Device Security: How Border Searches Are Really Used

Any different than those other governments? by bogaboga · 2013-09-10 02:16 · Score: 2

The documents reveal what had been a mostly secretive process that allows the government to create a travel alert for a person (regardless of whether they're a suspect in an investigation), then detain that individual at a border crossing and confiscate or copy any electronic devices that person is carrying.

Can some fella convince me that the government here, is any different as compared to those other governments?

Ohh wait, those governments are not democratic but ours is...

Re:Any different than those other governments? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 02:21 · Score: 1

Can some fella convince me that the government here, is any different as compared to those other governments?
They'll try very hard to say "but we're the good guys", but fascists are the same everywhere.
America can try to keep believing they're different from 'those' governments, but they're catching up fast.
Re:Any different than those other governments? by Charliemopps · 2013-09-10 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ohh wait, those governments are not democratic but ours is...
No it's not. If you're only allowed to vote for 1 of 2 people that mostly agree on everything, your vote doesn't really count. If you're voting democrat or republican YOU are the problem.
Re:Any different than those other governments? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 02:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

For one thing, you are free to post on slashdot about it without serious concern that you'll be dragged away to a secret prison. Yes, there *are* government abuses in the land of the free, but realistically, they're pretty rare. It is the freedom that exists that allows you to hear about them in the first place, and to have that discussion.
And yes, we are a democracy, but like all large organizations, the ship of state turns slowly. We do screw up, spectacularly (Dred Scott, Volstead act, etc), but on the whole, these things do get corrected. It just takes decades, not the minutes or hours that modern society working on "internet time" seems to want.
It has been 50 years since the famous march on Washington. While there is still a ways to go, if you look at what has changed since then, it is dramatic: in the 60s, DC was still segregated: African Americans riding the train south had to get off in Baltimore and move to the "colored cars" at the back. There were riots and conniptions in the 70s & 80s about integrating schools. When was the last time you heard about people firebombing school buses in the US?
Yes, all of this stuff about the NSA is disturbing, and it should be. But realistically, the mere fact that we are discussing it here is a good thing, and for all the grandstanding in Congress, there will be changes. They'll be slow; there will be bodies of dead pioneers along the sides of the paths of progress; but change will happen.
And here's your chance to poke at your representatives. Ask them (or tell them) how unhappy you are. Granted, your comment will likely just wind up as a checkmark on a tally sheet prepared by an underpaid congressional intern, but the existence of those tally marks does have an effect in the long run. Politicians aren't totally stupid and beholden to their funding sources. You start seeing 90% of the tally marks in the column for change, and you start thinking.. there's not enough money in the world to buy ads to support the 10% column, I'd better start thinking about it.
Re:Any different than those other governments? by TheGratefulNet · 2013-09-10 02:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

voters are not the problem. the system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem.
people like you keep perpetuating the myth that american voting system matters at the national level. it does not. stop being stupid, ok? the sooner we remove this myth, the sooner we can get on with fixing THE SYSTEM.
voters are not the main problem. we'll always have idiots who vote against their own best interests, but the last few cycles, D or R would not have mattered one bit when it comes to privacy and removing PATRIOT (etc).

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Any different than those other governments? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 02:53 · Score: 1

Ours is more efficient!
Well, yours is spending 40billion dollars for eavesdropping on the internet during few years. There are perhaps 2billion people online, so that's 20 dollars per person on the internet just for eavesdropping. Is that efficient? What happens with the eavesdropped material? It is analyzed, sure, but the analysis does not reach the government: the NSA would have to admit to the amount of constitutional violations they do, so they just make up shit to feed the government and fantasize about, say, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It's not hard to do that. Figure out what you want to fib about, and even without fabrication you'll be able to find thousands of mails that, when properly arranged, will paint an alarming picture.
It's policy porn. It's also useless. If you don't presift the information by actually eavesdropping only on those people who are suspicious enough to warrant a judicial warrant, you get arbitrary crap proving anything you want. And then the CIA will go and eliminate the people who happened to be at too many crossings of random tangents. And report about a thwarted terrorist attack.
Can you spell Gestapo?
Re:Any different than those other governments? by gstoddart · 2013-09-10 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

For one thing, you are free to post on slashdot about it without serious concern that you'll be dragged away to a secret prison.
The problem with everything you say is it can be countered with "for now".
As your government gives itself more and more power to intrude on your lives, ignore your Constitution, or use one set of laws to skirt around another the abuses magnify.

Yes, all of this stuff about the NSA is disturbing, and it should be. But realistically, the mere fact that we are discussing it here is a good thing
So, you can say to yourself now "well, they haven't taken this away yet" and convince yourself everything is OK. But in a few years if they've taken that and even more away from you, it's too late.
Complacently thinking everything is fine when it's increasingly not just means that by the time you've got nothing left there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
Slowly expanding the scope of these things over time means you should be worried, because eventually that 100 mile 'border' zone can cover your entire country, and searching your digital devices or scanning through all of your information can be used for everything they feel like.
Nobody plans on ending up in a police state, but if you don't stop the steady march while you can, it's all too easy to wake up one day and realize just how badly screwed you are. Joseph McCarthy demonstrated how easily things can change.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke"

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Any different than those other governments? by SuricouRaven · 2013-09-10 02:56 · Score: 1

One of the things the parties do cooperate in is making sure that no third party ever gets influential enough to threaten the duopoly at the federal level. They keep campaign spending high to maintain a financial barrier entry, and make sure that there is no media coverage for competitors by shunning any media organisation that acknowledges third parties or independents exist.
Re:Any different than those other governments? by CanHasDIY · 2013-09-10 03:00 · Score: 1

voters are not the problem. the system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem.
To a certain degree, this is correct; look at how hard many groups and organizations worked to keep Ron Paul off the ballot and out of the spotlight during the last Presidential election, for example.
However, that does not absolve the voter from responsibility - there's a write-in slot on the ballot for a reason.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Any different than those other governments? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 03:10 · Score: 2, Informative

You might want to check history of passports as an hint that crossing borders has not always been so traumatic, even when borders were as well established as now (ref to Europe before WWI)
Re:Any different than those other governments? by fustakrakich · 2013-09-10 03:39 · Score: 1

...we'll always have idiots who vote against their own best interests...
Yes, the 98% that vote for democrats or republicans.. The problem lies squarely on their shoulders, and people like you who like to pass blame onto others is precisely THE problem. The system is 'rigged' only to the extent the voters allow it to be. Nobody is forcing them to vote the way they do. They do it out of perceived self interest. Nothing will change until real introspection becomes the norm.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Any different than those other governments? by gstoddart · 2013-09-10 03:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Slippery slope is an argument people resort to when they lack a real argument.
Fine, but one day when you can be detained anywhere based on arbitrary things, ask yourself if your willingness to pretend that nothing is happening was the problem.
It's a fact that they've been steadily cutting into Constitutionally protected things, and that it's getting worse. Just ask anybody in a state where these 'border' stops covers the whole state.
If you want to act like it isn't getting worse and isn't likely to continue to do so, then you haven't been paying attention.
Dismissing the argument on the basis that it's a slippery slope and therefore invalid is the height of willful ignorance.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Any different than those other governments? by CohibaVancouver · 2013-09-10 04:16 · Score: 1

Can some fella convince me that the government here, is any different as compared to those other governments?
Yes. The ACLU filed lawsuits and the judge ruled against the government. Documents were then compelled to be released.

