Slashdot Mirror
Tor Developer Detained At US Border, Pressed On Wikileaks
suraj.sun writes with this news from CNET: "A security researcher involved with the Wikileaks Web site — Jacob Appelbaum, a Seattle-based programmer for the online privacy protection project called Tor — was detained by US agents at the border for three hours and questioned about the controversial whistleblower project as he entered the country on Thursday to attend a hacker conference. He was also approached by two FBI agents at the Defcon conference after his presentation on Saturday afternoon about the Tor Project. Appelbaum, a US citizen, arrived at the Newark, New Jersey, airport from Holland Thursday morning, was taken into a room, frisked and his bag was searched. Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained. They asked questions about Wikileaks, asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is, but he declined to comment without a lawyer present, according to the sources. He was not permitted to make a phone call, they said." Appelbaum told me that he just spoke at length with The New York Times, and quipped that his Defcon talk about Tor was "just fine, until the FBI showed up"; this post will likely be updated with more details.
Update: 08/02 03:59 GMT by T : Here's the NYT's coverage.
That's more worrying than the detention etc. But then ground-level grunts never did know the law well.
Welcome to the United Federal Fascist State of America. Please enjoy your stay...
This kinda stuff is totally unacceptable. What law did he break? What was he accused of? Why was he detained? What right do they have to ask such questions? On what planet is a 3 hour detention reasonable?
Well it seems clear that there was nothing "random" about his detention. And it's bad enough that customs can seize anything going through the borders without warrant or cause. But it's even worse when border crossings get used as an excuse for warrantless interrogations.
Not everyone gets detained and asked about Wikileaks.
I've been randomly searched, but I've never been pulled aside and asked about something I've actually been working on. This guy has been flagged in the system.
Is it good that we even have "a system"?
Why is this post marked as "troll"? Most of what the post says is true. Is it because the opinion expressed differs from yours? Weak!
Curious. Is it just me, or is the whole "you're not arrested, you're detained" just yet another attempt to avoid getting around the limits that the law, constitution etc. set by making up a new word?
Kinda like "enemy combatant" (no Geneva convention for you, Afghanis!), perhaps.
Put another way: if he was not under arrest, was he free to go? If he was not free to go, how was he not under arrest?
Stop quoting laws to us. We carry swords.
-- Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus
TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS
as long as the blood in question isn't mine I don't actually have a problem with that
And if he had said. "I think the United states should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.", what happens then?
Yet as far as I know it is still legal to hold the belief that we should get out of there.
Allow me to declare my intent to boycott ALL academic conferences held in my field in the United States. I'm sorry but this kind of thing is beyond preposterous.
Disclaimer: This is a mostly off-topic rant in reply to an off-topic troll.
It's just like Bush's America, but with a different figurehead. I'll wager $50 that the next guy, regardless of party affiliation, will be minimally different.
The President doesn't really matter. The orientation of Congress doesn't really matter. What matters is the overall opinion of the American population, and changing that takes a much longer time that 4, 8, or even 20 years. Look at the big picture as it's changed over the last few decades. There are a few things our representatives now realize:
The plain and simple fact is that every time the government does something just to "appease the general public", that means they're doing (mostly) what the general public wants. If they're wrong, and are trying to implement something that's proven impossible (like, for example, mandating DRM), then that means that the American public at large probably don't understand why it's not possible. If you oppose a pending bill and it gets passed, that means you didn't do a good enough job of convincing people of your viewpoint. Activists, as annoying as they are sometimes, play a vital role in making the general public aware of the issues at hand.
On topic, I understand why there are interrogations and detainments. Less than a decade ago, America was dealt a serious blow by an enemy that was living right among us. It wasn't so much the number of people that died that was so concerning. It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Sure, there were reports of something being expected to happen, but thery were no more definite or detailed than the hundreds of similar reports that passed through the White House in the months before. September 11th of 2001 was the day we realized how little we knew about the rest of the world. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out. There are myriad groups out there keeping an eye on any civil rights violations, and I for one commend their work. There is a balance we must strike between absolute security and absolute liberty, and we will not reach that point within the span of one presidential term. I doubt we'll reach it within ten terms. America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years. We are cocky and immature, and so is our intelligence system. Give it time to grow, but make sure it's kept in check by the public activists and watchdogs. We'll grow up just fine.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
What did he expect? A Boy Scout merit badge?
