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.
Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.
Some of the most horrific words the war on terror has produced.
*shudders*
first rule of engagement during an interrogation : don't talk to cops (or wannabe cops), let your lawyer do the work. There are no innocent questions to "establish your mindset" when everything you say can and will be used against you.
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
It's an obvious ploy to get him to start talking. More obvious is the line about "human rights being trampled". Once he starts talking the hope is he'll spill some information the FBI doesn't already know. Many people fall for this kind if thing as it appeals to their ego. Appelbaum is obviously smart enough to realize there's really nothing for him to gain by talking to the FBI, and only things to lose.
AccountKiller
(I am a lawyer but I am not an immigration lawyer)
Immigration law "airside" is complex. You are right to say that you are not yet on USA soil. However, that doesn't mean that the agents are entitled to act without limit. Their actions can still be reviewed by a court, and they cannot act beyond the powers given to them. For example, they are undoubtedly empowered to detain a person where necessary to determine their immigration status (for example, they suspect a US passport may be forged). However, the power to detain is also going to have limits. For example, an agent who detained an individual because they were wearing a hat from a rival baseball team may well be exceeding their powers, and that decision could be found illegal on review.
So, as the above poster mentioned, if they had a "hunch" that the person was entering illegally, then they may well be allowed to detain them. But this hunch seems based on the idea that the person might be involved with a criminal activity. Are the Border Patrol entitled to decline entry/detain a US citizen suspected of crime? I don't know. And what empowered US Army representatives to speak to the man? Again, I'm unclear. If Border Patrol were done with him, and they detained him to enable Army reps to speak to him, they would, possibly be using their powers for a purpose not authorised by the empowering instruments.
I would be very interested to hear exactly what grounds the individual was detained under, and whether it was within the scope of the empowering instrument. I suspect that this may have been pushing the boundaries, but without knowing the laws I can't possibly say for sure.
I look forward to being corrected by anyone with more knowledge than me.
>>>Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?)
If you had bothered to watch the youtube video, the Law Professor describes a story about a guy getting jailed for answering such "friendly" questions. How? He said he has no idea who the criminal was, was nowhere near the crime, but had no alibis to prove it, so the cops locked him up. Then they found some woman to testify that they saw that guy at the crime scene, and he was found guilty in court.
You should also watch the recent Penn & Teller episode about Criminal Justice. A black man was imprisoned for 35 years for a crime he never committed. He too had made the mistake of cooperating with police, and they rewarded him by taking away half his life. He was released when DNA evidence showed that the "criminal's blood" on the knife did not match his blood.
Don't Talk To Cops. Ever.
You'll just framed, even if you're innocent.
"You have the right to remain silent..." - US Supreme Court
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Europe has endured far more terrorism then North America (since we are talking continents here). The IRA, the Basque Separatist Movement, Al Qaeda bombings all over the place, Libyan Attacks in Rome and Vienna, Lockerbie, just to name a few. Though really that point is completely irrelevant.
The first terrorist bombing in NYC occurred on September 16, 1920 on the corner of Wall Street and Broad Street. It was a "horse drawn wagon bomb" which instantly killed 38 people and seriously wounded 400 more (which given it was 1920 probably meant they just died slower). If you go to the JP Morgan building you can still see the holes the dynamite propelled metal shrapnel tore in the building, they never repaired it.
At the time they handled it as a crime, nothing more, despite the fact that political pamphlets calling for the release of political prisoners were found nearby and the bombing was believed to have been tied to a group which had been distributing letter bombs to politicians for at least a year prior. They didn't go to "war on terror". They didn't use the incident to justify flagrantly violating the constitution. Imagine if they had though. What sort of country would we live in now if they had?
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.