In those 'other' countries the ACLU would not exist (members dead or tortured and rotting in jail), the judge would not exist, or if he did and he ruled against the government he would have been shot and no documents would have been released. Oh yeah, and I would have been dragged away in the night for making this Slashdot post.
Re:Any different than those other governments? by gsslay · 2013-09-10 04:21 · Score: 1

England doesn't have a government. It also doesn't secure its borders.
Britain, however.....
Re:Any different than those other governments? by dbIII · 2013-09-10 04:22 · Score: 1

Then get off your arse and agitate to fix it. Your voting systems (multiple and an enormous clusterfuck) are an international joke which they should not be since US staff have very effectively supervised elections in other countries. Universal voting, not doing it on a weekday - that's two fixes that would make a massive difference and probably make third parties as viable as they are in other places.
Cutting down on bribery ("lobbying" with cash in hand) would help make this possible.
Re: Any different than those other governments? by AvitarX · 2013-09-10 05:04 · Score: 1

Kind of reminds me pantheon travel in Europe now. Went from zurich, to mainz, to vienna, and back.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Any different than those other governments? by Em+Adespoton · 2013-09-10 05:37 · Score: 1

Can some fella convince me that the government here, is any different as compared to those other governments?
Yes. The ACLU filed lawsuits and the judge ruled against the government. Documents were then compelled to be released.
In those 'other' countries the ACLU would not exist (members dead or tortured and rotting in jail), the judge would not exist, or if he did and he ruled against the government he would have been shot and no documents would have been released. Oh yeah, and I would have been dragged away in the night for making this Slashdot post.
In many other countries, a group agitating for American Civil Liberties for all citizens would probably be publicly denounced as traitors, and then either executed or just shunned.
Now if they'd only decided to stand for local civil liberties, in a manner supported by the local government, they'd be fine....
The country whose politics fascinates me is India... there you've got a country with a huge population, where democracy could never hope to function, and yet they don't have a dictator; they've got a "functioning" democratic republic. I think the US could learn a thing or two from them as the US population continues to rise.
Re:Any different than those other governments? by Charliemopps · 2013-09-10 05:37 · Score: 1

I gave you the solution to your problem. Stop voting for the parties. It's as simple as that... and the parties haven't diverged on any major policy since WW2, so don't give me that shit. They disagree on some non-issues that get people hot under the collar like abortion, gun rights, carbon taxes... but nothing that would really change anything. Improve the economy and women wont need as many abortions, people wont rob as many banks and maybe we'd all be able to afford electric cars. The problems in this country are tiny, easily fixable, but the process has been subverted by a single group of people that pretend to be separated by party. And they all have the same common goal... to retain power.
Re:Any different than those other governments? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 06:28 · Score: 1

there's a write-in slot on the ballot for a reason.
In the case of the POTUS a meaningless write-in vote isn't necessary; there are three other parties on enough ballots to win if only enough people would realize that the media is full of shit when they tell you a vote for a "third party" is wasted. A wasted vote is voting for someone who is for the PATRIOT act, FISA courts, software patents, rediculously long copyrights, and putting your friends and loved ones in prison for pot. Want your dope-smoking grandpa in jail? The vote Democrat or Republican.
Everyone has loved ones who smoke pot, yet you fools still vote to imprison them. Vote Libertarian or Green, neither party wants your nonviolent loved ones in prison.
Re:Any different than those other governments? by Kielistic · 2013-09-10 06:30 · Score: 2

A distinct, established and visible trend is slightly different than slippery slope. And although the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy so is disregarding things because someone made a logical fallacy.
Basically "just because it's a slippery slope doesn't mean it's not a downward spiral".
Re:Any different than those other governments? by almitydave · 2013-09-10 09:07 · Score: 1

Can you spell Gestapo?
Yes, I think it's spelled G-O-D-W-I-N.

--
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Re:Any different than those other governments? by iris-n · 2013-09-10 10:13 · Score: 1

This is completely beside the point (although true). The problem is that the voting system allows for such a thing to happen. Ever wondered why no European democracy has a two-party state? Well, they have sane voting laws. First past the post system without runnofs is just insane. Gerrymandering, electoral college, come on. Once the US was an inspiration to every democracy in the world. Now it has become a laughing matter.

--
entropy happens
Re:Any different than those other governments? by gmanterry · 2013-09-10 10:59 · Score: 1

The documents reveal what had been a mostly secretive process that allows the government to create a travel alert for a person (regardless of whether they're a suspect in an investigation), then detain that individual at a border crossing and confiscate or copy any electronic devices that person is carrying.
Can some fella convince me that the government here, is any different as compared to those other governments?
Ohh wait, those governments are not democratic but ours is...
Let me fix that for you...
Ohh wait, those governments are not democratic but ours WAS...

--
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
Re:Any different than those other governments? by EuclideanSilence · 2013-09-10 11:49 · Score: 1

[T]he system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem.
I can tell you how to fix it, but you won't like it.
Destroy the television network. Completely. Leave behind only internet based video. If televisions can't make spectacles out of candidates, then all the "my guy vs your guy" people would become too bored to be involved in elections. Why do you think everyone only knows about 2 candidates? It's because that is what they saw on television.
Certain people in our country (and sometimes not even citizens) have been privileged with having exclusion access to a media that is streamed straight into people's houses. There is no equality. *You* can't just start using public television infrastructure to send propaganda to the entire country, but a few people actually are allowed.
On the internet, the viewer searches for the video. Who the hell would watch CBS or Fox news if it was only available as a choice among anyone who was interested in broadcasting? No one. If we ended the television networks, then the illusion of a "fight between 2 parties" would be nearly impossible to keep up. Then candidates, instead of pandering to every idiot with a TV in their bedroom, would have to actually appeal to people who are interested in civil matters.
Re:Any different than those other governments? by HiThere · 2013-09-10 15:21 · Score: 1

FWIW, since that "100 mile zone" is also around any international airport, they can create new extensions ad-lib without changing any laws or regulations. It already appears to cover most of the populace.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-09-10 02:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

This isn't exactly shocking news.

To save them and you the inconvenience of physically handing it over, I guess?

--
I am not a crackpot.

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Lincolnshire+Poacher · 2013-09-10 02:22 · Score: 5, Informative

This isn't exactly shocking news.

Oh, I disagree! The USG has established 100-mile 'non-Constitution' zones around the national borders. Due process and security of personal information is suspended.

How is that not shocking?

What's the point by sl4shd0rk · 2013-09-10 02:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Only reasons I see to examine everyone's electronic devices are:

A) keep privatized prison populations growing
B) revenue from confiscated electronics
C) revenue from war on drugs

I guess that's believable

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!

Re:What's the point by Zocalo · 2013-09-10 02:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

D) Install the NSA's secret backdoors.

In the light of recent developments, if I were to get any of my devices searched at the border of a country (any country) and it wasn't confiscated outright, my default stance now is to treat the device as compromised until I can nuke it from orbit, do a complete re-install of the OS and reload any data from backups.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:What's the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 02:52 · Score: 1

You forgot
D) TSA needs new pr0n
They too tire of looking at the same old images over and over.
Re:What's the point by SuricouRaven · 2013-09-10 02:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Installing backdoors would be too easily detected, eventually. But if I were running a secretive national spy agency, I'd have the border patrol grab any certificate files, credentials or VPN keys as a matter of routine to go into the big database. Never know when they might come in handy.
If anyone objects, claim it's to fight terrorism or child porn.
Re:What's the point by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-09-10 03:03 · Score: 1

There's the reason from TFA: "Circumventing due process w.r.t. search warrants, court orders, etc."
Also, how about industrial/commercial espionage? The US Government expects companies to do some dirty work for them, maybe they return the favor every so often so there's no hard feelings.

--
I am not a crackpot.
Re:What's the point by dkleinsc · 2013-09-10 03:13 · Score: 2

D) Harass anyone the government doesn't like, e.g. reporters who have written stuff critical of US war efforts.
E) Find out privileged secrets by illegally searching attorneys representing defendants on high-profile cases, e.g. Chelsea Manning's counsel.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:What's the point by mybecq · 2013-09-10 03:45 · Score: 1

my default stance now is to treat the device as compromised until I can nuke it from orbit, do a complete re-install of the OS and reload any data from backups.
I know how to do an OS re-install and data restore, but can you tell me where you get the nukes?
Re:What's the point by gstoddart · 2013-09-10 03:59 · Score: 1

I know how to do an OS re-install and data restore
How do you do an OS reinstall on a tablet?
Because unless you're installing your own ROMs, from what I've been able to tell the "wipe device" only deletes the user stuff, but doesn't reset the OS to what it was when you got it.
I'm not being sarcastic, it's a real question ... because I'm not convinced that if I wiped my Nexus 7 it would actually throw away any updates I've received, just clear off some of the stuff.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:What's the point by DigitalSorceress · 2013-09-10 04:44 · Score: 1

... and then sell my compromised one on eBay... to pay for the cost of replacement... no way that one I just bought from someone else who had the same idea.... Just sayin'.