As a citizen of the United States? Probably that one phone call to his lawyer and the right from unlawful detainment, to name a few.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
What law was broken by Wikileaks or the guy in the $subject ?
Hint: None.
To anyone.
Who the REAL terrorists are!
USA!, USA!, USA!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Where I come from to be detained means that you are legally under arrest regardless of whether you have been informed of such or not. This is plain and simple an abuse of power by the US government. Good thing we have groups like wikileaks working towards glasnost.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
News flash, that is an impossible mission without grossly destroying the United States and the liberties that have been fought for over the past two centuries. We are not (by inception) a nation of safety but a nation of individual freedoms and collective assistance. Attacks will happen, and the constitution allows for some defense against those attacks, but the rights of the citizenry are paramount to that defense.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out.
I'd have to disagree. We as a nation have let the enemy win as a significant portion of the citizenry and leaders have been terrorized into removing what makes this nation great in the hopes of not being afraid. Let's get this out in the open, if you want a free society then you're going to have to deal with the fear that nothing will be certain. Take something as simple as driving, you are taking a risk that the person on the other side of the road matching your 50 mph isn't going to just drive straight into you. Life is dangerous, deal with it.
America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years.
And England has no better method of detecting impeding attacks. Nor does any other nation.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
"There is a balance we must strike between absolute security and absolute liberty,"
And where in any of the documents establishing this country or the law of this country is the above stated or implied ? The problem is that the people in charge are flagrantly violating our rights, and people like you are using fucktard logic in agreeing with them. The only step that would have been required to prevent 9/11 would have been to leave the middle east to its mess 30 years ago - instead we got involved, and continue to be involved for no good reason. As a country and a people we have no long term interest in the middle east. Our involvement has given them a reason to hate us. We have supported the people who have killed and oppressed them. Then we started wars to clean up our mess, and in the process are continuing to kill innocent civilians and allow the assholes to run things because its easier for us.
How about we get back to basics - we ensure our own absolute liberty, and mind our own fucking business - the security portion will work itself out.
Is it good that we even have "a system"?
I debated whether to even bother responding to this for a good 10 minutes but, in the end, decided it needs saying.
Yes, it's a good thing that we even have "a system". There are good, legitimate uses for "a system". What is not good in this case, and in the larger picture lately, is the way the system is being used. This may seem like splitting hairs to some but it is an important distinction.
A nation has the right (and indeed, the obligation) to protect itself from undesirables crossing into the country or, similarly, to allow the authorities to execute arrest warrants as needed. Having a record of who's in the country, for how long, etc, is just a good idea in general for any nation. In addition.
The problem is the use of such systems to harass otherwise law-abiding citizens. It's troublesome to me that this is happening regularly. This doesn't mean I decry the need for the system in general, however.
You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
"1) The united states is at war in Afghanistan"
Show me the declaration according to the UN charter. Fittingly the US in Afghanistan was like this detainment of this programmer. IE they are pressing an authoritarian mantra.
2) Wikileaks leaked secret documents about the war in afghanistan in a reckless manner that possibly endangered lives of our allies and soldiers on the battlefield.
Copy pasted from a US millitary speech? Arguably everything could contribute. Protesting against the Mai Lai Massacre killed US soldiers indirectly. Moral lowered by poor opinion back home caused battle errors?
3) A 3 hour border detention is less than someone would be detained for unpaid parking tickets. They did not arrest him. They could have easily arrested him as a material witness.
It was 3 hours too many
5) He was allowed to leave the country after his conference, not exactly what police states do
Well no, police states do let people go, under agreements of refugee discussions. Not all refugees arrive on a 12" dinghy or scramble over barbed wire walls.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Robert Gates said that the release of the WikiLeaks documents may damage our reputation in Afghanistan.
Perhaps it is rather the fact that we kill people and lie about it that damages our reputation in Afghanistan.
We have a right to be informed, because if the public is misled, democracy itself becomes false.
Those who fear the truth are not fit to lead.
