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.
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?
Stop quoting laws to us. We carry swords.
-- Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus
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
(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.
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.
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?
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!
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.