--

The Digital Sorceress
Re:What's the point by BitterOak · 2013-09-10 05:30 · Score: 1

do a complete re-install of the OS and reload any data from backups.
What makes you think reinstalling the OS will get rid of the spyware? It could easily stored in the BIOS (many commercial laptop theft prevention services work this way and survive OS reinstalls, so why can't gov't. spyware?), or in some hardware modifications made to your device while in custody. They could easily install a hardware keylogger or a network monitoring device without your knowledge which phones home with all your secrets.

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Re:What's the point by girlintraining · 2013-09-10 08:22 · Score: 1

Installing backdoors would be too easily detected, eventually. But if I were running a secretive national spy agency, I'd have the border patrol grab any certificate files, credentials or VPN keys as a matter of routine to go into the big database. Never know when they might come in handy.
Why think so small? The blueprints for motherboard, peripherals, memory sticks, etc., all are available to any government. Not just ours. All they have to do is seize an engineer, or a laptop here and there, or intercept communications... oh, and there's always the courts too.
If you lose physical access to your device, don't trust it again. Don't decrypt the data. It's gone. Even if you're holding it in your hands, the only thing for you to do is scrub it as best you can and put it up on eBay. It's not yours anymore.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:What's the point by AHuxley · 2013-09-10 12:31 · Score: 1

Dont bring any device of that generation and OS type. Just bring any of the really good, second hand laptops with OSX, Win 7/8 or Linux.
Put in the productivity software and have some VPN you trust to get your work/holiday data back, travel with the laptop but nothing thats personal on it.
No vids, no chat logs, no IM names, no images with faces/locations/gps/name/serial numbers in the files, no web cache, no digital books with your drm.
Just random free software and free games :)
If your data is cloned, MAC and any wireless serial numbers kept, its takes some time with all the free software and you get your laptop back.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:What's the point by hany · 2013-09-11 01:51 · Score: 1

0) to obtain nude or otherwise entertaining photos ... to amuse themselves with and share with colleagues etc.
Yup, I'm being extremely sarcastic here but if my memory serves me sufficiently well, there were cases proving that this indeed occurs from time to time.

--
hany

Re:Is that against the law? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-09-10 02:33 · Score: 2

Not if they abuse it to target and gain access to things they couldn't legally inside the country. It seems to be coming to a head here -- here are documents showing exactly this -- the illegal motivation.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

How is this news? by Gothmolly · 2013-09-10 02:40 · Score: 1

Does anyone really think that the government wouldn't invoke any available power to achieve it's ends?

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Re:How is this news? by dbIII · 2013-09-10 04:23 · Score: 1

Doesn't look like martial law over there to me so I'll have to say no.

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Lumpy · 2013-09-10 02:46 · Score: 1

This makes ALL of Michigan such a zone. Be wary of travelling here.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Enforcing Immigration Law? by arc86 · 2013-09-10 02:52 · Score: 1

To play devil's advocate, is there some aspect of "Immigration Law" that would pertain to a US Citizen crossing the border with information deemed sensitive to national security?

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by rfolkker · 2013-09-10 02:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's not shocking, considering the current disregard for personal privacy currently administered by the government. It may be shocking if you take out the fact that many people are already aware of the fact that we have lost the war on privacy, and now are just going through the dance pretending that it's something we can win.

The US government has had a taste of knowing everything, and now thinks that it is our best interest to suspend/revoke/rewrite privacy laws because they just hinder investigations. Nevermind the fact that the rights of citizens should come first by our own principals.

Either way, shocking or not, this has been going on for over 10 years now, and will only get more invasive as new ways are revealed, and we become more complacent to the methods already used.

Even though there are those of us that disagree with this, and fight it as much as we can, it will not change the fact that the general population already has the mentality of "If you have nothing to hide...", and the government continues to keep it's mis-fires localized and on the "fringe", people will continue to give up their rights until we reach that ever lovable point of no return (which I honestly believe we have already passed).

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by poetmatt · 2013-09-10 02:59 · Score: 1

this just in. crazy gov't overreach results in a terrible loss to the economy.

is anyone really surprised?

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-10 03:12 · Score: 2

I didn't know all email and FTP servers were located in the USA.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by N0Man74 · 2013-09-10 03:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

This isn't exactly shocking news.

Oh, I disagree! The USG has established 100-mile 'non-Constitution' zones around the national borders. Due process and security of personal information is suspended.

How is that not shocking?

Yeah, but many of this have been fully aware of this for some time... Shocking news would be if the general public and mainstream media gave a fuck.

Let's see what the constitution says about this... by jcr · 2013-09-10 03:14 · Score: 4, Informative

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I keep looking for an exception for the government's imaginary 100-mile no-constitution zone, and it's just not in there. What the customs service is doing is a crime.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

OT: Seized items should not be sold by davidwr · 2013-09-10 03:17 · Score: 1

If any police agency seizes anything and it's later legally forfeited or abandoned, it should not be used for the benefit of the seizing authority.

Either destroy it, or if it has some historical or other value that would make destruction not in the public interest, store or display it but do so in a way that there is no benefit to the agency that seizes it or auction it off and take the auction proceeds and have a bonfire.

Why? Because this will send a strong message to police agencies: If you are seizing items out of a motivation for financial gain, forgetaboutit.

The same "throw a bonfire" principle should go for all fines and for all "court costs" that are in excess of reasonable and actual costs, where "reasonable and actual" are determined by an entity that is truly independent of and preferably antagonistic to the court in question.

Note - for reasons of safety, shredding or other non-flammable forms of destruction are usually preferable to a bonfire when destroying cash.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

That's Chelsea WOMANning! by Guest316 · 2013-09-10 03:21 · Score: 1

You insensitive clods.

You got it backwards by davidwr · 2013-09-10 03:22 · Score: 2

So instead of giving it to the border patrol, you tell them to get there own copy from the NSA.

There, fixed that for you.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Re: You got it backwards by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 03:35 · Score: 2, Informative

So instead of giving it to the border patrol, you tell them to get *their* own copy from the NSA.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:You got it backwards by oPless · 2013-09-10 04:24 · Score: 2

So instead of giving it to the border patrol, you tell them to get their own copy from the NSA.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:You got it backwards by oPless · 2013-09-17 21:50 · Score: 1

So instead of giving it to the border patrol, you tell them to get their own copy from the NSA.
There, fixed that for you.
Their fsked that four ewe
They're fdisked dat fer u

Re:Chelsea? by mrbester · 2013-09-10 03:29 · Score: 2

*Her* name (and gender) is whatever the fuck *she* wants to call *herself* and be referred to as. That some "official" document says otherwise is irrelevant.

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"

Re:Let's see what the constitution says about this by compro01 · 2013-09-10 03:29 · Score: 2

The exception is an exceedingly narrow definition of what constitutes "unreasonable".

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time

Re:Let them waste their time by joe_frisch · 2013-09-10 03:30 · Score: 1

The problem is that they waste YOUR time. You could spend hours in detention. Miss your flight connection and need to buy very expensive last minute one-way tickets.

Then when they arrest you for possession of child-porn, what is the next part of your plan. Or are you sure that a government that is willing to apply this sort of underhanded trick is not willing to falsify data to arrest someone who is "obviously" a bad person.

Voters are the problem, voters have the power by drnb · 2013-09-10 03:45 · Score: 1

voters are not the problem.