Quit whining and start taking responsibility for your actions
This man didn't post anything. He is a Tor developer.
To put this another way, I am a cryptography researcher. Must I now be careful about what specific research I do? Should I be worried that I might be detained at an airport because of my work?
Palm trees and 8
Many would argue that the fact that there is a system is a promise that it will be misused. I don't know how true that is, but government transparency would do much to solve it.
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
So you're buying the spin, no questions asked.
What about the behavior that the documents expose? The people that have been killed and those that will continue to be killed due to cover-ups of unethical, corrupt, and outright murderous action?
Reminds me a bit when some Germans tried to help Jews to escape or hid them from Nazis. This was also some kind of treason and endangered to the whole Germany, their perfect race and their war moral. If you helped the wrong people... you got visited by Gestapo and this meant trouble.
You, my American friends, should also be aware that you should not disturb your country to spread their pro-war propaganda. You should also try to be calm, follow your leader and help drive war against people who have a different religion. It's better than being arrested by Gestapo... I mean... FBI...
"We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Fuck your war.
you had me at #!
Where I come from to be detained means that you are legally under arrest regardless of whether you have been informed of such or not. /i
Glad I don't live in such a repressive place!
Here in the U.S., it means just that - you are being detained. There's a time limit on the detention, after which they much charge you are let you go. Unless they have other evidence against you if you just smile politely, refuse to answer questions and run out the clock there's nothing they can do.
I'd be a lot more worried in a place where being detained also meant arrest, because places that lump that kind of thing together also seem to look the other way when it comes to roughing up detainees a little to get something out of them. Here in the U.S. they wouldn't lay a hand on you unless you gave them clear cause to do so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Indeed. The US officials were quite happy to pat him on the back when his software enabled pro-democracy Iranians to leak details of protests there.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
I gotta stop getting my news from the Internet. I totally missed Congress' declaration of war. I was under the impression that we were allied with the government of Afghanistan. BTW, Mr. high and mighty, why did you capitalize Afghanistan and not United States? Are you some kind of treason supporter?
We the People of the United States, in Order to... insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, ...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We need to keep America safe and tranquil. Overall, that's worked pretty well. There's been the American Civil War, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the World Trade Center attacks. Not bad for two hundred years.
We also must keep liberty, and ensure it passes to future generations. The attack on Pearl Harbor might have been stopped if we'd had mandatory military service, but that's been determined as encroaching too far on our freedom.
What rights have been violated here? The right to commit treason without interference? The right to carry any potential weapon you want anywhere you want?
Given that Mr. Appelbaum was released, probably with a verbal apology and thanks for his time, it seems he and his technology were determined to not be a threat.
The reason we were in the middle east 30 years ago was to counter the threat of the USSR. The USSR had nuclear weaponry, and was expanding its influence over more natural resources, in an effort that appeared to be fueling its war machine. The USSR had suffered embarrassment in World War II, and seemed poised to take over where Germany had failed. We know now that the USSR was collapsing already, but at the time, intervening in the middle east looked like the best option to prevent World War III.
Now, we're faced with a situation remarkably similar to Vietnam. If we leave, we've utterly ruined a nation and a culture. If we stay, we at least have a chance to help rebuild once things settle down.
As I said earlier, if you don't like something speak up. You have the right to petition the government. You have the right to express your opinions in public channels. Go for it. We the People of the United States voted for those "assholes" who are running things. If you want a government that supports non-interventionism, go vote for it. Convince enough people that it's the right policy, and we'll get the chance to see how it works.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The plain and simple fact is that every time the government does something just to "appease the general public", that means they're doing (mostly) what the general public wants.
A completely false way to frame the situation. A few problems with how you've framed this:
The general public does not want one thing, it wants a multitude of different, conflicting things.
Even when the general public wants the same thing, they want it in vastly different ways.
The general public can be convinced of a LOT given enough nonsense. (Most people somehow got convinced to attack Iraq as a result of 9/11 and many are still somehow convinced the two are linked).
There is no "general public". There's just what you can get away with.
September 11th of 2001 was the day we realized how little we knew about the rest of the world. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
Who the fuck is this "we" you speak of? Do you perhaps mean you?
