Slashdot Mirror
Device Security: How Border Searches Are Really Used
onehitwonder writes "Newly released documents reveal how the government uses border crossings to seize and examine travelers' electronic devices instead of obtaining a search warrant to take them, according to The New York Times' Susan Stellin. 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. The documents come courtesy of David House, a fund-raiser for the legal defense of Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Pfc. Bradley Manning." A post at the ACLU blog (besides being free of NYT paywall headaches) gives more details, and provides handy links the documents themselves.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).