You are mistaken. Voters absolutely have the power and they squander it. Folks who say that money controls politics are mistaken. Money is just a tool to persuade those who have not made up their mind or are wavering in their commitment. The true political currency is ***votes***. This is easily proven, if a voter is resolute no amount of expensive TV ads can change their mind. Two examples. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Association of Retire Persons (AARP). These are two of the most successful lobbying groups in American politics. Sure politicians appreciate their financial contributions but that is not the true source of power for these groups. Their true source of power are their members who do show up on election day and vote. A group that can deliver ***voters*** is more powerful than a group that can only deliver money.

The primary failing of voters is their party loyalty. If you are loyal to a particular party then that party can ignore you. They have your vote, they need do nothing to receive your vote. Similar story for a candidate. If he or she votes contrary to your wishes, yet you remain loyal because of a stance on some particular wedge issue, then he or she may ignore you, the wedge issue (guns, abortion, gay rights, etc) gets your vote so you may be ignored on anything else.

If voters showed no loyalty to a candidate and voted only on how well the candidate supported all the issues that a voter was concerned about, and voted for the other candidate if the incumbent falls short, then after a few cycles politicians will get the message and be reminded as to who is in charge, the voter. Again, the ultimate political currency is the vote, nothing is more valuable. Politicians will do whatever they need to do in order to get that vote and attain and more importantly retain elected office. Even in a D and R dominated environment always voting out candidates who severely disappoints you will eventually make candidates more accountable. Lobbyists and PACs can only save their butt if voters put aside their disappointment.

Lobbyists and PACs successfully get voters to put aside their disappointment by demonizing the opponent. Yet you claim the D and R parties/candidates are largely the same, different only cosmetically. If so then there is little risk in voting for the "other" candidate. Yet constantly voting for the "other" candidate in response to a disappointing candidate can restore accountability to the voter.

... the system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem ...

More than D and R appear on the ballots, voters ***choose*** to vote primarily for D and R.

... people like you keep perpetuating the myth that american voting system matters at the national level ...

Voters ***choose*** what candidates will be representing each party in the national elections during primary elections. Voters have ***chosen*** increasing polarizing candidates in both the D and R parties. Voters have ***chosen*** not to support moderate candidates in the primaries and in the general elections.

... it does not. stop being stupid, ok? the sooner we remove this myth, the sooner we can get on with fixing THE SYSTEM.

The myth is that "voters are not to blame". As long as we have a one person one vote system voters are absolutely in charge. As long as voters are loyal to parties and/or vote for a candidate because of a wedge issue then voters can be ignored. If a voter is loyal to a party because of its platform or stance on an issue then that voter can be ignored, the party already has their vote and the candidate need do nothing for that voter.

What is stupid is failing to recognize that ***votes*** are the ultimate currency of politics, that money is just a tool to

Re:Let's see what the constitution says about this by the_fat_kid · 2013-09-10 03:48 · Score: 1

I believe they call it the Patriot act.
It has been a decade or more since you(we) had any "constitutional" rights.
you know terror, thinking of the children, ect.
I think that the real crime has happened at a much higher level than the mouth breathers at customs.

--
-- Sig under construction...

time to impeach by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-10 03:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

It's time to impeach obama. It's the best way for citizens to send a message to gov't that we will not accept these programs. Not just impeach, but impeach in the house, convict in the senate, and remove from office.

To do so, repubs need to win the senate in 2014. So anybody who cares about their civil rights, regardless of political persuasion (liberal, conservative, republican), needs to support and donate to republican candidates in the 2 or 3 swing states in the next election. Nate Silver knows which states these are.

Disclosure: I am a dem and voted for Obama in the last two elections. but I'm disgusted at his actions. He took an oath in front of the entire nation to defend the constitution. Time to go.

Re:time to impeach by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 04:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

... So anybody who cares about their civil rights, regardless of political persuasion (liberal, conservative, republican), needs to support and donate to republican candidates...
The solution to the problem of an overreaching Democrat president is not, nor ever will be, to elect Republicans. The only peaceful solution is to never elect a Dem or Repub again.
Re:time to impeach by Em+Adespoton · 2013-09-10 05:03 · Score: 1

... So anybody who cares about their civil rights, regardless of political persuasion (liberal, conservative, republican), needs to support and donate to republican candidates...
The solution to the problem of an overreaching Democrat president is not, nor ever will be, to elect Republicans. The only peaceful solution is to never elect a Dem or Repub again.
Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult to impeach them all. Step 1 would be starting your own media empire and getting a lot of hollywood-types to join in. Then come up with a new party name (libertarian has already been compartmentalized).
Re:time to impeach by gothzilla · 2013-09-10 05:05 · Score: 1

So party A does illegal things then Party B takes over and continues doing illegal things while expanding the number of illegal things they do, then later Party A gets back in control and keeps doing those same illegal things and adds even more illegal things, and your solution is to tell everyone to support party B?
Re:time to impeach by mrchaotica · 2013-09-10 05:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Have you noticed the deafening silence from the Republicans (including even Tea Partiers) who were crowing about impeaching Obama over Obamacare? You should think about why they choose to clam up now that they have an actual legitimate reason to want him impeached.
The answer, of course, is that the Republicans are just as complicit in the totalitarianism as the Democrats are.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:time to impeach by sjames · 2013-09-10 06:20 · Score: 1

The R's started a lot of this crap, the Ds just failed to kill it with fire.
Re:time to impeach by poetmatt · 2013-09-10 06:34 · Score: 1

As replied below, this easily will not fix anything. When both parties are the problem focusing on the immediate fix guarantees to change/fix absolutely nothing.
So Obama gets impeached. Biden is in the pocket of the RIAA -so how do you think that would go, for example?
Your idea is about as viable as suggesting violent revolution .Neither will end better than they started, for certain.
Re:time to impeach by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 07:57 · Score: 1

A lot of this NSA and border bullshit came about during the Bush administration. This shit is seriously non-partisan.
Re:time to impeach by dcollins · 2013-09-10 10:15 · Score: 1

I'd be all for that, and for exactly the same reasons, but have Republicans even suggested the idea of impeachment? Obama is much more useful to them as a whipping boy. It's like all the GOP leadership with the ban-abortion promises, they'll never do it because it's too useful a platform every election. (But besides that, no one in the GOP is even whispering about impeachment.)

--
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Re:time to impeach by dcollins · 2013-09-10 10:16 · Score: 1

Which is provably impossible by mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

--
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Re:time to impeach by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-10 10:22 · Score: 1

I agree with you, I'm party neutral on this. I don't care as much who replaces obama, because dem or repub are basically the same here. I want to tear this guy down and send a message to any politician that we're not sheeple. Call it the "Article II, Section 4 Solution".
realistically, the only way this will happen is if the repubs get the senate. that's the path for impeachment, so let's go down that path. then we can argue over who will replace him. Short term it will be biden to finish out the term, then we vote again. dem, repub, green, libertarian, whoever wins.
who's with me on this?
Re:time to impeach by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-10 10:24 · Score: 1

No, I'm telling everyone to tear down the current administration as a warning to all pols who want to be in office - we are watching you and will take you down if needed. To do this we need to get repubs in the senate. but in 2016 we can vote for whoever - I'm not saying support party A or B.
Alternatively, what would you recommend as a realistic path to impeachment?
Re:time to impeach by Darinbob · 2013-09-10 11:20 · Score: 1

Impeach only Obama? That's highly partisan and very shortsighted. Impeach Obama, and all of the senate, and all of the house, and all cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, NSA personnel, etc. Then see what we can do about pressing charges against W Bush, and Bill Clinton, and HW Bush, and Jimmy Carter (you think they had nothing to do with this build up?).
Re:time to impeach by ganjadude · 2013-09-10 11:22 · Score: 1

Id say it has more to do with the media covering up for the buffoon in the whitehouse

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:time to impeach by ganjadude · 2013-09-10 11:24 · Score: 1

if you really think all this started under bush, or even reagan, and not way back under wilson and FDR and others at the turn of the century,from many parties, do some reasearch before you spout off stuff you dont understand.

