Slashdot Mirror
CryptoCat Developer Questioned At US-Canadian Border
Dangerous_Minds writes "ZeroPaid is documenting some comments made by an encrypted chat developer who was interrogated at the U.S. border recently. According to the CryptoCat developer, border guards confiscated his passport and interrogated him about the application he developed. Most notably, he commented, "The interrogator (who claimed 22 years of computer experience) asked me which algorithms Cryptocat used and about its censorship resistance.""
According to the CryptoCat developer, border guards confiscated his passport
Maybe I'm the only one that was confused by that but the phrasing of this in the summary lead me to believe that they confiscated his passport indefinitely in some sort of draconian move to prevent him from leaving the country or traveling in general. But, luckily, I read the article:
This: “Also worth noting: my passport was confiscated for around an hour.”
I'm not saying it's okay but I've been pulled into secondary coming back from the Caribbean and, the customs official had my passport for about 45-60 minutes while he asked me the stupidest of questions (far more mundane and pointless than what algorithms I develop).
My work here is dung.
He holds 3 certifications in Word, Minesweeper, and Internet Explorer. Dont try and pull a fast one over him.
This is elegant proof that DHS is a waste of taxpayer money. 30 seconds on google would have given him more detail than any interrogation would have revealed.
Hey DHS, I'll take Director of IT position for only $290,000 a year. I cracked the secret of CryptoCat for you....
https://github.com/kaepora/cryptocat
Everything is right there, and I did not have to waterboard anyone.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Did they question him, because he was a crypto developer? Or did they stop him for some other reason, and ask about his profession?
FTFA:
A developer of an encrypted chat program is making some dramatic claims. Nadim Kobeissi, developer of Cryptocat which “lets you instantly set up secure conversations.
There is your answer right there.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
People need to realize that the United States has a very brutal regime in charge at the moment.
In my opinion and from experience it's not about brutality, it's about money. Sure, if they find something on you that links you to Al-Queda, you're in trouble. They'll treat you like any Allied nation would treat a Nazi war criminal. But the secondary that you're often pulled into has the primary purpose of tariffs and taxes that you might owe the government. Next on their list is export/import control of stuff like Cuban cigars or controlled substances.
... I think the words you were looking for are arcane, ignorant, laughable, annoying, etc. If you cry wolf at the stupid stuff, nobody's going to listen to you about the genuinely bad stuff.
So I used to be in a band and this band told me a story about how they were crossing the US-Canada border to play one show at a bar. Well, they were in their van, they had weed on them and they had all their guitars and crap and the side of their van said their band name. Well, they made up some excuse about how they were just "passing through" and after an hour of googling, the border guards determined that their intent was to play a show at a bar. They didn't have work permits and, as such, were denied entry. The weed wasn't a problem. The problem was that they were trying to go "work" at a bar and, as a result, a bar owner became very very upset with them. Guess which country's border guards did this to them? Canada's. Is Canada a "very brutal regime"? No.
What happened with the CryptoCat guy is that they asked him what he did for work and he got too specific. One of the guards apparently knows that there is export control on levels of encryption. There was a very very famous case about this involving Phil Zimmerman and PGP that I think has since been dropped. Of course, the guards came to the conclusion that this guy wasn't purposefully exporting high level encryption software to enemy entities. So nothing came of it after they googled for an hour.
Just because Russian border guards are lax or corrupt doesn't mean "the United States has a very brutal regime in charge at the moment." 'Brutal' means savagely violent, vicious, ruthless, or cruel
My work here is dung.
Maybe you should stop shitting in public.
If they think he's carrying around a simple solution to breaking AES256 in a timely manner maybe they did fail the minesweeper cert after all..
It seems border crossings have become a point at which the usual rules are thrown out of the window and anyone can be interrogated about anything.
Perhaps it's exactly about this. Maybe the entire idea is to terrorize ordinary people crossing the borders so these people would rather modify their own behavior, and quit exercising all those pesky freedoms.
Although I'd be hard-pressed to consider an hour-long secondary screen to be terrifying. Annoying and maddening, yes, but terrifying, no.
John
They're far more dangerous than most people realize: the checks and balances and legal avenues of appeal that US citizens are used to don't apply on the border for non-citizens. They can jail you indefinitely, subject to appeals from your native country if they wish. If your "native" country doesn't care (eg. you are an asylum seeker) you can rot in jail indefinitely.
