Slashdot Mirror


US Federal Judge Rules Suspicionless Border Searches of Laptops Constitutional

AHuxley writes "The American Civil Liberties Union sought to challenge the U.S. legal 'border exemption' three years ago. Can your laptop be seized and searched without reasonable suspicion at the border? A 32 page decision provides new legal insight into legal thinking around suspicionless searches: your electronic devices are searchable and seizable for any reason at the U.S. border. The ACLU may appeal. Also note the Kool-Aid comment: 'The report said that a reasonable suspicion standard is inadvisable because it could lead to litigation and the forced divulgence of national security information, and would prevent border officers from acting on inchoate "hunches," a method that it says has sometimes proved fruitful.'" It's even legal for them to copy the contents of your laptop for no reason at all, just in case they need to take a peek later. A bit of context from the ACLU: "The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Pascal Abidor, a dual French-American citizen who had his laptop searched and confiscated at the Canadian border ... Abidor was travelling from Montreal to New York on an Amtrak train in May 2010 when he had his laptop searched and confiscated by customs officers. Abidor, an Islamic Studies Ph.D. student at McGill University, was questioned, taken off the train in handcuffs, and held in a cell for several hours before being released without charge. When his laptop was returned 11 days later, there was evidence that many of his personal files had been searched, including photos and chats with his girlfriend."

462 comments

  1. Thank fucking Christ... by crutchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...i'm not American.

    1. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is not a helpful factor if you need to go to usa.

    2. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      ...i'm not American.

      It's called customs inspection. Every country has it to regulate what is brought in the country, including yours. It's one of the most basic tenants of national sovereignty.

    3. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by john_uy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's the problem. All people entering the USA have no protection as accorded to American citizens. You are treated as hostile unless proven otherwise. In the meantime, all rights are suspended with no expectation of being treated as a human being.

      Being a foreigner, I have read numerous times of horror stories happening at the immigration. It's really discouraging to go to the USA even if you have all the best intentions to go there. Good thing I don't have any necessity to go there at this point in time.

      At the end, I'm not sure it is helping thwart bad people from entering the USA.

      --
      Live your life each day as if it was your last.
    4. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      That's the problem. All people entering the USA have no protection as accorded to American citizens. You are treated as hostile unless proven otherwise. In the meantime, all rights are suspended with no expectation of being treated as a human being.

      Being a foreigner, I have read numerous times of horror stories happening at the immigration. It's really discouraging to go to the USA even if you have all the best intentions to go there.

      I understand your dread of entering the U.S. (though you say you have only "read" about "horror stories" and not actually done it yourself), but this is a common misconception. The U.S. Constitution applies to every person in the country, even if they are there illegally, with some obvious exceptions, such as the right to vote.

      Yes, it's true that border security will stretch those rights (I'm not saying I think that's good), but the Constitution still applies, both to citizens and non-citizens alike.

      This story actually illustrates that the Constitution applies; win or lose, the ACLU is using those rights to challenge the government's alleged abuses.

    5. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Did you not even bother to read the fucking summary?

      can you even read at all...

       

      Pascal Abidor, a dual French-American citizen

    6. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      'Need'?? Are you nuts? Or are your interests just such that you think you 'need'?

    7. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, that is the status quo. Are we not allowed to be scandalized by it? Remember when Peter Watts got beaten and arrested near the border by one of these searches, because he had the temerity to talk back to the cop who started searching his vehicle without permission? That's the status quo as well.

      "It's one of the basic tenants [sic] of national sovereignty" is the obsequious response of a collaborator, not the response of a citizen. Get a backbone.

    8. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't matter whether the constitution applies in theory or not. What matters is whether it applies in practice.

    9. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by demachina · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is a pretty flawed analogy when it comes to digitial information. There is nothing on a laptop or smartphone that can't be sent in and out of the U.S. on a digitial network and bypass border inspection entirely, especially if its encrypted.

      If they want to do a physical inspection to insure there is no contraband in the device, preferably while the owner is watching, that's fine. Imaging the digital contents of the device, copying your contacts, email and phone history is pretty much invasion of privacy and targetted harassment.

      There is also a high risk that while they have your devices they will install spying hardware or software so once you get your device back you can no longer trust it.

      Many multinationals simply wont let travelers carry anything important across borders any more. Its safer to transfer it digitally over networks and have the traveler pick up their gear and data in country.

      One thing I've realized of late is that everything the U.S. has been accusing China of doing, with self righteous indignation, the U.S. has been doing too, usually better and more zealously.

      The U.S. and U.K. are pretty far down the road to becoming xenophobic, pariah states. Its an extremely unwise path to choose, especially if you want a healthy economy. Its reaching the point that anyone who has a choice will refrain from engaging with them in economic, academic and scientific endeavors. If you are well educated, skilled entrepenuer or acadamic you would have to be a little nuts to want to work or study in the U.S. or U.K. these days.

      Its sad that the U.S. and U.K. have self inflicted more damage on themeselves and their citizens than terrorist attacks could ever have dreamed. That is the whole idea behind terrorism, the reaction and countermeasures are usually more damaging to the target than the actual attacks.

      --
      @de_machina
    10. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Being a foreigner, I have read numerous times of horror stories happening at the immigration. It's really discouraging to go to the USA even if you have all the best intentions to go there. Good thing I don't have any necessity to go there at this point in time.

      One nice thing about flying to the US, from Canada, is that US Customs has operations at major Canadian airports.

      So if you're at (say) Toronto Pearson (CYYZ), you're "pre-cleared" by security and customs, and then the flight is treated as it was a domestic one. If US Customs doesn't want to let you in, you can just drive home. That doesn't work coming to the US from most other countries (though there is pre-clearance at Shannon, Ireland).

      It's actually less hassle at airports than road or train crossings in some ways, as with the latter you're on US soil, and so can be detained (as per the article/summary).

    11. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American, I fully intend to ignore the ruling of any judge that violates the constitution. Search and seizure without cause is unlawful, period. The constitution is not up for debate or alteration.

    12. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking of work, but yes, also i have interests that i need to go there at some point.

    13. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by crutchy · · Score: 2

      As an American, I fully intend to ignore the ruling of any judge that violates the constitution

      i hope for your sake you like cuban cuisine

    14. Re: Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See you when you get released on parole.

    15. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      'Need'?? Are you nuts? Or are your interests just such that you think you 'need'?

      If the boss says "You need to go to America," then your interest might be in keeping your job to, as we sometimes say here, "put food on your family." Of course, if you're independently wealthy, you do have many more choices and lots fewer problems . . .

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    16. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I understand your dread of entering the U.S. (though you say you have only "read" about "horror stories" and not actually done it yourself), but this is a common misconception. The U.S. Constitution applies to every person in the country, even if they are there illegally, with some obvious exceptions, such as the right to vote.

      There have been plenty of posts here in Slashdot saying the exact opposite, so I would be curious about what is the truth. It seems to be the case that you can be refused entrance based on someone in the USA illegally accessing confidential medical records in Canada. What you say also seems to be different for example from German laws, which apply to _anyone_ _anywhere_ except that Germany only enforces it in Germany. "The constitution applies to every person in the country" is used as an excuse to break the laws in other countries.

    17. Re: Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're going through customs, they haven't entered the US yet.

    18. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by LVSlushdat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah.. I picture it like this.. America got kicked in the shins by a punk on 9/11/01, but since then she's shot herself in both feet, come close to severing both hands, given herself a good concussion,stabbed herself in several places, and put herself on lifesupport. That punk on 9/11 could not have done as much damage to America as she's done to herself in the 12 years since 9/11. DOES ANYONE DOUBT AMERICA IS NOW ESSENTIALLY A POLICE STATE?? (sorry about the caps, but wanted to emphasize that.. There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind..). I once was a republican, but after about 1/2 of BushJrs second term, I'd had enough and reregistered as Independent. It was a good move on my part after seeing how the republican party is trying (abeit unsuccessfully) to destroy the Teaparty, which is precisely what the republican party *should* be.. Nowadays, the (R)'s are just (D)-lite... Makes this 63 year old America VERY sick to his stomach...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    19. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with anything? Border searches also involved visitors. Not all visitors to the US are citizens ya know.

      "never going to visit the US" would be a more intelligent statement.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    20. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also see ACLU : Constitution Free Zone and watch this

    21. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by nurb432 · · Score: 0

      All people entering the USA have no protection as accorded to American citizens.

      As it should be. ( conversely i don't expect to be treated as a 'trusted citizen' when i visit your country either )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    22. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      It's one of the most basic tenants of national sovereignty.

      So, it only rents?

    23. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Of course it's a police state. Any country with Secret Police is a police state, whether you call them "secret police" or "undercover agents".

    24. Re: Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're independently wealthy then you have approximately 99 problems.

      And "a bitch" is not one of them..

    25. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      ...i'm not American.

      You're crossing a border. Is there seriously a real border anywhere in the world where a country does not claim the right to regulate what you bring into the country?

      Searching laptops creates a much greater invasion of privacy in some ways than classic border searches, but countries generally claim an absolute right to regulate what (and who) comes into them. There is sometimes a very tiny bit of legal pushback--like I think you need reasonable suspicion at the US border to do *destructive* searches, for example--but not much.

      We live in a world where there is such a thing as a suitcase nuke. Countries will always be very expansive in what they are *allowed* to search at the border, even though they don't usually waste their time going through your stuff.

    26. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is the status quo. Are we not allowed to be scandalized by it?

      In America we're not scandalized by it because most Americans never leave the country, so they don't care. And most of those that do leave the country are generally treated okay at the border. (Which is understandable--if you were a border guard, why would you make your day worse by being mean?)

    27. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's why we no longer take our family on vacation to America. Oh well, too bad.

    28. Re: Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parole? For what? I cannot be imprisoned because of what some outlaw judge says.

    29. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's a police state. Any country with Secret Police is a police state, whether you call them "secret police" or "undercover agents".

      Are you kidding me? Did you people forget how to use a dictionary, encyclopedia, or wikipedia? Look up what a "police state" is, then decide if every country that has secret police is a police state. Then down-vote the parent for being silly.

    30. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if you were a border guard, why would you make your day worse by being mean?

      Sorry, but I don't know of any bullies who considered their mean behavior as making their own day worse.

    31. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Tea Party is half of what the Republican party should be. If they'd stuck to fiscal conservatism and stayed focused on reigning in the out of control Federal government they would have been widely embraced by the American people and would be running the country by now.

      Unfortunately they were infiltrated by a bunch of crazies pushing social conservatism with a dose of religious fanaticism and worse a bunch of political opportunists who've been milking and co-opting them for their own benefit. They should have shown Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Mike Huckabee and Glen Beck the door with extreme prejudice and haste.

      At this point the Tea Party brand has been trashed by political opportunists whom are the people to whom the Tea Party should be diametrically opposed .

      My deepest desire is for an party that is a cross between the Tea Party and Occupy. The two movements have a lot more in common than most people realize. This new party should be equally opposed to both out of control Federal government and rapacious banks, corporations and plutocrats at . It should be a party with a big and open tent that will stay completely out of social and religious issues and let people decide for themselves what their values are, which is why the founders separated church and state in the first palce. Meanwhile it should be bare knuckled brawling with the blood suckers who are really killing America.

      --
      @de_machina
    32. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the greater good....

    33. Re: Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanna bet?

    34. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The U.S. Constitution applies to every person in the country, even if they are there illegally, with some obvious exceptions, such as the right to vote.

      There are no exceptions in the Constitution.

      The right to vote is a right given to citizens, as specified in the Constitution.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    35. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. You hit the nail on the head. When someone arrives at the US; from a business point of view they are 'Tourist', but according to the US government, they are less than animal, they are 'FOREIGNER'. US border agents are under no obligation to treat these things any better than used toilet tissue. I think there might even be a group of DHS agents who have come up with a game 'Shoot the suspect': the point of the game is to see how many you can shoot without anyone asking any questions at all. My point is, that terrorists would attempt through various means to get a lighter complexion, 'southern drawl' accent, and a friendly demeanor with the agents and pass through without a second glance, and would still blow stuff up. Honest travellers who just come as they are: they get the strip search, the cattle prod, the cavity search. The delousing powder. The pointed questions under the spotlight in the eyes. American border security is political theatre. Its ineffectual except at making the local folks feel good. If you aren't from the US, don't travel there. There are literally hundreds of other countries to travel to where you won't be treated like a criminal.

    36. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by cusco · · Score: 1

      If one is independently wealthy they almost never have problems crossing borders. Bureaucrats and law enforcement officials are well aware of the career-destroying abilities of the rich.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    37. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @ john_uy --- Well I got some news for you - We American are also being forced under that umbrella - in other words WE Americans have NO protection from this abomination called the US Government.

      This is not meant to thwart the entering of "Bad" people - it is meant for Control of the population. The Bad people are in Washington DC.

      We are ALL considered to be Enemy Combatants in our own country - but as we still can get shitty lite beer and have all the fantasy sports we can handle, the mass of the population sit and do nothing.

      Wake Up People

    38. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by mrclisdue · · Score: 1

      ...It's one of the most basic tenants of national sovereignty.

      How much rent does the basic tenant pay? Does a premium tenant get a cavity search? How does one become a basic tenant?

      cheers,

    39. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The only place in the Constitution where citizenship is a consideration is the right to vote and to hold public office. That's it, the rest of the Constitution applies to everyone (which is the reason for the siting of Gitmo) who happens to be in the Untied States. There isn't even any consideration of a limitation as to who could or couldn't enter the country, the entire immigration process as it exists is extra-constitutional.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    40. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      you can be detained at Canadian airports by US officials just fine. you are effectively walking to US soil once you approach US customs, and if they choose to, you will be taken into custody and transported to the US mainland without the need for extradition.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    41. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by cusco · · Score: 1

      So says the brave little Anonymous Coward . . . the eternal Internet tough guy who in reality says, "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir!"

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    42. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You seem to be a little naive my friend.

      Common characteristics of a police state, wide spread spying on citizens, warrantless arrest and detention, torture, rigged judicial system and trials, execution of citizens without due process, suppression of a free press, suppression of opposition parties, censorship, seizure of property, targeting of opposition groups and minorities, prevent freedom of movement.

      You do realize the U.S. and U.K. have engaged in all of these. I can run through examples of each if that will help enlighten you. The U.S. and U.K are not particularly iron fist police states, they prefer more the velvet gloved fist. They aren't particularly wide spread or oppressive police states yet, just give them time and a few more excuses.

      It is no secret the U.S. has tortured people on a wide scale and very recently. This precedent has been set and the people who did it got away with it. Obama has dialed it back some, preferring to let third parties do it so he can claim the U.S. isn't torturing but the U.S. is still actively participating in and bankrolling it.

      Obama has executed at least three American's by drone, which is the new prefered means of execution. Thre is no judicial process or if there was it is secret. One the the people killed was a 16 year old boy who apparently was targetted because he was the son of someone the U.S. hated.

      Obama has been he most aggressive adminstration in targetting journalists in recent history, especially ones who are telling stories the U.S. doesn't want told. Obama had a journalist in Yemen jailed for 3 years for exposing a cruise missile strike that killed civilians and interviewing Anwar Awliki.

      Try bring any of the recent abuses of our Constituion to a court of law and most are shut down by State Secret privlideges. Many abuses of civil rights are currently untriable.

      The U.S. pretends to have opposition parties but in fact the two parties we have are two sides of the same coin pursuing the same agenda on most issues that count, and only differing on wedge issues or where tax money is squandered. Third parties are ruthlessley suppressed, marginalized and muzzled in the U.S. especially ones which challenge the status quo.

      The U.S. doesn't practice overt censorship, the U.K. is farther down this road. The U.S. favors more suble censorship and propaganda using a small number of corporate controlled media companies who do most of the shaping of public opinion. The U.S. prefers just listening to and recording what everyong is watching, reading, listening to and saying so they can spot the troublemakers.

      The U.S. is actively planing for the near future when there will more terrorist attacks (i.e. 9/11), natural disasters(i.e. Katrina), protest movements (i.e. Occupy) and resource shortage shocks and when they occur they will ratchet up the police state a few more notches.

      If you want an eye opener on the next generation global police state the U.S. has become grab a copy of Jeremy Scahill's Dirty Wars. U.S. special forces and intelligence are now roaming the globe engaging in largely unsupervised executions, renditions, torture and spying. This started under Bush/Cheney and Obama has actually dramatically accellerated and extended it. Some of their attacks have been very successful like killing Bin Laden, many of them are deeply flawed, killing large numbers of innocents, including women and children, and spawning new generations who hate America. The important part being they have almost no oversige from Congress or the judiciary, and often inadequate oversight from the White House and Pentagon who are running this global police apparatus.

      --
      @de_machina
    43. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Right, because other countries don't search you at the border.

      You have NO privacy rights at customs. Anything you have with you can be searched. This is the way it works in any country in the entire world. The only way to avoid it is to not travel across borders.

    44. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by cusco · · Score: 1

      This has always seemed such a silly definition. A "suitcase nuke" is simply a howitzer-launched nuke (which have been around since the '50s) with the casing stripped off to save weight. Since 95+ percent of the cargo containers coming into the US, and almost none of the bulk freight, are not inspected the whole idea that it's necessary to search the baggage of individual travelers to prevent an atrocity is absurd. Hell, that's the way most of the drugs and black-market weapons come into the US, the tunnels and submarines that make the headlines are small-time operators trying to get into the market.

      If I were to send a nuclear weapon to the US I would put it in a cargo container addressed to a WalMart distribution center, set to go off if 1) the container is breached, 2) cell phone is called, or 3) GPS coordinates are reached. Lot higher chance of success, no need to get a visa for some suicide looney.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    45. Re: Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. When the Tea Party was first stirring, I remember a lot of news stories about how moderate democrats and republicans were gathering together with a common sense philosophy of government. That went away pretty quickly.

    46. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by cusco · · Score: 2

      Then you need to re-read the Constitution. It very clearly says "persons" anywhere that it is not referring to citizens of individual states or the right to vote or hold public office. Has your family been in the US for more than about 85 years? If so, then for the first four years they lived in the US they were "non-citizen scum", because they didn't have a visa, they didn't get a green card, they walked off a boat or across a border and went to work. Four years later they could become citizens if they could string together enough English words in a row to register. A much saner method than the one in use today.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    47. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by hb253 · · Score: 1

      Tenet, dammit TENET!!!!!!

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    48. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Since the Constitution is a straightjacket on Government itself, it applies everywhere the Government acts, on US soil or not, in theory.

      In practice, it gets more and more ignored.

    49. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why non americans choose to holiday in other countries and to them via other countries.

      America is slowly destroying their tourist industry.

    50. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The constitution is written such that it constrains the abilities of the government rather than gives rights to specific people. So things like the right to free speech are actually written as "congress shall make no law..." rather than "citizens are entitled to spout off..."

      That's why it protects non-citizens, at least in theory. In practice:
      A) if you get seized by the military, you'll get held forever without a trial.
      B) if you get seized by the domestic police forces, you'll get held about a year without a trial, and if you're not rich, you have a slim chance of winning regardless of your situation.
      C) if you get seized by the border patrol, you'll get all your stuff seized; money will get disappeared via asset forfeiture, and everything else will be held forever unless you initiate a trial like the above or keep pestering the government to get it back.

    51. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct that the US Constitution's application is not limited to citizens (with the exceptions of voting and holding office); that the Constitution applies to everyone, citizen or not.

      But you are wrong when you state that the Constitution applies only within the United States. There is no such limitation in your Constitution.

      The US Constitution defines and limits the government's power over the people, everywhere. In theory.

      In practice, the US Constitution appears to no longer apply to anyone, even US citizens, anywhere, even within the United States. (Keep in mind that the summary says that Pascal Abidor is a US citizen.)

    52. Re: Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I do, but I suspect a little punk like you would never put your money where your mouth is.

    53. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you can be detained at Canadian airports by US officials just fine. you are effectively walking to US soil once you approach US customs, and if they choose to, you will be taken into custody and transported to the US mainland without the need for extradition.

      I'd be very interested in reading an example where that was successful.