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:time to impeach by EuclideanSilence · 2013-09-10 11:28 · Score: 1

If you don't understand the assumptions that a theorem is based on, then it's not mathematics.
Re:time to impeach by sjames · 2013-09-10 14:52 · Score: 1

Did I Gore your Elephant?
I'm really quite fed up with both parties these days. The Ds seem to do a better job of balancing the budget and making an economy that works for the middle class, but both Rs and Ds have a pretty dismal record for freedom these days.
Re:time to impeach by Fjandr · 2013-09-10 16:26 · Score: 1

In order to stop stupidity, Congress needs to have a bare majority of the "opposition" party. That way they can't actually do much and anything they do can be blamed squarely on both parties.
Re:time to impeach by Fjandr · 2013-09-10 16:27 · Score: 1

That won't work. The only way voting will make them take notice is if you don't vote for either party.
Re:time to impeach by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-10 18:34 · Score: 1

bahahahaha
Re:time to impeach by gottabeme · 2013-09-10 19:47 · Score: 1

The Democrats do a better job of balancing the budget? Is that what happens when you enact massive government spending and entitlement programs?
I won't argue that many Republicans have helped enact massive military spending, and NSA-type programs--it's not a case of one party being good and the other being evil--but there are actually some Republicans who favor small government and want to decrease the size of the government; they actually are calling for fiscal responsibility.
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I don't recall having heard many Democrats advocating reducing spending and closing departments of the federal government.
It's my impression that Democrats actually pander to the lower-class masses by raising taxes on the other classes and creating entitlement programs that benefit the poor. I don't think that makes "an economy that works for the middle class."
If you really want freedom, advocate small government (especially at the federal level), lower taxes (which limits the powers of government), and returning power to the states (which brings representation and accountability closer to the people).

--
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Re:time to impeach by sjames · 2013-09-10 20:55 · Score: 1

Under Clinton we had a SURPLUS (the debt was actually being paid down for the first time in over a decade). It disappeared very quickly under Bush. Now under Obama, our deficit is shrinking fast.
That's the facts, feel free to look it up.
Note that it took Obama a while to get there, but then he took office during a massive economic crisis.
Re:time to impeach by david_thornley · 2013-09-11 05:26 · Score: 1

It won't be a warning for all politicians, only those whose party has a minority in the House and a 1/3 minority in the Senate. (Then we have President Biden. Hooray.) Then we elect another President in 2016, he or she takes office in 2017, and probably continues the same practices. (Obama promised to do better in 2008. He lied.) Then, if the new President still doesn't have party support in the House, and only 1/3 support in the Senate, that person gets impeached and convicted.
If a President is impeached by the opposing party, that will be seen as a specifically partisan act, and will be useless as a deterrent. If there were a strong bipartisan movement to rein in the Presidency, it could do so by means other than impeachment, such as refusal to confirm certain Presidential nominees, cutting the budget, creating a better investigative group in the Judicial branch, etc.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:time to impeach by poetmatt · 2013-09-12 07:42 · Score: 1

why are you swearing at me? basic common sense shows your ideas are terrible ideas.
or did you simply mean to reply anonymous and fail as usual?
Re:time to impeach by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-12 09:05 · Score: 1

I don't need to hide behind an AC. You're clearly one of those people who tears down any attempts to make things better. I'm sorry that it may not be a perfect solution out of the gate. But we all can work together to refine and make an action plan.
You're such a big man, you give me a specific, actionable solution that you think would work. Nothing pie in the sky like "we need to elect a libertarian!"
Re:time to impeach by poetmatt · 2013-09-16 05:17 · Score: 1

Why yes, I am the president. I can always come up with specific actionable solutions!
your solution so far (attacking me) is no more of a solution than my pointing out an obvious bad idea. way to help things out, moron.
Re:time to impeach by poetmatt · 2013-09-16 05:19 · Score: 1

also, when did I ever say we need to elect a libertarian?
solutions exist and they're clear as fucking day.
enforce and require real transparency. Prevent anything from being classified under any classification under any circumstances whatsoever would be an easy and simple, actionable solution. Remove all current actionable reasons for refusal to comply with FOIA.
there's two.
So far I see you provide none. You are a fucking waste of oxygen.
Re:time to impeach by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-16 10:04 · Score: 1

Ok, sounds really general to me. How do you implement them? Through the legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch? How do we, the citizenry, exert influence to make it happen? Where do we have leverage? Specifics, please!

hey, look over there! new iphones. by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-10 03:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

horrifying news about civil rights, but obama shouldn't sweat it because new iphones are being announced in an hour so everybody's attention will swing to that.

Re:hey, look over there! new iphones. by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-10 04:52 · Score: 2

New iPhone with a fingerprint scanner, wink-wink. Know what I mean?

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:hey, look over there! new iphones. by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-09-10 06:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

When are you guys gonna elect some libertarian guy who at least stops your evil forgein policies?
I'm afraid we need more than a wink and promise from a presidential candidate, but rather real checks and balances restored. Depending on the good character of the guy that gets elected not exceed his authority seems unreliable.

--
I am not a crackpot.
Re:hey, look over there! new iphones. by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-10 10:32 · Score: 1

bahahaha and Find My iPhone to help you in case of theft. Not to mention, all of your emails, texts, phone logs, contacts conveniently in the cloud!
Re:hey, look over there! new iphones. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 11:43 · Score: 1

Your hand will do whatever they want it to do when you are in handcuffs behind your back.
I'd rather have a password/code I can 'forget' rather than a fingerprint scanner with my hands in their control.
Re:hey, look over there! new iphones. by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-11 15:50 · Score: 1

fuck the evil foreign policies. I don't care who we bomb outside our borders. Just respect my constitional rights! Keep your eyes off my shit and your hands off my junk.

Doesn't anyone remember why we had the cold war? by sandbagger · 2013-09-10 04:00 · Score: 1

We built the largest military alliance in history, and built a massive fleet of weapons capable of destroying all life on the planet because we said that the idea that you could live in a state where you had no privacy was inherently wrong.

--
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.

3rd parties are viable -- see 1992. by drnb · 2013-09-10 04:01 · Score: 1

One of the things the parties do cooperate in is making sure that no third party ever gets influential enough to threaten the duopoly at the federal level. They keep campaign spending high to maintain a financial barrier entry, and make sure that there is no media coverage for competitors by shunning any media organisation that acknowledges third parties or independents exist.

The R and D parties do no such thing. Voters do this. When voters have shown sufficient interest in a 3rd party candidate the media gives that 3rd party candidate coverage and access. In 1992 Ross Perot was leading the presidential race at one point with 39% of likely voters, an 8% lead over incumbent George Bush and a 14% lead over Bill Clinton. He not only participated in the debates but was considered by many in the media to have won the first debate. After a severely f'ed up campaign he still received 19% of the popular vote.

Re:3rd parties are viable -- see 1992. by SuricouRaven · 2013-09-10 04:13 · Score: 1

Perot solved the spending problem by throwing his own wealth into the campaign - no-one not a billionaire could hope to do what he did.
Re:3rd parties are viable -- see 1992. by drnb · 2013-09-10 04:39 · Score: 1

Jesus Christ that was 20 years ago. That's literally a new generation of voters now. And don't know you 9-11 changed everything?
And 20 years ago people were saying the same thing as today. That the Republicans and Democrats and media prevent 3rd parties from getting any traction. Those people were wrong back then and those continuing to say so are wrong today. Its all about a candidate's ideas connecting with the voters. Perot made the connection, Nader and others did not.
Re:3rd parties are viable -- see 1992. by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-09-10 07:56 · Score: 1

Perot solved the spending problem by throwing his own wealth into the campaign - no-one not a billionaire could hope to do what he did.
It should be noted that Obama rejected Federal Matching Funds in order to be free of spending limits, and spent rather more than $1 billion dollar per election.
Which at least implies the possibility that someone "not a billionaire" could manage, since Obama wasn't, and did.
As to whether a third-party candidate could or not, guess it depends on how good he is at fund-raising.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:3rd parties are viable -- see 1992. by drnb · 2013-09-10 09:41 · Score: 1

And the last hundred years of Political Science has said that it is the electoral system itself that prevents 3rd parties from getting any traction.
Its a 100 years of 3rd parties with poor candidates and poor messages combined with 100 years of voter party loyalty. People just want an excuse for why **their** favorite 3rd party candidate failed so they blame the system. The truth is that its a failing of candidates and voters. The system is still one person one vote.
Re:3rd parties are viable -- see 1992. by drnb · 2013-09-10 09:56 · Score: 1

The R and D parties do no such thing.
You're obviously ignorant of their role in excluding third parties from presidential debates via the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Wrong. Third parties are not excluded. Candidates polling less than 15% are excluded. The likely voters are excluding the candidate not the R and D parties. Today with social media that 15% barrier is a far easier hurdle than it used to be.