Google whats happened to citizens of "former countries", for example. If you break the law in the US, you go to jail. Fair enough. Typically if you're not a US citizen you may be deported. What happens if your original country no longer exists, or won't take you? you can sit in jail indefinitely. There were several thousand in this position the last time a journalist investigated (oh, and FOIA requests are pretty hard here too).
I'm posting AC because I have relatives in the US in a similar position. They are in a small, Pacifist Christian sect. They left Ireland (sent to relatives in US) in the 1940s as children, less than 10 at the time; they are now retirees, and naturalized, but not US citizens: becoming citizens would mean swearing an oath to defend the US, which they will not do as pacifists. Their children are US citizens and don't have to swear this oath.
Now, they have to be careful: their children are active in the antiwar movement and have frequently been arrested on protests. Small, non-violent stuff. But if they go near a protest, they risk being arrested: they will be deported "back home" after they have paid the fine, etc. They are in their 70s and don't ever remember Ireland, never mind have friends and relatives there. Any small infringement: traffic violation, etc. can ruin their lives, on the whim of an ICE official.
So when you see that nice American granny in your neighborhood, upstanding member of the community, don't imagine they don't live in fear of arbitrary "American Justice".
Imagine a computer that is the size of a grain of sand that can test keys against some encrypted data. Also imagine that it can test a key in the amount of time it takes light to cross it. Then consider a cluster of these computers, so many that if you covered the earth with them, they would cover the whole planet to the height of 1 meter. The cluster of computers would crack a 128-bit key on average in 1,000 years.
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
Is there any source for this aside from random Twitter posts? I generally trust ZeroPaid, but come on - this entire story is built on the basis of a few Tweets.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
You are confusing the US for China.. Business here indeed have a rule of bringing only clean laptops into mainland China, since there were many incidents of hard drives being cloned by border security guards. Not so much in the US, although there have been incidents of government espionage beneficial to the US airplane manufacturers.
I was wondering why the border folks were interested in the cat-copter :)
It possible to get a waiver on religious grounds for the part of the oath that requires you to bear arms. See http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/chapter5.pdf
I don't think your relatives looked very carefully at the citizenship process.
I suspect their interest in him did not originate from Cryptocat, but instead from his support for WikiLeaks (including at one time having a WikiLeaks mirror).
Except that the restrictions on even peaceful protest in the united states has exceeded a reasonable level. Protesting outside of a 'designated zone' (which will be so far away from what you are attempting to protest as to be effectively censorship of your statement); arrest.
Failure to identify your intent to protest; arrest.
Challenge a politician with a non-vetted question during a presentation at a public location- fine+removal, refuse to leave; arrest.
Protesting for too long; eviction, arrest, and fines.
Actually effectively delivering your message via a gimmick; fine, told to stop, arrest if you refuse (under 'obstructing traffic, or public nuisance)
Chanting your slogan fine, told to stop, arrest if you refuse (under 'obstructing traffic', or public nuisance)
Essentially protesting, even peaceful protesting, is now a fine-able or arrestable offence.
Protesting in a way that results in a fine is not something you are supposed to do at all
When the government doesn't respect your right to peaceably assemble, how else are you supposed to protest?
The only protests worth participating in are the ones that could actually change something. Those are the protests that the government will fight with all of its power. That power includes arresting protesters for simply protesting. This is what we saw happen last fall from NY to Oakland.
Think of it this way, if Mubarak had tried to forcibly clear Tahrir square with the excuse of "health and safety", the international community wouldn't have bought that excuse for a second. Yet the US is allowed to get away with claiming "health and safety" as a reason to break up peaceable assembleys like Occupy. And nobody bats an eye.
If you could trust the government to follow the rule of law, you'd have a point. But we're far, far past that point.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Some things in your story don't pass my BS test as an immigrant from Canada preparing to Naturalize in a year or so...
naturalized, but not US citizens
Naturalization means to become a citizen of a country other than by means of birth. Hence, you can't naturalize and not be a citizen by definition. Did you mean they were / are lawful permanent residents?
becoming citizens would mean swearing an oath to defend the US, which they will not do as pacifists.