    54. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's one of the most basic tenants of national sovereignty.

      It used to be that doing whatever the hell you want within your borders - including, say, an occasional genocide - were also "one of the most basic tenets of national sovereignty". It isn't anymore, and for a good reason. Which just goes to show that "we've always been doing things this way" is not a valid justification or excuse for morally wrong actions.

    55. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no exceptions in the Constitution. The right to vote is a right given to citizens, as specified in the Constitution.

      It's given to some citizens, but not to all of them. It allows the states to decide. Certain amendments have tightened that up a bit, but felons can't vote in many state for example. Those states tend to be the ones with large populations of black felons. What a surprise.

    56. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      There have been plenty of posts here in Slashdot saying the exact opposite, so I would be curious about what is the truth.

      Why not go and read it?

      The Constitution uses two terms: "people" (or "persons"), and "citizen". The word "citizen" is only used in articles dealing with political rights - namely, prerequisites for the offices of President, Senator and Representative, voting rights (per 15A, 19A, 24A and 26A), and the recognition of rights across states; and where it extends federal judicial authority to disputes involving non-citizens.

      All other rights are recognized as those of people or persons. In particular, 4A:

      "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."

      The exemption that has been claimed for customs inspections (which is, indeed, almost as old as Constitution itself), has been applied uniformly to citizens and non-citizens alike - it is tied to a particular place where tradition dictates a search is always reasonable, and has nothing to do with one's status. Once you're past the border, they don't get to search you without a warrant just because you're a non-citizen. Other rights similarly apply. Heck, people have successfully argued Second Amendment rights for non-citizens...

    57. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      Additionally: For decades Noam Chomsky has given us insight to the practice of Manufacturing Consent via Media. At the behest of corporate interests the state wages Disaster Capitalism
      And all of this to control the socio-political landscape through silencing Women's Rights, Anti-War Activists, Civil Rights Activists, under the label "subversive radicals" in order to maintain the status quo: COINTELPRO. Note the NSA was complicit in COINTELPRO activities along with the FBI, and that they are still keen the practice now considering using PRISM to silence "radicals", e.g., exposing porn browsing habits -- I'm sure it has many other such uses. We can't really believe anything they say anymore because they'll even lie to their superiors in congress.

      Scaremongers have ensured the land hasn't been free, nor the home brave, for a very long time. The cost in taxes, freedom, security, and privacy is too great. We don't even need TSA or DHS: Lightning is 4 times more dangerous than terrorists. Cars and Cheeseburgers kill 400 times more people than 9/11 every year, but we accept this risk, and drive to get the kids Happy Meals from time to time. We don't have a war on Freedom Fries or Sports Sedans, yet they are far more terrifying than the scaremonger's pathetic terrorist threat.

    58. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Constitution totally applies equally to every person in the country, which is to say that it does not apply at all to anyone in the country if any member of a law enforcement or government agency deems it even slightly inconvenient for that person to have rights.

      Put another way, people from outside the US have just as many actual enforceable rights as citizens: zero.

    59. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Mirar · · Score: 1

      It's sounding more and more like a banana republic, third world police state, doesn't it? (I'm thinking about the book banning the other day as well to take something else recent.)

      Scary part is that we tied in the world economy to that. :p

      And that the EU and particularly the UK is following the ideas very closely.

    60. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Mirar · · Score: 1

      The government of the US scares me a lot more than any fancy terrorist group ever could.

    61. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha you are just the person they can do this to - since YOU have no protections under the US Constitution.

      Stupid fucking foreigners. "Ohhh lets build our own internet to get away from the prying eyes of the evil US NSA (ignoring the fact that the reforms that are going to be imposed on the NSA will only apply to US networks: foreign nets will be fair game."

    62. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but from what I read of this, part of this decision is not legally sound.

      Convenience for government is NOT a valid reason to infringe on Constitutional rights. This is a pretty damned old principle and I see no reason why they get to ignore it here.

      It is true that government has been allowed to stretch the rules when it can show a "compelling interest", but I am pretty sure that in order to establish a compelling interest here, they would have to show that these arbitrary searches are actually effective against terrorism. And I really don't think they have any way to do that, because they really haven't been catching terrorists that way.

    63. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's sort of a misinterpretation of what's really happening. It sounds terribly alarming until if you follow the links and references.
      See: http://news.yahoo.com/does-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-america-195813138.html

    64. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If you're flying and the aircraft diverts to anywhere they control, then they follow US law. I find it interesting that the US government is allowed to violate copyright without cause. Isn't hacking your laptop and copying all your itunes without probable cause a clear breach?

    65. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      The government defines "The Border" as being within a hundred miles of an airport, not just a line in the Mexican sand. There is very little land you can stand on and not get searched without probable cause now.

    66. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So tell me, what part of the constitution authorises the detainment and deportation of unauthorised aliens?

      Wherein does it state something like "persons, excepting persons we deem to be undesirable in our country have these inalienable rights..."?

    67. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

      The basis of customs inspection, all custsoms inspections is greed. The history shows quite clearly that customs duty and customs service was derived during the mercantilist era, at the behest of the various monopoly "Indian" trading companies (European national monopolies trading with India and the Caribbean), to protect their profits from more efficient traders. Even today customs exists for no other purpose than corruption and greed, at it's heart protecting the interests of national monopolies and oligarchies from foreign competition. This is by no means in the interests of common citizens.

    68. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The Constitution recognizes fundamental rights of all men. This means the CIA/NSA can't spy on foreigners legally, right? They would have to get a search warrant in order to listen to foreign communications, and you can't do that without probable cause. How do you get probable cause against a foreigner who isn't breaking your laws because they are outside your legal jurisdiction and therefore can't break your laws?

    69. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      U.S. special forces and intelligence are now roaming the globe engaging in largely unsupervised executions, renditions, torture and spying. This started under Bush/Cheney and Obama has actually dramatically accellerated and extended it.

      I agree with everything you wrote, except this. This started with Reagan or even earlier with Nixon, when he deployed US (para?)military forces to Nicaragua, Columbia, and Bolivia to fight drug barons and communists in South America. In fact since the end of WW2, the US has been fighting covert wars of aggression against communists in South America.

    70. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I understand your dread of entering the U.S. (though you say you have only "read" about "horror stories" and not actually done it yourself), but this is a common misconception. The U.S. Constitution applies to every person in the country, even if they are there illegally, with some obvious exceptions, such as the right to vote.

      True, except, at the border you're not by definition in the country. You're at the border - and to get IN the country requires crossing it. So even though you might be on land the US considers theirs, you're not officially in the country. You are technically in a "no-man's land" when you exited the country you left (at their border) and before you cross the border in the destination country.

      It's how you get in situations where you're stuck at the airport - you can't leave because you haven't crossed the border, and you can't cross the border because you're lacking valid paperwork. It's downright impossible when your country self-implodes while you're in the no-man's land and thus no border guard recognizes your passport. Or you can be like Edward Snowden who had his US passport cancelled and thus can only enter countries as a refugee (or return to the US - despite having an invalid passport, he's still a US citizen. Of course, that's not exactly a good idea...).

      And yes, until you prove yourself to the guard (whose job is to protect the country), you have no rights and no recourse. And because of the huge power granted to them, they are often gruff and can be power-tripping.

      Of course, the game "Papers Please" is supposed to be fictional, but it's a fairly representative look at running a border.

    71. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      ...i'm not American.

      Sadly, if you're Canadian or live in any country in the EU, or Japan, Russia, or Singapore, they can do exactly the same thing.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    72. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      The guy posted a very similar comment in the "wooden flute" story just now. Spelling mistake and all.

    73. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quote that comes to mind, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Sadly the declaration of independence is not part of our constitution, nor does it seem that our government treats all men as if they are created equally, as examples like this partially illustrate. Another example that comes to mind is how we deliberately keep some prisoners outside of the country to avoid accidentally giving them more rights.

    74. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by stackOVFL · · Score: 1

      If the boss says "You need to go to America," then your interest might be in keeping your job to, as we sometimes say here, "put food on your family." Of course, if you're independently wealthy, you do have many more choices and lots fewer problems . . .

      Exactly. And might I add that any reasonable company will give the employee a "clean loaner laptop" to take to this wonderful country. That way they do not have to risk loosing their computer. Just don't be doing any "funny business" on that machine!

      By all means come to the USA (soon to be the USSA) and see what is used to be like when we were free and had rights. I think you'll find a exhibit or something in a museum. It's right next to the diorama showing when this country had a set of balls and wasn't so afraid of it's own shadow that it would create departments like the NSA, TSA and Homeland Security (really, homeland?! sounds like the fucking Nazi's). Don't mind the anal cavity search on the way in and out. That's our way of saying how much we like you!

    75. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by nurb432 · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you need to be round up with the rest of them. Get the hell out.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    76. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      That's actually what I said. Note I said the Constitution applies to every "person", with some exceptions, such as the right to vote, which is only a right of citizens, and as the AC below pointed out, not all of them retain that right.

    77. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So tell me, what part of the constitution authorises the detainment and deportation of unauthorised aliens?

      General welfare clause, I would assume. Which part prohibits it?

    78. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This means the CIA/NSA can't spy on foreigners legally, right? They would have to get a search warrant in order to listen to foreign communications

      Nope, the 4th does not require warrants. Only that the search is "reasonable". Warrants (issued upon probable cause) are one of the means of ensuring that, but not the only one.

    79. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Hee, hee, go fuck yourself. Part of my family has has been in the Untied States since 1784, when they came from Cornwall to live in the frontiers of Vermont where they were mail carriers and known to "associate with Indians, trappers, Frenchmen, and other unsavory persons" (Bixby family history). Others arrived in the 1850s and '60s and settled in Cleveland. Speaking mostly French or German, they moved to wilds of northern Michigan about the time of the Cleveland draft riots, where they contested with bears, wolves, and Mormon raiders to survive winters unthinkable today and even prosper. The latest arrival was a French-Canadian who paddled across the Saint Mary's River in the 1880s to work in the copper mines of Calumet and marry a Swedish bride.

      None ever had a visa, none ever filled out a form in an embassy before arriving, none ever had a green card, none ever asked a bureaucrat for permission to live and work here. They just arrived, went to work, paid their taxes, and in four years they were citizens with full voting rights. Not until my cousin married a redneck from Alabama did I ever hear anyone complain about people who wanted to come here to work and provide a better life for their families.

      What are you frightened of? Someone going to work harder than you and take away your job at the McDonalds?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    80. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by demachina · · Score: 1

      Your point is valid though the methodologies used in those wars were somewhat different. As best I remember they were mostly using locals being run by CIA and Green Berets which was the old school U.S. way to run dirty wars.

      The organizational structure used after 9/11 was relatively new and conceived mostly by Rumsfeld and Cheney. It was based on new special force commands, namely JSOC and SOCOM, and were built around Delta and SEALS. They haven't used Green Berets as much because they usually work with indigenous forces.

      JSOC has been largely indifferent to local forces, working on their own doing fairly indiscriminate find and fix ops without telling anyone what they are doing. They mostly bypassed the CIA to avoid congressional scrutiny and weren't reporting through the normal chain of command through the Joint Chiefs and regional commands so they've been largely operating without normal oversight from the Pentagon. They've been run almost entirely by the White House and Secretary of Defense without much scrutiny or oversight from anyone else.

      --
      @de_machina
    81. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kill yourself and stop posting your stupid ideas everywhere. there's a fucking difference between customs, and being an abusive fuck doing unneeded searches. did you read the part about him being locked up for hours even though he did nothing?

    82. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by philovivero · · Score: 1

      I watched the video. I don't know why this is rated "informative" instead of "funny."

      I laughed a lot and was very cheered up. So thanks for improving my mood. But it does seem somewhat... offtopic.

    83. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeaaaa....
      Except no.

      Sometime ago US took into law that no non-american has even human rights - they have absolutely no rights when they are at the states - to allow torture and what not. Throwing you to guantanamo without any reason what so ever etc.

    84. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      My deepest desire is for an party that is a cross between the Tea Party and Occupy.

      Such a party already exists; it's called the Libertarian Party.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    85. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      Despite all the overheated rhetoric and horror stories, civil liberties in the U.S. are still largely intact, including the right to petition for redress through the courts.

      The Bill of Rights has taken a beating over the last dozen years, but we're not a police state yet.

      Once again, if this were a police state, the ACLU wouldn't be taking the government to court... or exist, for that matter.

    86. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by crutchy · · Score: 1

      thankfully i'm not from any of those places either

    87. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      As i said, get out. We don't want ( or need ) you and your family here.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    88. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      The government defines "The Border" as being within a hundred miles of an airport, not just a line in the Mexican sand. There is very little land you can stand on and not get searched without probable cause now.

      Bullshit. If someone detains you without reasonable suspicion or searches you without a warrant and in the absence of an exception to the warrant requirement, they have violated the constitution, can't use evidence against you in court, and you can sue the pants off them. It may not get you anywhere--notably if a jury doesn't like you, and you have a credibility issue--but the government does *not* get to use the border search doctrine to justify searches anywhere "within a hundred miles of an airport."

      It applies at places that are "the functional equivalent of the border." So in the airport, sure--and there is probably some diminished expectation of privacy in the *immediate* area around the airport. Maybe. But they don't get to ransack your home and car and take all your stuff just because there's an airport within a hundred miles of you.

    89. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      One supposes he's descended from American aborigines.

      Or he's just an Internet Asshole.

    90. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      DOES ANYONE DOUBT AMERICA IS NOW ESSENTIALLY A POLICE STATE??

      I do.

      Because as bad as things are now, as many privileges the government grants itself (both openly and in secret), as much money is spent on LEO/military gear and gadgets but not on training, as many exceptions as they are claiming from the Constitution, as much "oversight" as they give themselves, as many private prisons are built and those companies push the government to fill them, as much power as the courts happily rubber-stamp for the government, and as much as they claim we need what they are doing for our own protection, we, as a country, still have so much further we can fall.

      And I see us continuing to fall.

      That is why and what I fear.

    91. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

      That punk on 9/11 could not have done as much damage to America as she's done to herself in the 12 years since 9/11.

      Sure but at least we didn't let those godless turrorists win! Merica, fuck yeah!

      --
      Howdy howdy howdy
    92. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      I think the same is true at several European airports - they have special sections of the airport dedicated just for US-bound passengers. I went through Istanbul and Amsterdam a few times last year and both seemed to have these, although I'm not certain if they're exactly the same implementations as you're referring to or not.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    93. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      My deepest desire is for an party that is a cross between the Tea Party and Occupy.

      I think the easiest thing for both those groups to agree on is getting corruption/bribery out of politics and elections. Major campaign finance regulation overhauls, constitutional convention to overturn citizens united, etc..

      If you start tossing in things like "out of control Federal government" you're already losing some of the Occupy folks. Some of them want a larger Government, single payer health care, bigger social safety nets, etc...

    94. Re:Thank fucking Christ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And might I add that any reasonable company will give the employee a "clean loaner laptop" to take to this wonderful country. That way they do not have to risk loosing their computer.

      We don't do it. We just don't move client's (or our) data across the US border. After all, we're in competition with American companies to try to take away the bread from their babies mouths, in their own country. Why would we not expect their government to undermine their productivity by trying to prevent open competition from us?

      Need to take client's data into or out of America? That's what our encrypted VPN is about. We've got laptops in America, and several times people going there have taken over properly-laid out keyboards for our desired languages, so that's not an issue. So when we're doing demonstrations, our guys work with a projector (local), an off-the-shelf laptop, and a UK (or Lithuanian, French, Russian or Norwegian, as appropriate) keyboard, and a rodent. Any customised demonstrations or data gets downloaded through the VPN ; likewise for real working data. and the laptop gets ghosted back to it's basic configuration after use and left in the local (US) office.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by sandbagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the end of the novel Catch-22 the famous rule starts to have other formulations including 'they have the right to do to us anything we can't stop them from doing.'

    Does anyone think this won't be abused?

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by INT_QRK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course "they have the [power] to do to us anything we [don't] stop them from doing." That's a universal human and historical truth, and subject of Benjamin Franklin's answer to a passerby's question at the close of Constitutional Convention in 1787 with the veiled warning: "a republic, if you can keep it.' It's also the reason for the Bill of Rights which can only have meaning as long as there is vigilant scrutiny and determined enforcement. My only quibble with Heller is that fundamentally only individuals can have rights; governments, or any collectivist formulation, have only have persuasive or coersive power.

    2. Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Land of the free , home of the brave

      ha , ha more Like land of the free to bend over and say 'harder please' Old Ben would have been proud.

    3. Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

      In addition, it's worth mentioning that the US currently defines its "border" as anything within 100 miles of any land or sea border, or any international airport. As a matter of standing case law, it is legal for them to grab you in, say, San Francisco, and search your laptop, cell phone, person, papers, and effects, without providing any legal justification other than "You're in a border zone".

      And of course, Mr Abidor being a scholar of Islamic Studies had absolutely nothing to do with him being stopped, that was total coincidence.

      And what they're looking for isn't so much evidence of criminal activity as it is dirt on people, in case they need to protect America by blackmailing people like they did in COINTELPRO.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My only quibble with Heller is that fundamentally only individuals can have rights; governments, or any collectivist formulation, have only have persuasive or coersive power.

      How about the right to due process, should the government have the right to arbitrarily hand out fines or seize assets and property just because they belong to an organization or company? I think most of these rights need to be transitive, you're not getting due process until the organizations you are member of or corporations you're a shareholder of also get due process. But then again I find the civil forfeiture laws wildly unconstitutional, how can you have "The right of the people to be secure in their (...) effects against unreasonable (...) seizures" when the government can grab them on the slimmest of excuses and demand you counterprove wild speculation? So yeah we could start by restoring indiviuals' rights.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by flaming+error · · Score: 2

      "should the government have the right"

      No, only individual persons have rights. Government has no "right" to anything, not even to exist. It exists because the governed or the power-hungry created it.

      Government has power. For "free" countries, theoretically the power we delegate ti. But in practice it eventually assumes the power it can get away with.

    6. Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by cusco · · Score: 0

      Organizations and companies are not people or citizens, they do not have any rights. At least in theory, of course in practice we all know that Halliburton and RJ Reynolds have more "rights" than you and I, but they really shouldn't.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    7. Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by KillDaBOB · · Score: 1

      According to the law, corporations are people. I don't agree with that stance, but it's what we live with.

    8. Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      This is untrue. The border is the border. The 100 mile "zone" is not a constitution free zone, it is not even a 4th amendment free zone, it is just that region of "extended border" where border and customs agents are allowed searches but only after meeting strict criteria (including reasonable suspicion). At the "functional border", ie, crossings and airports, is where the warrantless searches are allowed. What has happened is that some people are confusing this 100 mile extended border with the functional border and mistakenly think that the 4th amendment does not apply in Los Angeles or San Francisco, which is ludicrous.

      Yes, it is alarming that there is a warrantless search allowed at the functional border, make no mistake there. But it is hype to claim that this applies in a 100 mile wide border zone. That's like crying wolf. Repeat the myths often enough and people start to ignore everything being said.

    9. Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be due to border agents stopping all cars at choke points some 50 miles inland, in California, Arizona and New Mexico, subject to inspection and search for mexicans or contraband or whatever. Reasonable suspicion is gone when you are stopping everyone.

    10. Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by Reziac · · Score: 1

      While that may be true now -- how long before it gets extended? I think that's not an unreasonable fear, given how gov't has been extending its warrantless reach in recent years, with the aid of certain court decisions. :(

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's not true today though, so claiming it is true today is just repeating a lie which will cause people to ignore the message.

    12. Re:By definition, it's therefore gratuitous by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

      Well... here in the states, corporations are people. Natural persons get due process but incorporated persons are obviously due more. Hence, no criminal prosecution for nefarious acts such as, say, collapsing the financial sector. Just token fines.

      Insofar as "civil forfeiture" goes, it's simply a much more pleasant phrase than "intimidatory theft".

      --
      Howdy howdy howdy
  3. TrueCrypt by OverlordQ · · Score: 2

    ~nt~

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re: TrueCrypt by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      You know what? Even though I don't travel with my laptop, I'm thinking the same thing.