If you want to criticize someone pick the correct entity, the complacent voters who are loyal to their parties. People like to falsely blame the R and D parties, the electoral college, billionaires, corporation, etc because people don't want to admit the simple truth. That the voters actually control the system but voters are failing to act and vote in a thoughtful and responsible manner.

Until voters accept that they are the single biggest problem in the system nothing will get fixed and nothing will change.
Re:3rd parties are viable -- see 1992. by drnb · 2013-09-10 09:59 · Score: 1

He not only participated in the debates
He participated in the 1992 debates, but was not allowed to participate in the 1996 debates.
Yes, in 1992 people did not know he was a nutcase. In 1996 they did. Perot self destructed personally and politically after the 1992 debates. In 1996 he did not have the sort of support he did in 1992. Likely voters abandoned Perot, nothing more.
Re:3rd parties are viable -- see 1992. by drnb · 2013-09-10 10:02 · Score: 1

As to whether a third-party candidate could or not, guess it depends on how good he is at fund-raising.
Social media has changed things in this area. If a good 3rd party candidate with a good message appears he/she will find raising money far easier than any 3rd party predecessor. Again, its up to voters and only voters.
Re:3rd parties are viable -- see 1992. by Fjandr · 2013-09-10 16:31 · Score: 1

And after Perot happened, the parties took complete control of the debates so that they can exclude any third party. No third party will ever be allowed into the debates again.

Only devices? by return+42 · 2013-09-10 04:09 · Score: 1

I've been wondering if the OpenBSD CDs I got in the mail are the same ones they mailed me. Seems like they're all mailed from the same place; wouldn't be too hard for the American Stasi to swap them out for compromised ones, once they got it set up.

For some bizarre reason OpenBSD doesn't sign their releases. Way to throw us under the bus, Theo.

Re:Only devices? by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-09-13 15:16 · Score: 1

It would be hard to fake the SHA-256 fingerprints though.

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by It+doesn't+come+easy · 2013-09-10 04:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Definitely shocking, and likely unconstitutional. According to the ACLU, about 197 million (or nearly 2/3rds) of the US population live within 100 miles of the US border. It is highly unlikely that the newly proclaimed 100 mile wide "constitution free zone" would hold up in court if it essentially permanently suspends constitutionally guaranteed rights to 2/3rds of the population. Not even the US Government can get away with that (at least, not yet).

--
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.

Not illegal, but perhaps detrimental by climate_control · 2013-09-10 04:15 · Score: 1

The "border search exception" has been well vetted legally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception (Note that the ACLU's implication that this exception extends to 100 miles from the border is incorrect: http://news.yahoo.com/does-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-america-195813138.html) But I would guess this search exercise does more harm than good. It can be easily circumvented (encrypted data over networks), so the question is empirical: Have criminals adapted to the law yet, in which case it becomes useless, and detrimental to the innocent (mostly for psychological reasons, but also for practical reasons if the government were to abuse the info it obtains).

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by dbIII · 2013-09-10 04:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Access to offshore routers (eg. East side of the Pacific ones owned by Telstra) has been confirmed as well. All your traffic is 0wned by the US.

So... what should I do? by mspohr · 2013-09-10 04:21 · Score: 1

I am a US citizen and travel out of the country fairly frequently. The work I do is "innocent" and "I have nothing to hide" but I do interact with "foreigners" and with the government random collection of metadata and "six degrees of separation", I could end up in this situation and considerable inconvenience (or worse).
I've been thinking of using a Chromebook which I could wipe before crossing the border.
Any ideas?

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?

Re:Chelsea? by dbIII · 2013-09-10 04:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

every silly whim of this traitor

The "treason" charge didn't seem to happen and Manning was certainly never convicted of that. Oliver North didn't get charged for treason for selling weapons to a terrorist group that had killed over a hundred US Marines only a year prior, selling them via a declared enemy of the USA no less. Manning doesn't even show up on the scale.

Re:Chelsea? by gsslay · 2013-09-10 04:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Did someone remove the right to decide your own name too? They're falling so thick and fast now, I may have missed it.

You have the right to decide whatever name you want to be called by. I have the right to form an opinion of you based on that name. If I really hate your name, I may choose not to use it, but that won't stop it being your name. That's as far as our respective rights go.

Gender identification is a bit more involved. But declaring it a "silly whim" just shows you know nothing about it.

Donald Trump proves its more than money ... by drnb · 2013-09-10 04:45 · Score: 1

Perot solved the spending problem by throwing his own wealth into the campaign - no-one not a billionaire could hope to do what he did.

Perot's wealth may have jump started his campaign but it was his message and how it was received by the voters that made him a viable candidate. With today's social media it is easier than ever for a 3rd party to get his candidacy off the ground. Recent 3rd party candidates have failed because of their message, it didn't connect with many voters. Unlike Perot who had a message that initially connected with voters on a very large scale.

If it were merely a question of money Donald Trump would have been a viable candidate. Money helps, but it takes a lot more than money.

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Silvrmane · 2013-09-10 04:56 · Score: 1

It isn't newly proclaimed... the 100 mile constitution free zone was established during Bush's administration, I believe.

--
planet texture maps and more

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Em+Adespoton · 2013-09-10 04:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

I guess you missed the part about it being encrypted?

I doubt it; did you miss the recent news regarding the NSA?

People are still trying to figure out if TrueCrypt is compromised.

Next time I travel with the broken laptop by Ioldanach · 2013-09-10 05:00 · Score: 1

The next time I have to travel across a border, I need to remember to leave the real laptop at home and bring the old & busted. I want to see them try and get data off of it. Maybe I'll even pull the hard drive.

Re:Next time I travel with the broken laptop by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-10 05:16 · Score: 1

Install OS/2 on it, just to mess with them.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:Next time I travel with the broken laptop by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-10 07:35 · Score: 1

I'm over 30 and never used Windows ME in my life, not even for one second. All I heard was that it could cause seizures.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

Who says they return your specific device? by swb · 2013-09-10 05:07 · Score: 1

The smarter move for them is to clone your device onto their hardware and give it back to you. No matter what you do, you're still owned, since presumably whatever they give you back has extra stuff (memory/software/hardware) to make sure they have access to your information and possibly remote access to the device.

This wouldn't be something trivial they would do for random people getting the standard cavity search, but for select targets it wouldn't be impossible. Surely the NSA has the leverage with Apple, Samsung and other makers to either make this easy for the NSA or the raw horsepower in terms of resources to do this themselves.

The thing I find oddly comforting about the whole NSA scandal is that I no longer "worry" about monitoring. I just assume that NOTHING is secure from the NSA and everything is cracked, exploitable and compromised. There just isn't anything you can call "private" anymore.

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by fast+turtle · 2013-09-10 05:17 · Score: 1

Which Bush? Sr or Jr? It became law as part of the God Damn "Patriot Act" that should have been shot down immediately by SCOTUS before it even became law and each and every one of the idiots that voted yes on it should have been tried for Treason then and there. Might have saved some of our precious freedoms that people simply don't give a damn about so long as they've got their Simpsons, South Park and American Idol to watch

--
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown

Nothing illegal *yet by schneidafunk · 2013-09-10 05:31 · Score: 1

As far as I can tell, this was all approved by congress through various legislation after Sep. 11 and then (rubber-stamped) approval by FISA courts. What are you saying is grounds for impeachment?

*note - I am NOT a supporter of the massive surveillance of U.S. citizens.

