two are nothing alike.

When you're filtering spam, you aren't dealing with a person's personal belongings worth at the very least a few dollars plus the contents of the hard drive, which is priceless.

You aren't dealing with something that makes or breaks someones livelihood, you're dealing with something with an email. The two are absolutely nothing alike,and while I'll accept a high false positive rate and a high success rate with spam filtering, I'm not going to accept a high false positive rate with a system that deprives me of physical property and my livelihood for at least 24 hours without any reason.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Kickersny.com]

I'd rather let a million spam emails slip through than block one legitimate one.

Same deal with suspicious characters at the border.

Re:No, no good enough.

[lysergic.acid]

i think you're confusing probably cause with something else.

you don't just put random incoming e-mails into the spam folder. you try to detect patterns that would indicate that a particular e-mail is spam, then you put the suspected spam message in the spam folder.

likewise, you don't just do search and seizures on random people. you have to find probable cause to warrant impinging on that person's rights and privacy. probable cause isn't a court conviction. it doesn't require a police officer to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person has committed a crime. but it does forbid police officers from encroaching the rights of individuals for no apparent reason.

most people who are searched based on probably cause will likely still be innocent. that is a necessary evil. but just because we live in an imperfect world doesn't mean that we have to intentionally write imperfections into our legal system.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Wrath0fb0b]

Probable cause required after 24 hours? No. Probable cause must be required before search.

Your views on this political question* are admirable (and I would even agree but the devil's in the details of implementation) but they are also at variance with most of the electorate. For myself, I have (grudgingly) accepted that such political preferences are legitimate even when they conflict with my personal preferences. I have no qualms saying that people are making a big mistake giving up freedom for liberty but, from a point of view of epistemic humility, I also have to concede that they have every right to make the decision.

The best thing we can do is attempt to convince people and that starts first and foremost with acknowledging the legitimacy of their position (while, of course, reserving the right to respectfully disagree).

* Since for 250 years, the Constitution has permitted warrantless, suspicionless searches of anything crossing an international border, it is considered a settled legal question. /.ers can complain that the true meaning of the fourth amendment is something different (I'm sure many will) but the law remains.

Re:No, no good enough.

[ratsbane]

If you use any kind of spam filtering now (and as your email address is GMail you certainly do) then you are, in fact, blocking some small percentage of legitimate emails so that most of the junk messages will be blocked. And the only way to block every suspicious character at the border is to block every person at the border. No one can come into our country - including Americans returning from vacation. Zero tolerance. Clearly this would not work. Also, most suspicious characters are just that - harmless but somehow outside the norm. There is a certain amount of risk that will always exist in anything. We can't get rid of all of it and the harder we try the more good things we'll get rid of at the same time. And none of this explains why searching someone's laptop for more than 24 hours would be helpful in weeding out the dodgy characters.

Re:No, no good enough.

[zappepcs]

Just wanted to say I think that there are a couple of problems with what you have said. First, spam filtering is the equivalent of 'racial profiling' and that is simply not allowed... right? What you suggest is tantamount to giving the green light to racial profiling.

Don't believe me? Try it for yourself. You are arguing from a naive logic point of view. You seem to believe that those on the working end of this process have no reason to be mean or would never abuse their authority based on their own tepid personal morals?

Indeed, there should be very very few cases of probable cause, and thus very very very few cases of search/seizure of papers(data).

Sometimes you have to block non-spam to catch most of the spam, or you block nothing but the most obvious spam, and still have a trashed inbox.

This is what we call a 'FAIL' in the bizz. Yes, there is no perfect world, but the last thing you want to do is block a valid email. The effects become chilling when you consider that what you are talking about is 'blocking' humans.

Lets put some theoretical numbers in here: How many terrorists are there in the world? 500? 5000? How many people fly through airports every day? What is that, like 0.000001% of possible passenger traffic? So, you think it is ok to inconvenience grandmas and 4 year olds for the sake of finding a needle in a haystack that has exactly zero probability of actually existing.

Yes, for you statisticians, that was awful, but it does illustrate my point. This is NOT like blocking spam. Spam is certain. Terrorists are not. Any inconvenience to normal passenger traffic is tantamount to the terrorists winning. game. set. match.

TTFN

Re:No, no good enough.

[Kickersny.com]

The email I use for slashdot is far from a critical email address. For my important one(s) I run my own mail server with spam digests (it emails me a list of everything in the quarantine at the end of the week).

Other than that, I agree with your reply :)

Re:No, no good enough.

[mi]

No. Probable cause must be required before search.

Not if you are crossing the border, unfortunately. The discussed bill is an improvement over the current situation, though...

As far as the border-patrol are concerned, it seems, everyone is to be searched. They are doing you a favor, when they let you through unmolested.

And it has always been this way, although their practices related to laptops have brought some attention. And it can't be easily changed, regretfully, even if Feingold is aiming for some "low-hanging fruit" of the silliest of their practices.

Re:No, no good enough.

[martin-boundary]

How about probable cause after 3 minutes? Most people don't need more than that...

Re:No, no good enough.

[iplayfast]

I'd rather let a million spam emails slip through than block one legitimate one.

Same deal with suspicious characters at the border.

Ahem... I think I have.

Re:No, no good enough.

[mabhatter654]

Because boarder searches include some probable cause built in. But a border search is supposed to be specific to the differences of international laws. If you're coming from a day trip in Canada it's not appropriate to look for stolen iPods from the USA... but this is what they're doing with laptops. The point is that to secure the boarder of the country items must be searched, but it must be reasonable. You are not IN the USA yet. But there needs to be limits, if customs can't find a good reason to tell a judge they need a laptop or electronic device after 24 hours they should be required to send you on your way. Similar rules apply to "real" property, along with the need to free up space for travelers, that's why they can't pile up cars or boats, etc. even though they try. It's just that "on the internet" thing being used to get around another rule everybody would normally follow. The current practice was learned in the drug war to use flimsy "seizure" rules to put items into a place where they weren't "criminal" evidence but couldn't be released because they "might be" evidence or "poisoned fruit"...until the room was cleared out at auction for police profit. The same game is going on here.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Venik]

Have you been drinking today? You make no sense whatsoever. I am not even talking about your arguments - I can't get past your syntax. Are you saying its OK for the government to rummage through personal data on your laptop without probable cause as long as they pay shipping to send it back to you? What about searching your house without a warrant - would this be OK if they clean up after themselves?

Re:No, no good enough.

[Mr. Freeman]

Yeah, we could search every single apartment, house, etc. for illegal stuff. I mean, it would make sense to scan all incoming email, right? It's obviously the same thing.

Emails are not terrorists and handling them in the same way is insanely stupid. You simply cannot apply mail handling principles to dealing with terrorism. Sacrificing freedom for security is incredibly stupid. You can go to some other country if you don't want the rights guaranteed by our constitution, but don't try to remove those rights for everyone else.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Kamokazi]

The spam thing was a loose analogy. Basically the point is, filters are not perfect. You get some undesirable activity in any case (oh, if have a perfect spam filter like you are talking about, since all others apparently fail, I am sure Postini, Symantec, McAffe and others would pay top dollar for it).

People get profiled all the time at customs (Have you been through it before, or do you just debate foreign affairs from your mother's basement?). Sure, occasionally it's race, but mostly it is country of origin (the passport is kind of a givaway). I travel with a co-worker from the Philippines. Every time we go through customs, almost without fail, he takes considerably longer because they ask him several questions. I almost never get questioned (US citizen). We primarily travel to China, Hong Kong, US, and the Philippines (yes, it takes him longer to get through his own customs than I do). Another example is one of our company owners was born in Iran, and is a US citizen now. He travels to other countries at least once a month, usually more. He almost never gets stopped, even though he is clearly of Arab descent.

Any position of power will be abused. It will happen. The only two things you can do are 1) Put effective disciplinary systems in place to minimize the abuse, and 2) Quit being such a whiny pessimist and have at least little god damn faith in your fellow man. For someone arguing an 'innocent until proven guilty' standpoint, you sure have a hard time trusting people.

And let's try some real statistics...or at least one to play with. 86 Million people passed through air customs in 2005...so that should be a relativly safe number to use. Now you have to think that this does not only target terrorists...I'm sure drug smugglers are a pretty big target too, as will as other types of criminals. And there are a hell of a lot more than 5,000 terrorists (but the question is, how many are in a position to come in and do damage to the US). So let's double your number to 10,000, and get a percentage off 86. That's 1.16%...but that number would be spread out over years...but even over 10 years, it's .16%. Quite a scary figure, actually. The question is then, how many innocent people should be inconvenienced to potentially save lives?

Then there is another factor of how many of these people aren't even US Citizens, and we are allowing them the privelidge of entering our country...they do not even have constitutional rights in the first place. But I won't get into that mess.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Kamokazi]

It's a loose analogy. And one missed e-mail due to a spam filter can make or break someone's livelihood as well. In fact, I bet it's happened far more than Customs siezures of laptops.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Kamokazi]

It was an analogy to explain to the GP that filters can never work 100%, and you have to have acceptable margins of error, or undesireable results wil occur. Not to say that blocking spam is of equal importance to blocking a terrorist. FFS.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Kamokazi]

And like I said in another post, you have to have a disciplinary system to limit abuse of power as much as possible. You have to entrust people with power for society to function. And there will always be people who abuse power. But believe it or not, most people aren't all bad, and are generally just average Joes like you trying to live out their own crappy life and mind their own damn business.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Tassach]

most people aren't all bad

Research indicates otherwise:

Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the [Milgram] experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61â"66 percent, regardless of time or place

Re:No, no good enough.

[aadvancedGIR]

I think you use two distinc meaning of "bad", the GP one stands for "evil", yours simply for "flawed".
Most people won't spontaneously hurt other people. What Milgram shows is that a majority of people will knowningly accept to be the instrument of an evil power with very little coercion from that power and try to rationalyze their coward behavior to themself.
To me that's the reason we need check and balance: if you have to wait for a majority to openly question orders as questionable, it will probably be far too late, so IMHO, the Milgram expreriment is a point FOR the GP argument, not against it.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Antique Geekmeister]

Probable cause at the border is pretty easy: suspicious paperwork, evidence of other smuggling, confusing statements about your activities during your stay (and all the other data they already have through all the border guard processing) can all lead to 'probable cause'. Then there's all the fine print on your airline tickets about your goods being inspected.

Unfortunately, many countries have engaged in regular federal and business espionage as part of reviewing traveler's laptops. I've got reports from professional peers of their laptops having been disassembled and reassembled, incorrectly, from inside their hotel rooms when visiting China, and our having to consider those laptops compromised with all data on them. And customs agents worldwide are notorious for stealing equipment and personal data to sell off. So allowing this kind of unmonitored, unrecorded, warrant and court and paperwork free ransacking of laptops is simply begging for trouble.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Venik]

For starters, read the law before talking rubbish.

Re:No, no good enough.

[L4t3r4lu5]

but even over 10 years, it's .16%. Quite a scary figure, actually

No it's not. Terrorism doesn't scare me.

Why do you suppose I might not let it affect my daily life?

Re:No, no good enough.

[Hognoxious]

Then there is another factor of how many of these people aren't even US Citizens, and we are allowing them the privelidge of entering our country...they do not even have constitutional rights in the first place.

Are you sure? I think you'll find that it applies to anyone on US soil, or at least anyone legally there. There wouldn't be the need for the Gitmo loophole otherwise.

And what do you think it would be like if all countries applied your principle and locked up visitors to their country and stole their property just because some plastic policeman feels like it? I'd so laugh if it happened to you.

Re:No, no good enough.

[L4t3r4lu5]

Sweet Jesus on a flying carpet, "non-citizens have basically no rights and if they want in they have to do what we tell them"?!

How's your sister / wife, Dwayne? Feel free to come past the 19th Century any time. You do realise Apartheid is over, and you can no longer buy slaves? Your Constitution protects PEOPLE, not citizens. THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER.

I have never seen a more ignorant response on /. in my life.

If you're trolling, I applaud you. You are extremely good at being a dick.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Paleolibertarian]

Just more silliness from the idiot class that has the reins of power.