The U.S. government is many things, but ignorant of the rest of the world is NOT one of them.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out.
This is nothing but unbridled optimism and blind faith. Why will this eventually be worked out, and not the far more likely case, completely forgotten about?
There is a balance we must strike between absolute security and absolute liberty, and we will not reach that point within the span of one presidential term.
Why are security and liberty things that are necessarily at odds as if less liberty means more security and vice versa? Isn't it just possible that many of the things we do for "added security" (like say for instance this bullshit about bringing liquids on an airplane) only serve to destroy our liberties and give us zero security? Isn't it possible that some security measures like re-enforcing the cockpit doors on airplanes added a lot of security, but cost us zero in liberties?
Your dichotomy is utterly false, and it's not too hard to see that.
AccountKiller
You also dont have "unless we claim terrorism", "unless we're thinking of the children" or "unless corporate interests override" in there.
I largely disagree with your drastic oversimplifications of very complicated world events and turning them into neat little bullet points while ignoring hundreds of other trends and events. I could go on, but there's something more disturbing. This is the statement I don't understand at all:
We had temporary safety from about 1985 until 2001. We obtained it by being the strongest (and most stable) military power in the world. Now that guerilla/terrorist warfare is recognized to be stronger, we have lost all security.
What's the threat that YOU PERSONALLY face from "guerilla/terrorists" warfare? Are you really and truly afraid of Al-Queda? Why is safety supposed to be the big goal we're all trying to obtain? What really makes you think we've lost it? How is this such a large threat to the country as a whole?
Frankly I'm far more threatened by the economies dependence on cheap oil imports, the increasing gap between the rich and poor, the increasing polarity of political parties, our ever increasing "fear culture", and pissing away billions of dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan than I am of those Al-Queda fuckheads.
AccountKiller
we have lost all security.
Please. That is ridiculous hyperbole. We lost 3000 people in the last 10 years to terrorism. We lose that many to food poisoning every year. We've lost more people to rampant militarism (6700 between Iraq and Afghanistan) in the same time frame. You fear mongers are more dangerous than the fucking terrorists. Your pathetic cowering is pathetic.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
heck, was not the concept of onion routing created by the us military?
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
At the border, and before you cross through customs - you are not yet in the US
Actually, you are in the United States and the agents of the United States are required to do their job according to the U.S. Constitution, judicial precedent, and U.S. Federal Law. A U.S. Citizen that is entering the United States and is detained once landing in the U.S. is protected by all laws and the U.S. Constitution.
I know that the U.S. Government tries to tell itself this is not the case, but it is. This guy did the right thing by not talking, which is what I would have done. He is under no obligation to give the U.S. Government any information.
It seems like J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is still going strong. It use to be that the FBI worked hard to have U.S. Citizens see "Red" in their soup with communist witch hunts, and now they are changing over to having us(U.S. Citizens) see terrorist in our soup.
People believe that the U.S. Government has gotten bad, or turned into a "police state", but the fact is that this sort of stuff has been going on for a long time. This situation will continue until those that are governed decide to change this and demand real change.
To save a lot of discussion...that will never happen. People will continue to keep their head in the sand, until they are targeted. At that point, it will be too late.
Believe it or not, the law is not an absolute, it allows for some flexibility, some common sense. While overly pedantic geeks want everything spelled out in a completely explicit manner, you come to discover that is impossible. You think the laws are complex now, you can't believe how complex they'd have to be then, no person could understand them, and there'd be all sorts of inadvertent loopholes. So you find that the law is flexible in various areas. You have definitions like "reasonable" that are not precisely defined.
In terms of holding someone at the border, well a couple hours would be reasonable. I don't know if you've never traveled internationally, but it can take a couple hours to pass the border when nothing special happens. You get a lot of people there, it moves slowly. So a couple hours would be fairly reasonable, whereas a couple days probably wouldn't.
Who decides? Well judges and juries. That's where such a thing would get reviewed. If you were detained for days that would probalby not be ruled as reasonable.
Is it cut and dried? No, and it will never be. If you don't like it you can try to design a system where all laws are 100% explicit, but you will find out that it won't work.
News flash: This is the Obama administration we're in.