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin

Re:Nothing illegal *yet by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-10 10:28 · Score: 1

What are you saying is grounds for impeachment?
*note - I am NOT a supporter of the massive surveillance of U.S. citizens.
Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The president violated his oath to defend people's constitutional rights. This violates the oath he took. The magnitude of his willful violations are so extreme that the only possible course of action is impeachment.
It doesn't matter what the legislature or judiciary did - Obama took an oath of responsibility then stomped all over my rights. open and shut.
Re:Nothing illegal *yet by schneidafunk · 2013-09-11 01:17 · Score: 1

Not exactly, then the same goes for congress and the judges too. Impeachment starts with congress, and since they create the legislator and expected the president to do his job and enforce it, your argument doesn't make sense. Our current surveillance system is not the cause of one person.

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Re:Nothing illegal *yet by schneidafunk · 2013-09-11 01:20 · Score: 1

* since they created the legislation
It's early and I still need coffee. Anyway, I don't really disagree with you, this stuff stomps on the constitution blatantly. I just don't think the president will or should be impeached over it, considering the way it came to fruition. Any real change needs to go through congress first, or possibly the judicial branch overturning legislation. It should not come from the executive branch.

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin

Re:Let's see what the constitution says about this by houghi · 2013-09-10 05:33 · Score: 1

I think it is already known that what is happening is unconstitutional. The question is what you are going to do about it.

Look at your standard kid or dog raising show. If you forbid them to take a cookie and they still do it and you do nothing, they will take another cookie. Telling them not to take it does not impress them, because there is no reaction to their action.

What is going on now is telling the kids in a STERN voice they should not take that cookie. And what happens? They take the cookie and laugh in your face while doing it. The next step will be yelling "Wait till your (other) dad/mom comes home." and he also does nothing and both of you are yelling.

At one moment you will explode and take away the cookie by force and perhaps even (out of frustration) slap the kid.

If you compare it to the real world, the last part is called a revolution.

The reason all this is happening is because the kid/government does not have any respect. There are no incentives NOT to do what they are doing.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-09-10 05:58 · Score: 1

"... people will continue to give up their rights until we reach that ever lovable point of no return (which I honestly believe we have already passed)."

Very recently, a Federal judge ruled that the government must show probable cause in order to search or seize, even at the border or in the so-called "constitution-free zone".

How far this ruling will go remains to be seen.

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by davester666 · 2013-09-10 06:18 · Score: 1

I don't think it was actually passed as a law. Instead the administration at the time simply declared it as a new policy, as part of keeping our borders safe and secure from terrorists, they simply declared that the border area for searches simply widened from where the border control points are to 100 miles from all borders.

I believe this was done under the concept "Because we can."

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by blackraven14250 · 2013-09-10 06:34 · Score: 1

The SCOTUS can't "shoot down" a law before it becomes law. If you think that they can, you have a terrible understanding of the way the court works.

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by phrackthat · 2013-09-10 08:00 · Score: 1

The legal authority provided for this unconstitutional intrusion is 287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3), which simply provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General. The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."

However, the SCOTUS has not yet chimed in on the subject but its precedence suggests that the breadth of the searches and the distance involved may be unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports) (See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 US 266, 273 (1973) ).

More recently courts have opined that the "extended border search" exception should apply only to those situations where the following facts are present: (1) "reasonable certainty" that the international boundary has been crossed by the suspect vehicle and (2) reasonable suspicion that the subject of the search was involved in criminal activity. (See US v. Guzman-Padilla, 573 F. 3d 865, 868 (2009) , See also US v. Nelson, Dist. Court, D. Arizona (2012)).

Re:"Leave all electronic devices in the car" by brainboyz · 2013-09-10 08:25 · Score: 1

Actually, many of us do something about it. The problem is so many people either believe the "for the children" bullshit or default to the "doesn't affect me" logic that those of us that care are a drop in the bucket. I think the fact that we can't get away from a two-party system is evidence of that.

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by MrDoh! · 2013-09-10 08:26 · Score: 1

It makes everywhere within 100 miles of a coast and an airport such a zone. That's... 98% of the population?

--
Waiting for an amusing sig.

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Em+Adespoton · 2013-09-10 09:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Why use TrueCrypt instead of mainstream encryption with a long key length?
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/the_nsas_crypto_1.html

If you're really paranoid (no offense), you can encrypt with every known algorithm in series. Then only one of them has to actually work.

I'll take the last one first; although it's counter-intuitive, encrypting with every known algorithm doesn't actually increase security all that much. One of the main reasons is that as long as the algorithms used are known, an analyst can use the predilections of the various algorithms against the series, actually decreasing the number of possible outcomes. Of course, to do this the attacker would actually have to have some level of cryptanalysis training, but we're talking NSA here. They'll identify and use these tricks if they think it's worthwhile.

As for the first, one of the things that TrueCrypt (which is pretty bog standard mainstream encryption, and it uses only known and tested algorithms -- it's the implementation we're questioning here) provides that baked-in solutions usually don't, is plausible deniability. TrueCrypt allows you to encrypt data into the slack space of an already encrypted archive, thus allowing you not only to have two sets of data depending on the passphrase used, but to easily overwrite one set by modifying the other.

This means that if you're forced to give up your password at, say, the border, you can give the original password; they'll decrypt the archive, and if any data inside the encrypted image is modified, byebye secondary encrypted dataset. This means that you can protect not only against forced release of data, but also against modification (which can also be done with a hash check, but any fiddling will lose access to the original data).

Of course, anyone suspecting such a setup may write something to the inner archive to wipe your outer archive if it exists, just to prevent you from moving that data in the first place, but that's about as far as they can go.

If, for example, Miranda had been transporting a truecrypt archive on his thumb drive, had memorized the password to the Snowden files (or not even been given it) and then had a scrap of paper with the password to his more benign data on him, the confiscated USB drive would have shown absolutely nothing. IF he ever got the drive back with the data intact, he'd still have all the Snowden data (providing the password came through some other channel -- which wouldn't be difficult).

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-10 10:35 · Score: 1

http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/header-key-derivation
this is how secure TrueCrypt is
draw your own conclusions

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by EuclideanSilence · 2013-09-10 11:32 · Score: 1

The SCOTUS can shoot down a law before it becomes a law. They never have. They choose not to. But nothing is stopping them from declaring "if X becomes a law then our courts will not enforce it".

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Darinbob · 2013-09-10 11:49 · Score: 1

This is not really an accurate statement. The ACLU has claimed there is such a thing but the government has never said anything about a 100 mile zone in which no warrants are required. They have said "border and functional equivalent" (ie it includes airports as points of entry). The "100 miles" in Title 8 refers to illegal immigration boder control, as in searches of airplanes that cross the border or limits of border patrol areas; the maximum "reasonable" limit is 100 miles but reasonabe also takes into account topography and population density. This has nothing to do from reading that law about being constitution free. Instead that law was conflated with the DHS announcement of warrantless searches at the border and functional borders (with no mention of extended border). So this 100 miles of warrantless searches looks very strongly like hype by the ACLU (and I support its general aims but strong disagree with use of fear mongering and outright distortions to get its message across).

See: http://news.yahoo.com/does-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-america-195813138.html

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Darinbob · 2013-09-10 12:03 · Score: 1

The very law that defines an extended border explicitly requires probable cause. The judge is just upholding exactly what the law says. This is the same law the ACLU cited in justification of their constitution-free-zone claim.

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/287-1-definitions-19608292

The constitution free zone appears to be an invention that incorrectly combines the rules for the border with the definition of "extended border" in the law linked above. I don't think this was just a confusion though, instead I think this mix up was intentional by the ACLU in order to generate hype and outrage (I have to admit that constitution-free-zone is a brilliant marketing term that they invented).

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf

The extended border is concerned with search for the purpose of immigration and customs control (ie, someone flies a plane over the border and lands in the desert, and as far as immigration goes it can be be searched the same as if it were stopped at the border). However it does not mean that any federal agent can have a warrantless search of any house in Los Angeles County, not even a border control agent could do this.