They pass unconstitutional laws then they have to pass more laws to fix the unintended consequences of their stupidity.

The country needs a SCOTUS with the ability and balls to challenge this crap without first having to wait for a case to be fought all the way up the judicial process. It also needs the ability to fine legislators who pass such unconstitutional drivel. But then that presupposes that the inhabitants of those 9 chairs have good character.

The country also needs free ice cream.

Re:No, no good enough.

[timrichardson]

Is not providing a key or password "probable cause"?

Re:No, no good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

For starters, non-citizens have basically no rights and if they want in they have to do what we tell them.

And, this is why the rest of the world is increasingly saying "fuck you America". Fuck you and your arrogance.

You expect the whole rest of the world to make sure that your interests are being protected while not giving a shit about the interests of anyone else. And, you have the nerve to act like the rest of the world owes it to you and should smile and accept it.

Fuck you.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Shajenko42]

Yes, the Milgram series of experiments indicate that human beings tend towards being complete douchebags.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Kamokazi]

The Gitmo loophole is circumventing a combination of Geneva conventions and our legal procedures for charging anyone who breaks US law. The point is, our law does not require us to apply the constitution to non-citizens, but we do in most circumstances anyway. Also, I am pretty sure there is some sort of accepted international law on how to treat foreign citizens. And compared to some countries, holding their laptop for 24 hours is pretty minor. I'm a little paranoid every time I pass through Chinese customs, because I know they would lock me up and throw away the key without a second thought. With the US, I don't have to worry about that. (Gitmo is for people captured in Iraq/Afghanistan, not US soil).

Re:No, no good enough.

[Kamokazi]

Fuck you too, buddy.

I'll admit that it was quite late and I didn't word that as intended. The point was, we are not required to guarantee them any rights (aside from some very basic international provisions, and those get ignored by other countries sometimes too). We choose to do so in most cases, but we can revoke them as we see fit.

We can deny anyone entry to our country. If you refsue to let your laptop be searched, then we refuse to let you enter...it's pretty simple. There are a lot of countries that do a lot worse.

And I'll be arrogant if I want, and laugh at all the jealous foreigners that talk about how much they hate America. I know the US will have to come down off it's high horse sooner or later, our wealth will eventually even out to other countries. But we'll probably both be dead and buried before that happens (at least in any significant, noticable way...yes the dollar is dropping like a rock, but it will still take quite some time for evertyhing to spread out). Also, what 'interests' do other countries protect for us? W. has pretty much thrown our military muscle at any 'interests' we might have.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Ihlosi]

The point is, our law does not require us to apply the constitution to non-citizens,

Citation needed.

No article of the bill of rights mentions "citizens". Instead, they either mention "person", "no one shall ..." or are worded in passive ("Excessive bail shall not ...").

Also, I am pretty sure there is some sort of accepted international law on how to treat foreign citizens.

There's something along those lines, but in this case, the SCOTUS has decided that unless there are actual laws that require foreign nationals to be treated according to these treaties, they are not binding even if they were signed by the US.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medellin_v._Texas

Re:No, no good enough.

[Hognoxious]

Also, I am pretty sure there is some sort of accepted international law on how to treat foreign citizens.

Make your mind up, earlier on you were saying the USA can do whatever it wants to foreigners. So which is it? Or perhaps you think it only applies one way - to protect fat loudmothed idiots like you who think other countries' laws don't apply to them because they're Americans, goddammit!

Gitmo is for people captured in Iraq/Afghanistan, not US soil

Who said anything about where they were captured? Seems like you're being deliberately obtuse on top of being naturally stupid.

Re:No, no good enough.

[kabocox]

Sweet Jesus on a flying carpet, "non-citizens have basically no rights and if they want in they have to do what we tell them"?!
You do realise Apartheid is over, and you can no longer buy slaves? Your Constitution protects PEOPLE, not citizens.

Um, you are wrong and he is right. Non-citizens don't have the same level of rights as citizens and most likely never will. We generally treat illegal aliens, illegal immigrants and citizens without any id that they are citizens exactly the same. It's easier for the police or whoever the arresting agency is to treat everyone the same and assume that they have rights when they may not. It also causes less trouble when a recent immigrant is arrested and is treated decently.

The Bill of Rights isn't basic human rights; it's a citizens only thing. You as a basic human or foreign national don't just have the right to bear arms in the US because of our Bill of Rights.

I find this entire thread funny. Why? Because it involves customs going into/outside of the country. The rules for that has always been different to normal rules. We actually try to limit the folks entering/exiting the country. I mean if the same rules applied traveling to Mexico or Canada as traveling to any the the states then you'd be allowed to drive right on by without any one stopping or searching you for anything. It's only when you at the border that these different rules come into effect. Would you put up with border guards at every state stopping and searching every car just in case you happened to be on any police list or smuggling something? Nope. We only put up with that entering and leaving the country. The easy solution to that is don't enter or leave any country that you don't like their customs practices.

Re:No, no good enough.

[TheCabal]

Incorrect. Milgram's experiment demonstrated that people, when confronted with a decision to which they have no experience, will defer to authority. Read Milgram's conclusions, specifically his agentic state theory. As long as they become a small part within a large machine, they can do things that go against their own values. Re-read Milgram's experiments again, you will see that the vast majority of those who submitted to the administrator's authority (which was the basis of the experiment- Milgram was investigating if the Nuremburg defense had any validity) displayed signs of extreme stress. This alone is a good indicator that people simply weren't "prepared to inflict fatal voltages".

Your idea lies more along that people are sadistic (which they very may be) and will willingly and spontaneously inflict potenital harm on someone. But this wasn't proven by Milgram. Try Zimbardo at Stanford.

There are subtleties to Milgram's experiment that escape many people.

Re:No, no good enough.

[digitalgimpus]

Bingo. Not to mention, I'd like the bill to have some accountability for those who authorized this activity in the first place.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Dan667]

You must live in a bomb shelter with 2 years of food so no one can get you. Please stay there, but stop using the internet. Thanks. Everyone.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Chrisje]

> For starters, non-citizens have basically no rights and if they want in they have to do what we tell them.

Well, the other poster was right when he said you, sir, are a dick. Firstly, you are from an immigrant country which was built on the blood, sweat and tears of initial non-citizens, you insensitive clod! Secondly, I think it is only civilized to bestow rights on People regardless of creed, religion or ethnicity. Failing to do so makes you a barbarian.

Furthermore you'd be well advised to realize there are 6.7 Billion of "us" and ~300 Million of "you" on this planet. And given the state of your currency, government and financial institutions, I would be very careful with such statements. You might want "out" someday, and you might not be welcome. Matter of fact, you aren't already amongst many of "us".

Re:No, no good enough.

[characterZer0]

Please show me where in the Constitution it says that the Bill of Rights only apply to citizens.

(Hint: it doesn't)

Re:No, no good enough.

[L4t3r4lu5]

The Fourth Amendment
"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."

The Fourteenth Amendment
Sub-Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws."

Did you spot it? No, neither did I.

FYI, I'm English.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Um, you are wrong and he is right. Non-citizens don't have the same level of rights as citizens and most likely never will. We generally treat illegal aliens, illegal immigrants and citizens without any id that they are citizens exactly the same. It's easier for the police or whoever the arresting agency is to treat everyone the same and assume that they have rights when they may not. It also causes less trouble when a recent immigrant is arrested and is treated decently.

The Bill of Rights isn't basic human rights; it's a citizens only thing. You as a basic human or foreign national don't just have the right to bear arms in the US because of our Bill of Rights.

Reread the Bill of Rights and tell me where it says that these rights are reserved for citizens only? It doesn't.

* First Amendment - Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

* Second Amendment - Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

* 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.

So why use a general term, such as "person", and not citizen? Because this keeps the Government from circumventing the system by stripping someone of their citizenship, and then doing anything they want to them.

Whether you like it or not, every PERSON in the U.S. is afforded the same rights, not every CITIZEN.

Re:No, no good enough.

[cavis]

But how effective is a laptop search at the border actually going to be? Suspicious documents can be encrypted and e-mailed, passed via USB drive, or even created while the "suspect" is within the borders of the United States. All you've done at the border is piss a bunch of people off and create even more enemies of the US. Have you counted the number of countries that are actually "on our side" now? Not like it used to be, for sure.

So the moral of the story kids is if you are a foreign national coming to this country on business, be sure to add a day to your agenda so we can fuck with ya. Then again, this likely only applies to brown people or those that talk funny.

Re:No, no good enough.

[kalirion]

Would you rather open a million suspicious email attachments than delete a legitimate one?

Re:No, no good enough.

[lpq]

Yeah!
Maybe we should have a law against unreasonable search and seizure! Hey, let's break away from the King George and form our own country!

When we do, lets make sure we include protections from unreasonable searches and seizures in our new nation's laws -- we can put it in a Statement of Rights, or something! You know -- make sure that King George's excesses can't happen in our new country! What do you think, it would be revolutionary!

Ever get that sense of Déjà vu?

Re:No, no good enough.

[characterZer0]

The fourth amendment says "the people", not "citizens".

The 14th does not claim to remove rights granted by the first 10.

Re:No, no good enough.

[Kamokazi]

They actually use the term 'the people', which is defined as such:

"We the people of the United States..."-Preamble, U.S. Constitution

I think that pretty clearly indicates US citizens. There is nothing in the constitution mentioning foreign nationals. And the constitution is the supreme law of the land, so unless an amendment is passed that says the constitutional rights apply to more than 'the people', our laws can be written to apply to foreigners however we choose. We do grant many constitutional rights to people that enter our country legally...and to enter legally, you have to pass through customs.

"There's something along those lines, but in this case, the SCOTUS has decided that unless there are actual laws that require foreign nationals to be treated according to these treaties, they are not binding even if they were signed by the US."

And that's basically what I meant by 'accepted'...most countries generally follow them, but they don't have to (they are a sovereign nation, they can do whatever the hell they want, although depending on the situation somtimes it's in their best interests to do so, less they piss someone off with a bigger military than them).

Accountability

[crossmr]

If they take a laptop to search it for 24 hours they should first detail their "reasonable suspicion" on a form to which the person's whose laptop is being taken receives a copy to chat with their lawyer about.

Re:Accountability

[Celarnor]

Better yet, they should detail their "reasonable suspicion" on a warrant beforehand and give it to a judge to decide whether or not their suspicion really is reasonable.

Re:Accountability

[mysidia]

Hm.. i'd be more concerned about their definition of "probable cause" and them finding (or planting) it on the 23rd hour.

For example... is the existence of a secure encrypted volume they can't read probable cause? (Noone innocent would have any need to encrypt anything, right?? What have they got to hide????)

Re:Accountability

[Onaga]

You're new the US, right?

Real reason: He is a dark haired male between the age of 16 and 65 and has a funny name.

Reason on paper: Classified.

Re:Accountability

[iminplaya]

Yeah, because we all have lawyers on retainer.

Re:Accountability

[Wrath0fb0b]

If they take a laptop to search it for 24 hours they should first detail their "reasonable suspicion" on a form to which the person's whose laptop is being taken receives a copy to chat with their lawyer about.

What exactly are you going to sue them for? Seizure for inspection at the border is legal (how else would the USDA inspect imported food?) and so you can S1983 them for violation of a Constitutional right.

I don't particularly object to your suggestion, I just don't see that it would be of any use.

Re:Accountability

[2Bits]

If they take a laptop to search it for 24 hours they should first detail their "reasonable suspicion" on a form to which the person's whose laptop is being taken receives a copy to chat with their lawyer about.

Right, search and seizure are mostly done to aliens (although they sometimes do to their natives too), what rights to lawyer do they have? Who cares about aliens anyway?

Re:Accountability

[L4t3r4lu5]

100% of foreign businessmen are aliens.

Try confiscating Hans Demant's laptop and see if he doesn't get hold of some VERY good lawyers.

Re:Accountability

[crossmr]

You can sue them for improper search if their "reasonable suspicions" are garbage reasons. More importantly if employees are using it for a power trip they can be held accountable for it. The US does have such a thing as various kinds of damages in a civil court. Things like the inconvenience of being without a work laptop, etc.

Enough garbage reasons start turning up and people can't deny it. You can't get rid of anything in today's world without a paper trail.