      With the recent revelations of the ability to intercept hardware en route and infect the firmware with spyware, I wonder if there's a possibility that TruCrypt could be circumvented. I suppose it could, since the data must reside in RAM unencrypted for use by the processor.

      I also don't know if whole-drive encryption is really necessary (why would I encrypt my system files?) or if it has an adverse effect on SSD life.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    2. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when you are locked up in an airport basement and tortured by US "police", how exactly will that help you?

    3. Re:TrueCrypt by mhogomchungu · · Score: 2

      if you are on linux and dont want to use truecrypt binary for whatever reason,you can use zuluCrypt[1] to create and manage truecrypt volumes using a GUI solution

      [1] http://code.google.com/p/zulucrypt/

    4. Re: TrueCrypt by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Basically, if you're targeted they have you. If you're not targeted you have a chance to cause their automated collection algorithms to have to work extra hard to collect your data, but they still have you. So Truecrypt wont help you much.

    5. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Encrypting your hard drive's contents may not be such a good idea... If they decide to search your laptop (or any other device) and it's encrypted, they'll certainly ask you to provide the password. If you don't provide the password, expect being detained for as long as the law allows them to hold you. Also, if you're a foreign national, you'll probably be denied entry.

    6. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give them a password to a decoy operating system and lie that the laptop/install is new or that you only use it for travel if they ask why there seems to be so little history on it.

      You're up against police with limited technical knowledge, not the NSA.

    7. Re:TrueCrypt by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Encrypting your hard drive's contents may not be such a good idea... If they decide to search your laptop (or any other device) and it's encrypted, they'll certainly ask you to provide the password. If you don't provide the password, expect being detained for as long as the law allows them to hold you. Also, if you're a foreign national, you'll probably be denied entry.

      Don't encrypt the laptop.

      Take a backup of the laptop hard drive, encrypt the backup. Upload that to an online storage service.
      Wipe the free space or get a new hard drive. Install basic operating system. Take THAT through customs with you.
      For 'extra points' create an online email account and populate it with some plausible emails, copy over some plausible photos, documents etc.
      Once at your destination, download your encrypted backup and restore it onto your hard drive.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:TrueCrypt by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      So you get to spend some quality time with a rubber hose until you tell them your passwords?

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    9. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't encrypt the laptop.

      Take a backup of the laptop hard drive, encrypt the backup. Upload that to an online storage service.
      Wipe the free space or get a new hard drive. Install basic operating system. Take THAT through customs with you.
      For 'extra points' create an online email account and populate it with some plausible emails, copy over some plausible photos, documents etc.
      Once at your destination, download your encrypted backup and restore it onto your hard drive.

      You, citizen, have just aided and abetted the enemy. Please come with us.

    10. Re: TrueCrypt by crutchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and if you encrypt your hard disk you must be a terrorist

    11. Re: TrueCrypt by mellon · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you want to be safe from unreasonable searches of your personal data while crossing borders, keep no data (none!) on your computer when you cross borders. Anything you need, keep somewhere where you can download it using a memorized password once you're in a place where you feel you have some reason to assume you won't be searched again. When you need to re-cross the border, erase the data again. Don't even keep passwords on your computer. If there's no data on your computer, then they won't be in a position to ask you for your password.

      Of course, the police can always stop you, and the border patrol can always demand to search your computer if they stop you within 100 miles of the border (claims the administration) so you're still not out of the woods once you're on the other side of the border, but unless they are specifically targeting you, you're unlikely to be further searched. Realistically, if they aren't targeting you they aren't going to search your devices when you cross the border either, but you never know.

      Probably the most important takeaway from this story is that if you are doing anything related to Islam or the study of Islam, you should not advertise that in any way that can be found by googling you. By restraining your freedom of speech voluntarily, you can avoid being punished for thoughtcrime.

    12. Re:TrueCrypt by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      As always, XKCD explains why that won't help much.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget to scrub the toilet this week. As long as you live in your mom's basement, you still have to do the chores!

      The rest of us have jobs, and lives. The amount of time and pain of performing full tin-foil-hat-level security steps is so large that very few of us would have time to live the rest of our lives. For Ed Snowden. As much as I'd like to see robust security set up as a default behavior, it's like actually *stopping* at a stop sign. Not gonna happen.

    14. Re:TrueCrypt by ljw1004 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't encrypt the laptop.

      Take a backup of the laptop hard drive, encrypt the backup. Upload that to an online storage service.
      Wipe the free space or get a new hard drive.

      Do you really actually do all that? Or is this just some weird thought experiment of yours?

    15. Re: TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll still lose your laptop, which is a pretty big damage for any normal person. It's better to play safe and stay away from the US borders.

    16. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Upload that to an online storage service? And who's service are you trusting today, and the wires to get it to you?

    17. Re:TrueCrypt by ckatko · · Score: 1

      Why not just separate the HDD from the laptop? Putting together equipment is certainly more invasive than merely turning it on. They're also assuming they go together.

    18. Re:TrueCrypt by houghi · · Score: 1

      Should it not be better to remove the fault instead of working on a workaround.

      For all we know the NSA WANTS us to use the Intertube to transfer the data. Even if we imagine that you have a fail-safe way to encrypt.

      Some will react panicky and start transferring data with unsecured methods, Most likely many more data can be read that way then with the off chance of copying some data via a unqualified TSA agent.

      Companies are now handing over their data in much greater masses then before this became public. Now all they need to do is concentrate of those who don't do that.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    19. Re:TrueCrypt by ckatko · · Score: 1

      If that were a common problem, then it wouldn't be impossible to take measures to prevent it.

      You want data you can't access if you're compromised? Don't give yourself access to it. Restrict it by time (like a time delay vault at Walgreens), or even by giving the data to someone else ala Snowden where it didn't matter if he got caught--the data was in good hands.

      Safe House (1998) the movie, was an interesting example staring Sir Patrick Stewart himself. He had to enter a password every day to keep from a remote mail server leaking tons of information. Bugging a single modem line aside (it's a movie, after all.) The interesting part was that the password wasn't text. It was graphical, and required some mental agility to compute. So when he brain starts failing, as would yours under duress, he wouldn't be able to enter the password even if he wanted.

    20. Re: TrueCrypt by danomac · · Score: 1

      Sure, but if they take your laptop away they could very well be tampering with the software on your laptop. I wouldn't trust it after a "search". Best to just leave it at home.

    21. Re:TrueCrypt by Redmancometh · · Score: 2

      Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and say uploading an entire harddrive backup (for me either 129gb/400, 885/1tb, or 2.4TB/3TB) is entirely unrealistic. Upload files you might need and grab them later..

      Or just keep a second HDD with solely stuff you need that isn't sketchy.

    22. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rubber hose AND enima bag
      you win the 2 for 1 prize

    23. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well goodbye to computers making life easier and safer. Now they get you in prison so the Arch Bishop can put you on The Rack then Skin you Alive.

    24. Re:TrueCrypt by cusco · · Score: 1

      Lot easier to have two hard drives. I actually used to do this, we had a customer who would not allow us to use our company-issued laptop on their network unless we re-installed the OS from their custom image. When I would go to the customer site I'd swap hard drives and be up in running in just a couple of minutes. I suppose if they wanted to be really paranoid they could FedEx the second hard drive between countries, but I've never seen Fatherland Security take even a second glance at my second drive, just at my 2-ounce bottle of hot sauce (which they've confiscated three times).

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    25. Re:TrueCrypt by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

      this. Use the whole system encryption and carefully use the plausible deniability feature to dual boot. The decoy system must be reasonable. Add some files, especially if you need them on your trip, browse the web, do searches for holidays in the US and add some porn. Seriously: You are suspicious if you're male and there is no porn on the private laptop. Combine algorithms when doing the whole system encryption, just in case.

      So. At the border, give them the password for the decoy system. It should be reanonable complex password. If they take away the laptop for one minute, consider it to be compromised. Do not use it anymore or only use the decoy while being aware that your activity is closely monitored. Do not get your into your more private emailaccount abroad, only use the garbage account provided by an american company. Do not login to anything remotely security related, just as you would on a public terminal.

      Or you do a clean install and take a HDD with your backup in a hidden container on the hdd.

      Oh. And your iPhone or Android MUST be factory reset before entering the US border. Once they have physical access to it, they can extract the information, including important password stored on the phone. The backup could be on your laptop, the cloud is obviously not an option for a backup.

      In most cases, nothing will happen. But be aware that you are entering a police state that is only a few years ahead of europe. So you came prepared.

      To the FUD-spreaders in this thread: Snowden himself trusts true crypt enough to use it. Some enryption is compromised, but not all. If you combine different algorithms, chances are high that the decryption might take enough time for a mortal being to have it decrypted when it doesn't matter anymore.

      Spreading FUD leaves Joe Average, who might get the whole system encryption installed with some help with nothing he can do. And that is not the case.

      Yes, the tin foil hats were right. But even if everything is pretty much fucked, all is not lost. Personally, I prefer fighting back instead of doing nothing because the others have already won. Because they haven't - quite yet.

      If you are a target, you're screwed. That is true. But at least the peeking into your whole privacy at a random custom search like this is deflectable.

      After returning from the US, either throw away the compromised laptop if the laptop was taken away even for a short time or flash the BIOS, repartition the HDD, reinstall the operating system and hope for the best (that the bug was only planted in the BIOS and the mbr, not in other firmwares and that the bug in the BIOS was overwritten by the flashing).

      If the laptop was not seized, simply decrypt the right system and repeat the steps above with a more perfomant combination of algorithms. Of course, all these steps are moot if you are a target.

      BTW: Consider all closed source operating systems to be compromised big time. Only a few people need windows as the first operating system anymore. Most people will be fine with a restricted virtual machine within a Open Source OS.

      Gamers could do a dual boot to play and reboot for work and browsing, but that is very inconvinient. At least until newer games are brought to linux by steam. And here is the problem of the closed source steamclient and the closed source driver for the graphic card, but my guess is that strange behaviour would be easier to find by the community on linux than on windows, so the attack vector is still smaller.

      But still, if you are a target, you are screwed. The russian secret service has ordered hundreds of type writers recently for a reason.

    26. Re:TrueCrypt by u38cg · · Score: 1

      This is standard operating procedure for certain corporate types, most commonly on travel to the US and China. As long as you keep your hard drive image relatively small it's not that burdensome compared to the alternatives.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    27. Re:TrueCrypt by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

      Insightful? You are ignoring the plausible deniability feature. Otherwise, true crypt would not be an option.

    28. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't encrypt the laptop.

      Take a backup of the laptop hard drive, encrypt the backup. Upload that to an online storage service.
      Wipe the free space or get a new hard drive.

      Do you really actually do all that? Or is this just some weird thought experiment of yours?

      This isn't uncommon, but most people actually put the files on their own server and not random online storage.

    29. Re:TrueCrypt by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      I've flat out refused in the past to give my password over for my notebook and on only one occasion got delayed in my travels. I ordered to talk to the the guards immediate supervisor and told her that if she wanted to search the notebook she could de-crypt it herself. They couldn't show me probable cause or need to search my notebook so as far as I was and I'm concerned they can go fuck themselves. Either show me a warrant or let me leave, even in the past when my notebook wasn't encrypted, I had to answer questions about why I wasn't running Windows, so they might try to act tough and in charge but they have very little power to actually do anything.

    30. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just don't travel with a laptop and never save login credentials on the devices I need. Want to look at my iPad? fine... all you'll see are pictures of cats.

    31. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ghey.

      You can just use luks, the standard Linux disk encryption, and /sbin/cryptsetup, which is part of coreutils, and so should be on any Gnu/Linux system (and also busybox, I think, has it's own version of cryptsetup).

    32. Re: TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what do you think the chances are that they won't try to coerce you into revealing or typing the password while you are stuck at the border? In this situation, your actual person is largely at the mercy of TSA/Border-Patrol. They have all sorts of obstruction/non-cooperation charges that they can threaten you with, as well as merely detaining you for the day without providing a reason why (which carries the unsaid implication that they might charge you with something serious). That's how one gets around TrueCrypt. And they most definitely do start simple levels of low-tech searches at the drop of a hat.

      Now if you were a person with privileged information from an unfriendly nation, then all sorts of hardware based tricks can be performed to leak screen captures, key logging, and from a software perspective, any program can be compromised once identified, but there is a cost+risk / reward calculation that applies. There are only so many spooks out there and each case of tampering costs money, takes time, and risks exposure that would make the next snooping attempt more difficult. The average computer nerd / middle manager / engineer is way below the reward threshold needed to justify applying that kind of muscle.

    33. Re: TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the police can always stop you, and the border patrol can always demand to search your computer if they stop you within 100 miles of the border (claims the administration) so you're still not out of the woods once you're on the other side of the border,

      Realistically, the Border Patrol isn't looking at your computer if they stop you away from the immediate border. In that case, they are looking for illegal immigrants & immigrant smugglers. I've observed this behavior in Arizona. Haven't ever seen it in the northeast - just airports & border crossings.

      but unless they are specifically targeting you, you're unlikely to be further searched. Realistically, if they aren't targeting you they aren't going to search your devices when you cross the border either, but you never know.

      Don't be so sure. I've been subject to such a search merely for crossing the border by myself. I don't carry weapons, don't look or sound foreign, wasn't rude or showing any indication of intoxicants, don't have a police record, etc., etc. After a tense afternoon, I found out that they were just randomly fishing in the hopes that they'd find kiddie porn. (firstly, Eeeewww!; secondly, WTF?; third, Of all the things that could be smuggled into the country, is this *really* what the border patrol should be focusing on?)

    34. Re:TrueCrypt by antdude · · Score: 1

      What if the Internet is so slow or not available? That won't work then!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    35. Re: TrueCrypt by mellon · · Score: 1

      When was this?

    36. Re: TrueCrypt by alexo · · Score: 1

      Anything travelling through the intertubes can be copied by the NSA.

    37. Re: TrueCrypt by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Just *turn off* the laptop several minutes before you cross the border. Or does nobody actually do that anymore?

      You also mention the ease with which they might infect your system, and then ask why you would want to encrypt your system files. Ummm...

      Firmware attacks are obviously a different matter.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  4. Time for another letter by frdmfghtr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every time I read about a new attack on the Bill of Rights, I write to my Congressional representation. I also vote to replace my representation since clearly they aren't representing We, the People.

    I'm getting tired of writing these letters, yet I'll do it again and remind my "representation" of my position. Anybody else?

    --
    Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    1. re: Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

      Albert Einstein

    2. Re:Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another letter? Someone should be shot.

    3. Re:Time for another letter by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm getting tired of writing these letters, yet I'll do it again and remind my "representation" of my position.

      Unless you include a huge "donation" check in your letter . . . your "representation" won't even receive your letter. The secretary will just toss it in the trash.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear NSA, ...it's a figure of speech.

    5. Re: Time for another letter by kcmastrpc · · Score: 2

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

      Anonymous Drug Addict

      FTFY.

    6. Re:Time for another letter by Greyfox · · Score: 2

      Why don't you run? Sounds like you have a better idea. Mount a grassroots campaign on teh internets on a shoestring and see how many votes you get! You want something done, you gotta do it yourself.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    7. Re: Time for another letter by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

      Anonymous Drug Addict

      FTFY.

      Well, it certainly wasn't Albert Einstein. The quote first appeared in print in 1983 (in a book by Rita Mae Brown), when Albert Einstein had already been dead for 28 years.

    8. Re:Time for another letter by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Mount a grassroots campaign on teh internets on a shoestring and see how many votes you get! You want something done, you gotta do it yourself.

      already tried and failed... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_WBo4sfmi4

    9. Re:Time for another letter by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And here-in is the problem. The NSA has assuredly more blackmail material on every politician in this country than could ever be had by any investigative journalist or PI. When it comes to shutting down the entire NSA do you think they'd use that? Or just roll over?

    10. Re:Time for another letter by Chelloveck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless you include a huge "donation" check in your letter . . . your "representation" won't even receive your letter. The secretary will just toss it in the trash.

      Nah, it'll get aggregated by subject matter. In the month-end statistics it'll just be another check for "concerned about border security", prompting the lawmaker to introduce a bill to *require* searches of all laptops. Mission accomplished.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    11. Re: Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, it certainly wasn't Albert Einstein. The quote first appeared in print in 1983 (in a book by Rita Mae Brown), when Albert Einstein had already been dead for 28 years.

      "Every quotation sounds better when it is attributed to someone genius" - Isaac Newton

    12. Re:Time for another letter by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I'm I'm probably on the same list as you are for the same reason. Looking forward to meeting you at Re-education Camp!

    13. Re:Time for another letter by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Why don't you run? Sounds like you have a better idea. Mount a grassroots campaign on teh internets on a shoestring and see how many votes you get!

      I'm *trying* . See my sig :-) . So far, I believe I have about 10 votes. Could use a few more to guarantee a majority...

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    14. Re: Time for another letter by kcmastrpc · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

      Anonymous Drug Addict

      FTFY.

      Well, it certainly wasn't Albert Einstein. The quote first appeared in print in 1983 (in a book by Rita Mae Brown), when Albert Einstein had already been dead for 28 years.

      It wasn't Rita Mae Brown either, it first appeared in the Narcotics Anonymous handbook in 1981.

      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rita_Mae_Brown

    15. Re:Time for another letter by FridayBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... I'm getting tired of writing these letters, yet I'll do it again and remind my "representation" of my position. Anybody else?

      Your pleas are falling on deaf ears, because your representatives in Congress today don't work you anymore: to them it's all about the money they need to get re-elected, so now they only work for their donors. Even Obama, who received so many small donations, got 70% of his campaign cash from big donors, mainly from people on Wall Street (which is why he will never prosecute them).

      Therefore, what we must do is fix the underlying problem first: by getting big money out of politics.

      This would be difficult in any other country with a corrupt political system, but luckily the United States Constitution happens to include Article Five, which describes an alternative process through which the Constitution can be altered: by holding a national convention at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (34) of the country's 50 States. Any proposed amendments must then be ratified by at least three-quarters (38 States).

      Is anybody doing this yet? Yes. WOLF-PAC was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since then, many volunteers have approached their State Legislators about this idea and their efforts have often been met with unexpected bi-partisan enthusiasm. So far, 50 State Legislators have authored or co-sponsored resolutions to call for a Constitutional Convention to get money out of politics! Notable successes have been in Texas, Idaho and Kentucky.

      However, if the State Legislators are also corrupt, why are they helping us? Well, maybe they aren't as corrupt as you think. And even if they are, the important thing is that they seem to be just as fed up with the Federal government as we are -- so much so that they seem quite happy to help out with this effort. After all, it's a pretty simple proposal that speaks to both Democrats and Republicans.

      If you think this idea makes sense, you can sign this petition, donate, or even take action by personally contacting your favorite State Legislator and asking for a meeting. It's easier than you might think and as a result we might be able to change this awful situation sooner than you think.

      .

      *) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.

      **) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.

    16. Re: Time for another letter by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      Don't think I haven't considered it.

      I'm of two minds regarding politics:

      (1) I'm so sick if the Washington nonsense that sometimes I wish I could just forget the whole thing, tune it out, and just go on with my life. That usually lasts two minutes, because it does, and will, affect me whether I want it to or not.

      (2) actually run and bring back as much inside info as I can, to REALLY inform my employer (the CITIZENS I represent) of the nonsense that goes on. Really try to do some good and represent We, the People.

      What worries me about (2) the most is the intense pressure that comes from big donors. I'd be concerned that I'd become just as corrupt, power-hungry, and full of myself as those in Washington.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    17. Re:Time for another letter by Torvac · · Score: 1

      "representation" is about money, add cash.

    18. Re: Time for another letter by Jamu · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but he also didn't like dice.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    19. Re: Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like drinking beer and hoping you will get the girl?

    20. Re:Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy solution: Vote for third parties. D or R? Vote both out and within five years you'll have a completely new, political environment.

      Yes, the same people are going to get back into politics under a new label - but they will be scared of The People.

