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.
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*
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?
He is an American citizen, so there isn't an Immigration issue here. So the only thing left for "detaining" is Customs while they go through his stuff. Well, they can do that.
The article actually does say the "detaining" was him waiting for customs to search his bags, laptop, and cell phones (one of which they "seized").
What does not seem normal is the Army being there. He is not a combatent. He is a US Citizen. I do not see how the Army can tell him he is "detained."
No names were revealed, they were blanked out. Unlike what some "journalist" might have said. Link: http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/20070146579
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
How often do you travel? I've been pulled aside lots of times and really interrogated. Lots of personal questions: what do I do for a living, why am I traveling to or returning from country x, what do my relatives do for a living, where do they live, and much more. The extensive follow up questions would be even more personal and intrusive. On occasion the questions lasted for more than an hour. I also get chosen for a "random" search nearly every time. Maybe I just look suspicious. I am ghostly white and none of my family comes from the middle east or Southwest Asia. So it is not racial profiling. I can only imagine what it must be like for a foreigner. We don't exactly put our best foot forward at our borders. Much of the world already regards us as vicious, brutish thugs. Or at least our government. It always seems to happen on departure. Maybe because they know they have you over a barrel. They can easily interrogate you long enough to make you miss your flight. On one occasion they only released me just in time. I made the flight, but with only minutes to spare. In fact, it was only when I showed them my ticket and told them that I was about to miss my flight that they finally released me.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
(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.
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
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.
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.
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?
As a citizen of the United States?
Wow, I can't imagine what would have happened if he hadn't been a citizen of the United States...
Funny, I don't see an "except for the border" clause in the Bill of Rights.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
He would have been disappeared in a jail somewhere in Poland or Romania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States
No sig for the moment.
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!
Just no. There is no link anywhere to non-sanitized version. Leaked docs that are posted on wikileaks are sanitized. Taleban is doing what it was doing since 1970s - scaring the shit out of informants though any means necessary, which includes lying. I'm sorry, but you're clueless.
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.
News flash: This is the Obama administration we're in.
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.