Its easy enough for the agency behind it to claim the person whose laptop was taken misunderstood the reason. They can't do that if the guard is just making stuff up and writing it on an official form.

Mod parent up.

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's a bit like saying the police can break down my door and search my apartment for 24 hours before I can complain.

I think I speak for all of us when I say: FUCK NO.

Re:Mod parent up.

[davester666]

This is funny.

Didn't FISA get revised just this year (combined with giving immunity to the telephone companies involved with illegal wiretapping), so that the NSA can wait up to two weeks AFTER beginning to wiretap a phone line, to apply for the warrant to do the wiretapping? Even though there are rubber-stamp FISA judges available on speed-dial 24/7/365. All you need to do is make a long-distance phone call to a person and/or a phone number that somebody thinks is associated with terrorism (no evidence required for this belief!).

Re:Mod parent up.

[Ian Alexander]

Consider that, as it stands, they're under no requirement to give you anything back at the border, ever, and I'd say a 24-hour cutoff before they needed a warrant to seize your stuff would be better than nothing.

Re:Mod parent up.

[davester666]

Yes, that is true. But they also altered the law for calls entirely within the US. That long distance call you made, that somebody decided, entirely without any actual evidence, that was to a phone number similar to somebody that is suspected of being linked to a terrorist (which pretty much covers EVERYBODY), that they started wiretapping your phone for, without a warrant. They can share ALL the calls you make (including entirely within the US) with local and state police and the FBI. Without a warrant.

And once they finally have to apply for the warrant, if the rubber stamp FISA court somehow decides not to authorize it, the NSA can appeal, and keep wiretapping your line for another 30 days, still without a warrant, until another FISA court has to hear the appeal and may finally deny the warrant, and they have to take the wiretap off.

But then the President just hands out a letter (do we even know if the gov't is keeping records of their secret wiretapping?) or just indicates in some way to keep wiretapping you anyway, in the name of national security. Like he has already been doing for years.

Re:Mod parent up.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I realize this.

I also think it's a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights.

I realize said Bill of Rights is often trashed by our government. Is there something else I don't know about the rationale for treating me as anything other than a citizen at the border?

To draw a completely inappropriate analogy, it's like Spore's DRM. Sure, five activations is better than three. I still say any game telling me how many times I can install it on my own computer should not be allowed, and I'm quite offended at the attempt to throw me a bone.

Re:Mod parent up.

[antic]

Friend of mine had customs/whoever want to search his laptop. They said they saw something suspicious (child porn) though I have no idea how given that it wasn't switched on. The guy was travelling with his wife and wouldn't have had anything of the sort on his machine. The only reason he avoided having it searched was that the battery had died, though they asked him to prove it.

Made me think: if you try the dead battery ruse, if you're holding the laptop, perhaps use the hand supporting the laptop to dislodge the battery slightly when you hit the power button to prove that it's 'out of power'.

Re:Mod parent up.

[Anonymous Coward]

I also think it's a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights.

It's a violation of the principle of innocent before proven guilty, which is a fundamental principle of human rights. We're looking at yet another a violation of human rights, plain and simple.

If you stop and think about it, the principle of innocent before proven guilty is violated on a regular basis in the US. How about DUI checkpoints? Bank account monitoring? Spying on innocents? All of these assume you are guilty until proven innocent, which is exactly the opposite of how a free country (i.e. a non-tyrannical government) would operate.

Re:Mod parent up.

[Ihlosi]

If you stop and think about it, the principle of innocent before proven guilty is violated on a regular basis in the US. How about DUI checkpoints?

Err ... do you actually get your license taken away, fined ot stuck in jail at DUI checkpoints before they actually check your BAC, or regardless of the result of such a test?

Re:Mod parent up.

[aztracker1]

I know this is veering OT, but I don't understand why the game companies don't put their game on a USB flash drive with some built in hardware encryption, instead of installing crap (DRM) on my computer in the first place. I know it's a little more costly than the CD/DVD DRM stuff, but the fact is it would actually have the potential of working, instead of DRM which really doesn't.

Re:Mod parent up.

[i.r.id10t]

Yeah, actually. In a lot of places, you fail the field sobriety test and/or the field breathalyzer, you go to jail and get tested again on the non-portable equipment. That second test is the one that is recorded and used as evidence.

Re:Mod parent up.

[Mr3vil]

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic. However really, the terrorists have no way of directly destroying our freedom. All they can do is kill us, that's it. We are the ones destroying our own freedom. Destroying your own freedom to preserve it is like killing your kids so they don't get molested. Personally, I'd rather run the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack than be alive in the safety of tyrrany. It is true, freedom isn't free, however the price is more than just the blood of soldiers. The price is also the risk that those jealous of your freedom will try to kill you.

Re:Mod parent up.

[Rasperin]

I think this could have more restrictions on the TSA but hey; atleast it adds some limitation on them.

So I think I speak for all of us when I say: GIVE US MOAR NAOW

Re:Mod parent up.

[CohibaVancouver]

I don't understand why the game companies don't put their game on a USB flash drive with some built in hardware encryption

You mean kind of like these? :)

http://www.retrogalaxy.com/imgs/2005/atari-games-stacked.jpg

Re:Mod parent up.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no expectation of privacy at an international border. The Court has routinely ruled that the 4th Amendment does not apply.

Re:Mod parent up.

[Insanity Defense]

Your using all this kneejerk idiocy, makes me wonder if it is on purpose. I suspect that it is.

1. If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear. What have you got to hide? Terrorism maybe?

B.S.. I may not have anything I need to hide but I may just prefer that my private things be private and not have some uniformed person able to arbitrarily search them. Others may be traveling with things to hide, legitimate things such as industrial secrets.

2. Terrorists are trying to destroy our freedom. We have to fight the terrorists no matter what cost!! If even one life is saved, it'll all be worth it! Can you deny it?

So in the name of saving your freedom you want to give it up? It sounds like you are surrendering to the terrorists.

3. George Bush said that if you're not with us you're against us. Obviously you've chosen to be against us! What's it like being on the same side as Obama sin Laden and all those other terrorists?

One might approve of your goals and still find your methods unacceptable and reprehensible.

4. Why do you hate America?

One may oppose what the government does in a given instance while not being against the country and the ideals it was founded upon.

5. So America did some things wrong a couple of times. America is still the best country in the world! USA! USA! USA! Why don't you go back to Terrorististan if you hate America so much?

"I vas yust following orders" was not acceptable at Nuremberg why should it be acceptable now? Those who violated the principles and laws of the country should be tried and punished under those laws no matter how well meaning they might have been.

6. Terrorist attacks have already killed thousands of people in the last few years in USA! Everybody knows that it's worth it to spend any amount to stop it happening again! If even one life is saved, it will be worth it. But you don't agree?

A quote from a novel by James P.Hogan "I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it." If you have to sacrifice that which you are trying to save haven't you been defeated already?

7. Nothing is as anywhere near as dangerous as terrorist attacks. The government has to "take away your rights" to stop "terrorists blowing you up". Would you prefer to get blown up?

An example of why I think you are probably just B.S.ing. What famous American is reputed to have said "Give me Liberty or give me Death"? Do Americans really choose to give up their freedoms now out of fear of death? What would the founders think of you?

8. The Founding Fathers didn't intend that the Constitution would never get changed. They proved this by changing the Constitution when the ink was hardly even dry. (Ever heard of the Bill or Rights? Why are they called "Amendments"?) If the Constitution was perfect, it wouldn't straightaway need amending, would it?

What Constitutional amendments have been made in the last 20 years? I don't seem to recall any?

9. Were the Founding Fathers getting blowed up by suicide bombers when they were writing the Constitution? (Hint: NO they weren't! DUh! Muslims wasn't even invented back then! Osama wasn't even born!)

Another example of why I think you know this is B.S.. The U.S. goes back to the 18th century. Islam goes back to the 7th century, more than a millennium earlier.

10. If the Founding Fathers thought it was a good idea to change the Constitution, why are you pretending like it's a bad idea and they would want it unchanged?

Repeat of answer to #8 What Co

Re:Mod parent up.

[Reziac]

Also gives them 24 hours to decide which of your files are "evidence".

Kindof like having free access to your house for a day, plenty of time to ensure that the 'evidence' they want to find will be present.

Smells like corruption waiting to happen to me.

Re:Mod parent up.

[Ian Alexander]

The current interpretation of the law basically states that we don't have rights at the border. So I don't think this would count as a violation, more of an improvement. And while I would agree that the better interpretation is to say that we _do_ have rights at the border, does the change necessarily need to suddenly switch from "no rights" to "complete constitutional protections" in one piece of legislation? I don't see that happening for a while and in the interim I'd prefer some rights over no rights.

Re:Mod parent up.

[KlomDark]

And that is somehow a good thing? Or more "give up" rhetoric?

Re:Mod parent up.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Alright, I'll bite. Probably sarcastic, but on the offchance it's not:

If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear.

Then you'll post a reply as a registered user, and/or with your full name and address.

What? I thought you had nothing to hide?

Terrorists are trying to destroy our freedom. We have to fight the terrorists no matter what cost!! If even one life is saved, it'll all be worth it! Can you deny it?

Pretty easily -- as Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

George Bush said that if you're not with us you're against us.

George Bush is a very simple-minded person.

It was also complete BS. I suppose we're bombing Switzerland, now, because they were neutral?

Why do you hate America?

Has it occurred to you that someone may love this country as much as you -- more so, because they value the whole reason it exists -- and have a different idea of how best to protect it?

Terrorist attacks have already killed thousands of people in the last few years in USA! Everybody knows that it's worth it to spend any amount to stop it happening again! If even one life is saved, it will be worth it.

Car accidents have already killed thousands of people in the last few decades in the USA! Everybody knows it's worth it to spend any amount -- or even stop driving -- to stop it happening again! If even one life is saved, it will be worth it.

When was the last time you drove a car? Or took a car ride?

Nothing is as anywhere near as dangerous as terrorist attacks.

Except cars.

And lightning, and a million other things.

And totalitarian governments taking away your rights. If that's what you really want, I'm sure China will be happy to have you.

The Founding Fathers didn't intend that the Constitution would never get changed.

They did, however, intend that it wouldn't be changed often, and without very good reason. This isn't a very good reason.

Were the Founding Fathers getting blowed up by suicide bombers when they were writing the Constitution? (Hint: NO they weren't! DUh!

No, they were getting killed by the British.

Muslims wasn't even invented back then!

Yes they were. For hundreds of years before then, in fact.

If the Founding Fathers and the Mounding Mothers were getting suicide bombered by terrorists, they wouldn't have put that in the Constitution about not seizing laptops, would they?

Actually, there's nothing in the Constitution specifically about laptops.

It's about a much more basic right -- the right to privacy.

So, it looks like you really don't care about America. You're willing to trade the few freedoms that are actually what it's all about, why the country even exists, out of fear of terrorists. Pussy.

That, or I've been trolled, hard.

Re:Mod parent up.

[mcclure]

The word you're searching for is dongle.
They have issues of their own and, in my experience, were always a PITA.

still won't convince me to visit the usa

[timmarhy]

there's no way in hell i'd ever visit the USA under the current regime. the same goes for the UK. detain without charge or trail indefinitely, government sponsored theft of your property. fuck that.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[MindlessAutomata]

government sponsored theft of your property. fuck that.

Taxes?

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[Phantom of the Opera]

government sponsored theft of your property. fuck that.

Taxes?

No Highway for you!

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[IanHurst]

So, we'll see you after November, then? Cool.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[timmarhy]

that's money not property. i get what you are saying though.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[IanHurst]

I want his dollars, though. More money coming to the USA = good, yeah?

And I wouldn't mind if he decided to respond, either.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[L4t3r4lu5]

I love that you Americans have to pay road tax AND tolls.

The M6 Toll over here is almost totally empty every time i've been on it, because when we pay our road tax, we expect use of everyroad to be included.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[MrMickS]

there's no way in hell i'd ever visit the USA under the current regime. the same goes for the UK. detain without charge or trail indefinitely, government sponsored theft of your property. fuck that.