      If you are not content with the state of your country, use your votes to change it. You have it in your hand and dispite everything, you're a democracy. You just need to use it.

    21. Re: Time for another letter by crutchy · · Score: 1

      (2) actually run and bring back as much inside info as I can, to REALLY inform my employer (the CITIZENS I represent) of the nonsense that goes on. Really try to do some good and represent We, the People.

      you like the taste of lead?
      long before you succeed at (2) the military industrial complex would be sure to feed you some

    22. Re:Time for another letter by fche · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Therefore, what we must do is fix the underlying problem first: by getting big money out of politics."

      Another way to do that would be to squish government back into constitutionally delimited jurisdictions. It would not interfere in economic life as much, would not spend so bloody much, so would not be a target for bribery from business/unions/individuals so much. Adjust "so much" to taste.

      But that way lies a less powerful government, something leftists like the "wolf pac" abhor.

    23. Re: Time for another letter by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      This. You know how much harassed travelers should had written to their "representatives" by now? How big are the odds that they get ever get replaced by people that actually fix this, the NSA, bank/corp abuses and things like that? Maybe it helps you to feel good for a while, but things will only get worse, and people will keep accepting it as the new normal. Don't play boiling frog.

    24. Re: Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (2) actually run and bring back as much inside info as I can, to REALLY inform my employer (the CITIZENS I represent) of the nonsense that goes on. Really try to do some good and represent We, the People.

      The whole point of an establishment is to protect the establishment. Even if you can get elected as an outsider, a freshman Representative won't get any access to inside information until he demonstrates his willingness to "play ball." Try to play the reformer, and you can expect to be excluded from any meaningful committees, closed-door briefings, or negotiation. They've been doing this for 200 years: don't you think they know how to protect the system?

    25. Re:Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All that would happen would be that what remains of the government would be bribed, and people would let the government get larger and larger again, just like it did the first time around. Your solution is not a long-term solution.

    26. Re:Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How, exactly, are you going to keep government in constitutionally delimited jurisdictions once money gets involved? It didn't work the first time around, why would you think it would work this time?

      I actually agreed with that the Citizens United was correct, but at this point I think the fallout of corruption is so bad as to justify constitutional intervention. Also, there's alternatives to WOLF-PAC which do not revoke corporate personhood.

    27. Re: Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up how the electoral process actually works... your vote for president equates out to nothing.

    28. Re: Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could come up with an equally damning list of GOP shibboleths, and doubt present them in an equally slanted way (except for 'running massive deficits', which both parties enthusiastically support). The fact that you see the GOP's problems as being due to one bad apple, and the DNC's as due to intrinsic corruption, makes you part of the problem. Congratulations on being a faithful cog in the machinery of corruption.

    29. Re: Time for another letter by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      The problem with Internet quotes is that you can't always depend on their accuracy.

      —Abraham Lincoln

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    30. Re:Time for another letter by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      "representation" is about money, add cash.

      Yup. Money is speech. If it doesn't work, you didn't send enough. Doesn't even have to be small, unmarked bills anymore.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    31. Re:Time for another letter by dcollins · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This. I've gotten email responses that were the exact opposite of what I was writing about. In particular, when I wrote to my congressman against draconian copyright regimes (including my role as owner & developer of a small software business), the response was that they sympathized with my professional role, and in light of that would continue to work on strengthening copyright enforcement.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    32. Re: Time for another letter by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      FrdmFghtr, or shall I say "FreedomFighter". Ironic how you think you're fighting for "freedom" by endorsing an institution that by its very nature is there to restrict some, and "enforce" other freedoms. Take a step back, and ask yourself if you're really free. And then take another step back and ask yourself if other people will be truly free if your ideal government is in power.

    33. Re: Time for another letter by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      I came up with the name back in the early 1990s when I first enlisted in the Navy; it made sense back then, and I never bothered to think of anything else.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    34. Re:Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes a power vacuum. Nobody would ever take advantage of that.

    35. Re: Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The difference between a madman and me, is that a madman is not aware of his madness, while I am fully aware that I am mad." -God

    36. Re:Time for another letter by fche · · Score: 1

      The idea is to take the incentive to bribe away, by taking (back) the power of largesse from government.

    37. Re:Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's flat wrong. For a very long time now, propegandists have been convincing us "leftists" that the Evil Right Wing wants a huge government with unlimited powers to sniff our underwear and send us to jail for having pre-marital sex. They've also been convincing you "rightists" that the Evil Left Wing wants a huge government with unlimited powers to steal your money and force you to have sex with known terrorists.

      Some people on both sides blindly take in the propeganda and make very fine stooges for the increasingly power-hungry politians. The government then happily goes about screwing both "sides" and pretending that it's the other "side's" fault. If you actually want a government that's not an amazing, terrifying combination of the worst fears of both "leftists" and "rightists," you'd do well to step outside those particular boxes and start working with any one of the various non-partisan groups that have decided to quit buying their BS and actually fix the problem.

      Or you can keep thinking and acting like you are, and when the government decides that when the founders talked about "private property" they really meant "government property," you can smugly say "I told you so" to your "leftist" neighbors while we're all stuck living under the same bridge.

    38. Re: Time for another letter by Nyder · · Score: 1

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

      Anonymous Drug Addict

      FTFY.

      Well, it certainly wasn't Albert Einstein. The quote first appeared in print in 1983 (in a book by Rita Mae Brown), when Albert Einstein had already been dead for 28 years.

      It wasn't Rita Mae Brown either, it first appeared in the Narcotics Anonymous handbook in 1981.

      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rita_Mae_Brown

      Going to point out it's a weird thing for a NA book to say since most drug users have to repeatedly kick drugs before they figure out how to quit completely. And NA is about keeping sober and it's okay if you fall of the wagon, just get back on. Quite a different attitude then "don't keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" that is just saying no point in even trying to kick drugs because you won't do it.

      If it's supposed to mean that doing drugs and expecting something different is crazy, you do drugs to get high. You aren't expecting anything other then that high, and you generally are NOT disappointed.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    39. Re: Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said most of the things I said. -- Yogi Berra

    40. Re:Time for another letter by centered · · Score: 1

      There is another possible solution. Wolf-PAC is seeking to amend the Constitution, using a little known clause which allows states to put forth amendments, instead of Congress. Their goal is to remove the large corporate donations and lobbyist influence which have infected national politics. The reasoning is that once this influence has been put in check, only then can we use democracy to solve all of our other problems. Here is their Wikipedia page:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf-PAC

      And here is the group's site:

      http://www.wolf-pac.com/

    41. Re:Time for another letter by labnet · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, thats probably more an American cultural thing of not being able to read compound sentances.
      I have found when writing to americans ( I know, gross generalisation) that I need to bullet point my points, with the bullet point not exceeding 20 words.

      --
      46137
    42. Re:Time for another letter by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Hence the observation that the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    43. Re:Time for another letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.

      You are missing the real problem. It's not the extra campaign spending; it's the fact that extra spending is effective.

      The true failure of democracy lies not with those attempting to buy elections, but with those voters that are willing to sell them.

    44. Re:Time for another letter by Reziac · · Score: 1

      What makes you think individual contributions and public funding can't be abused? Witness the internet-donation questions re Obama's campaign. And I seem to recall that in California, if you aren't a major-party candidate, you aren't eligible for funds, and that this rule was at the behest of the two major parties.

      IMO the only way to get the big money out of politics is to get the money out of politics, period. Make it more like jury duty: Pull candidates by lot from a pool of registered voters (rather than from the professional politicians). Give them a couple weeks to state their views in public forums. No campaigning allowed. That, or something like, is about the only way to solve this. Otherwise any system you can devise can and will succumb to moneyed interests.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    45. Re: Time for another letter by nephilimsd · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain the point of the passage in the NA handbook is to point out that previous methods of trying to quit were ineffective, so new methods should be found that are more effective. Continuing to do drugs is not helping, and previous methods of quitting didn't work, so both of those should be tossed as plans for the future as they are "insane."

    46. Re:Time for another letter by FridayBob · · Score: 1

      ... IMO the only way to get the big money out of politics is to get the money out of politics, period. ...

      There are some advantages to your idea, but I don't think the nation is ready for it just yet. WOLF-PAC's aim is to address the core problem affecting our political system today with two simple ideas that have broad appeal. Remember, this is a democracy, so if you want anything done for sure you have to be prepared to compromise and do things one step at a time or else risk getting nothing in return for your efforts.

    47. Re:Time for another letter by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      And how are you going to squish it without first having a Congress willing to vote to squish it?

  5. Disquieting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really, this trend toward a total surveillance society is getting more and more worrying.

    And the given rationals are so pathetic. How can people like that be in position of autority? It would be funny if it was not frightening.

  6. Anything goes now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think people must realize that we have basically conceded our privacy from ourselves. If your paranoid about people from the NSA or whoever going through your stuff.
    Then I think the only solution is going under the radar and avoiding these devices. Disconnect from the internet, buy a dumb phone and pay for everything with cash.
    Unless your willing to take measures like these I think your privacy has been long gone.

    1. Re:Anything goes now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think people must realize that we have basically conceded our privacy from ourselves.

      Obviously you had been sleeping thru this last year otherwise you would have taken note that (lots of) people really do care.

      If your paranoid about people from the NSA or whoever going through your stuff.

      Don't forget they are also taking your stuff just because they literally "feel like it". Those who have had gear confiscated at Borders are lucky if they ever see it again within the gears service lifetime.

      Then I think the only solution is going under the radar and avoiding these devices. Disconnect from the internet, buy a dumb phone and pay for everything with cash.
      Unless your willing to take measures like these I think your privacy has been long gone.

      Yea capitulation, keeping your head down and looking the other way also worked so well for Jews during the holocaust. I refuse to settle for a world pwn3d by "the man".

  7. Didn't want that tourism income anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or those science or business conferences either, come to that.

    I'd love to visit the US someday, but when I expect treatment like that, I just think, OK well there are plenty of other places in the world who will be happy to see me spending money in their local economy without forcing me to risk accepting that kind of treatment "on a hunch".

    1. Re:Didn't want that tourism income anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 I may miss some wonderful national parks, but I'm not a criminal, so I have no reason to go t a place where I'll be treated as one

  8. France want the Statue of Liberty back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    France want the Statue of Liberty back

  9. Why is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you cross the border to a country, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy of items on your person. You can't just carry a box and say "I'm not telling" when the customs official asks what's inside. So what's the problem here?

    1. Re: Why is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'd have no objection to a forced colonoscopy at every border crossing either?

    2. Re:Why is this a problem? by meflo · · Score: 1

      So when you cross the border every black boh should be searched or every binary bit that crosses the us border should be searched? Well, you probably mean that he had digitized some drugs in that laptop, so its data should be searched? Oooh, should this comment be searched? Do I have something to hide?

    3. Re:Why is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is so special about the US border that makes it an exception to the 4th Amendment?

    4. Re: Why is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So you'd have no objection to a forced colonoscopy at every border crossing either?

      So you have an objection to looking for fruit at the border? Why would you compare a colonoscopy to inspection of goods?

    5. Re:Why is this a problem? by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      When you cross the border to a country, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy of items on your person.

      Your first sentence is already absurd. Trying to cross a border does not mean you have no fourth amendment rights.

    6. Re:Why is this a problem? by ledow · · Score: 1

      You might be able to look.
      You might even be able to force me to decrypt/open locked boxes.

      But you can't just take copies of that data without a legally-binding (on you) assurance that it will remain private.

      There is nothing in these laws that says it's illegal for the border guard to copy your laptop, then put your photos of you and your girlfriend on the net for all to see. Nothing.

      And other countries have laws too. Laws that mean we can't LET you see some things, even if they are not protected by diplomatic immunity. I cannot reveal to you the passwords of my employer that stores personal data on its clients. It is ILLEGAL for me to do so, no matter what country I happen to be in when I do it (unless its under duress, but that's a DEFENCE, not an automatic exception). So forcing me to give you not only a viewing, but allowing you to copy that data and use it as you will (as I have no assurance that you won't do just that), means I can't give you that opportunity to even POTENTIALLY see that data. UK, Data Protection Act, revised several times since it's inception in 1984 (ironically enough).

      In the same way, if you wanted to take photocopies at the border of all papers people are carrying, it would mean I would be unable to take some parts of my work with me. Unless you provided assurances as to the use and scope of the copies you made. It doesn't matter if I'm a teacher, a social worker, a prison officer, or whatever - you're stopping people bringing commercial data into your country that - up until now, and in every other country - we have assurances that you won't do bad things with it.

      Nobody cares about you looking. That's your fucking job, if you work in airport security. But the rules of legal evidence need to apply to what you copy and take away. And they don't. In law, or in practice.

    7. Re: Why is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I have no expectation when I travel 10 miles north of here? Even if I have no intention of crossing the border, it puts me within a "border zone" to go buy groceries.

    8. Re:Why is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't just carry a box and say "I'm not telling"

      Why not? You can everywhere else. All this BS about borders and the lack of law at them needs to stop. The sooner the borders don't exist the better, the EU showed how that could be done without giving away sovereignty, and then it took that sovereignty and handed it to a bunch of unelected corrupt politicians (the Commission).

    9. Re:Why is this a problem? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      4th amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. When this issue came up, very early on (i.e. when Constitution was still interpreted by the same people who wrote it), it was agreed that, as the notion of custom inspection is the one that had been in existence for a long time, and therefore common knowledge, and furthermore (in theory) serving the public interest, that any border search by customs officers is reasonable.

    10. Re:Why is this a problem? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You do have 4th Amendment rights. It protects you against unreasonable search and seizure, not any kind of it.

    11. Re:Why is this a problem? by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      No. It also protects me from random or unjustifiable searches. They need probable cause in order for it to be a reasonable search.

      If the government can just decide that certain searches are "reasonable" to get around the fourth amendment, then the fourth amendment would be utterly worthless. This would also make the TSA 100% okay, under your reasoning.

    12. Re:Why is this a problem? by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      And if they were doing it since about the beginning, that changes absolutely nothing. The fourth amendment actually defines "unreasonable." If they ignored this and decided it was more convenient to just violate people's rights (which would be bad whether or not it's constitutional), then they've been violating the constitution since the beginning. No surprise there.

      This attitude is exactly the problem. Free speech zones. The NSA. The TSA. Constitution-free zones. Stop-and-frisk. Many of the problems we're having right now are happening because people are willing to hand over everyone's freedoms to the government and then try to rationalize their nonsensical choice.

    13. Re:Why is this a problem? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The 4th does not define "unreasonable". If you read it closely, nowhere it says that warrantless search is unreasonable - only that warrants shall not be issued other than on probable cause. Like the 2nd, the two clauses of the 4th are disjoint, and one does not limit the other.

      Personally, I disagree with the idea that a warrantless border search is always reasonable. I do agree that it presents more of a special case, but certainly not enough to give a blanket permit to search everyone for any reason or no reason at all. My point is solely that this is not, unfortunately, what the 4th says right now. So if we want this right to be protected, it'll have to be done explicitly in the constitution, by a new amendment.

      Frankly, a new amendment codifying what is "unreasonable" with respect to the 4th is long overdue. It has been a hazy area pretty much ever since it was written down, as as we all know, government tends to adopt the most permissive (to them) interpretation of any right and limitation that they can get away with.

    14. Re:Why is this a problem? by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      If the government could just decide that every search they wanted to conduct was 'reasonable,' the fourth amendment would be useless, and it would never have to get warrants to begin with.

      But even if it couldn't be interpreted that way, I'm not sure how anyone could consider this as anything but unreasonable.

    15. Re:Why is this a problem? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If the government could just decide that every search they wanted to conduct was 'reasonable,' the fourth amendment would be useless, and it would never have to get warrants to begin with.

      Well, that's where separation of powers come into play. Legislative can make laws that define "reasonable", and executive can implement them, but where there is doubt about whether it is truly reasonable, judiciary gets to look closely at the arguments and decide one way or the other.

    16. Re:Why is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It also protects me from random or unjustifiable searches
      > If the government can just decide that certain searches are "reasonable" to get around the fourth amendment, then the fourth amendment would be utterly worthless

      They always have decided. Usually it was codified into law, but since Roosevelt starting creating administrative agencies, you get WPA/FBI/etc bylaws and it's all out the window. You are acting like you live in a different country. Did you not learn about this in high school or at least when filing your tax returns? Complete ignorance like yours is shocking to encounter in a supposedly informed culture.

      Let's ignore your completely backward views on reality and get back to your staggering idiotic thought process. We should ALWAYS be looking at anything coming in through the border. Person, object, anything. Let's just stop inspecting cargo coming in on ships, amirite? Why check who's coming in the country at all? You wear a mask and taking that off would be an unreasonable search since you have made up some completely arbitrary and imaginary rule of whats reasonable and what's not.

      I hope you enjoy your free bread, charity case.

    17. Re:Why is this a problem? by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      The separation of powers bit has failed time and time again. Security-happy freedom haters exist in all three branches and collude to take away the people's rights. This very problem is an example of that.

    18. Re:Why is this a problem? by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      They always have decided.

      Oh, I'm completely aware that the government routinely violates the constitution, so don't call me ignorant.

      We should ALWAYS be looking at anything coming in through the border.

      As we're supposedly "the land of the free and the home of the brave," we should strive for freedom above all else. Stripping people of their rights just because they're at the border is not something "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would do.

      Let's just stop inspecting cargo coming in on ships, amirite?

      Unless you have a reason to suspect someone's doing something wrong, that is right. We should not be searching people like this.

      And hey, why not give the government the power to ransack everyone's homes whenever they feel like it? I'm sure they'd catch some filthy criminals then, right? And that's what's important: Safety...

      since you have made up some completely arbitrary and imaginary rule

      You mean like the government did when it decided what is and is not 'reasonable'? No matter what route you take, it's going to be arbitrary, though not really imaginary.

      I hope you enjoy your free bread, charity case.

      I hope you enjoy your TSA, your NSA, your free speech zones, and your constitution-free zones, you cowardly piece of trash. I'm certainly not enjoying them. Why not move to North Korea already?

    19. Re:Why is this a problem? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What is your suggestion for the alternative?

    20. Re:Why is this a problem? by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      Not giving them so much damn leeway to decide what is and is not "reasonable." Of course, I think separation of powers is a good idea, but we need more than that. As you said, constitutional amendments may be necessary.

    21. Re:Why is this a problem? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, the problem is that even with all the amendments, there will still come a time when the law needs to be interpreted - if it was all so crystal clear as to be self-evident in all cases, we wouldn't need judges in the first place. So the question on how exactly we resolve uncertainties remains.

      I suppose it could be an interesting experiment if we had an arrangement similar to a grand jury for this. And if the vote in any such would not be unanimous, take it as an indication that constitution is unclear as written, and therefore an amendment that would clearly decide one way or another is necessary. Though that would also require a more agile process for amendments, e.g. a Swiss-style referendum, as opposed to the current one that can drag on for decades.

    22. Re:Why is this a problem? by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      Well, the problem is that even with all the amendments, there will still come a time when the law needs to be interpreted - if it was all so crystal clear as to be self-evident in all cases, we wouldn't need judges in the first place.

      It doesn't need to be 100% crystal clear in all cases (impossible) in order for it to be better than the mess we have now.

  10. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worrying? Trend?

    You live in a complete police and surveillance state RIGHT NOW! Me and my friends would rather go to North Korea than to the USA on vacation.

  11. That Paling Thing? by Foxhoundz · · Score: 1

    You think it would be different if Sarah Palin was president?

    1. Re:That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Yes, it would be different. Watching her statements and positions and her consistency on her positions leads me to conclude that she would restore, at least, some of our rights that POTUS Obama has taken from us.

    2. Re:That Paling Thing? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      it would be different if Ron Paul were president

    3. Re: That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dream on. Congress would block him at every chance. Equating the solution to one person is oversimplified.

    4. Re: That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Equating the solution to one person is oversimplified.

      But blaming the problem on one is not.

      And before you go "But.... but BUSH!!!!" consider the multiple times Obama has defended and supported the NSA and it's tactics.