From the USCIS Guide to Naturalization (PDF links in page, quote is from Chapter 5):
Waiver or Modification of the Oath of Allegiance.
In certain circumstances there can be a modification or waiver of the Oath of Allegiance. These circumstances are as follows:
If you are unable or unwilling to promise to bear arms or perform noncombatant service because of religious training and belief, you may request to leave out those parts of the oath. USCIS may require you to provide documentation from your religious organization explaining its beliefs and stating that you are a member in good standing.
If you are unable or unwilling to take the oath with the words “on oath” and “so help me God” included, you must notify USCIS that you wish to take a modified Oath of Allegiance. Applicants are not required to provide any evidence or testimony to support a request for this type of modification. See 8 CFR 337.1(b).
USCIS can waive the Oath of Allegiance when it is shown that the person’s physical or developmental disability, or mental impairments, makes them unable to understand, or to communicate an understanding of, the meaning of the oath. See 8 USC 337.
Frankly, USCIS is remarkably accepting here, and if it was brought up to an immigration officer I'm certain they'd advise your parents of the possibility of a modified Oath. So either your parents don't know about this, are assuming it can't be modified, and haven't tried, or your whole story is fabricated.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
A small technicality, but if have "naturalized" in the US, you are a naturalized US citizen. If you have not become a US citizen, but have the visa to live in the US on a permanent basis (via a "green-card"), you are technically called a permanent resident.
When I hear about situations like this (e.g., permanent residents that do not wish to return to their country of origin, nor become US citizens). I don't really feel sorry for them. Like everyone in live we make choices and many times, those choices have consequences, and sometimes it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Very few groups respond positively to criticism from outside, why not join us and complain from the inside? I say to such folks, you live in one of the few countries in the world where it is fairly easy (although slowly) to become a citizen. If you really want to own your life, join with us. Then you can gripe with us about our government and vote your choice, rather than scold us with one foot out-of-the-door with a "holier-than-thou" chip on your shoulder...
If someone objects to taking the "modified" oath (as allowed by law and listed below), then I suggest that they don't believe in our constitution, have no desire to support the people of our country more than a typical random joe in a random country in the world, or more likely are just being difficult on purpose to set themselves apart for some personal reason... That's a choice you are free to make, but don't expect the US to help...
I hereby declare, and solemnly affirm, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
What's really bad is that this is all true only for some protesters, and not others. If you're protesting a politician or some big politically-connected corporation or something, then the above is what happens to you. However, if you're picketing at a soldier's funeral and saying he deserved to die because "God hates fags", then you're A-OK and the cops won't bother you at all. If the cops are going to harass protesters, they could at least have the decency to harass the Westboro assholes too.
That power includes arresting protesters for simply protesting. This is what we saw happen last fall from NY to Oakland...Think of it this way, if Mubarak had tried to forcibly clear Tahrir square with the excuse of "health and safety"...
Look, I'm all for the right to protest, and I'm all for civil disobedience that might get you arrested to bring attention to an injustice. The Occupy protests were still stupid, and the police was in their right to remove them.
Here's how you make the determination. If it's illegal to do something (like putting up tents and sleeping in an area where this is generally not allowed), it doesn't suddenly become legal because it's part of a protest. That doesn't mean you don't do it, like I said, I'm in favor of civil disobedience as a form of protest. What you are protesting must be related to the laws your are disrespecting however.
Case in point, when Rosa Parks refused to get up to allow the white passengers to sit, she broke a law. That was, however, the law she was protesting against. The law itself was unjust. The only way that the civil disobedience of the Occupy protesters would have been valid would be if they were protesting laws against trespassing or the health codes that prevented them from being there. If they are in favor of those laws being enforced for people who are not protesting, then it is not legitimate for them to disobey them in a protest.
Just about every location gave them the right to protest, just not sleep there. They could go home and come back the next day, just not set up tents. They just felt it was more dramatic to put up tents and not move. Well, it's also more dramatic to set buildings on fire, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it to make their point. Unless they think arson laws are unjust, that is.
Please. Police were ALSO going after Occupy protesters who were NOT squatting in tent cities, littering, urinating in public, using drugs, assaulting, etc.
The reason for the difference in treatment between Occupiers and Tea Partiers has everything to do with the groups' messages: Occupiers protest corporate power, Tea Baggers support corporate power. That's why one group gets to open carry and make death threats, and the other group gets truncheons and tear gas canisters to the face when they hold up signs.