My sentiments exactly. Sadly I live in the UK and know first hand the change, for the worse, there has been in the last 5 years. I've no intention of visiting the Land of the Free whilst it continues to be able to steal my belonging and place my fingerprints on file indefinitely. We can't be the only ones taking this stance, how long before it has a real impact on the US economy?

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[LordLucless]

Just because they do something with some small fraction of it that might benefit you doesn't mean they still didn't take it from you with the threat of force.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[LordLucless]

Money is property.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[Gordonjcp]

The M6 Toll over here is almost totally empty every time i've been on it, because when we pay our road tax, we expect use of everyroad to be included.

I use it, because they don't enforce the speed limit on it. By fuck *that* speeds up my journey times...

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[Ogive17]

I can take a few horror stories from any country in the world and come up with the same view. I'm not saying there's isn't come fucked up shit going on, I just don't think it's as widespread as everyone makes it sound. My personal dealings in the past year have led me to meet with people from multiple European and Asian countries, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil... and none of them have had any issues traveling around the US.

If your visa is valid and if you have a trip itinerary I think you're going to be fine.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[L4t3r4lu5]

You should look along the banks at rush hour... You might spot a guy in a hi-viz jacket.

He's not a BT Engineer, and that's not a cable tester he's pointing at you.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[Gordonjcp]

Never seen one, never had a ticket. I don't use that road very often, though, only when I'm driving to England. Oh, and I'm usually in a white car, so obviously they won't want to pot that.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[dark_requiem]

Right, because in all of known history, no private entity has ever thought to themselves "You know, I bet I could transport things more efficiently on an even, paved surface, which could pay for itself after several years. Why, I bet I could even get people to pay for the right to use that same road and turn a profit because of it." Nope, not once. There are no private roads to be found anywhere at all in the US precisely because no one ever thought of it except government authorities.

There are private roads in this country. Precisely because someone did think of exactly the above scenario. The fact that the government spends huge volumes of other people's cash (without earning it through productive activities, of course) on highways provides a huge barrier to market entry. Sure, it makes sense to build my own private roads around my own facilities, but why build my own highway from point A to point B, since I'll still have to pay for upkeep of the government's highways (taxes), plus my own road? Plus, with the government running the show, you have the natural inefficiency of a large bureaucracy, with the typical budget overruns and unnecessary expenditures, not to mention lackluster maintenance. A private organization would have standards to maintain, and customers to keep happy, and they'd be doing it with their own money, providing incentive for efficiency and adherence to a budget. Plus, those who either don't drive at all, or who don't drive on that particular road, wouldn't be unjustly forced to pay for other people's transportation. You pay for what you use, not for what others use. If a branch of a government road is left largely unused, you still pay for it with your taxes, and the few people using that road reap the benefit at the expense of everyone else. If a private company has an under-utilized segment of road, it will increase the fees for the few using it, and if they're not willing to pay, they'll shut it down, allowing their customers to decide what's more valuable, a faster drive at greater expense, or a longer route at lower cost. Government intervention promotes misallocation of scarce resources, because they don't have to earn the money they spend, and they can always tax/inflate more.

The same can be said for virtually any of the government's activities. Private schools are less numerous and more expensive precisely because the government forces everyone to pay for their generally crappy schools. You don't have an option to opt-out and not pay those taxes if you don't use the "service". Government is a large barrier to competition generally.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[Phantom of the Opera]

Very nice in theory, but the risk to reward calculation does not justify private roads. It would be regarded as a very risky investment with dubious returns.

Why would a government step in? Because people think roads should be there, and no one is stepping forward to make them. Even "private" train lines would not have happened without the government seizing peoples' land.

The model you are uses breaks down for things like this. It's all right, your model is very good for the most part. So is the ideal gas law, but the ideal gas law isn't all that accurate either.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[dark_requiem]

Consider the Great Northern Railroad. Built under the administration of James J. Hill, the railroad was noted for being built by purchasing property rights, where other railroads would simply run native Americans and farmers off their land. And, it did it without federal subsidies (admittedly, some of the lines it purchased were originally built on subsidies, but it is telling that GNR could keep those lines profitable, when the federal grant recipients failed to do so). Without government-subsidized transcontinental boondoggles being unquestionably and unendingly funded by tax dollars, in an environment where other railroads were forced to compete based on efficiency and consumer satisfaction, the GNR would likely have been more successful, for reasons stated in my previous post (government sponsorship promotes inefficiency and misallocation of resources, and prolongs the existence of otherwise unprofitable companies). It did work once for railroads, and could work fine for paved roads.

As I see it, the second largest barrier to private roads is simply the misconception that only governments can provide roads. The evidence says that private organizations could build and maintain private roads, but the government barrier to market entry, combined with the public perception of private roads effectively prevents it from happening on any large scale.

Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa

[Phantom of the Opera]

Your points are taken. I'd even like to add that I think Virgin Galactic and other private spaceflight will make it big one day.
I will add the internet to the list of success stories.

I have to note, however, that the Great Northern Railroad did not happen before government got around to creating a railroad system and network.
Nor did Virgin Galactic predate NASA.
Nor did the privatization of the internet precede the DARPA development of the internet.

Private industry is very rarely going to be the vanguard for huge scale, high risk projects. Even large scale projects that most industry embarks upon have some amount of government subsidies and other support.

Look to the legend of John Smith and the Virginia colonies. The colony was heading for starvation and people were screwing around trying to find gold. He unfairly stole away their liberty and time, forcing them to farm four hours a day. This anti-capitalist governance in this highly capitalist endevor did allow them to live.

wake me in March

[westlake]

This bill is going nowhere until the next session of Congress - and that on the assumption that Obama wins and the Democrats have a much stronger hold on the Senate.

Where are the Republicans?

[pete-classic]

Why on Earth isn't this bill co-sponsored by a Republican? Have they stopped even paying lip-service to freedom?

Ten years ago the Republican party had two things going for it, fiscal conservatism and a strong stance on freedom. What happened? (It would be easy to say, "George Bush", but I refuse to believe that he could have done it single handedly.)

-Peter

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[corsec67]

... fiscal conservatism and a strong stance on freedom.

That party got renamed to the "Libertarian" party?

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[iminplaya]

Ten years ago the Republican party had two things going for it, fiscal conservatism and a strong stance on freedom.

You must be one of those new kids who wasn't here when Nixon was around.

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[guyminuslife]

Off the top of my head?

John Yoo
John Ashcroft
Alberto Gonzales
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld

He had help.

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[lwsimon]

Didn't you hear? The Communists are now Democrats, the Democrats are now Republicans, and the Republicans are now Libertarians, and the Libertarians are shit out of luck.

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[fahrbot-bot]

Why on Earth isn't this bill co-sponsored by a Republican?
Have they stopped even paying lip-service to freedom?

Too busy paying for lip-service in the Men's room.

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[plasmacutter]

Didn't you hear? The Communists are now Democrats, the Democrats are now Republicans, and the Republicans are now Libertarians, and the Libertarians are shit out of luck.

I believe you have that backwards..

The communists are dead, the democrats are now republicans, the republicans are now the manifestations of orwell's worst nightmare, and the real "conservatives" are shit out of luck.

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[lwsimon]

You may have a point. The Republican party forked into statist and libertarian sects a long time ago (with Christian Fundamentalists thrown in for good measure) Before you people take this as a flame, I'd consider myself a conservative individualist on this. Imagine Ayn Rand with the understanding that we can't move to free-market capitalism overnight after the mess we've made of our economy.

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[Wolfier]

> but I refuse to believe that he could have done it single handedly.

How about with the help of Haliburton, Blackwaters, etc.

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[Cro Magnon]

Ten years ago, the Republicans were still new to being in power. The Dems had been in control for 40 years and it was easy to claim to be fiscally conservative & pro-freedom. 8 years ago, that changed and the Repubs showed their true colors.

I'll also add that the Dems are no better, but for a short time, until Obama gets in with a Dem Congress, they'll be in a good position to fool voters into thinking that they're the "good guys".

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[downhole]

Sadly, it seems that strict interpretation of civil liberties, stands against corruption, and stands in favor of reducing waste are more of a hobbyhorse of whichever party is out of power at the moment then an actual principled position of either party. If we're lucky, the party in power at least loses a good deal of support when it becomes clear that they weren't serious about all of that ethics stuff.

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[magus_melchior]

Ten years ago the Republican party had two things going for it, fiscal conservatism and a strong stance on freedom. What happened? (It would be easy to say, "George Bush", but I refuse to believe that he could have done it single handedly.)

Try a whole cadre of Republicans (currently or formerly) in the Bush White House and Congress. Cheney, Addington, Yoo, Wolfowitz, Rove, Gonzales, Rice, McCain (post-2002), etc. Fiscal conservatism was set aside for an ambiguous war, and "freedom" was subjugated into a desire to unilaterally and proactively ensure the progress of American interests, even where it's not wanted.

Bush probably knew about it, but was placated because Cheney told him kids would get ice cream.

Oh, you think Pelosi and Reid are responsible, too? No, they're just taking advantage of the times like any shrewd politician.

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[docwatson223]

No, sadly, the Party of Lincoln has abandoned it's principles and driven many true Conservatives out to the edge as Independents. I'd like to point to one party of another but the decrease in personal liberties has been on a down slide for over 20 years now.

Re:Where are the Republicans?

[plasmacutter]

Imagine Ayn Rand with the understanding that we can't move to free-market capitalism ever

We had a free market in this country until the turn of the 20th century.

It resulted in feudalism in all but name.

It eventually collapsed, resulting in the government finally instituting social programs and a mixed economy.

Regulation is not to blame for the current mess. On the contrary, deregulation was a massive contributing factor, along with the "moral hazard" every libertarian/reaganite loves to try to cram into a closet whenever the people come to examine their policies.

In our current political climate

[ZorbaTHut]

I'd also like to know what measures the bill takes to prevent the border guards from saying "well, we lost it, sucks to be you". Does it have guarantees spelled out? If my laptop gets "lost" while they have it, will they buy me a new one? Will someone lose their job or go to jail over it?

Because if the answer is "no", then at this point I just plain don't believe it will matter.

Re:In our current political climate

[iminplaya]

Of course the answer is "no". It has always been "no". If you are crossing the border and your vehicle gets impounded, you will pay for everything, including storage fees, etc. Whatever damage they cause is your problem. You would be very fortunate if you even get an apology.

Re:In our current political climate

[ZorbaTHut]

At which point, a year after your laptop was taken, you're awarded the value that your now-obsolete laptop would fetch on eBay. (Or, probably, $1000.) Your data is gone, you had to buy a new laptop a year ago to continue your work, and the dude who swiped your laptop is using it to jerk off to transvestite goat porn.

If criminals had those kinds of penalties, you'd see crime rates many, many times higher than we currently have. "If you commit a crime, and you're caught, then you have a year to hold on to whatever you got, and then you have to pay them the current value of that stuff! No more." Yeah. That's not exactly a deterrent.

Odd way to terrorize people...

[GameboyRMH]

Yes, there is an order of magnitude of difference between a penis pill e-mail and a terrorist, but the general principle is the same.

So you're saying that terrorists want to enlarge my penis by an order of magnitude greater than the pills? Well I guess a massive penis could be rather threatening, but how would the terrorists make use of my terrifyingly huge penis? Write a message on it? Or maybe they're just trying to get the point across that they have to ability to produce Wangs of Mass Destruction?

Re:Odd way to terrorize people...

[commodoresloat]

Well I guess a massive penis could be rather threatening, but how would the terrorists make use of my terrifyingly huge penis?

Well, he said it would be a pain in the ass.

Re:Odd way to terrorize people...

[Legrow]

Well I guess a massive penis could be rather threatening, but how would the terrorists make use of my terrifyingly huge penis? Write a message on it? Or maybe they're just trying to get the point across that they have to ability to produce Wangs of Mass Destruction?

I believe you meant, Weapons of Ass Destruction.

Re:Odd way to terrorize people...

[zaivala]

Don't know if they could manage Wangs. Might have to settle for NBIs.

Re:Odd way to terrorize people...

[dark42]

"but how would the terrorists make use of my terrifyingly huge penis?"