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Darinbob · 2013-09-10 12:15 · Score: 1

It wasn't even proclaimed. A lot of this is mostly confusion and misdirection. The DHS has given rules about the border and functional equivalents; these do not extend 100 miles inland. Functional equivalents means airports. There is a separate and unrelated law about immigration that has an "extended border" in which certain searches are allowed and which requires certain preconditions (including probably cause). These two things are separate from each other.

No one will believe this though. Someone could report that there's a 500 mile wide constitution free zone and the whole world would believe that, after all the internet never lies.

Now yes, maybe the searches are the actual borders are too intrusive, I'm not arguing that they're not. However there is very likely no such thing as a 100 mile wide zone in which warrantless searches of electronics can occur (if it does exist then it is still a secret). Maybe it's possible that some government lawyer might some day try to claim that the border is indeed 100 miles wide, but it has not happened yet and that situation is purely hypothetical. You can't effectively fight the government by repeating lies, because when the lies are exposed then credibility and morale righteousness is lost. There's plenty of wrong doing in the government without inventing a fictitious constitution-free-zone.

Re:Let's see what the constitution says about this by AHuxley · 2013-09-10 12:38 · Score: 1

The next step is the colour of law for http://www.flyingmag.com/news/feds-say-pilots-have-no-rights
If you stay in the USA but fly in a "High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area" you may get to enjoy a full "ramp check".

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Re:Chelsea? by Trogre · 2013-09-10 12:52 · Score: 1

Well, yes Chelsea can use whatever name he wants. But it's still incorrect to apply feminine pronouns to a man, regardless of what self-image issues he may have. I may think for example that I'd quite like to spend the rest of my life as a cat, but I wouldn't expect anyone to take me seriously.

I do wonder, however, if in this case he's trying to set a background for an insanity defence if he were to find himself in court.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re:Chelsea? by Trogre · 2013-09-10 13:02 · Score: 1

Name: yes.
Gender: Citation needed

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-09-10 13:04 · Score: 1

"The very law that defines an extended border explicitly requires probable cause. The judge is just upholding exactly what the law says. This is the same law the ACLU cited in justification of their constitution-free-zone claim."

I only put it that way because someone else already had. I was referring to the "extended border" concept. But as for it being "invention", I'd be a bit cautious in reaching that conclusion, since a number of Federal judges seem to have been interpreting it pretty loosely.

The NAME, I grant, is an invention. But the idea that our "normal" Constitutional rights may be lessened within 100 miles from the border is anything but fantasy, according to several rulings in the last decade. Granted, other judges have ruled otherwise, but that hasn't seemed to stop some of them.

I guess that's what appeals are for.

it Is possible to waste your vote though by zippthorne · 2013-09-10 13:50 · Score: 1

It bugs me when people suggest or follow through with using their write-in vote on fictional characters others who aren't even eligible to serve. Micky Mouse can't be president no matter how many people vote for him. That is the very definition of a wasted vote.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!

Re:Considering the source by HiThere · 2013-09-10 15:24 · Score: 1

If you doubt that the Department of Homeland Security is defending treason, would committing treason be more accurate?

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Chelsea? by gsslay · 2013-09-10 22:36 · Score: 1

What actual practical difference do you think it makes referring to someone as he or she? I mean actual real-life difference to your life, society, and everything? I can see some difficulties that may arise if you ever met, and one or other decided you wished a relationship. Most people have their own particular tastes where he/she might cause confusion. But do you really think you're likely to have that occur with you and Chelsea? I mean, you can dream, but don't pin any hopes on it.

Your example of a cat is laughable. Whether he or she, Manning remains a person. What gender of person is an irrelevant detail to 99.999% of all people. Claiming to be a different species isn't anything like as irrelevant.

Re:Chelsea? by Trogre · 2013-09-10 22:57 · Score: 1

What utter rubbish. Gender is irrelevant to 99.999% of people, you say? Do you actually know anyone of the opposite gender to you? Of course both genders should have equal rights, but both are not equal. Those are very, VERY different things.

Let me guess, you're a man who wants to have babies. Or perhaps have just been brainwashed by years of feminism (the girlie version of mysogeny I mean, not the positive movement to maintain women's rights).

No, the cat example is spot on, just as if it were a cardboard box or a banana. The point is, you can pretend all you like to be something you are not, but that doesn't make it so.

Perhaps you're thinking of the very few documented cases where people are born with biological ambiguities, but that's rather unlikely to be the case with Mr Manning.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by Em+Adespoton · 2013-09-11 04:56 · Score: 1

That is indeed the case; I was attempting to cover all the avenues, and explain why people might want to use TrueCrypt in the first place. Of course, with the 100-mile border, border officers/TSA could demand the data from you after you've already crossed the border and downloaded the data -- and so could the NSA. It'd be easier for them to just wait until you'd mounted the TrueCrypt or other volume or decrypted the data though -- or install a keylogger to scrape the password.

But once something's online, it's there forever. This means the NSA has the rest of time to decide your data is valuable and begin to crack it. Remember: encryption isn't unbreakable, it just potentially takes a long time, with the length of time decreasing as processing speeds and algorithms improve. So what may be impossible to crack this year could take 3 months to crack next year. Better that the data isn't available to examine in the first place, or if it is, that it's hidden amongst other information that's totally benign (steganography via AC slashdot posts, for example).

Re:Just upload your encrypted data online by ToddInSF · 2013-09-11 05:27 · Score: 1

No. The only solution is to stop believing that the system even can work in an equitable manner, and that the public hasn't done this to themselves.

Yes, the politicians are guilty, I'm not arguing that they are not.

And yes, industry is hopelessly corrupt.

And yes, the government agencies are incompetent, lack transparency, and lack the oversight to weed-out incompetents and special interests.

However, this did not occur in a vacuum. People would rather remain anesthetized by the media, they'd rather watch "reality" tv than be educated.

They'd rather accept "news" from outlets that have a vested interest, not in actual reporting of important events, but in keeping you titillated and angry and in a state to keep buying the crap you do not need that is bad for you that keeps you stupid and accepting that YOU can't DO anything that matters.

Bitching about the government - THAT is SO old and tired. The problem is the culture.

Our culture is rotten to the core.

If the voters show interest the 3rd party is in by drnb · 2013-09-11 10:50 · Score: 1

And after Perot happened, the parties took complete control of the debates so that they can exclude any third party. No third party will ever be allowed into the debates again.

No, 3rd party candidates are not excluded. Candidates polling less than 15% are excluded. A good 3rd party candidate with a good message in this day of social media could do that. The voters are in control. If the voters show interest the 3rd party is in.

Re:Chelsea? by gsslay · 2013-09-12 21:52 · Score: 1

I didn't say "Gender is irrelevant to 99.999% of people". I said Manning's gender is irrelevant to 99.999% of all people. So I'll just pass on most of that strawman you've constructed there.

Manning is not pretending to be something she's not. She is a person who prefers to be addressed and identified as feminine. That is who she is. That is 100% true and accurate. The physical nature of her various bits are of no interest or relevance to me, and very unlikely to ever be, so I'm fine with going along with that. It makes no difference to me.

Re:Chelsea? by Trogre · 2013-09-13 00:03 · Score: 1

So... you'd be fine calling Chelsea a 72 year old from Uganda if he wanted? After all, that would then be his age and country of origin, right? Okay, got it.

If you want to bring up logical fallacies, please feel free to point out some more (actual ones this time), because I'm really not seeing any difference between your claim and the above reductio ad absurdum.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re:Chelsea? by gsslay · 2013-09-15 23:37 · Score: 1

No, I wouldn't be fine describing Chelsea as a 72 year old from Uganda. Apart from it being factually inaccurate, her nationality plays a significant part in her current fame and why I've heard of her. So it matters.

But should a 72 year old from Uganda ever, for whatever reason, demand that as her name, I suppose I might humor her.

Do you think this is likely?

Slashdot Mirror

Device Security: How Border Searches Are Really Used

152 of 223 comments (clear)