I will say the US is not like Egypt where people are literally starving.
However, the people protesting are not just some stoned college students who are angry at life because they have a 32GB iPhone 4S and not a 64GB model.
When I graduated high school, it didn't matter what you majored in college. You got your degree in underwater fart-lighting, and you could get a decent job somewhere.
Recently, I was at a college job fair. The people there were a bank or two looking for low end tellers. The US embassy system was looking for some diplomats from the political science majors. The FBI was there recruiting from the criminal justice majors.
The computer science and STEM majors? There was the Army recruiter who would happily give them the rank of PFC as soon as they got out of Basic training. Of course, if they wanted in, they would get MOS 11X because the Army needs infantry.
The ONLY way a STEM major can find work is if they have an internship. If someone doesn't have either the social networking or has been an intern, they will be out on the streets with their degree pounding the pavement indefinitely.
First, job positions these days are not made public.
To boot, most employers run a NCIC check on resumes before they even hit interviewers. If someone has an *arrest* (not conviction) for anything, their resume gets tossed. This is extremely common.
Don't forget Facebook access, either as a friend or a demand for the username/password.
So, for a 20-something to get a job, they have a lot of hurdles to get through. They couldn't have been tossed in the drunk tank during a frat party. They have to have a fake and hoky Facebook account. They had to get the news of the opening through a friend or a network.
So, it isn't just spoiled trust fund babies not getting their CEO job. Where I live, even McDonalds gets people actually writing resumes and 20 applicants for one position.
However, if you're picketing at a soldier's funeral and saying he deserved to die because "God hates fags", then you're A-OK and the cops won't bother you at all. If the cops are going to harass protesters, they could at least have the decency to harass the Westboro assholes too.
Yeah, but don't forget that these Westboro shitheads are basically the real life equivalent of internet trolls. As such, the proper response if you want them to go away (and I think we do) is to ignore them. Arresting them just makes them martyrs and puts their name in yet more papers.
I'm not saying that ignoring them is the morally right thing to do here, just the smartest.
I don't know about that. Internet trolls have a different motivation: they want attention. I think there's a saying something like "negative attention is better than no attention"; we see it with children all the time, they'll misbehave just to get attention if their parents aren't paying any attention to them. Internet trolls are basically like children this way (and in fact, many are children/teenagers). If they can stir up a bunch of angry responses to their troll post, they've done their job. I remember doing something like this when I was much younger, back when IRC was popular and the web didn't exist: I'd sign onto some IRC forum like "hotsex", post a message that said, "hey everyone, type '/sign naughtypicture.gif' to see some cool pics!', and then sit back and laugh as a dozen people would suddenly sign off the forum. (It didn't work so well when I tried it in a computing forum; they'd just /kick me.)
The Westboro people aren't just kids looking for attention or just to stir things up for fun. They have crazy religious beliefs that God actually wants to punish America because it tolerates homosexuals instead of rounding them all up and exterminating them. Taking away the attention isn't going to change their crazy beliefs; they really think they're on a mission from God, much like the Al Qaeda terrorists thought they were on a mission from God. They spend quite a lot of money sending their members on trips all over the country to make asses of themselves, even though they're actually a pretty small church, so I don't think ignoring them is going to change anything; they'll keep doing it until their demands are met.
This is revisionist it seems. There have been Tea Party protesters with police presence, only they did not keep an ongoing protest for weeks before police moved in.
Tea partiers didn't need to be disruptive to get the attention of the powerful. Their message -- complete and utter corporate control -- was already on the lips of every Republican on the hill. Even the very first Tea Parties were broadcast on national cable networks.
Occupy on the other hand was ignored by the media for weeks before the media realized that an alternative message was gaining traction among the people. Then they went into full character assassination mode.
For the Occupy Wherever people the police did not use truncheons and tear gas on day one when the protesters were being peaceful.
No, they tried to wait it out, and then when they realized that protesters wouldn't stop protesting until their demands were met, brutally violated their first amendment rights to peaceable assembly.
I do not like the tea party. But I can tell you which of the two groups gains the most credibility with the general public and which makes more ground swaying public opinion.
Only because corporations have complete and utter control of the American propaganda system.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!