      It's almost like... the NSA has something nasty on him and has made him their bitch or something.

      Naaaa... that's conspiracy theory stuff. Silly me.

    5. Re:That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does it matter? Barack Obama is president, and this shit is still going on. We were royally duped by the democratic party. No wonder his approval polls are in the shitter now. Time to overthrow this republicrat juggernaut and elect real representatives, not these security paranoid corporate douchebags.

    6. Re: That Paling Thing? by crutchy · · Score: 0

      google "executive order" and "presidential veto" biatch

    7. Re:That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny.

      Looking at the same person and I get the opposite: we would have been MORE fucked over (and not in a good way) compared to Obama.

    8. Re: That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Law enforcement falls onto the executive branch. If President Paul wanted to, he could tell the DHS to respect the 4th Amendment by either appointing a compliant DHS Secretary or by executive order.

    9. Re:That Paling Thing? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      it would be different if Ron Paul were president

      If you're counting on the good will of the incumbant of the Executive office as your sole protection from government overreach, you're (we're) doing it wrong.

      Any president must be held accountable by the other two branches of government for the system to work. Any president is subject to the temptation to stretch his authority if he knows it won't be challenged.

      If you knew that speed limits were never enforced, would you be tempted to exceed them? Of course not. Except if you're late to work. Or some idiot is driving too slowly. Or you're gonna miss your doctor's appointment. But you're a good driver, and can be trusted not to overdo it, right?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    10. Re:That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

      ...educate yourself

    11. Re:That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, He'd sell our NSA data to corporations in the name of deficit reduction.

    12. Re:That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lemme guess... romney supporter?

    13. Re:That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it would be different if Ron Paul were president

      Uh, right.

      Either Paul would have done as he stated and lived and died by the Constitution - in which case, nothing would be different because we'd still have the same jackasses in Congress...

      Or he would've been the magical Internet White Knight that people make him out to be, abused the hell out of his position, and have turned out to be just another in a long line of President Chucklefucks.

      Seriously, his own party disliked him. Dude wouldn't have changed shit.

    14. Re: That Paling Thing? by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 1

      I don't believe we need to ponder conspiracy theories to understand why the top executive in any government would be rather hesitant to constrain the reach of his spymaster(s).

      Indeed, I would consider it bizarrely foolish to expect any President to gleefully rein in the long arm of the NSA. Any top executive simply depends on information (real or otherwise) in order to make their decisions. Granted, sometimes (most times?) it appears they prefer to use/create information to provide backing to decisions already made. But in any case, they NEED intel. Everyone spies. Let me repeat that. ALL governments with the resources to do so will employ people to do intelligence gathering, including (or especially) information that others would prefer remain private or hidden.

      An opportunistic politician may decry the NSA in order ride populism into office. But once they're actually doing the work of the top executive, they will change their tune.

      If anything is going to change here it would seem more appropriate to look to the Judicial branch (which has been mixed lately) or the Legislative (which would likely require a lot more public focus/support).

    15. Re: That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What dems? You mean the dems that voted for Obama who is continuing everything that Bush Cheney put into place/ Those dems? Or some other dems? Please. Be clear.

      When will people learn that partisan politics is a game designed to make us all lose?

    16. Re:That Paling Thing? by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      Excellent points! The crux of these matters is structural. We need to create and utilize structural barriers to abuse, not personality-based ones.

    17. Re:That Paling Thing? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      the crux of these matters is that you had the ultimate chance to reduce the size of government but you blew it by not electing ron paul as potus... part of his platform was about using the presidential veto to block any bill that he deemed unconstitutional, including many appropriations bills.

      what many republicans and democrats alike don't understand is that the size and scope of the united states government is the root cause of many of your problems (including political corruption problems). if you reduce the size of government, you reduce the amount of damage that corruption can cause. also, if you reduce the size of government you reduce the amount of power it (and politicians) wield, which means there is less power that can be bought and sold to the highest corporate bidders. corporations wouldn't have as much power as they do if they couldn't buy it from politicians in the first place... this is what ron paul was all about.

      america fucked up big time in 2012, and unfortunately you are paying for it dearly

    18. Re:That Paling Thing? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Seriously, his own party disliked him. Dude wouldn't have changed shit.

      you are truly ignorant. ron paul was a true republican (google "robert taft"), unlike most of the current republican party. his party may have disliked him, but republican voters (possibly the mejority of if you look closely at how the 2012 republican primary was handled by the republican party and the mainstream media) abolutely loved him. learn some history.
      ron paul is anti-establishment, and both the republican and democratic parties are the establishment.

      morons like you are the reason why america is falling.

    19. Re:That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barack Obama is president, and this shit is still going on. We were royally duped by the democratic party.

      You actually expected different from the Democrats?
      Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

      The Republicans are only slightly less onerous in this matter, but the left has always been worse in that they will deliberately lie about their true intentions as long as that will gain a few more votes from their "useful idiots".

    20. Re:That Paling Thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to change your electoral SYSTEM, replace it one which is closer to the democratic ideal like MMP or recoverable proxy (those two systems can be complementary).

      I don't know of any country that uses recoverable proxies (they are used in corporate elections), and they were invented in America AFAICT, so you don't have the fear of being unamerican.

    21. Re:That Paling Thing? by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

      and elect real representatives

      Uhh, yeah. Good luck with that.

      --
      Howdy howdy howdy
  12. The 4th Amendment is null and void by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The terrorists have won! No I'm not talking about the Islamic kind. I'm talking about the American government which since 2001 opted to keep its citizens in a perpetual state of fear to increase its power over them.

  13. two paths emerge as i cook cabbage. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    2014: year of the hunch
    or 2014: year of the massive street protests

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:two paths emerge as i cook cabbage. by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      "...inchoate hunches, a method that it says has sometimes proved fruitful."

      Since even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, said squirrel may rifle through your personals.

      Yep, passes the smell test for science.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:two paths emerge as i cook cabbage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...inchoate hunches, a method that it says has sometimes proved fruitful."

      Since even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, said squirrel may rifle through your personals.

      Yep, passes the smell test for science.

      The right squirrels might be useful here. Some like those who were purported to attend Mississippi Revivals. Confession is good for the soul they say. Look at all the stimulation from the confessors we have had so far?

  14. in Soviet USA by meflo · · Score: 2

    Police is the state

    1. Re:in Soviet USA by crutchy · · Score: 1

      in soviet america, government own you!
      in soviet russia, government own you!

      is it just me or have russian reversal jokes kinda lost their funny side?

    2. Re:in Soviet USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police is the state

      It is about time these silly little yanky tanky spanky's got a real life instead of prancing around (and they do prance as well in fact almost mince ) acting little hitlers . Your patch of insignificant mud you call home is just that an insignificant patch of mud suck it in steroid taking tweakers .

    3. Re:in Soviet USA by meflo · · Score: 1

      You mean "real life" - like the the one you live answering my opinions. Sure, officer.

  15. /sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I don't even have stopovers in the USA anymore, I don't want to be detained/searched/arrested/fined for no reason apart from the fact I'm not american and even then its only if you yell I'm a patriot louder than the guy beside you.

  16. Which hard drive encryption, if any, works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA has proven that they can circumvent technologies which people had thought to be secure.

    So, what hard drive encryptions seem particularly strong?

    Is the more stock stuff more vulnerable? For example, what about Apple's built-in FileVault?

    1. Re:Which hard drive encryption, if any, works? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      NSA has proven that they can circumvent technologies which people had thought to be secure.

      crooks can break into locked cars too, but i wouldn't advise people leave their cars unlocked

      So, what hard drive encryptions seem particularly strong?

      not sure, but anything FOSS is probably your best bet... anything closed-source can be corrupted
      if you're super-paranoid at least you can review and compile it yourself

    2. Re:Which hard drive encryption, if any, works? by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 1

      FileVault?

      Just search for VileFault - there's your answer.

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
    3. Re:Which hard drive encryption, if any, works? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      NSA has proven that they can circumvent technologies which people had thought to be secure.

      crooks can break into locked cars too, but i wouldn't advise people leave their cars unlocked

      It is unfortunate that we are forced to treat government officials tasked with our protection in the same manner as criminals who are out to harm us. It demonstrates just how far our government has fallen. The only questions now are how much farther it has to fall before the public at large finally resolves to do something about it and whether it can still be done through peaceful means when that happens.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  17. So it's constitutional because ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... anything else would be "inadvisable"?

    1. Re:So it's constitutional because ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      ... anything else would be "inadvisable"?

      Yeah, it's part of what's known as an epidemic of fake judging. This judge is one of the "enemies domestic" that the framers warned we'd have to do something about.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  18. logic... by wbr1 · · Score: 2
    If I have a briefcase full of papers at the border can that be searched without warrant or suspicion? If not, then why cana device which serves similar purpose be searched?

    Because fuck you (and the constitution), that's why. Oh sorry, because terrist bogeymen, that's why.

    My ass hurts.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:logic... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      If I have a briefcase full of papers at the border can that be searched without warrant or suspicion?

      Unless you have a diplomatic passport, then yes, your briefcase can be searched at the border for any reason or for no reason.

    2. Re:logic... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Actually yes it can. The DHS suspends the constitution within 100 miles of the border. They can search anything they want in the name on national security.

    3. Re:logic... by bdam · · Score: 1

      The answer to your question is yes, they would absolutely search a briefcase. I'm not sure what would make you think otherwise. I cross the Canadian/US land border several times a year with the full knowledge that if the border agent wants to tear my car apart bolt-by-bolt he can do so. Once done, they'd give me the OK and leave me with a pile of car parts. I'm pretty big on civil liberties, and stories like this don't exactly make me comfortable, but at the end of the day the border guys have a tough job. Hundreds of thousands of people entering the country, they get a minute or two to decide if something is amiss. Should they have unlimited powers? No. However, I think there's a case to be made that if you want to enter a country you are not entitled to due-process in it's entirety. In terms of it being a fourth amendment issue ... I'm not sure it's unreasonable to be searched when entering a country ... it seems pretty standard across the world. Electronics make it feel far move invasive, sure, but the base concept of being able to search people entering the country seems pretty sound.

    4. Re:logic... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes it can be searched.

      The search standards at border crossings are very loose. It's been that way since 1789. The Constitution is high on defense of the nation, and tariffs were the first taxes. Obviously you cannot defend the borders or impose tariffs without being able to search at border crossings.

      The Congress shall have power:

      To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

      "Exhibit A in the Supreme Courtâ(TM)s case for border searches is a statute Congress enacted in 1789, which granted customs officials âoefull power and authorityâ to search âoeany ship or vessel, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed"

      from: http://lawreview.richmond.edu/run-for-the-border/

      This statute actually PREDATES the adoption of the Bill of Rights as amendments to the Constitution by two months.

    5. Re:logic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you cannot defend the borders or impose tariffs without being able to search at border crossings.

      Then don't. In the land of the free and the home of the brave, you don't sacrifice freedom for safety. This is clearly a violation of the constitution.

    6. Re:logic... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      If I have a briefcase full of papers at the border can that be searched without warrant or suspicion?

      Yep. The courts have consistently ruled that it surely can. Because the border is not *inside* the US, Constitutional protections do not apply there.

    7. Re:logic... by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty big on civil liberties, and stories like this don't exactly make me comfortable, but at the end of the day the border guys have a tough job. Hundreds of thousands of people entering the country, they get a minute or two to decide if something is amiss. Should they have unlimited powers? No. However, I think there's a case to be made that if you want to enter a country you are not entitled to due-process in it's entirety. In terms of it being a fourth amendment issue ... I'm not sure it's unreasonable to be searched when entering a country ... it seems pretty standard across the world. Electronics make it feel far move invasive, sure, but the base concept of being able to search people entering the country seems pretty sound.

      This kind of opinion is precisely why we continue to see the erosion of our rights in the US.

      Suspending constitutional rights because "their job is hard" is bullshit. The border agents can suck it up and do their jobs the right way. If that means I have an order of magnitude higher chance of dying from a terrorist attack, so be it - it would still be multiple orders of magnitude lower chance than dying of many other things like cancer, heart disease, or car accidents.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    8. Re:logic... by anagama · · Score: 1

      The fact that the statute predates the constitution supports the opposite conclusion you are drawing because a more recent edict by a more powerful body clearly repeals prior inferior contrary law.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    9. Re:logic... by celle · · Score: 1

      "The Congress shall have power:

      To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

      "Exhibit A in the Supreme Courtâ(TM)s case for border searches is a statute Congress enacted in 1789, which granted customs officials âoefull power and authorityâ to search âoeany ship or vessel, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed""

                        The point is we're already american citizens -- we're already supposed to be trusted. Otherwise the constitution and citizenship is meaningless. The statue in question was aimed at foreigners entering the country not US citizens.

    10. Re:logic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exhibit A in the Supreme Court's case for border searches is a statute Congress enacted in 1789, which granted customs officials "full power and authority" to search "any ship or vessel, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed."

      You seem to be missing a key point. In your citation, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed. Right there in the wording, in black-and-white, it holds the border searches to the reasonable suspicion standard. The ruling in question and the current government policy do not do that.

    11. Re:logic... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Right. But this establishes warrantless searches at the border which takes out the 4th Amendment and any issue of unconstitutionality.

      The details of suspicionless vs suspicion in border searches are those of statute, not the 4th Amendment or the Constitution. This ruling is on the constitutionality.

    12. Re:logic... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Clearly citizens can be smugglers just as easily as non-citizens. So under your theory all a smuggler would have to do would be employ a US citizen to carry the goods into the country, completely eliminating the ability to collect tariffs.

      The founders were not that naive. In fact some of them were smugglers during British rule.

    13. Re:logic... by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 2

      Clearly citizens can be smugglers just as easily as non-citizens.

      Just as they can be terrorists. But the mere fact that someone could be a criminal or a terrorist doesn't give the government the power to suspend everyone's rights and ignore the constitution, which is what's happening.

      All this proves is that the government is the real criminal.

    14. Re:logic... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a reasonable theory, but clearly in actual practice it is not the case as these searches go on to this day.

      I suspect that it's because the tariff law has been amended and restructured many times since 1789, and clearly one or more these likely resolution of this issue possibly through re-authorization.

      The key thing here is to realize that the very same people who wrote and passed the 4th Amendment also wrote and passed laws authorizing warrantless searches at borders.

      The original tariff act was the first significant piece of legislation passed in Congress, on July 4, 1787 by a vote of 31-19.

    15. Re:logic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure it's unreasonable to be searched when entering a country ... it seems pretty standard across the world.

      Yeah, sure. Except for Europe (minus UK).
      They can search all they want. With their eyes and maybe ultrasound devices, etc.
      But they should leave your car assembled, or be obliged to reassemble it (correctly) if they decide they need to disassemble it!

    16. Re:logic... by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Sounds pretty clearly like physical stuff, i.e. hardware ("goods, wares or merchandise"), and not informational stuff, i.e., software ("papers and effects" in the 4th Amendment).

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    17. Re:logic... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      There's no suspension of constitutional rights here. Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable search. Historically, border searches (then primarily to detect contraband) have been practiced since the founding of the Republic, and are deemed reasonable by long historical precedent and public good. As this has always been the case, there's no actual erosion.

      I do agree that it may well be overly broad and should be narrowed down, but it would require a constitutional amendment to codify that arbitrary searches at the border are not "reasonable". It is not something that SCOTUS can strike down, because the precedent is overwhelmingly in favor of it.

    18. Re:logic... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The point is we're already american citizens -- we're already supposed to be trusted. Otherwise the constitution and citizenship is meaningless. The statue in question was aimed at foreigners entering the country not US citizens.

      Go ahead, find anything in the US Constitution that says something about "trusting" citizens.

      Citizenship is not meaningless, though. It's what gives you the ability to actively participate in the political process: to be elected to various offices (president, senator etc), and to vote in those elections. Those are the rights reserved exclusively to citizens. All other rights are enjoyed by all people in American jurisdiction. It's all spelled out in the text of the Constitution pretty explicitly - just search for "citizen", and you'll see what that buys you.

    19. Re:logic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always wondered where the exemption clause is in the Constitution.

    20. Re:logic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now can someone show me the part of the constitution that allows for the suspension of rights for say 75% of the population.

    21. Re:logic... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      There's no suspension of constitutional rights here. Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable search. Historically, border searches (then primarily to detect contraband) have been practiced since the founding of the Republic, and are deemed reasonable by long historical precedent and public good. As this has always been the case, there's no actual erosion.

      You should read about Writs of assistance, which rather tie into this.given how many reports there have been of searches conducted well beyond the borders and over similar logic--smuggling, although of people today. You also seem to be glossing over the point that the courts are directly acknowledging that the searches aren't reasonable in what seems heavily a sign of equivocation on their part to justify the searches--that is, they acknowledge they're not "reasonable" but then counter that the search is okay because "hunches" can be fruitful. This rather falls much further into the category of what's an acceptable level of search for people detained. To that end, it quite clearly seems unreasonable by any definition to allow unilateral mass copying of all data on laptops or any other device.

      I do agree that it may well be overly broad and should be narrowed down, but it would require a constitutional amendment to codify that arbitrary searches at the border are not "reasonable". It is not something that SCOTUS can strike down, because the precedent is overwhelmingly in favor of it.

      I don't know. We've already got a Fourth Amendment that doesn't qualify "at the border" as some sort of exception. And we've consistently read the Fourth Amendment in all sorts of broad ways well outside the scope of the original intention--mostly because a lot of the people who wrote the Constitution were hypocrites by any reasonable standard. Honestly, if we tomorrow had an Amendment that clarified the point that "at the border the Fourth Amendment applies", I don't doubt that in fifty years we'd just redefine what "at the border" means in such a fashion to be again having this debate. No, the simple truth is that this whole scenario is such a flagrant violation of a person being secure in their effects that we should on principle alone interpret the Fourth Amendment to not allow such things, regardless of how narrow in scope its original intent was. Because honestly, the founders didn't have one concrete idea of what they wanted on most things and even the ones who did were more than willing to make an exception for themselves.

      So, short of a whole rewrite of the Constitution to "reset" the interpretation, we're always going to be arguing interpretation. And it's really absurd to argue "deemed reasonable by long historical precedent and public good" or "English Common Law" when the whole Constitution was enacted precisely to rely more upon Statute and not "historical precedent" which the colonists felt were so bad to have to revolt and start a whole separate country over. And if worst comes to worst and the Statute become too absurd, then one can fall upon the meaning behind the Declaration of Independence and excise yourself from absurd Statutes. None of that, though, justifies stomaching this bullshit.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    22. Re:logic... by bdam · · Score: 1

      No one is suspending any constitutional rights unless you feel searching people at the border is unreasonable. If you'd like to disagree on that point then so be it but I can't think of a more reasonable situation in which to be searched. Further, I suspect terrorism is not really the biggest concern at the border ... that's more of a TSA thing. From my experience they are far more concerned with the more common trafficking of drugs, firearms, humans, or other contraband.

    23. Re:logic... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt that in fifty years we'd just redefine what "at the border" means in such a fashion to be again having this debate.

      That depends on how well it's written. I do agree in principle that any such attempt will only take so long to be circumvented, yes. But if it buys us 50 years, well, that's 50 years of enjoying our rights.

      The Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, were originally written very much with this intent in mind - by a generation that witnessed several flagrant violations of their rights, intent on codifying the law against those particular violations. It is clear from the 9th and the 10th that they did not consider it an exhaustive list, merely that of things they were afraid of reoccurring most immediately. And, indeed, codifying them kept the state contained in those respects for quite a while. So why not follow suit, and keep updating the Constitution with new things that we deem particularly worthy of protection because we have fresh memory of them being infringed?

    24. Re:logic... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      So why not follow suit, and keep updating the Constitution with new things that we deem particularly worthy of protection because we have fresh memory of them being infringed?

      While that sounds good in theory, in practice you have to keep in mind that as you note...

      The Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, were originally written very much with this intent in mind - by a generation that witnessed several flagrant violations of their rights, intent on codifying the law against those particular violations.