They will sell you Chinpokomon dolls.

More than a pita

[SpazmodeusG]

How do i get my laptop back after 24hours when i'm just a tourist with no address to have it sent to?
Also if the "reasonable suspicion is truly reasonable" wouldn't that be the probable cause that the op was stating should be required?

Re:More than a pita

[Kamokazi]

Unless you're hiking in the wilderness (in which case you probably didn't need it too badly), you will have a hotel address your laptop can be shipped to rather easily.

IANAL, but probable cause is much more than just reasonable suspicion. Soemthing along the lines of having other evidence against the person than what you gathered simply by noticing something at customs.

Re:More than a pita

[Martz]

Just give them your forwarding address:

John Doe #93254
Bunk 3
Cell 4562
Guantanamo Bay
Cuba

Re:More than a pita

[delt0r]

I have posted/shipped things in the US. There is nothing easy or timely about it. If I'm going to a conference I don't schedule an extra day of travel so I can still have a laptop at that conference.

Sorry, but right along with a lot of others. Its still too much and I will not come to the US with this policy in place. There are plenty of other places to go and the good conferences are world wide, and are in fact cutting the US out of the loop.

Re:More than a pita

[adolf]

Perhaps.

I'm in the US, so my various random travels aren't affected much by this bill, but:

Suppose someone is travelling to the US to do the equivalent of a typical budget USian European vacation: Arrive, go somewhere, sleep on the train to somewhere else, see what's there, stay at a random hostel if the things are particularly interesting there, or sleep on a train to somewhere else, visit that place, rinse, repeat . . .

There isn't any address that might be valid for more than about 10 hours, and most of those hours will be at night when the mail isn't arriving.

In this instance, I can't trust DHS to not seize my laptop -- how on Earth could trust them to get it back to me before I've moved on?

And, let us not forget: There's absolutely fucking nothing that can be transferred on a mobile laptop, that could not be transferred over the Intar-web at large in the form of a Truecrypt image. The whole idea is laptop seizures is totally fucked to begin with.

Re:More than a pita

[apathy maybe]

When travelling I often don't book ahead, instead just rock up in the new country, find the local terrorist (err, tourist) office and go from there.

I also sometimes just have a list of hostels, and rock up to each in turn until I find a room.

Sometimes I am staying with friends, and they are collecting me, and taking me to their place. And I don't know their address.

Sometimes I'm going to protests, and don't want the border thugs to know that.

There are a lot more reasons then just hiking in the wilderness for not having an address to provide to the border thugs.

(And I haven't even started to get into privacy concerns in any depth.)

Re:More than a pita

[stephanruby]

Below are a couple of names for it (in the US it's called "General Delivery" -- and the mail can be kept for up to one month). Also if you're in the US, you may want to have UPS or FedEx do it, and have it delivered to a US Post Office, they're usually more reliable than the United States Post Office -- but UPS or FedEx probably won't hold a package for very long (if for some reason, you're delayed). That's why I am suggesting that you have those services deliver it to a US Post Office instead of their own office. Also, note that there may be one Post Office near each International Airport which is open 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Poste restante (French, trans. post which remains) is a service where the post office holds mail until the recipient calls for it. It is a common destination for mail for people who are visiting a particular location and have no need, or no way, of having mail delivered directly to their place of residence at that time.

Mail is addressed to POSTE RESTANTE (or TO BE CALLED FOR), which is written after the full name of the recipient (as appears on the identification to be presented ie. the passport, if abroad), then the name and full address of the destination post office, thus:--

        Mr. John Smith
        Poste Restante
        Islington Post Office
        116 Upper Street
        Islington
        London N1 1AE

If only addressed to a town name, for example POSTE RESTANTE, LONDON (there are currently 115 crown offices in LONDON[1]) mail will go to the closest main post office branch.

The sender should also include their return address. In the United Kingdom, the Royal Mail holds mail posted from within the UK for two weeks, whereas mail posted from abroad is normally held for one month, if the recipient is at sea however, it will be held for two months. Where mail is not collected within that time, it will be returned to the sender, or if there is no sender indicated, will be treated as undeliverable. If the sender would like uncollected mail returned sooner, they can indicate this on the envelope. Timescales vary from country to country according to local practice.

In the United States, the US Postal Service uses the term general delivery and reserves the term poste restante for international mail sent to general delivery. Mail is addressed as follows:--

        Mrs. Jane Q. Smith
        General Delivery
        Washington DC 20090-9999

In the ZIP+4 code, the add-on code for general delivery is 9999. The main post office in a community will hold such mail for up to 30 days. This may be a different post office from where oversized packages and registered mail are held for any particular zip code. Note that many post offices within a medium to large city do not have general delivery, and mail addressed to these zip codes will either be forwarded to the Main Post Office or returned to sender.

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

Re:More than a pita

[stephanruby]

Oops, I just caught that last part (for the US).

Note that many post offices within a medium to large city do not have general delivery, and mail addressed to these zip codes will either be forwarded to the Main Post Office or returned to sender.

If a US Post Office doesn't have "General Delivery". Do try and call "Mailbox, Etc." That's a private company that rents out mailboxes in many American cities, and I would almost be sure they do this kind of thing (thought, obviously don't take my word for it, you should call them first).

As a last resort, you should use a nice hotel for this kind of thing, most nice hotels will hold mail, messages, faxes, and valuables for a long time before you arrive -- as long as you have a reservation for at least one night with them. In fact, I know someone who's an importer/exporter who does that for his business. Everywhere he goes, he stays one night at the Hilton or at some other expensive hotel, this way he can furnish his clients with their address and number. And he also sends out any letters and faxes in batches as soon as he arrives there, this way he'll use their notepad stationary and their fax stationary, and he'll have the staff at the hotel send his stuff from the hotel's mail room and fax machine. And of course, the rest of the time that he's abroad, he'll usually stay at the cheapest places he can afford for the rest of the time.

Re:More than a pita

[stephanruby]

Arrive, go somewhere, sleep on the train to somewhere else, see what's there...

If you come to the US, and sleep on the train, on the street, on the bus, or near any place that's interesting. Do not expect to have your laptop when you get back home, DHS or no DHS. Same goes for your iPod, your wallet, your credit cards, your money, your virginity, and your organs.

Well, I was only kidding about the virginity part, that part would only apply to females.

Re:More than a pita

[YttriumOxide]

The problem with travelling to the US is that they don't even let you past the gates without a valid address. I discovered this on my first visit there several years ago. I was staying in a hotel in Connecticut, but didn't know the address (my colleagues would pick me up from the airport and take me there), but I flew in to Los Angeles and was to transfer to a domestic flight to get to CT. I was tied up at the checkpoint for about 4 hours while they tried (and tried and tried and tried) to call the CT office to make sure I was "legit" and to get the address of the hotel. It didn't occur to them that due to the timezone difference, everyone had already gone home for the day and the cleaning staff generally don't answer people's office phones. All this time, they just left me waiting around, not allowed through.
Eventually, they came to me and asked for an number back in my home country (Australia at the time) and after waiting another hour for someone to get in to the office there (don't forget the joy of timezones), they finally got through to someone, got the cell number of a guy in CT, woke him up (it was pretty late by that point), got the address and then let me through. NEVER again will I travel to the US without having an address written down somewhere!

Actually, thinking about it, never again will I travel to the US unless COMPLETELY necessary. If I need to have a meeting with my colleagues from the US again, they can bloody well fly over here to Germany (where I now live/work).

Re:More than a pita

[ArsenneLupin]

Why didn't you simply make up an address? If it's hard to reach people to find out the address, it's just as hard to verify the address.

Of course, if they suspected you of doing this, they might just resort to the ruse of taking something of value from you, promising to send it to that address... d'oh.

Perhaps a good start

[johndiii]

But this "government limiting its own power" never seems to go where one would wish it to. They all want to look good on national security (particularly on the run up to the election), and a shallow look sees that as associated with a strong central government.

But real security can't rest on trampling the essential liberties of the people (citizens or not). There is not much understanding of that in Washington, or they mostly prefer willful disregard.

And something that this discussion needs: probably cause vs. reasonable suspicion.

Expedited shipping?

[Joce640k]

Yeah, right....

More like "we're done installing rootkits, you can come and pick it up whenever you want".

Re:Expedited shipping?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Any laptop if I go to the US (not that I will, but we'll forgo that point for this rant) would be vanilla xp with office, some non-personal documents, pictures of holidays etc and nothing else. Personal data would be encrypted on a seperate machine and emailed / stored online for retrieval at destination. I'd be sure to epoxy the screws in place, and at least 6 points of the casing so they couldn't slip a little piece of kit onto a spare USB header or whatever.

If it gets seized / inspected, it's left in its bag for the entire trip, taken home and wiped clean, then sold on eBay. I can buy another laptop without too much hassle.

Note: The bill applies to US citizens only

[Joce640k]

If you're a foreigner, you're screwed.

Re:Note: The bill applies to US citizens only

[Knackered]

US Citizens and legal residents, according to the bill itself. So not all "foreigners" are screwed.

A good shot

[Derek Loev]

Feingold, one of the writers of the bill, has a history of getting big bills to pass. McCain and Feingold wrote the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002 which caused two changes in election campaigns: limiting the use of soft money and stopping corporations from paying for TV ads.
Obviously, just because he passed a bill before doesn't mean this one is a sure bet; however, it does give it a better chance.

Re:A good shot

[Wrath0fb0b]

Feingold got BiCRA passed but one of the main planks didn't make it past the Supreme Court. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission_v._Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,_Inc. that created a huge loophole through the "TV ads" part of the law. Essentially, unless the ad cannot be interpreted in any other way as supporting/opposing a candidate, the FEC cannot constitutionally prevent individuals from airing it.

I give Feingold a lot of credit for making it pass, but ultimately, it ends up in the dustbin.

To take or not to take?

[kaos07]

This is particularly relevant to me as I'm travelling to the US next month. I'll be there for a couple of months so taking my laptop is kind of a necessity but really don't know what the hassle's going to be like at the border and whether it's worth it. I'm not particularly worried about them spying on my files since there isn't anything sensitive there and if there was, I could upload it onto a secure server and then download it once in the States but even that is a somewhat depressing course of action to take when entering the "land of the free".

It's almost as if they don't want visitors, tourists, skilled workers?

Re:To take or not to take?

[B5_geek]

It's a numbers game. How many laptops are seized each month? Few. How many laptops are on all international flights? LOTS.

In the last year I have flown over 20 times. Once I was asked to turn the laptop on. All other times, they just wanted me to take it out of my carry-on bag.

Re:To take or not to take?

[iminplaya]

Buy one when you get there. Format and sell it before you leave.

Re:To take or not to take?

[IanHurst]

"I'm not particularly worried about them spying on my files since there isn't anything sensitive there and if there was, I could upload it onto a secure server and then download it once in the States but even that is a somewhat depressing course of action to take when entering the "land of the free"."

Yeah, and any half assed techie instinctively grasps the former. That we don't seem particularly bothered by the latter is, to me, a much bigger downer. It's one thing to have a technically ignorant policy - what government doesn't have those in spades? It's another to have one that at the very least *seems* to disregard freedom - that appearance alone can harm relations with the rest of the free world for generations. Even under a less pessimistic outlook it will take an election cycle or three. Either way, that's long enough to reek a lot of tangible damage. Sad indeed.

"It's almost as if they don't want visitors, tourists, skilled workers?"

I've seen some numbers thrown around showing the amount of tourism money lost in the last several years amounts to some tens of billions of dollars. Which isn't that much on the scale of our whole economy, but it is a quantifiable change for the worse, and so you'd think it would at least have influenced policy by now, because it's just irresponsible to avoid minimizing damage. But then, it's irresponsible government that lead us here, so perhaps it's not that surprising at all.

Re:To take or not to take?

[apathy maybe]

How about don't go? Seriously, unless your job is on the line (and you like, and enjoy your job), then there isn't a worthwhile reason to go to the US via air. (And via the Canadian border is apparently also shit, but not as bad.)

If you are worried about your laptop, buy one of these cheap arse ones (and then return it when you get back, or sell it if you have moral scruples about screwing over corporations, or keep it if you travel a lot), have just the information you need (and encrypt it anyway).