Sush. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
If our country wasn't randomly bombing the shit out of all manner of other people, and actually keeping an informed and healthy electorate whose votes were actually counted, we wouldn't need a system.
At this point, reasonable people will stop listening to you. Our country is not "randomly bombing the shit out of all manner of other people." There are very distinct reasons behind those actions. You may not agree with the reasons given. You may question whether we are given real reasons. You may disagree with the fundamental idea of such a policy. But it would serve your cause to give voice to those grievances instead of resorting to generic exaggerations. Otherwise, you sound like an uninformed raving lunatic. And you might even cause others who CAN voice rational criticism to be overlooked by the general public.
News flash: Not only is the Obama administration upholding Bush policy, but they are expanding upon it (Internet and cell phone logs are exempt from any constitutional protection because there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy," they say). What Bush did is what Bush did in the past, we get to blame Obama too, now. (And, News flash: our individual rights have been under attack for a very, very long time).
Wonder what the public key field is for?
For example, these days you don't get detained for being black very often
Unless, say, you drive a car through a neighborhood that the cops don't want you in.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Unless I'm being charged, how I feel about the War in Iraq or the price of tea in China ain't any of their business. Detain me, ask me questions, refuse me a call to get legal representation, and I don't think that's an example of these guys "doing their jobs". It's abuse of process, illegal detention, deprivation of constitutional rights, and a sign that these guys are evil immoral monsters.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ludicrous. I could not possibly be overstating the situation. If you want a case by case detailed report of all the fallacious chicanery the US has done over the last 50 years, no. Frankly I'm not going to spend the next 100 years attempting to earn that PHD.
My personal favorite though, I will discuss for a moment: Iraq.
At one time Iraq was a sovereign nation, with a long standing border dispute with Iran. They wouldn't sell us oil for as cheap as we'd have liked, so we installed SADDAM HUSSEIN. A genocidal madman who routinely hung living people on large hooks designed for hanging sides of butchered cattle. That's right, WE installed Saddam. This is most clearly in the record books, and no conspiracy theory. Things were going well: for a little while. He was brutally massacring a bunch of towel heads we could care less about, we were getting cheap oil, he was getting new guns. What could be better? Then one day, he realized that Kuwait also had oil, and that we weren't paying enough. Begin operation desert storm. We shatter his whole army literally in one single day. We restore the retarded religious based fascism to Kuwait, start getting oil on the cheap again, and let Saddam go back to killing the Kurds, which is now especially despicable on our part now, because Bush Sr. had told the Kurds via TV broadcast to "Rise up, so we can help you over through this ruthless dictator". Nevermind the fact that WE installed him in the first place, and then couldn't be bothered when the Kurds rose up and he wiped them all out. At this point we completely starve the Iraqi population with a full embargo. No medicine, no food, no anything. Of course, they could really use modern medicine now too, because we used Depleted Uranium in our munitions during gulf storm, and now most of the population is irradiated and popping out retards and other types of heinous and atrocious birth defects. Too bad! We installed Saddam 30 years ago, and all of you can SUCK IT! Then one fine day, a bunch of corporate greed assholes bring down WTC 1, 2, and 7. They do it with thermate after Jeb Bush ran a few obviously bogus security drills on the towers. This of course happened WHILE Dick Cheney was telling the air national defense to STAND DOWN, after repeated protests from the pilots, and other air traffic personnel. Great! Time to start bombing some people again! Off we go to Afghanistan. To educate women? To kill Muslims? Nope: to put in an oil pipeline, and to secure complete control of most of the world's opium supply. Well, that only took a few hundred American troops, let's go back into Iraq! Cue "Shock and Awe". We use illegal munitions (white phosphorus), and literally bomb giant cities of innocent (albeit religious and ignorant) people back into the stone age. Then we start the best part "Operation Iraqi Freedom" which involves setting up tons of military bases and importing our quality corporate goods and services like McDonald's and Pizza Hut.
If I was an Iraqi, I'd be doing a BIT more than throwing my shoe at the retarded and non elected son of the ex head of the CIA. I'd be out for real blood. Luckily, I live in the winning country, and I can just sit here and snidely smoke bong loads while the religious idiots do what they always do best: Kill each other for profit.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.