      And that only happened because people who weren't the original leaders held a revolution because those in the status quo were not at all willing to take part in codifying laws to address those violations. I think that's precisely why TJ spoke about "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". But beyond that problem, even if we saw a near bloodless coop, there's nothing to stop the equivalent of "The Muslim Brotherhood" taken power. After all, there was enough agreement about the fact that rights were being violated in the colonies. Today in America, if anything the majority seems to want to codify even more abuse.

      And again, I speak of the hypocrisy of the founding fathers. They were quick to support Freedom of Speech when it meant being allowed to speak unfavorably about the king, but they wanted to declare it sedition when it came to the newly elected President. TJ himself helped write and pass a Bill of Attainder, then later had them banned in the new United States; yet, he later wrote to continue to defend his previous act, citing the urgent and immediate need. Doesn't that line ring a bell?

      Perhaps if there was less hero worship of the founding fathers and a political shift, which might itself take a generation, we could get to the point where we could compromise our way into new Amendments to address what will be hopefully past issues that they wish to avoid resurfacing. I'm just not hopeful of anything being done today since if anything there's been a strong shift the opposite direction, in large part because of a willingness under expediency to bypass amending the Constitution to codify the necessary changes and just hoping that progress would keep going in the desired direction.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    25. Re:logic... by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

      it would still be multiple orders of magnitude lower chance than dying of many other things like cancer, heart disease, or car accidents.

      This is the key argument I never seem to hear at the national discussion level. Of course, there's no direct path to authoritarian police state by fighting cancer.

      --
      Howdy howdy howdy
  19. Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Toe,+The · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How implausible is it to imagine that a system could be set up to suck all data off every device (especially solid state storage) as it passes through airport security?

    Since it's legal, why wouldn't the government want to do it? Ya know. Just in case. To protect us.

    1. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they could also redefine "search" as continuous monitoring. So when we cross the border, they are legally allowed to install a rootkit on our computer.

    2. Re: Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I can tell anything not deemed illegal is legal for government operations. What makes you think they need to rootkit you machine... they can just pay $250000 for the NSA kit to get into about any backdoored equipment in the world (see previous /. NSA article.

    3. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe they could also redefine "search" as continuous monitoring. So when we cross the border, they are legally allowed to install a rootkit on our computer.

      I doubt that they even feel the need to consider the legality, given that it would take years for such a case to be discovered, investigated and eventually work its way to a kangaroo court to proclaim it okey-dokey.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re: Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "As far as I can tell anything not deemed illegal is legal for government operations."

      That's kind of funny, because that is exactly what the Constitution grants to ordinary citizens. The ninth amendment:

      "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

      The US is heading down a very bad path.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    5. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      How implausible is it to imagine that a system could be set up to suck all data off every device (especially solid state storage) as it passes through airport security?

      Very. You have no idea how those things work, do you?

    6. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Toe,+The · · Score: 2

      Well, first off, my tongue was mostly in by cheek (note subject line), but...

      I also thought the NSA couldn't compromise SSL or hack wifi from eight miles away. So, well, I'm not really sure what I know.

    7. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      How implausible is it to imagine that a system could be set up to suck all data off every device (especially solid state storage) as it passes through airport security?

      Since it's legal, why wouldn't the government want to do it? Ya know. Just in case. To protect us.

      Just remember "collecting" data from your devices is not really "collecting" until someone looks at data "collected" from you.

    8. Re: Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind sir, the Constitution does not GRANT anything. It is a simple (okay, maybe rather prosaic) declaration of the fact that we are all thrust forth into this world involuntarily, and that anything is possible.

      Choose wisely.

    9. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember "collecting" data from your devices is not really "collecting" until someone looks at data "collected" from you.

      So it's not really piracy if you download a bunch of music that you never listen to or a bunch of games you never install?

    10. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by cusco · · Score: 2

      Every time I think I have a good definition of what 'tinfoil hat paranoia' is they move the goal posts a little further. I find it's the same when I think I've found the absolutely most incompetent IT staff, too.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    11. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      It's their obligation to do so, now. Because your best friends hairdressers third cousins uncles lawn care worker just might be a child molester, and going through your email just might be the ticket to finding him.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    12. Re: Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This and the 10th amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      It really bothers me when the courts "interpret" the Constitution to say things it does not say. The left and the right both do it, and yes, the result is indeed a very bad path.

    13. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by SQLGuru · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hereby announce that all personal data on my drive is copyright me. For software not written by me, I am also copyrighting the organization of the data on my drive. Copying this information without my permission is a violation of my copyrights subject to a minimum license fee of $10,000,000 USD per item copied. There is also a viewership license with a minimum fee of $1,000,000 USD per incident (each file and each viewing constitutes a new incident).

      There. Now if my laptop is ever rifled through without a warrant, I should have some recourse in a civil court as this was announced in a public forum.

    14. Re: Busting out my tinfoil hat... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the 10th amendment, which pretty much says exactly the opposite of the AC's claim.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    15. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by edb · · Score: 1

      This.

      --
      In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
    16. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      dd? Granted, it would take awhile, but so what?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    17. Re: Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to elect 0bama. He'll put a stop to these Bush fascist excesses.

    18. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by m0niker · · Score: 1

      Only to protect themselves. Not us. Because we who are not among among the leaders of Government are, you know, the enemy. That's why they need to keep tabs on everything we do and think. It is sort of telling that they are more interested in surveilling its own citizens than those in other countries. And I write "its own" deliberately, because we mainly viewed as a natural resource that the Government owns.

    19. Re: Busting out my tinfoil hat... by m0niker · · Score: 1

      Quite correct. The Constitution doesn't grant anything. It assumes that we already have full freedom, and it merely state what can't be taken away from us. Now, the Government would probably argue that the amendment is now irrelevant because we no longer have that assumed freedom (by executive order).

    20. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      You got modded troll, but I'm wondering how they'd react in the face of U.S. Code Title 18, Sections 241-242.

      It stops other fishing expeditions cold.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    21. Re: Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually the creator of ssl has come right out and said it is not secure more than a year and a half ago.

    22. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Maybe they could also redefine "search" as continuous monitoring. So when we cross the border, they are legally allowed to install a rootkit on our computer."

      No need. The NSA had a rootkit and spyware installed on your computer before it left the factory.

    23. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by linuxiac · · Score: 1

      you have no idea how the current dictatorship works, do you, comrade? Un-imaginable sums of money will be printed by the Fed to fund implementation of new technologies-ordered by the "Black Christ"!

    24. Re:Busting out my tinfoil hat... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      How implausible is it to imagine that a system could be set up to suck all data off every device (especially solid state storage) as it passes through airport security

      (1) the search in question took place on a person travelling on a train, not by air ; trivial, but it's in TFS.

      (2)Grounds for implausibility #1 : devices that are switched off and have no batteries or power supplies are rather difficult to read remotely. So take the battery out of your laptop (assuming that you aren't planning on getting a disposable machine on the other side of the border and downloading any data you need via a highly encrypted link) and you're not likely to get your machine slurped.

      (3)Grounds for implausibility #2 : bandwidth. I'm just looking to change the hard drive in my laptop for a multi-TB one in the near future - a trivial change these days. Say the device takes 30 seconds to pass through the security machine (I assume that you mean an x-ray machine, and that you're talking about doing it automatically and covertly ; otherwise why not just plug into the thing and tell the passenger to power it up and supply the passwords). So you'd need a wireless system that can transfer at over 5 GB per second. Good luck on that ; I seen no reason to upgrade the laptop's wifi card and/ or it's USB interface and/or it's ethernet system which maxes out at 1/50th of that. (Actually ... I'm not sure if the laptop does gigabyte ethernet or not ; I've not got that at home or in the office, so "meh".)

      do you really think that the border people will have devices for every device out there? What if I shipped data - important, high value data - on an 8 inch floppy disc? (That's not a typo : 202mm diameter.) Nothing illegal about that. Or less abstrusely, on a vintage 1990 Zip disc? Are they going to have one of those? Which they can power on covertly and load my discs from a closed case in an X-ray machine, and read a device that takes 20 minutes to fill (or empty) in under 30 seconds.

      Sorry - reality won't play ball with your dreams.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  20. NSA trolls operational? by meflo · · Score: 1

    I mean do you have that practice - government to pay trolls defending its interests? Too many irrational comments in favor of NSA here.

  21. Representation inherently fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact is, you're never going to find someone who represents you. Politicians get into office because they seek power. Representation is a distant, low priority for them.

    If you want a real solution, please check out how you personally can build it: http://metagovernment.org/

  22. Computer searches alter that which is searched? by gaspar+ilom · · Score: 1

    If a computer search alters the state/contents of a machine, how would it be legal? e.g.: a naive software-based search of files, that alters metadata on files? Or: disassembling a device that wasn't designed to be disassembled, in order to clone the HD?

    If border officials order a user to boot-up and enable the same access the traveler would have: What if there's software on the machine, that is *designed* to alter file contents when they are viewed? (The precise reason doesn't matter, but: what if the uncorrupted state of these files, or hardware, are important for one reason or another? say, to enable a security audit, by the traveler's employer?)

    So (perhaps unlike other personal effects or "papers"), a computer search is not necessarily a passive process -- it's an ACTIVE one, that can (likely?) lead to damage, destruction, or complete loss.

    1. Re:Computer searches alter that which is searched? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's exactly like other personal effects. For example, if you carefully wrap fragile items with clothing in your suitcase, you'll invariably find them unwrapped when you open your suitcase, leading to damage, destruction, or complete loss.

  23. Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stick a copyright notice on your laptop.

    "The contents of this laptop are copyrighted. Licensed for use by owner only."

    Then sue them.

    1. Re:Copyright by TitusGroan8856 · · Score: 1

      or simply inform Adobe, Microsoft, MPAA and all other interested parties for the data you have on your laptop that the US Government is in violation of copyright by copying their data which you have licensed and legally hold on your laptop. Let them with fatter wallets sue them.

    2. Re:Copyright by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Let them with fatter wallets sue them.

      the "NSA departments" of Adobe, Microsoft, MPAA would advise their legal departments against such action

    3. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hasn't the US army been caught red handed infringing on copyright? I remember one case where they had several thousand illegal copies of Windows. And what happened? Nothing. You don't expect the MPAA/RIAA to bite the hand that feeds it, do you?

    4. Re:Copyright by TitusGroan8856 · · Score: 1

      by the hand that feeds it i'm going to assume the government and not the movie/music buying public - whom they already persecute.

    5. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's been my problem. I'm a digital content creator. I have Intellectual Property on my computer, some of which i share ownership with or have sold rights to another party. If i bring a computer it poses an extreme risk even though i'm doing absolutely nothing wrong. I simply cant risk putting a client's IP at risk by having some James Bond wannabe rifle through my computer only to find nothing incriminating.

      I took a work computer over the border a few years ago to do some digital content collaboration (instrumental ambient music- dangerous stuff i know). I was detained for at least a half hour with the border guy trying to ask me what kind of freaky porno i had on it and kept threatening to steal my computer from me to pilfer all the data (some of which i inly own partial copyright and thus need all parties to agree to it being copied or distributed). Informing him of this only made him find me even more 'suspicious' (after all, letting a total stranger make copies of copyrighted works that require permission from all parties is totally what is needed to keep the country safe from my evil ambient music)

      The war on terror has gotten totally rediculous.

    6. Re:Copyright by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      No large American corporation would choose to fight the government of the USA, that's why the NSA can get access to your phone meta-data without a warrant. You could put some pictures that you made, however. And then sue for copying your data without legal cause or permission.

  24. A year ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the (smart-ass) comments around here to this kinda thing were in the line of "haha, I store my dataz in teh cloud!".

    Not such a smart-ass comment any more today, is it...

    (the hint is obvious, right, or do I Need to Spell it Aut?)

  25. who cares American or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently we have the same protection under the Constitution: NONE.

  26. Solution by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    Step 1 - Bitlocker etc. Encrypt your drive. They will not spend the resources decrypting it, and cannot force you to give up passwords to things without a court order. Step 2 - Pay for a server located in a country that you trust (as much as possible anyway) and sync or store files there. Accessing things you need when you need them instead of always carrying them around. If step 2 is an issue for you due to wanting access to content while without internet, see step 1. Now if you are actually doing something terrible and have incriminating files on your computer, if they really want them, encryption won't do it. But depending what it is I believe these people should be caught. However encrypting your drive and putting on a password will be enough to stave off random searches for no reason of normal crap Like family photos etc, it won't be enough for them to put in the resources to get access to it..

    1. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is fruitless, because there is also federal precedent that says you can be forced to divulge your encryption keys and passwords under pain of being held without charges and without a lawyer (i.e. for "contempt of court").

    2. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Step one fedex your shit where your going.

    3. Re:Solution by crutchy · · Score: 1

      They will not spend the resources decrypting it, and will not bother to force you to give up passwords to things... they will simply lock you up and throw away they key

      ftfy

    4. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. They can call you a terrorist without any proof and detain you indefinitely until till you give up the passwords .

      2. Is a Good plan as long as theirs no evidence you have files on a cloud/ftp that the US could want/need.

      Another plan is a virgin laptop/pad/PC with only the files you need displayed on the desktop, no hidden anything, oh and if you have a new innovation/tech don't go anywhere the US

  27. This will work out fine for everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eventually business travelers and tourists will learn to not bring anything, or simply just not go there at all. The only people trying to get into america will be Americans and terrorists wanting to kill Americans. This self sorting will eventually solve the problem (keeping Americans safe, catching terrorists), all the government asks is for you to have patience, and of course your surrender.

    Actually, that is not certain to keep Americans safe, better restrict where Americans are able to travel (and if they travel anywhere suspicious - better put them on all applicable lists).

  28. Re:Whats the problem? by ledow · · Score: 2

    Yeah, fucking well-travelled, bi-fluent, academics. America should get rid of the lot of them.

    Looking at some state's science education programmes, you already have...

  29. Chinese Comunism is looking a lot like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Freedom.

  30. May the honorable... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    May the honorable judge Edward R. Korman be subjected to warrantless searches and having his personal data copied by the government as often as possible. He should be okay with it... he legalized it.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    1. Re:May the honorable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is this the same mentally retarded judge who also said that NSA data collection was legal here: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/12/27/1727207/us-federal-judge-rules-nsa-data-collection-legal

  31. Abidor, an Islamic Studies Ph.D. student at McGill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Abidor, an Islamic Studies Ph.D. student at McGill University"

    Ya gotta admit, that was stupid.

  32. Sigh by ledow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Constitutional or not, I wouldn't risk it anyway. Please note, I'm an IT Manager - I have nothing to hide - but the machines I use contain information on how to access other machines at my workplace. Providing access to the data on those machines, sited in the UK, is considered a breach of the Data Protection Act in the UK as they hold personal information. It's even a bit more serious than that, as I work for schools.

    As such, case law prevents me even revealing those passwords to anyone without just cause or a court order. The penalties apply to ME, not just my employer. There are even cases where even the POTENTIAL to access the data (i.e. giving someone the password, even if they can't use it without being on the right system, etc.) is considered no different to direct and provable access to the data.

    My previous employer prevented staff taking data to France because they have a similar law, but it wasn't anywhere near as serious a threat to our ability to control the data under our protection.

    So, sorry, I can't take any electronic equipment holding that information into the US whatsoever. Others may interpret the situation differently, but I'm afraid the only interpretation that matters to me are the courts', and they have spoken many times on such matters and fined people heavily for doing so. I'm sure I could "get away" with it a billion times if I tried, but that's not how I conduct my professional or personal life.

    As such, I wouldn't even bother to take a computer across the border in America. And given recent revelations, I don't think it wise to just take some hidden / memorised access credentials to the US and then use them when I'm then to - e.g. set up a blank / hired laptop.

    Honestly, this is something I factored in when I was considering emigration many years ago. America pretty much ended up a no-go for me because of the attitude towards foreigners, and their casual approach to data, and their failure to sign many of the same agreements that all EU countries signed up to with regards data usage.

    I wouldn't even bother to go there on holiday again - did it once, but now I wouldn't be able to take my laptop or my smartphone with good conscious as both contain encryption and access credentials that although if law-enforcement NEEDED them, I would provide, I do NOT expect law-enforcement to store it longer than necessary, duplicate it, or fail to provide assurances on the security of that data while it's in their possession. That's all you need to do - not even stop collecting the data, just tell me what you can and won't do with it so that I can take that piece of paper to a court (if it ever comes up) and say "Look, here's the assurance I was given when requested to hand over data by law enforcement - not my fault the data got into the wild" - even then, the case law says I'll still get fined but I think I have more of a chance of having the case swing my way under "reasonable efforts" to protect that data.

    When you take my phone and laptop away, that cripples my ability to store my documentation (even my flight tickets), research my destinations, book hotels, navigate to places, etc. and I see it as unnecessary. So, basically, even as a place for a quick holiday, it's out of bounds.

    And although the places I work for aren't the poorest, they aren't the richest either - so faffing about with blanked laptops is just too much shit to put up with.

    Sorry, US. When you treat me like a prisoner, or an alien, with zero human rights, I don't want to be near you - like the bully in the playground. Have fun playing on your own.

    All for the sake of a proper receipt, with some assurances that you won't just splurge my (and my employer's) private data onto the net the second I walk out the door...

    1. Re:Sigh by amorsen · · Score: 1

      It is actually becoming a bit of a hassle to travel by air without electronic devices these days. Airlines requiring that you check in online, print boarding cards or bring them on your smartphone etc. For the most part this is tremendously useful, but if the travel involves the UK or the US it suddenly becomes a problem.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:Sigh by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      All for the sake of a proper receipt, with some assurances that you won't just splurge my (and my employer's) private data onto the net the second I walk out the door...

      If your employer is an economic competitor to a US political donor or NSA collaborator, you can expect its data to be plundered and shared by the intelligence agencies. That's the implicit quid-pro-quo.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Sigh by mikael · · Score: 1

      Even worse, the minute you switch your smartphone off, it will decide that it needs to "auto-update". Thereby bricking, scrambling and wiping off any data you may have had on your phone, particularly hotel booking numbers, itenaries and other information.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the US. Your laws are meaningless here.

  33. First it's laptops at the border.... by DewDude · · Score: 1

    Next thing you know it'll be people coming in your house every day. If they're allowed to search your laptop without reason; *someone, somewhere* will use this to illegally everything. The Fourth Amendment had a good run; but this past-precedent will lead to it's invalidation. What's next? Free speech (which we barely have); the right to plead the fifth (which you can give up because a judge decides it). I feel like they've been violating the ninth just to get their way.

    We need to just stop international travel. We need to stop leaving the country and people need to stop visiting. I can't think of a good reason for someone to visit the US anyway. "Greatest country in the world", if you consider treating everyone like a suspect great; if you consider getting people to rally behind the bill of rights and chanting "freedom" while at the same thing ripping these freedoms from under the people.

    America isn't great; the only thing it's good at is being an example of how corporate greed and the greed of people can corrupt a great system; and how they can use this to oppress people.

    America sucks. There, I said it.

  34. And that's why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...my company does not let us take work laptops to the USA.

  35. Travel sans hard drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My laptop doesn't even have a hard drive in it. All it has is an SD card with a custom Ubuntu live ISO with OpenVPN and an RDP client installed. My data never leaves the house.

    1. Re:Travel sans hard drive by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Neat idea, but in a country where asserting your rights can be used as probable cause to get a warrant against you, I have to imagine that taking steps like this to protect your privacy would end well for you.

    2. Re:Travel sans hard drive by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      NOT end well... damn... need more coffee.

    3. Re:Travel sans hard drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly I think such measures would actually cause more problems then it solves. You would be immediately flagged as suspicious and someone of interest after they tried to look at your laptop. Your Measures protect your data but will almost certainly cause you great inconvenience should they look at you.

    4. Re:Travel sans hard drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My laptop doesn't even have a hard drive in it. All it has is an SD card with a custom Ubuntu live ISO with OpenVPN and an RDP client installed. My data never leaves the house.