Or you could just mail it, like someone else suggested.

Re:To take or not to take?

[Timinithis]

Anyway. Make an image of your drive. Keep the CD/DVD(s) in your CD case, away from your laptop. Run the factory restore so it has nothing on it except what came from the factory.

If they take your notebook, they get nothing. If you get through, then restore the image at the hotel and you are good to go.

A lot of companies are placing the "factory" image on laptops that are going to the US and using VPNs and SSH to let workers connect back to the company.

The only good this search does is catch the morons (remember the password case for the pedophile?) that can't keep stuff off the laptop.

IT is a "feel good" measure and does nothing for border security. Bring the uber-secret plans in on a USB drive -- those aren't searched/confiscated. Stupid DHS and government trying to extend its reach into areas without thinking. But this is government, since when did any of them have a brain?

Re:To take or not to take?

[jonaskoelker]

I've seen some numbers thrown around showing the amount of tourism money lost in the last several years amounts to some tens of billions of dollars. Which isn't that much on the scale of our whole economy

It's more than half of NASA's budget (http://foofus.com/amuse/public/Fedspending-2008-linechart.jpg).

Re:To take or not to take?

[swm]

We went on vacation to Canada last summer.
I took a laptop.
When we reentered the US (by car, with the laptop),
the border agent asked about things we had acquired in Canada.
They didn't ask about laptops, I didn't mention it, and they admitted us.
The whole thing took 30 or 60 seconds.
Maybe you get different questions if you are traveling on business.

The agent kept us talking longer than strictly necessary to get the answers to his questions.
I think they are doing behavioral profiling. At

        http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/profiling.html

Schneier describes behavioral profiling:

        Ressam was approached by U.S. customs agent Diana Dean, who asked some routine
        questions and then decided that he looked suspicious. He was fidgeting,
        sweaty, and jittery. He avoided eye contact. In Dean's own words, he was
        acting "hinky".

Re:To take or not to take?

[IanHurst]

Sure. And half NASA's budget is not that much on the scale of our whole economy.

By saying that I'm not trying to imply the damage should be ignored - it shouldn't; it needs to be reversed to whatever extent it can be. What I *am* trying to do is put the damage in perspective, because to get to the "this needs to be reversed" phase of a discussion, you first want to have an idea of just how bad your problem is.

Thanks for the link, by the way.

Re:Not necessarily

[timmarhy]

and your existing system better because...?

Re:Not necessarily

[the_skywise]

I don't have government twits telling me what healthcare I can and can't have.

The government has screwed over the economy and used fear to enforce security and yet now we're supposed to trust them with our medical services?

No thank you.

Or to paraphrase...
Those who are willing to give up medical freedom for medical security deserve neither.

Mail it

[ArchieBunker]

Seriously. You will have a tracking number and a guarantee it will arrive. If I have to fly somewhere within the USA my clothes and belongings are going by Fedex. They don't seem to care if my tube of toothpaste is 3.04 ounces.

Re:Mail it

[will_die]

That liquid restriction is everywhere be it Europe or Asia; have not flown into all countries but the ones I have all do it.

Wow

[madcat2c]

Probable cause? What a novel idea.

Re:Not necessarily

[ForumTroll]

I'm Canadian and I definitely wouldn't classify our health care system as a "failed idea." It's not perfect, but I bet most Canadians would agree that it's far better than the system you have.

Re:Not necessarily

[gonzo67]

Currently the US does have socialized medicine. It is called the emergency room. And those without insurance use that government paid resource.

National Healthcare would cost less than the current way the US handles those without insurance.

And, you can get private health insurance in the UK, Canada and other nations which have national healthcare systems. Of course, because it is not needed, the insurance actually has to be good value (read less expensive than in the US) and you can choose the option for catastrophic coverage and use the National system for preventative care.

I have experience in both the US and British systems of health care. Never had a problem seeing a doctor in Britain and have found the US system requires me to plan ahead with being sick or ill (and I have very good coverage and have the added use of the VA as well if I were truly desperate) in comparison.

 

Re:Not necessarily

[Dr. Hellno]

a government healthcare system, that has been a failed idea in Canada, the UK and other countries.

Whoah there. I can't speak to the system in the UK. I am Canadian however, and as such I can tell you that while our system has its problems, we certainly don't feel that is has "failed". I'd be interested to know what criteria you used in coming to that conclusion.

This is of course independent of...

[plasmacutter]

A similar bill to protect you from the HDS, which should not be trusted with your laptop for more than 1 second.

You are completely free...

[Jane Q. Public]

to negotiate YOUR rights away. Keep your hands the FUCK off of mine!

Re:You are completely free...

[thebjorn]

I have mod points, but couldn't find a +1 Troll...

Re:You are completely free...

[Kamokazi]

I appreciate the thought, but I have karma to burn :-) Why else would I dare to post anything that doesn't comply with the Slashdot Privacy Nazis? Also, some of the replies I am getting are pure gold.

Re:Not necessarily

[plasmacutter]

I don't have government twits telling me what healthcare I can and can't have.

The government has screwed over the economy and used fear to enforce security and yet now we're supposed to trust them with our medical services?

No thank you.

Or to paraphrase...
Those who are willing to give up medical freedom for medical security deserve neither.

Who said universal health care had to involve government administration?

Just pass strict new regulations:

A - you must charge a flat rate to all comers, subject to audits against gouging, and regulated the way utilities are regulated.

B - you must accept any applicant to your medical insurance program, no testing, your economic function is to spread risk not avoid it.

C - Anyone willing to subject themselves to a full financial audit by the IRS and SEC to prove they are unable to pay the national flat rate can receive a tax credit toward their coverage.

Re:Not necessarily

[plasmacutter]

I'm such a leech.

I mean.. i ate right, have never been overweight, got plenty of exercise, and was diagnosed with crohns at age 17.

Now im out of college, unable to get insurance of any kind, and suffering from excruciating pain, chronic diarrhea, and lethargy approaching narcolepsy, all because I can't get 2 perscriptions which would make it all go away

This is because of authoritarians like you who believe in "guilty until proven innocent"

Not so fast.

[plasmacutter]

I bought a laptop from a guy in singapore on ebay.

The thing stayed in a customs warehouse for 20 days because someone tacked some arbitrarily arrived at "extra" duty in addition to the official ones.

Re:Not necessarily

[plasmacutter]

Except it SHOULD cover pre-existing conditions.

I should not be forced to pay double any time I switch coverage for a condition beyond my control.

Question here

[el_munkie]

I'm a US citizen visiting Canada in the Vancouver area. I had all of my crap in my car when I crossed the border to B.C., and I'll have to cross the border again to get back home relatively soon. I've gone across the border twice since to get some essentials down in Washington, and I've been picked out and had my car searched going both ways. I can only assume that I'll get searched when I'm coming back for good and have a car full of crap.

Among my possessions is about 2.5 Tb of storage containing several life sentences of copyright infringement. Should I bother encrypting it before I go back?

Re:Question here

[jjohnson]

What good would encrypting it do? If they see that it's encrypted, they'll demand the key. If you don't provide the key, you've just bought endless legal trouble for yourself.

You can either gamble that they don't notice/care what's on a bunch of portable hard drives, or you can host it securely in Canada and download it once you're back in the US.

Re:Question here

[el_munkie]

I dunno. I was planning on saying that I was storing high entropy noise on those drives for a crypto project or some other bullshit. The guys on the border aren't all that bright.

Re:Question here

[Eskarel]

Not a good idea.

Border guards aren't that stupid, most of them are halfway decent people, but they've got fairly broad ranging powers and nobody likes a smart ass.

Unless your border guards have had a recent donation from the RIAA/MPAA/BSA they probably don't really care, realistically unless they're bored they're not going to do much about data even if they bother to look at it. It's none of their business and doing anything about it would require filling in paper work.

On the other hand, if you act like a smart ass and piss them off, you'll probably find your car being taken apart to make sure you don't have any hidden compartments, a cavity search and your drives sent to the appropriate interested parties.

Never act like a dick to someone who has the power to make your life miserable unless you're damned sure you're right and willing to take the consequences.

Re:Question here

[el_munkie]

Good point. I was kind of a dick to them when I realized that my car was getting searched regardless of what I did or said, but I guess they could have fucked up my car if they wanted to.

Re:Question here

[Eskarel]

Please remember the difference between border guards and the idiots who tell them what to search.

Some border guards are power hungry sociopaths who like to torment you, most aren't. Realistically most of them won't search your computer because they'll think it's as stupid as you do and they don't care.

That said, like most people in public facing government jobs they're not likely to have an awful lot of patience or understanding for people who want to cause them trouble.

They or friends of theres are also fairly likely to be the people you encounter the next time you cross at that particular crossing so being a tool and making their jobs harder than it already is without good reason is going to make you more likely to get searched a second time.

Re:Question here

[skeeto]

Border guards aren't that stupid, most of them are halfway decent people, but they've got fairly broad ranging powers and nobody likes a smart ass.

Only new chum would be on Authority payroll.

Re:Question here

[Reziac]

I'd remove said storage, and ship it by regular mail to a U.S. postal address, which gives you some protection against search. Describe it for Customs purposes as "used computer parts" with a value under $100, and "gift" so you don't get dinged a duty fee by Customs.

Either that, or invest in some serious web hosting overseas, dump everything to that, and kill it off the current storage device.

Probable cause? "whatever..."

[lenski]

In 2005 I allowed my drivers' license to expire on my birthday at the beginning of the month, thinking that I had until the end of the month.

Traveling 3 days after the "official expiration", I flew to California, and what a pain in the ass that was! I was selected for the extra special search-every-bag at every security checkpoint both out and back.

I'm guessing that "probable cause" is whatever niggly-ass detail they want it to be.

Worse yet, my work involves lots of proprietary code, and I support my wife's psychology business accounting work. All that stuff is or should be on an encrypted partition and I can just see that...

Goon: What's on this encrypted partition?

Me: Patient mental health records for my wife's psychology business.

Goon: Decrypt it.

Me: Certainly, as soon as I have a legally binding signed agreement that all observers agree to the HIPAA privacy agreements that are required for medical records.

Goon: Step out of the line and come with me, sir.

< Uh-oh, this is probably not going to work out very well... >

Re:Probable cause? "whatever..."

[L4t3r4lu5]

Why the fuck are you carrying medical records with you? Shouldn't they be with your wife? At home? LOCKED AWAY?

If my doctor was carrying my personal details around when travelling with his laptop, i'd have him fired. Those kind of records should be at the place of work, and stored off-site for archiving / backup. Carrying them on a trip is borderline negligence.

Re:Probable cause? "whatever..."

[apathy maybe]

"Goon: What's on this encrypted partition?"
The word in bold is important hmmkay?

Re:Probable cause? "whatever..."

[L4t3r4lu5]

What's the first law of secure computing?
"Physical access to a machine is root access to a machine."

All the rest is just a matter of determination and resources.

Re:Probable cause? "whatever..."

[Mr2001]

Root access != access to encrypted data. That's kinda the whole point of encryption.

Re:Probable cause? "whatever..."

[mysidia]

Why the fuck are you carrying medical records with you? Shouldn't they be with your wife? At home? LOCKED AWAY?

Being encrypted IS being locked away.

They're actually more secure encrypted on his hard drive than at a place of work.

'Places of work' can be broken into by a burglar or nosy customer taking an unauthorized sneak peak in a file on a desk (that hasn't been put back in the files yet).

Presumably what's on your hard drive and properly encrypted can only be gotten with the right key.

And the carrier of the laptop has the ability to not reveal that key.

Perhaps one strategy would be to actually not know the entire key.

I.E. Then it is useless for them to ask you to decrypt it, because you don't know how, you need one of the other guys who knows the rest of the key to type in their part to authorize the access.

Re:Probable cause? "whatever..."

[L4t3r4lu5]

'Places of work' can be broken into by a burglar or nosy customer taking an unauthorized sneak peak in a file on a desk (that hasn't been put back in the files yet).

I guess people travelling for leisure / pleasure never get mugged.

Either way, you lose the data. That's probably a bad thing.

Re:Probable cause? "whatever..."

