Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Bill To Rein In DHS Laptop Seizures

Posted by kdawson on from the give-it-back-now dept.

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."

66 of 311 comments (clear)

  1. No, no good enough. by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:No, no good enough. by Kamokazi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    2. Re:No, no good enough. by Celarnor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:No, no good enough. by Kickersny.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      Same deal with suspicious characters at the border.

    4. Re:No, no good enough. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:No, no good enough. by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    6. Re:No, no good enough. by Kickersny.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 :)

    7. Re:No, no good enough. by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    8. Re:No, no good enough. by Tassach · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    9. Re:No, no good enough. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    10. Re:No, no good enough. by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re:No, no good enough. by TheCabal · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  2. Accountability by crossmr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Accountability by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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????)

  3. Mod parent up. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:Mod parent up. by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!).

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Mod parent up. by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Mod parent up. by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Mod parent up. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:Mod parent up. by antic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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'.

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    6. Re:Mod parent up. by aztracker1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    7. Re:Mod parent up. by Mr3vil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Mod parent up. by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

  4. Where are the Republicans? by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Where are the Republicans? by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      That party got renamed to the "Libertarian" party?

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    2. Re:Where are the Republicans? by lwsimon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
  5. In our current political climate by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
  6. Odd way to terrorize people... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Odd way to terrorize people... by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Odd way to terrorize people... by Legrow · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

  7. More than a pita by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:More than a pita by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    2. Re:More than a pita by adolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    3. Re:More than a pita by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:More than a pita by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    5. Re:More than a pita by YttriumOxide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  8. Expedited shipping? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, right....

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

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Expedited shipping? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  9. Note: The bill applies to US citizens only by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Note: The bill applies to US citizens only by Knackered · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      a.
  10. Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 4, Insightful

    government sponsored theft of your property. fuck that.

    Taxes?

    No Highway for you!

  11. To take or not to take? by kaos07 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:To take or not to take? by IanHurst · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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.

    2. Re:To take or not to take? by Timinithis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

      --
      Sig? What's a Sig?
    3. Re:To take or not to take? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 2, Informative

      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).

  12. Mail it by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  13. Re:Not necessarily by ForumTroll · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    "A Lisp programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing." - Alan Perlis
  14. Re:Not necessarily by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  15. Re:Not necessarily by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  16. Not so fast. by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  17. Probable cause? "whatever..." by lenski · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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... >

    1. Re:Probable cause? "whatever..." by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  18. Re:Question here by Eskarel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

  19. Re:Question here by el_munkie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  20. I Do Not Understand by LuYu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"?

    --
    All data is speech. All speech is Free.
    1. Re:I Do Not Understand by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You really want to know?

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

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  21. Re:Not necessarily by compro01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  22. It's a sale! by DeadDecoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  23. Thats the problem here by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  24. Re:still won't convince me to visit the usa by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  25. You almost have to ask yourself by codepunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --


    Got Code?
  26. Nowhere near good enough. by jimdread · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!

  27. I spoke with Feingold recently about this bill by MNCampaignReport · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  28. Re:Not necessarily by Some+guy+named+Chris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  29. Re:Not necessarily by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  30. Re:Not necessarily by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.