      That's actually a pretty good idea. Set the bios to boot to something that isn't there or something that isn't bootable. The customs agents will get an error they don't understand, and you'll just hit F8/whateveryourbiosbootmenubuttonis each time.

  36. We fought a war for Independence over much less by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sad, isn't it? We live under far worse tyranny today than we did under King George III.

    1. Re:We fought a war for Independence over much less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A 15% tax on baked goods We fought a war for Independence over tax rate of 2%!

    2. Re:We fought a war for Independence over much less by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      It's all relative. Remember that the American colonists under George III were also involved in genocidal land grabs against the Native Americans. They had little moral high ground to call on, _without_ calling on the god-given rights of kings and governments and "civilized people" to support their behavior.

      It's also unclear, this far away, how much of George III's tyranny was "George", how much was his madness in his later life, and how much was the massive and necessary bureaucracy to run such a broad, growing empire.

    3. Re:We fought a war for Independence over much less by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And yet most of the population has been taught during a forced 13 year stay in government childhood indoctrination centers that this is the land of the free, and they see you as a loon.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:We fought a war for Independence over much less by ignavus · · Score: 1

      Sad, isn't it? We live under far worse tyranny today than we did under King George III.

      You could always revoke the Declaration of Independence.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
  37. I don't travel with notebooks which matter. by couchslug · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't take notebooks I care much about when travelling so I've no concern if they get banged about or stolen. It's so easy to wipe and reinstall before travel that one should do that if you don't want your goat porn viewed by the Stasi.
    I'm not worried about Uncle Sugar reading anything I have because I don't do anything interesting to the State and if I did I'm not stupid enough to want to use a computer for it. AT ALL.
    If for some reason I had to carry vital legal-but-proprietary commercial information it takes little effort (well, on Thinkpads anyway) to stash a MicroSD card temporarily glued under the label of a WLAN card or a section of heatsink. Don't bring a screwdriver with you as they are cheap at chain stores.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:I don't travel with notebooks which matter. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      BTW, if you don't want your notebook or other device to look as if it's been opened those screw kits off Ebay fit more than just Thinkpads.

      "Sensor safe" RTV silicone from your local auto store is dandy for holding computer parts together you may have to remove one day as it peels off but with some effort. A dot the size of a lower-case "o" would do for a MicroSD card.

      You could also use Elmers or similar water-based glue for the card and the label. After arrival at destination, remove WLAN card or other host component, drop into a cup of hot water, remove MicroSD card, dry off the lot, reassemble notebook/device, done.

      Experiment for some entertainment. Have a watch with a removable back? A pocket calculator? Anything else that won't look interesting on X-ray when travelling to North Korea, Iran or some other place with intrusive security or high theft hazard?

      It will be a while, perhaps a very long while, before there is a fairly complete database of "everything electronic" for computerized comparison with scanned objects and scanners sufficiently accurate for that to work. The counter to that is to secrete your data in components which are opaque to x-ray. Enterprising Slashdotters with x-ray access and a stash of electronics could find out what those are (and share the ones they won't be personally using).

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:I don't travel with notebooks which matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... don't do anything interesting to the State ...

      How do you know what the state is interested in? How do you know that you have broken none of the 32,000 laws in the USA? For the last year, slashdot has brought several stories of search and seizure without probable cause. So that fact that you "don't do anything interesting" is irrelevant on all levels.

  38. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an uneducated TSA agent with a queue of Arabs/Africans/Frenchmen to give anal cavity searches to. They will take a glance at the desktop/home folder, the web browser, and maybe search for files with "wife"/"preteen"/"jihad" in them before getting bored and handing it back to you. They won't check what's the size or model of the drive...

  39. Lovely Bullshit Reasoning by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

    'The report said that a reasonable suspicion standard is inadvisable because it could lead to litigation ...

    Unlike now, where there's litigation precisely because there isn't a reasonable suspicion standard. Okay, yea, I know, it'll head off future litigation. But, then, is that a good thing in itself? Because if it is, we should just shut down the Judiciary Branch and be done with it.

    ... and the forced divulgence of national security information, ...

    That's some great logic there. If we have some sort of standard of reasonable suspicion for anything related to national security, then indirectly national security information will be divulge. Isn't this the same logic that requires those on the inside to "neither confirm nor deny" everything? And if it's not talking about the indirect form, well, the last decade has shown just how little any part of the federal government has been "forced" to do anything national security wise, even if a court order demanded it. Honestly, no matter how you interpret it it sounds like the court is giving extra-legal blessing to all the "national security" activities the federal government has done/is doing/will do because there's already standards for national security information containment during court proceedings, which apparently they aren't willing to accept as actually good enough.

    ... and would prevent border officers from acting on inchoate "hunches," a method that it says has sometimes proved fruitful.'

    And firing at people on inchoate "hunches" has sometimes proved fruitful in killing drug lords and murderers. Should we legally allow border officers to do that too? Yep, the borders really are a Constitution free zone. There also apparently a human decency free zone. Really, this sort of ruling would make me want to not be a border officer at all. At least the executioner, as bloody as his hands might be, can have some faith that a lengthy process was taken to determine the guilt of the person they kill. With this? It's a free-for-all, with out apparently any reasonable restrictions. Because being reasonable might allow the bad guys to win.

    --
    Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    1. Re:Lovely Bullshit Reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if this ruling has just validated that the custom officers have a license to kill on a hunch.

      At least it has validated that now all electronic equipment will be copied at the border just in case.
      Also don't forget that most of the united states is within the borders zone; 100mile from every shore, land and international airport.

  40. Re:And... by crutchy · · Score: 1

    uneducated TSA agent with a queue of Arabs/Africans/Frenchmen to give anal cavity searches to

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq-G4HATiC8

  41. Another point favoring tablet, not laptop by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1
    This ruling is a natural outgrowth of previous rulings allowing police/inspectors to seize any money they find you carrying, without warrant or arrest. Why not give them the right to seize anything else you have.

    Meanwhile, make your road machine a tablet. You have less to lose if this happens.

    1. Re:Another point favoring tablet, not laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [] make your road machine a tablet. You have less to lose if this happens.

      Are you mad?! It's the same fucking thing you apptard!

    2. Re:Another point favoring tablet, not laptop by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      You could make it a Microsoft tablet if you want. Then you would lose even less if it were confiscated.

  42. Only at actual borders... by swb · · Score: 1

    ...or does this include the fairly common mandatory checkpoints operated by the Border Patrol inside the border and fairly common in the Southwest?

    I driven through several of the latter without more than a couple of minor questions but I always hate being forced to stop like this.

    I have a friend in Bisbee, Arizona and you literally can't drive into greater Arizona from Bisbee without stopping at one in either Sierra Vista or Tombstone but I haven't heard any stories from him about searches or more intensive questioning.

    1. Re:Only at actual borders... by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

      I had this question as well - does this apply only at the actual border or does it apply within the 100-mile constitution-free zone that extends inward from the border?

      https://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

    2. Re:Only at actual borders... by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

      If you have some time to kill, you might try "I refuse to answer any questions and I do not consent to any search." Just keep repeating that.

    3. Re:Only at actual borders... by swb · · Score: 1

      I'd like to do that, really.

      But as soon as they pop the trunk of my rental car, they'll just outright confiscate my guns (which are all locked down and packed per TSA standards) and then whatever they decide to trump up will include "..while in possession of a firearm."

  43. Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All three parts of the government are working hard to turn the US into an authoritarian corporatocracy.

    1. Re:Why the surprise? by anagama · · Score: 1

      Just go ahead and use the real word instead of the PC kindergarten teacher "authoritarian corporatocracy" bullshit. It's called "fascism".

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Authoritarianism, fascism, and corporatocracy all have distinct meanings. There is nothing "PC kindergarten teacher" about using precise words in expressing one's opinion, you just have a different opinion (or lack a dictionary).

    3. Re:Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah he's just a latent authoritarian.

  44. Random Chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The second reason for baseless search and seizure is "and would prevent border officers from acting on inchoate "hunches,""; unfortunately, their Behavior Profilling Technique is, at best, slighty better than random chance, which comes at a billion dollars in developmental costs.

    Guess what, if you randomly search enough people you will randomly find people doing bad things.

    http://rt.com/usa/tsa-behavior-profiling-program-685/
    http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/13/21428350-gao-1-billion-tsa-behavioral-screening-program-slightly-better-than-chance?lite
    http://news.msn.com/us/gao-probe-says-tsa-profiling-no-better-than-chance

  45. Dysfunctional? by malvcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a comment for another thread, I described US practices to be similar to North Korea and Iran ones.

    It is a shame, because I know a lot of US citizen and they are wonderful people, but each day I hear things that make my suspicion to be real. Just see the facts.

    1) In many US based online places, when you are not an US citizen having an US legal address, you can't purchase anything using a valid international credit card.
    2) If you try to store any type of data in US servers, the US authorities can, legally, ask for the information you stored there. Take into consideration that even the US citizen are involved in this "natural" seizing of data, because what is "third party" generated data in the modern information world?
    3) If you try to enter the United States with any type of computing device, the authorities have the right to seize it and you need to provide them with passwords, and they can copy your data and to do whatever they like with it.

    As they already have legal rights to do whatever they like with your digital data, the next step is to confiscate your paper notebooks. Because they could have any type of security related information. If you carry "YOUR" written poems, then they will ask you to give them the clue to acquire the hidden data, because for them it is clear that you are the enemy and that nobody enter the United States with good intentions. Why then they don't close all the airports, harbours, etc.?

    I live in Costa Rica. Our laws are very different than the US laws. In the wikileaks data about the relationship between US and Costa Rica, something was said about that Costa Rica had a "dysfunctional" government, because here everything needs to pass through a very lengthly legal process. But now I understand what dysfunctional really means.

    Dysfunctional means that they can't pass on top of their citizen minds without asking for permission. So, the authorities have the right to do whatever they like to do, without any type of control and then they are functional authorities. But when you keep their hands out of the personal privacy, you are the bad guy.

    What a shame ...

    1. Re:Dysfunctional? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      1) That's not a US rule, that's a merchant/payment processor rule, because they are worried about fraud. Not saying it makes the most sense, but that is why it is. In Europe you'll find that ordering from some Eastern European countries can be difficult/impossible for the same reason.

      2) Duh. That is true of all countries. In any country the authorities can legally compel access to things in the country. That is kinda part of being a country. The issue is them doing it illegally, or at least in ways that ought to be illegal. However complaining that they can legally access data is silly, since all countries operate like that. If you think that France cannot or does not get warrants to look at servers in their country when they suspect wrong doing, you are naive.

      3) This one is a real problem, though I wonder how it stands in other countries. I know Canada can do it as well, I haven't looked in to the laws in other countries. Many may actually allow it. The US really shouldn't, but I fear it may not be alone in this.

    2. Re:Dysfunctional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) In many US based online places, when you are not an US citizen having an US legal address, you can't purchase anything using a valid international credit card.

      Is this a physical, or digital good?
      How would shipping be handled?
      How are taxes handled?
      Do the laws in your local city/county/state/province/country allow you to make the purchase?

      Speaking as someone who's had to work on an electronic retail site, I can say it's MUCH easier to simply go the "No US address = no sale" route.

      2) If you try to store any type of data in US servers, the US authorities can, legally, ask for the information you stored there. Take into consideration that even the US citizen are involved in this "natural" seizing of data, because what is "third party" generated data in the modern information world?

      Now as bad as my counter-argument is, here we go: In what country is this not the case?

      3) If you try to enter the United States with any type of computing device, the authorities have the right to seize it and you need to provide them with passwords, and they can copy your data and to do whatever they like with it.

      See previous counter-argument. I don't speak spanish, so Google is failing me in finding the laws/regulations/procedures for entering/leaving Costa Rica, but I'd be willing to bet it has the same (draconian) provisions as most every other country when it comes to customs ability to search whatever they want.
      As it sounds like Costa Rica has its own NSA.

    3. Re:Dysfunctional? by malvcr · · Score: 1

      Hi ... happy new year.

      On #1 ... that is a merchant/payment processor rule, you are right, but this really limits the electronic commerce with the United States and isolates the country, so at the end is a country-level definition. I have purchased things in several countries online and as I remember the US is the only one blocked my purchases because I didn't have an US address. Those web sites were really made only for internal country usage, even published on the broad Internet.

      On #2 ... the judicial US system defined that if a third party produces the data, the authorities can have direct access to it without asking for additional permission (the problem is not the warrant, the problem is the free access without a warrant). This is a recent US definition. But if I play with so loose definition, if I make an automatic encrypted backup of my customer's data, I generated this data, was not the customer, so the US government can have access to it without asking for permission. Also, they can have free access to my browsing customs, and this is a clear privacy invasion.

      On #3 ...this is not worse than #2, but for travellers will be very uncomfortable. In fact, it is better not to travel with computing devices at all.

      The general problem is that technology really is "local" and we, as technology users, forget that. The sensation that we have a browser and we just go from one page to the other with a click, and that everything lives in the "virtual world", or that we are the owners of our data when we travel with it, is false. If I have a german web site with a link to an US web site that have a link to a Chinese web site, I could see all them in five minutes, but I really have been in three different countries ruled by three different types of laws.

      Maybe, to make the user aware of privacy concerns, the browsers must add a small flag and a warning level to every visited page. If I see "green", I know the host country won't "normally" seize information about me, but if I see "red", it will do it. And I will take any browsing decision based on that.

  46. Re:Whats the problem? by crutchy · · Score: 1

    Looks like grounds for reasonable suspicion to me

    not to mention a legal precedent for ass-fucking and strip searching anyone with a laptop

    amerika, fuck yeah!

  47. Re:That Palin Thing says: by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I voted against McCain/Palin, not for Obama. It sucks that we can't get a president who's trustworthy, but it's pointless to cry over spilt milk. The presidential election is too high profile and expensive, and there are too many people with too many differing viewpoints, so we are always going to get someone who's less objectionable, not someone we really want. The place to focus your efforts is in primary races for representatives and senators, and of course in the general election for these folks. The tea party has used this very effectively in the past, and the progressives are starting to do it too.

    Another important place to focus your efforts is on local races, both statewide and city (or town). Statewide races matter because both parties have shown a willingness to gerrymander; if we want fair elections, we should be electing statewide representatives who are in favor of preventing gerrymandering and willing to work to make that happen. And local races are what feed statewide races.

    The idea that what matters is the presidential election is so backward that it's horrifying to watch it every four years. If you want to bow out of an election, bow out of the presidential election and vote in the mid-term elections, rather than vice versa. But better to vote in every election.

  48. This would be easy for Congress to fix... by Coditor · · Score: 2

    ... but it's Congress that needs fixing first.

  49. Edward R. Korman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Edward R. Korman you are hearby notified that you are marked for death. God will not have mercy upon you.

  50. Here come the judge, here come the judge ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fascism in Amerika, here come the judge.

    ( captcha = compel. As in : the fascist fucks will compel
    you to do what they like, because they have the power to
    do so )

  51. They hate our freedom by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    1. Re:They hate our freedom by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First we need leadership. We all saw how incredibly effective the directionless "Occupy" movement was. About the only thing it accomplished was demonstrating that the government is still willing to use police brutality against peaceful demonstrators, and the media managed to mostly conveniently overlook that aspect.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:They hate our freedom by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 2

      got the proper parade permits

      The fact that you even have to have a permit is part of the problem.

  52. any tax consequences of seizure? by ridgecritter · · Score: 2

    If my laptop or other device is seized at the border (and not returned), do I get to claim this as a casualty loss during the tax year? What about any machine-locked software on the laptop that I would have to repurchase? If my e-device is returned and acts funny, can I deduct the cost of a forensic exam to look for dropped-in malware? Gotta be a way to monetize this idiocy in my favor.

  53. New Process to get my Laptop through by tekiegreg · · Score: 1

    1) Before I leave back home, image laptop, and either post image to online cloud drive or ship DVD's/USB drive back home 2) When I get confirmation everything is backed up or arrived back home, wipe Hard Drive, show customs empty laptop on arrival 3) Re-Image when I get back home. Sad I'd have to go through all that....

    --
    ...in bed
  54. Our forefathers by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    --
    Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
  55. Re:logic... As in: none. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, searching for (hidden) taxable goods or stuff that may not enter the country is a countries good right.

    Oddly enough there is very little in binary data stored on a persons 'puter that can be called taxable or is not permitted into the country.

    So why than the searches of such personal data ?

    Mind you: such data can also easily be passed over the border by other means, like downloading it.

    All of the above makes the searching of personal data for tax purposes or for being unallowed a joke.

  56. Cut The Horsehit, Slashdotters! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ooh, look another whine-fest on Slashdot on rights being stripped. Ooh look at the internet-tough-guys spewing platitudes everywhere, on Slashdot.

    What are you going to do about it?

    Seriously, who's got a plan? Who's willing to vote, possibly against their own self interest, in order to effect change? Who's going to do anything, ANYTHING, more that whine on Slashdot about it?

    The U.S. Constitution has become a piece of toilet paper, you've long established that. It's clear that the general population of the U.S. doesn't care. So, what are YOU going to do about it?

    1. Re:Cut The Horsehit, Slashdotters! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what are YOU going to do about it?

      I just ate some chocolate chip cookies, that's something, I guess?

      Look, I don't give a fuck any more. Slightly over a third of the US doesn't believe in evolution. A good part of those who do still attribute it to a magical sky wizard.

      Some fake douchebag on the TV started a national frenzy over misinterpreting the first amendment because his character said something bigoted to a magazine. Yeah, proptip kids, Ducky McChucklefuck's image exists solely for filling his, his family's, and A&E's coffers.

      You can't swing a primer on logic around without hitting some motherfucker who thinks "guns are scary, I wet my pants!" is cause enough to ravage the second.

      Let's not even go into "all powers..." and the interstate commerce clause.

      Meanwhile, next election, you dumb fucks are going to vote for the same cockguzzling Republicans and dildo-straddling Democrats. WOOOOO. GO TEAM. GOTTA BEAT THE OTHER GUYS. CUZ SPORTS.

      Fuck the lot of you. Those who sow the wind and all that.

      Let the Constitution burn, let the country slide into tyranny and oppression.

      Murrica certainly has the government it deserves. No more. No less.

    2. Re:Cut The Horsehit, Slashdotters! by russotto · · Score: 1

      Seriously, who's got a plan? Who's willing to vote, possibly against their own self interest, in order to effect change?

      You know how it goes... if voting could actually change anything, it would be illegal.

      The U.S. Constitution has become a piece of toilet paper, you've long established that. It's clear that the general population of the U.S. doesn't care. So, what are YOU going to do about it?

      And just what response are you attempting to evoke, Mr. Anonymous Agent Provocateur?

    3. Re:Cut The Horsehit, Slashdotters! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Give me a halfway sane candidate that's not Republican or Democrat and I'll totally vote for him every time from now on. Hell, even the clearly insane ones, I'd still consider.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  57. Guess which country by morcego · · Score: 1

    hasn't seen my "business" during vacations since these shenanigans began?

    Even my daughter goes to Canada instead of the US.

    One would guess the "terrorist won".

    --
    morcego
  58. The Judge by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

    The judge in question:

    Edward R. Korman (born 1942) is a United States district judge serving on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn, NY. He was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on October 2, 1985, confirmed by the United States Senate on November 1, 1985, commissioned on November 4, 1985, and entered service on December 16, 1985, to fill a new seat. Korman served as Chief Judge of the Eastern District of New York from 2000–2007 and took senior status in 2007. In addition to continuing his caseload in Brooklyn, Korman has also sat by designation on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California from 2008[1] through present.

    --

    My opinion time: This guy is a relic who sees the world though a very distorted lens. He was put into his post by freaking Raygun and likely is someone who, like a Dick Cheney, sees the world having evil (literally) and that such rulings are ways to keep it at bay. Civil liberties are things that are silly to think about when you are fighting "evil" and should never get in the way of what is "right and good".