[apathy maybe]

I agree that physical access is basically equivalent to root (assuming everything isn't encrypted, in which case the best you can do is wipe it all).

When something is encrypted using a strong method, then all the "determination and resources" in the universe isn't going to let you get access to that information without the passphrase.

That's cause of mathematics.

So yeah, I'll send you an encrypted file, I'll even tell you that it's plain text in the English Language using UTF-8, and you'll never be able to get into that file without the passphrase. (And if you seize my laptop with that file on it, I'll be away from the border before you notice that file needs a password.)

Re:Probable cause? "whatever..."

[Hawke666]

All of it, including physical access, is "just" a matter of determination and resources.

Re:Probable cause? "whatever..."

[lenski]

The point of the comment was that the data is encrypted, which the security-theater control freaks like to use as an excuse to claim "probable cause".

1) When I am testing the updated work, I use real data. Sometimes that data is on a machine that differs from my secured workstation.

2) I don't travel much. So when it does happen, I don't usually have time to go searching through every nook and cranny looking for what to get rid of before packing off. This is why it's fucking ENCRYPTED.

3) The last time I put the data on a laptop was about 4 years ago. And when I did, I ran a nice little anonymizer on it.

4) More commonly, I carry various forms of proprietary software source for various clients and users in order to do development, in the various places where the work needs to be done, be it at their office or mine. I am just as committed to their security as my wife's carefully hidden HIPAA data.

I am not really too angry with you, you are some stranger who doesn't let reading comprehension get in the way of a nice little rant. It's a common malady.

Re:Probable cause? "whatever..."

[mysidia]

Either way, you lose the data. That's probably a bad thing.

That's what backups are for.

Your laptop's hard drive can fail (be lost) no matter where you are.

Re:Wait

[dangitman]

Well, if it's a Powerbook 5300, it might have a stroke and then self-immolate.

Re:Not necessarily

[Eskarel]

No, you don't have government twits telling you what health care you can and can't have.

Instead you have greedy blood sucking HMO's telling you what health care you can't have and charging you more for the priviledge.

I'm living in Australia now, and guess what, my "failed" government system, slow as it is is better than what I used to get from my mothers HMO in the US. I actually get to pick my doctor, and so long as I'm willing to wait for non essential stuff they'll give it to me.

Of course we've got private as well if you don't want to wait, or want a private room or that sort of thing, so it works both ways, but the US system, is a much more spectacular disaster.

We might have long waiting lists, and the occaisional issue with someone who needed treatment not getting it, but in the US you solve this by just denying treatment to anyone who can't afford it.

Re:Not necessarily

[Apple Acolyte]

Then why do so many of your countrymen come down south to have elective surgery they can't otherwise get in a timely fashion in the great white north? In case others don't know, American politicians suck, and they corrupt most things they try to accomplish. Look at Freddie and Fannie (those great Democratic Party institutions started by American Socialist FDR). The Medicare Entitlement is about to go bust in a spectacular way, and Barack Obama wants to extend that type of program to every person in America. As if we're not going bankrupt fast enough. Yes, he tries to downplay it (especially in the health care ads he's currently running that don't mention his government coverage proposal at all). He thinks that businesses are going to continue paying for their employees' benefits when they can save a bunch and tell them instead to go on Obama's "Congress plan." Well, he's either laughably naive or a liar when he says that. And the fact that McCain completely misses an opportunity to point out his circuitous plan to Socialize medicine is really a huge failure on his part.

International conventions and all that

[Moraelin]

The problem is that we're all aliens _somewhere_. The USA isn't that self-contained that only the rest of the world comes to the USA.

I think the USA would have a problem very fast, if its businessmen travelling to Europe would get their laptops confiscated for two weeks, to make sure there is no secret terrorism stuff among that mess of powerpoint slides. (Well, some do cause brain damage. Does that count as terrorism?) Especially when that laptop comes loaded with a copy of some corporation's customer data. (That's how most data losses happened so far. Idiot salesman takes a copy of the database on his laptop, so he can do a snappy presentation for a potential customer. Idiot salesman forgets that laptop on a chair at the airport or in a cab.) I think we'd see a lot of chest thumping and posturing if anyone did that kind of thing to a large enough slice of _your_ citizens.

Also deny them the right to a lawyer? Oooer. I think we'd see some belicose posturing real fast there.

There are a ton of international conventions whose gist is, basically, treat our people right and we'll treat yours right. Because we're _all_ aliens somewhere else. I'm pretty sure that right to a lawyer and whatnot are in there. And maybe we should put the right to some privacy and protection against unreasonable seizures in there too, if it isn't already.

I Do Not Understand

[LuYu]

Maybe it is just me, but I do not see how Congress is supposed to be passing bills or laws that give people back their Constitutionally guaranteed Rights . The Fourth Amendment protections are above the law, and the DHS is violating the Constitution -- the origin of all law in the US -- by practising these seizures. Why is a law necessary to prevent the DHS from violating the Father of All Law, the fundamental document without which the US could not claim to be a "Free Country"?

Re:I Do Not Understand

[L4t3r4lu5]

You really want to know?

It's because your Bill of Rights has been re-tasked.

Re:I Do Not Understand

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I Do Not Understand

With your sig, I would expect you to understand very little.

Re:I Do Not Understand

[aztracker1]

Well, it's kind of like charging more than the cost of reproduction for "public" information from the government, while businesses operate selling said information for more than the government fees, simply because it takes an extra-ordinary amount of forms to obtain said "public" information. Of course, it will cost you $90, and a bit of your time to actually get a copy of this public information.

Re:I Do Not Understand

[digitalgimpus]

The constitution comes without warranty express or implied. It's merely a suggestion on how things should run. That said, "Free Countryâ" is a trademark of the United States and it's licensees.

Re:Not necessarily

[compro01]

As opposed to profit-motivated corporations deciding what healthcare you can and can't have?

So basically...

[Serious Lemur]

You're immune to search if you're capable of putting sufficient encryption on (and "forgetting" the passwords long enough? are we required to give keys to them at this point or not?) that they can't crack it within 24 hours?

(Or, of course, don't-have-anything-incriminating-on-your-laptop-you-moron, but considering the government's definition of "incriminating" can be as slim as "search him, he's wearing a turban", I for one don't want to bank that my laptop doesn't contain anything "incriminating", and I violate the law FAR less often than the typical person of my age. Particularly the bits where you aren't allowed to shoot up drugs.)

It's kinda like the other article about Gmail's math-problems-as-barrier-to-sending-mail thing; all you're doing is giving an edge to the competent. How about actual freedom?

Re:Not necessarily

[justinlee37]

He thinks that businesses are going to continue paying for their employees' benefits when they can save a bunch and tell them instead to go on Obama's "Congress plan."

I don't know the details of his plan, but if the healthcare is only extended to those under a certain level of income (like most welfare assistance), that won't exactly work for the white-collar world, or even the sectors of the blue-collar world that are still high paying.

Re:Not necessarily

[Apple Acolyte]

I don't know the details of his plan, but if the healthcare is only extended to those under a certain level of income

Wrong, it is not. I do know the details of his plan - my degree is in Political Science and I keep up with this stuff on a daily basis. His statement on the subject is something along the lines of, "Under my proposal if you like your current coverage you can keep it, or you can switch to the plan that members of Congress have access to." He says nothing about means testing for this massive new entitlement he's proposing.

It's a sale!

[DeadDecoy]

It's kinda like going into Walmart and seeing a marked-up (made-for-low-wages) item marked-down. This increases sales because customers feel like they're saving money by spending money. And, since America is made up of stupid consumers, we'll think this is a deal and buy it.

Thats the problem here

[Shivetya]

they are not passing a bill to give us our rights back. They are using "code" words in a pretty phrase to convince they are.

This is very typical of Congress. Label something "bill of X rights" "for the children" etc and the media and ignorant lap it up.

No, what they really have done is to create a law to protect DHS and give DHS the right to seize your equipment for 24 hours.

The simply codified what they have been doing to protect another Federal Agency. Par for the course with this Congress

Maybe lawmakers are realizing

[myth_of_sisyphus]

That the Patriot Act and Sarbanes-Oxley are making the US a pariah in international business. Why would a country want to even send a representative here if all his shit is gonna be confiscated at the border?

I realize there has to be some regulation but come on...at the expense of our future? And regarding regulation, how about not making rules that go against the free market, like lending to people who can't afford to pay back and subsequently packaging these loans as awesome investment opportunities.

Engel Paul "Securing Our Borders and Our Data Act"

[JCWDenton]

Ron Paul co-sponsored a similar act recently.

Engel/Paul "Securing Our Borders and Our Data Act"

Washington, DC - Congressman Ron Paul is an original cosponsor of legislation introduced July 31st that would ensure that a traveler entering the United States would be subject to searches of their data and digital equipment only if a border agent has a reasonable suspicion to believe the traveler is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.

In an August 1, 2008 front page story, the Washington Post exposed the ease with which the government can search and/or seize a traveler's laptop, blackberry, or other electronic device. A border agent can require any individual to provide access to private or other sensitive data with no cause. They can require the owner to surrender their password for encrypted data as well.

"The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution acknowledges the right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is unfortunate that it takes legislation to remind border agents of this Constitutionally protected right, but it is apparent to me that HR 6702 is absolutely necessary," stated Congressman Paul.

Re:Not necessarily

[westlake]

I don't have government twits telling me what healthcare I can and can't have.
.

I'll assume you are living in a suburban fantasy land where hospitals and clinics are not being closed or consolidated.

But it is simply delusional to think that the government does not have a big say in what level of care you can get today

- and will be making most of the big decisions tomorrow when you can no longer afford a private health care plan.

You almost have to ask yourself

[codepunk]

You almost have to ask yourself, why do we need a bill to fix a problem that is against the
constitution anyhow.

Re:You almost have to ask yourself

[DragonTHC]

I completely agree. That original DHS laptop stealing bill IS unconstitutional.

Besides, DHS should have no jurisdiction there. It should have been ICE.

Re:Not necessarily

[Tangwei]

Start smoking pot, the pain and lethargy go away, and you are able to eat a bit more.

Nowhere near good enough.

[jimdread]

The best thing we can do is attempt to convince people and that starts first and foremost with acknowledging the legitimacy of their position

What if their position isn't legitimate? Consider this scenario: A terrorist gets on a flight to the USA. On arriving in the USA, he gets his laptop seized for searching, but he is still allowed into the country. Then he wants to catch his connecting flight to Darwin Minnesota to blow up the largest ball of string in the world. Because you see, this terrorist group is deeply offended by people worshiping large balls of string. Or wool. But he's on the no-fly list, so they don't let him on the plane. Victory for the DHS policies and procedures! Right?

Wrong! The terrorist notices a nearby sign on a bus which reads "Come to Cawker City Kansas and see the largest ball of twine in the world!". He realises that since he's at Kansas City International Airport, he's probably already in Kansas! Or at least really close! Surely! And twine, that's pretty much like string! So he gets on the bus, goes to Cawker City Kansas, and blows up the largest ball of twine in the world.

This string-related tragedy would not be stopped by the DHS's policies of seizing laptops from terrorists or putting people (including terrorists) on no-fly lists. How can anybody think that seizing laptops or putting people on lists will stop terrorists? Arrest them, give them a fair trial, and if they're guilty, put them in jail. That might work!

Re:Nowhere near good enough.

[Ihlosi]

Consider this scenario: A terrorist gets on a flight to the USA. ...
But he's on the no-fly list, so they don't let him on the plane.

If he's on the no-fly list, then he doesn't get on a flight to the USA in the first place. Victory of the DHS certain.

Re:Nowhere near good enough.

[Ihlosi]

Really?

Yes. You didn't know that?

So if somebody gets on a plane in Pakistan to go to the USA, the DHS officers in Islamabad check the no fly list?

No. The airline or travel agent selling them the ticket has to send their data to the DHS. Then the DHS says "No.". If that plane still goes anywhere near the US, it will be forced either to turn back or to land somewhere else and the person on the list will be singled out and sent back. You didn't hear what happened to Yussuf Islam (Cat Stevens)?

In other words, they've sent their no fly list to almost every airport in the world?

No, they're just getting the names of anyone who's flying to the US, long before the plane actually takes off.

Wouldn't that mean that Osama bin Laden could maybe get a copy, and check what names are on it?

No.

How's that going to work?

I've just given you a rough outline of how it works. I'm sure the website of the DHS contains more information, feel free to research it on your own.

I spoke with Feingold recently about this bill

[MNCampaignReport]

I interviewed Sen. Feingold this past weekend, and we briefly discussed this bill -- audio can be found in this post

Re:Wait

[cbiltcliffe]

Lockups, seizures....po-tay-to, po-tah-to....

Re:Not necessarily

[Some guy named Chris]

Ok. So, you lost the genetic lottery. That really sucks for you, I'll admit. You have my sympathy.

Still, please explain why just because you got unlucky in life, I (or anyone else) should be forced to pay to take care of you? I know that sounds cold, but the nature of reality is that life is not fair and you only deserve what you can earn by the sweat of your brow.

Authoritarians did not invent Crohns disease. If you cannot get the drugs in this country, move to one where you can. If you cannot afford the drugs, either work harder or ask the people who know and care about you to help pay for them.

Ultimately only you are responsible for your own health and happiness. If you're not willing to do whatever it takes to secure those things for yourself, do not blame others. It's your choice not to act.

Re:How can this scheme ever work?

[Kamokazi]

The whole point is to find evidence of terrorism or criminal activity so they can detain the individual in question. Not take their laptop away.

Your little dialog made me chuckle though :-)

Re:Not necessarily

[Some guy named Chris]

And if I do, I won't ask you to help me. See how nice moral consistency is?

Re:Not necessarily

[Jedi Alec]

Ultimately only you are responsible for your own health and happiness. If you're not willing to do whatever it takes to secure those things for yourself, do not blame others. It's your choice not to act.

And that, in a nutshell, is why a lot of people can't stop scratching their heads about the way things are done in the good ol' US of A.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's immoral or wrong in any way, just that a good chunk of the rest of the western world feels there's such a thing as the common good which supercedes the individual.

And to put this in economical terms, what's the cost/benefit of providing the GGP with socially funded medicine, which most likely means he'll be able to function as a tax-paying, consuming, creditcard-using citizen instead of having to sit at home being a drain on society through other channels? In many cases a short-term investment in people that have fallen "through the system", so to speak, can make a huge difference both to their own welfare as well as their ability to contribute to society as opposed to having to depend on it.

I am flying overseas in a couple of weeks

[CFD339]

All of the private data on the drive will be encrypted. They can search if they like, but between encryption and ccleaner I think they'll find it quite boring.

They can get the password, surely. Either by holding me (as I have no real plan to spend time in a cell) or by sending in the boffins from the NSA. Either of those will take long enough to require a court be involved.

I suppose waterboarding is an option. I doubt I'd hold up much past the paper cup full offered while they explain what's to come next.

Once past the encryption, they'll find the data on the drive is still, however, quite boring.

Everyone knows you keep the real secret plans for world domination with your porn -- encrypted on hidden USB drives made to look like torn cables, or on a secure linux server housed in a data center that used to be an oil rig.

Have you read the news?

[RMH101]

We're all going bankrupt quite nicely without involving healthcare, thank you

Re:Not necessarily

[sexconker]

The common good?
That's great. I help people out whenever I can.

I don't help leeches.

When the government forces me to help people, the following happens:

Bureaucrats skim off the top.
Red tape prevents legitimate people from getting help.
Leeches collect 4 welfare checks using my stolen identity and pump out more leeches who will break into my house and rob me faster than Krispy Kreme pumps out donuts.

You cannot legislate kindness. It's like when your mom made you say "sorry".

Re:Not necessarily

[dyslexicbunny]

GP's point was that they are refused coverage based on a preexisting condition. They clearly want to play fair and pay for insurance such that they receive treatment. How is that fair to person who is refused health insurance simply because the insurance company views them a bad investment?

Your solution of "Sucks for you." doesn't balance the fact that insurance companies are fucking people over. So the GP should have the right to hold you at gun point and take everything on you? Perhaps that is whatever it takes to secure things for them. Same goes for people trying to score drugs and those who steal. Whatever it takes isn't going to be the best solution.

As for being able to afford drugs, have you seen the price of drugs without health insurance? One of my brother's bipolar meds is $300 a refill. It's only $200 if you have a AAA card (WTF??). And $100 with insurance. These are drugs required to make sure he functions versus being in a manic depressive state.

Being in a manic depressive state will not allow him to work harder. GP's symptoms do not seem to allow for him to work harder. Suck it up champ and work through isn't a reasonable solution here. Neither is medical costs driving people to bankruptcy. Something has to be done about the exploding cost of healthcare or no one but the rich will be able to afford it.

Re:Not necessarily

[sexconker]

Plus a plane ticket to Belgium, plus the cost of not being able to take that prescription back to the US.

"Sir, please step to the side."
"Uh, ok."
"Oh so you were in Belgium for a week?
"Yes, sir."
"And what are these pills that Sgt. Scruffy found?"
"That's for my gastro-inversion."
"And you developed this condition while in Belgium?"
"Yes sir, I think it might have been the waffles."
"And you need 5 cases of pills?"
"My condition is very advanced, sir."
"Sounds like trafficking with intent to sell, to me. Hiding anything else?"
"N-no sir. I promise."
"We'll see about that. Bend over. Hey! Maybe I'll be able to fix your gastro inversion while I'm at it!"

Re:Not necessarily

[ArsenneLupin]

I'm Canadian

If I'm traveling to the US, at least I only need to worry about my laptop. If I'm traveling to Canada, I need to worry about my body as well.

A friend of mine traveled to Canada last year, but had the poor judgment of criticizing how the Rotary Club operated the Thunderbay Shelterhouse. Bad move. You know, the Rotary Club is an association of influential people, and indeed they managed to jail him for 3 months on bogus charges, without access to a lawyer, nor to a phone to alert friends and family. His mother believed him dead.

Fortunately, after three month, his visa ran out, and they had to let him go (or else federal agencies would have to get involved, which would have been beyond the reach of Thunderbay Mafia^H^H^H^H^HRotary Club).

How about this then:

[plasmacutter]

Still, please explain why just because you got unlucky in life, I (or anyone else) should be forced to pay to take care of you?

kennedy had adison's disease.
FDR was crippled
Stephen hawking need an aide 24/7.

Some of the people we considered most valuable members of society suffer chronic conditions.
Several of them currently enjoy the benefits of socialized medicine and are therefore able to contribute to our society when they would have been dead by now in the US system.

Re:Not necessarily

[plasmacutter]

Who says it was genetic, by the way?

None of my living progenitors have ever had the disease, and nobody has pinned down definitive a cause.

It could be related to a food additive some company slipped by the FDA, and don't act like it hasn't happened before.

Re:You're Not In The US

[Insanity Defense]

However, clearing customs you are not in your apartment, and, indeed, not even in the country

Actually customs IS inside the country. When a Canadian found he would be fingerprinted by the U.S. and objected they wouldn't let him go back to Canada because he was already IN the U.S. and had to abide by the U.S. law that required the fingerprinting. I found it to be rather classic, "You are not in the U.S. so we can violate the constitution" UNLESS we want to enforce U.S. law then you ARE in the country. Classic and B.S.. The Supreme Court should have struck this down ages ago.

Does the constitutional amendment giving protection against unreasonable search and seizure limit it to your home? I don't recall that.

Re:Not necessarily

[Reziac]

I've sometimes thought that rather than stealing from some people to support those who can't or won't support themselves (and there's considerable overlap between the two) we should return to the medieval beggar system, where those in need would have to ask, and those who felt the urge could donate. But no one would be coerced into giving OR receiving (and there's some coercion on that side too, especially for the only-slightly-disabled who are informed that to get benefits, they CANNOT work and help support themselves).

Re:Not necessarily

[justinlee37]

Yeah, I'm going to withhold judgment until there's actually a bill on the table. Assuming that he has already covered all the minutiae in his "bread and circus" campaign speeches to the public is probably assuming a bit much. Those speeches are frequently given to the least common denominator.

What a dumb idea.

[jotaeleemeese]

You would be breaking the law.

Re:What a dumb idea.

[ArsenneLupin]

Who the hell cares about breaking silly and unenforcable laws?

Re:What a dumb idea.

[Hyperspite]

people who have no constitutional protections it seems

Simple. Because it is the right thing to do.

[jotaeleemeese]

There is no simpler and truer answer.

Bullshit.

[jotaeleemeese]

In socialized health systems the immense majority of the money goes to the people that needs it (even in corrupt countries like Mexico).

All the things that you mention do happen, but that is a small price to pay (and this has been quantified as very small en several countries) in order to do what is undoubtedly the right thing.

Re:Bullshit.

[sexconker]

It's not a small price to pay, to me.

If you think we'd get the same quality of health care with a free system, you're just wrong. US health care is the best in the world - if you can afford it. It may be heartless, but it works (for those who can afford it).

I was referring to ALL social welfare programs / taxes, not just health care, though it doesn't really matter - I hate them all, and benefit from none.

Someone needs to invent hidden data storage

[jonwil]

Someone needs to make some devices that can be used as USB drives but that a customs guy isn't going to recognize as a data storage device (and therefore wont seize)

Put all your sensitive data on it and then use a clean laptop with nothing on value on it. Customs seize the laptop, just get another one.

Putting the data on an iPod or other MP3 player wont work, customs may seize those (especially if the RIAA can get a bill passed making the customs people government copyright cops for the big record companies). Mobile phones are also out (they may take your phone and read out all the phone numbers to look for any number on their "hit list"). Ditto with digital cameras, they may well seize those too to look for something they can use against you.

So someone needs to invent (or find) something which can store data but which is not something the feds would steal. How about an electric shaver with USB storage. Or, better yet, make something like those talking teddy bears for kids (complete with the talking story) but which also has on-board flash storage to store stuff. Or what about a Lego Mindstorms NXT, that already has flash storage on it and looks nothing like a computer. Have it built up with a motor and some wheels or something and if they ask about it, you can put it on the table and press the buttons and make it drive around.

They can have my laptop . . . .

[bogidu]

They can have my laptop. Not gonna do them much good without my decryption passphrase, unless they want to work REALLY hard at it. :D

Hehe

[Jane Q. Public]

'nuff sed.

Re:Not necessarily

[badkarmadayaccount]

Dear Chris,

I would like you to know that its no country's job to say what medications you can and can not take, much as you cant have a law for keeping a given diet (yet). What you do and use on your own time is your buisness, not that of others. The anti-drug abuse [sic] laws that prevent him from getting his medication should not be there. If people dont finance such things, fine, he can buy it on his own. But banning him from getting something that he would pay for and cause a problem to anyone - violation of human rights.

With all due respect,

Tihomir.

Laptop "Receipt" Required

[LiveFreeOrDieInTheGo]

The bill requires agents to provide a written receipt to the person from whom the agents confiscate an electronic device. I surmise this translates to a situation of today which could develop as such, "Give me your laptop!" demands an agent, and the poor person hands over the laptop with NO RECORD of surrendering the laptop!!!

Re:Not necessarily

[Slashdot Parent]

Now im out of college, unable to get insurance of any kind, and suffering from excruciating pain

You give up too easily.

1. Did you apply for medicaid?
2. Did you apply for SSDI?
3. Did you apply with the drug company for free/discounted meds?
4. Did you consult with your local CCFA chapter about your options?
5. Did you participate in clinical trials?
6. Did you see out local/national charities to help you?

All I saw you do is whine on an internet forum. If that makes you feel any better, more power to you.

Re:Not necessarily

[Slashdot Parent]

I'm Canadian and I definitely wouldn't classify our health care system as a "failed idea."

The fact that you have a website specifically dedicated to wait times for medical treatments due to rationing of health care is all the proof I need your system is an abject failure.

It's not perfect, but I bet most Canadians would agree that it's far better than the system you have.

I'll ask the Canadians who come to US hospitals for surgeries because if they stayed in Canada, they would die on a waiting list. You shouldn't be cheering for us to adopt your system. If we do, where will you go for medical treatment?