    I've seen a lot of talk about current politics here and about stuff as stupid and silly as how if our executive branch was different we'd have a different society and other bullshit. It is a whole lot more complicated than that. We have a LOT of wheels within wheels here and the fact that we have judges that date back to before some of you were even born shows that. It is not just about congress and the executive branch but we have a huge 3rd branch of government too people! Wrap your heads around all of it becuase trust me if you don't and just watch that you are missing a lot of the show.

    Some of you I see did get it right. We HAVE to get money out of politics. Until we do that nothing will be fixed with any meaning.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  59. Re:That Palin Thing says: by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    I voted against McCain/Palin, not for Obama. It sucks that we can't get a president who's trustworthy, but it's pointless to cry over spilt milk

    The best way to have a trustworthy president is to have an accountable president, not to rely on the personal ethics of the individual. And this falls to the legislative and judicial branches. This particular example is a failure of the judicial branch, but Congress isn't helping either.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  60. Drawing the Line by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    The problem here is that, since the dawn of time, customs has had the right to 'go through your stuff' when you cross their border. They've had the right to go through your suitcase looking for banned or smuggled items. They've had the right to look for cash or magazines featuring child pornography. They had the right to photocopy and take pictures of evidence. If your suitcase or briefcase was locked, they had the right to tell you to unlock it. Fast-forward fifty years and that 'looking through your stuff' includes looking through your phone or laptop. Where do you draw the line? Do you say CBP and CBSA and their ilk can look through briefcases but not laptops? That they can ask you to turn out your pockets, but not turn on your phone? It's a weird gray area.

    1. Re:Drawing the Line by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      I say they shouldn't be able to violate the constitution period, which means all that illegitimate power they've been enjoying for years needs to be stripped away.

    2. Re:Drawing the Line by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      So if they suspect you're crossing the border with child porn, bomb parts or 38 bottles of whiskey in your car they should get a warrant before they search it? What should the mechanism be? Consent to search, or hold you while they get a warrant?

    3. Re:Drawing the Line by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      What should the mechanism be?

      The same as it is normally when this sort of thing happens in the country. This isn't difficult.

  61. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell them you are running vista!

  62. Truecrypt by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Hidden partition. Problem mitigated. ( not solved )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  63. How could you trust any device they hand back? by Marrow · · Score: 2

    Even if your device is encrypted, you will have to throw it away after they hand it back to you. If you boot it, you are going to be running their code and they own the machine regardless of the encryption.
    I know at least one corporation that will not let its employees travel oversees with laptops.

  64. Re:That Palin Thing says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If you voted for Obama because you thought he was more honest than McCain you are an idiot. It was obvious to anyone who looked that Obama lied on every thing he said on the campaign trail, but the left just cried "racist" every time it was pointed out. See what yelling "racist" every time someone says somthing you don't like gets you? An unaccountable asshole who can do whatever he wants because his opponents will be smeared in the media by people like you.

    I don't like McCain at all, but he is more honest than most when it comes to politicians.

  65. Here's at least one reason this is happening by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well here's at least one reason this is happening. Essentially when confronted with a question of the form "should we permit X to do Y upon Z in order to keep us safe ?" the individual answering that question effectively considers whether or not they'll ever be Z. No federal judge is ever going to be stopped at an airport . No federal judge is ever going to have his laptop searched at the border. In fact none of the rulings federal judges make will ever apply to them personally or anyone with the power to pick up a phone and call that judge to complain that X is about to do Y to them.

    Essentially the way judges hear the proposition is: "would you like us to increase security for you, sir?" They know if for some ungodly oversight they were ever actually asked to turn over their laptop to a customs agent, one phone call and it all goes away before the agent can boot their Windows 8 (this is who's buying that dog btw ) installation and that agent would soon be manning the un-airconditioned , 3x5 border booth in 105 degree heat watching over some dirt road in Tumbleweed Town, Texas.

    So get real. You're asking people To Whom Nothing Adverse Is Permitted To Happen if they would like ditch the Constitution within 100 miles of any border so that he and his can feel in some nighty-night, all-tucked-in way "safer".

    I am sure the nation's judicial benches are deep with such people. I am sure that people capable of considering the effects of their decisions on a nation and on its people are few and far between. Last week's judge was citing as supporting evidence the 9-11 commission report even though the 9-11 commission report said, substantively, exactly the opposite of what he claimed in his judgement it said.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131230/11062925713/judge-who-ruled-favor-nsa-relied-911-report-that-doesnt-even-mention-what-he-claims-it-does.shtml

    This is what is populating our benches. How bad is it? We're about to find out. .

    1. Re:Here's at least one reason this is happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just as likely to happen to a judge as it is anyone else. They don't get special passports as far as I know. If you were about to have your laptop searched and you say "But I am a federal judge" do you think that will stop them? This doesn't work for senators with the TSA, so why would it work for federal judges going through customs (where you have even less rights)?http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/23/sen-paul-stopped-by-tsa-at-airport-law-enforcement-denies-it-was-detention/

    2. Re:Here's at least one reason this is happening by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      Why the bleep don't we fire this guy?

      "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" -- this is clear evidence of failing to do his job.

      He is appointed to protect and defend the constitution. Not to protect and defend the borders.
      He is unable to perform a basic function -- reading and understanding the evidence -- as well as unable to perform a basic requirement of the job -- critical analysis of what people tell him.

      All of this points to failure to do his job, and possibly incompetence at his job. And, a lack of good behavior at his job.

      What, are you going to say that a judge has lifetime tenure? I don't see that in the constitution. Who said that? Oh, another judge? What gave them the power to give themselves lifetime job security when the Constitution does not?

    3. Re:Here's at least one reason this is happening by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      Apparently, supreme court justices in a speeding car can tell the police officer who they are and get away with it.

      Happened at least once, and then a book was written with the incident mentioned.

      (No, I don't remember the details -- this was years ago)

  66. As a Private Investigator once told me, years ago by hacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you find that your residence, automobile, or other personal effects have been entered/searched without your consent or direct knowledge, and everything "looks intact", consider that they didn't come to take something away, but to put something in.

    Once your personal effects, especially high-capacity electronics like smartphones and laptops, are out of your direct control, in some other room for hours at a time while you're in a holding cell, you can no longer trust them.

    If they can get access to the physical hardware, they can install malware, rootkits, key loggers, replace the network card with one that is known-trojaned, manipulate your certificates, trusts, replace firmware on your devices and anything else they want.

    No, once you get your gear back, immediately wipe it. Do not log into it, not even once, and just sell it on eBay or Craigslist.

    You can't trust it, so dump it as soon as you can.

  67. Re:That Palin Thing says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And today's winner in the confirmation bias demonstration contest is ... Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01, 2014 @11:00AM (#45837483)

  68. Re:Whats the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try visiting Israel with that passport....

  69. Micro SD cards? by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    Why not just wipe your computer clean before traveling then hide a mico sd card in your wallet. Go to your location then transfer and wipe clean when traveling back. Hell maybe there's a market for credit card like cards that are actually memory/sd cards or you can snap a micro sd card into it.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Micro SD cards? by BlazingATrail · · Score: 1

      They will just search your wallet too. The only safe way is to insert the SD card up your anus. And even that isn't too safe from strip searches or after spicy Mexican food night.

    2. Re:Micro SD cards? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Hide the card inside the computer instead, where it will blend in even under x-ray. A dot of adhesive can conceal it even if the laptop is opened. It can fit under the heatshring wrap of some BIOS batteries, under a heatsink, under the label of an add-on card, and many other places.

      Don't bring a screwdriver with you as they are cheap at any auto or chain store.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  70. remind them at the beginning of their terms by pikine · · Score: 1

    If after several years holding seat and having a lucrative political career, you tell your congressmen that you're going to replace them because they no longer represent you, they'll keep doing the same and ignore you.

    If, just after a new congressman got elected, you tell him how the last one was voted off of his seat because he stopped representing his people, that'll stick to him for his whole term of service. Congratulate him and tell him you look forward to his servitude.

    --
    I once had a signature.
  71. Re:And... by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

    This guy had his laptop confiscated for 11 days. I don't think it was just the TSA taking a peek at it. They certainly didn't just glance at it, and hand it back.

  72. Really dumb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America's federal bureaucracies have gone mad. There's NSA's wholesale spying, ATF leaking guns to Mexico (Fast and Furious), TSA hassles of travelers, Obamacare incompetencies, and in this case, border control searches without probable cause.

    The end result of too much harassment is to turn million of Americans into opponents of what they're doing. There's a thousand ways ordinary, law-abiding people can make life difficult for these agencies. Encrypted email is coming. Guns are selling like hotcakes. The TSA is hated. Obamacare is headed down. And YouTube videos detail legal ways to refuse to cooperate with border control checkpoints miles inland.

    These agencies are failing to recognize that, in a democracy, they have power only thanks to the consent of the people.

    And why did border control need to look at pictures of this guy's girl friend? Are their lives that devoid of romance?

  73. We need a new government... by strstr · · Score: 1

    This is clearly two sides of an ideological situation. One shit side says the government should have authority to do what it wants to people (the government and it's agents), but another side which is just as viable, but is being ignored by the legal system, is the public and earth citizen who doesn't generally get anything out of having the government trample all over their personal rights and civil liberties.

    Nothing gives the government the right to have any authority over the people. Maybe we should push this as our agenda, and overthrow these disrespectful assholes who know no bounds with force? We can change the law and the rules to do whatever we please, like they did, except we will not pursue abuse of the public like they do and we will work to restrict government to it's maximum and put all the responsibility on the government agents who have collected and abused these powers in the past. I vote for government agents to not have the right to assault and beat citizens, spy on them, and go through all their personal property whenever they please.

    1. Re:We need a new government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What time do you usually start sucking cock? Do I need an appointment?

    2. Re:We need a new government... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      Nothing gives the government the right to have any authority over the people

      Yeah, it's not true. We have a functioning government, it's just doing stuff some people don't like. YOUR JOB is to change people's minds about stuff so people vote for people who do what you want. It's not fast, it can indeed go off the tracks and in the end no one is totally happy and everyone is somewhat pissed off. It's called LIVING WITH OTHER PEOPLE. This is the reality of living with other people.

        If you can't convince people you're right, and you still want to force the government to stop doing shit, then can always try civil disobedience ala MLK. That works, eventually. If you just want to force the government to do something because you think it's right then YOU'RE the asshole. That's how democracy works.

      Just the way people forget that freedom comes at the price of some insecurity so also people LIKE YOU forget that democracy comes at the price of unsatisfactory outcomes.

      There is no other way. There is no wonderful group of people who will do the right thing and leave it at that.

    3. Re:We need a new government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you just want to force the government to do something

      That's just it, though: I just want the government to stop violating people's rights, and that involves them doing... nothing. Just stop it.

      I for one don't believe in mob rule, and am thankful we don't have a direct democracy. In our system, the majority has no power to make the government violate people's rights; we're a constitutional republic. Now if only we could get the government to follow the constitution...

      how democracy works.

      That's how tyranny of the majority works, in this case.

    4. Re:We need a new government... by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      This is how things are. The only real question is are you going to advocate in some fashion for what you believe. I writ my Congressional representative about once a month. I give some money to independent media outlets I think are worthwhile. I talk to my friends and acquaintances about what's going on. I share my thoughts online. Meh, that's what I have time to do except for the global warming issue, where I am more active .

  74. Re:That Palin Thing says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elections are a superstitious ritual meant to fool you into believing that their rule over you is legitimate by making you participate in your own enslavement.

  75. And Justice for All? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the concept of an equal standard of justice for all? Once you start making exceptions to rights, it will only be rights for landowners with a gross income over $1,000,000 per year.

  76. Copyright by tepples · · Score: 1

    There is nothing in these laws that says it's illegal for the border guard to copy your laptop, then put your photos of you and your girlfriend on the net for all to see. Nothing.

    You mean other than Title 17 of the United States Code? I'd like to see a federal agency make a fair use argument for that.

  77. What about the implants? by hEpen · · Score: 1

    This will become much weirder and much more invasive once digital implants become viable.

    And I wonder what Google Glass would do to this situation?

  78. The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.

    Here is more of the corruption: Medical bills: Hospitals steal from patients.

  79. Re:That Palin Thing says: by cusco · · Score: 2

    I voted against McCain/Palin, not for Obama.

    Same here. You don't have a meteoric rise in Chicago politics without having proved to the PTB that you're for sale, and that you will stay bought.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  80. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're not travelling for business, take a personal netbook with very little on it.

    I have a travelling netbook with Kubuntu (with drive encrypted - password is different from all my others), with web access, and an IMAP account not fully set up - which uses ssh port forwarding to my home machine - so the IP on the IMAP only works if the laptop is inside my LAN. On reaching destination I can change the IMAP server to localhost and open a ssh tunnel.

    I don't need a copy of everything with me on vacation, all I need is facebook, emails, maps, local restaurant reviews, etc.

  81. WHY ARE YOU... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...a homosexual?

  82. Re:That Palin Thing says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I voted against McCain/Palin AND Obamma.

    Stop being a tool and voting for the two wings of the American Corporate party. Everything that has happened is your fault.

  83. Re:And... by echnaton192 · · Score: 1

    You have no fucking idea how true crypts hidden operating system and "plausible deniability" work, do you? The free space, when booting the decoy system, ist the whole free space, including the space of the real operating system. So you have a secret limit of data you could store in the decoy system.

    This space is defined at the beginning of the encryption process. It is only possible to delete all data be exceeding the data limit on the decoy or overwriting the free space by zeros. But there is no evidence that you have a second OS with hidden files.

    It's called 'plausible deniability' for a reason.

  84. Chromebooks (or other cloud based data) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have a Chromebook that is password protected, where most of the data is in the cloud, just pulling all the data off the hard drive doesn't do much. Are you somewhat protected then??

  85. In short by Chas · · Score: 1

    If you're crossing the border into/out of the US:

    A) Bring only a cheap, craptastic laptop that you're not going to be totally heartbroken if you lose.
    B) Use whole-disk encryption.
    C) Don't carry any sort of sensitive information on the machine whatsoever. That includes storing passwords.
    D) Push any data you must have through out-of-band methods.
    E) If you MUST store things on the machine, use things like Truecrypt containers to add additional layers of obfuscation to the fact that you have data at all.

    As a citizen of the United States, I still feel these sorts of warrantless searche and seizure tactics are complete bullshit and completely in violation of the law.

    But, apparently, there's going to need to be a civil war in this country before rights such as these can be restored, as the current faux-bipiartisan hegemony in this country has simply stopped giving a fuck about what's right or wrong anymore and is only interested in increasing their hold on power.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  86. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he must have had some good porn on it

  87. Terrible summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA references the judge's ruling.

    First he talked a lot about standing and he thought that the folks filing the case didn't have much.
    Second, he talked about the difference between a cursory and through laptop inspection.
            No suspicion is required for a cursory examination.
            Reasonable suspicion is required for the more through examination.
                (The through exam is an invasion of privacy which requires justification from suspicion to be reasonable.)
                In this case, there was reasonable suspicion and a through examination.

    Which makes the summary talking about a suspionless search bogus.

    That aside,
        The govt has a particualr interest to control things entering the border.
        Physical inspection at the border is a primary tool to accomplish this.
        A cursory inspection of a book to verify that it is a book and not a hiding place for something else is obvious.
        A cursory inspection to see that a computer is a computer is likewise obvious.
            This is reasonable because the border is the only place the thing can enter the country.
                  There is a unique opportunity for the state to stop it.

      The idea that this can be extended to prevent dangerous information from entering the country seems strange.
          Because it could have come in over the net hidden in something else.
            It seems like the through examination of a laptop at a border crossing is more an opportunistic use of force than a necesary, justified action.

    That said, the judge points out that one would be a fool to carry anything important over a border.
          Transportation losses do occur and other countries may have more stringent inspection rules.
              I have to agree with the judge here.

  88. Re:As a Private Investigator once told me, years a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would I wipe it/dump it. If I had a device that was potentially bugged, I would want to pull it apart, study it, and find how it is bugged.

  89. Truecrypt has a brilliant plan by Cacadril · · Score: 1

    When someone discovers that there is only 10 GB available of that 500 GB hard drive and they cut your hand off while asking you why? What is your next step in this brilliant plan?

    If I remember correctly, there will be 500 GB available in the decoy partition. There will be only 3-4 GB of data, and 490 GB of free space. The free space, if examined with tools to access free blocks, will appear to contain random noise data, as if the disk at some earlier point did contain lots of zipped files, word docx files (they are really zip files), encrypted files, and other high-entropy files, and all these files were later deleted. When accessing the disk using the other password, then the "free" blocks are decrypted, and it will turn out that they contain files, directories, free-block-lists, and other file system structures. When files are written to the decoy file system blocks are allocated from the head of the free blocks list, which happens to contain blocks that are not used by the hidden file system. If you write sufficiently big files to the decoy system, I dont know, perhaps the hidden system begins to lose data, or perhaps the system feigns harware faults and shuts down.

    --
    There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
  90. Re:That Palin Thing says: by mellon · · Score: 1

    I used to like McCain a lot. I even voted for him once. But Obama is clearly a better president than McCain would have been. And he's actually been pretty consistent and done what I expected. I don't _like_ what he's done, but it hasn't surprised me. But that is all entirely beside the point. Did you bother to read past the first sentence of what I wrote? It's important—if you care about having honest politicians, don't just make it into a debate to have to make yourself feel smart. Participate in the political races that actually have some hope of changing things. Be a citizen, not a spectator.

  91. Re:That Palin Thing says: by mellon · · Score: 1

    No you didn't. By voting for a third party presidential candidate, you voted for (McCain || Obama). That is, you chose not to vote. Nobody cares what message you send at the voting booth. Nobody notices the tiny percentage of votes third party candidates get. If you want to be "principled," go for it, but don't brag about it to anybody who can do math. Politics is a numbers game, not a matter of principle. If you want principled politicians, make the numbers work for you. Don't waste your time tilting at windmills.

  92. Can Homeland Security help? by edibobb · · Score: 1

    So, I drive into Canada or Mexico, do you think Homeland Security would be kind enough to decrypt my files that Cryptolocker got to?

  93. Someone should shoot the judge in the head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he likes suspicionless searches so much maybe he'll enjoy being executed for committing no crime!

  94. Re:That Palin Thing says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are implying that one vote actually could make a difference. In reality, one vote HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER make a difference in ANY election at the state level or above. NEVER, as in NEVER EVER HAS and NEVER EVER WILL. As in, literally NEVER.

    Who, exactly then, is "tilting at windmills". The only thing that is ACTUALLY real in the voting scenario IS principle. It ACTUALLY EXISTS. Unlike your "vote as if it made a difference" schtick, which actually is a fiction, a fantasy, an unreality.

    In other words, don't tell ME that voting for my principles is fictional "tilting at windmills", asshole. Principle are all we can actually have in this game. YOU are a delusional fucking idiot and are willing to sell your principles out for LITERALLY NOTHING.

    "but don't brag about it to anybody who can do math"

    Hilarious. You should take some of your own advice.

  95. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /me breaks out popcorn and laughs at joke-show, aka USA.

  96. Re:That Palin Thing says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... in other words, I don't vote because I am a fucking retard like you and think my one fucking vote is going to make a difference (God DAMN you are SUCH fucking sheep)

    I vote because I am an American and am a free man, and that's what free Americans do.

  97. Let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A US Judge said it is not reasonable for border agents to have to abide by the same principals that police do? If police need to have reasonable cause to search a vehicle or home, why wouldn't border agents have to have the same?

    It would seem that our Judges get stupider every year.

  98. Government is not your friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will people stop being surprised that the government is not your friend and never has been. Ever. Under any circumstance. It doesn't matter who is the president, it's the nameless faceless bureaucrats that drive stuff like this and the status quo is maintained. They are the zoo keepers and they see us as the animals in the zoo. That's how they think, that's how they are trained, and that's how they will always see you. A product to squeeze a near infinite amount of money they can spend against you.

  99. Yet another judge violates his oath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another judge violates his oath to uphold the Bill of Rights. This is not merely a violation, it is a gross violation.

    That oath being a precondition for office, that person immediately and permanently becomes a former judge, and is disqualified from holding any position of public trust or responsibility, and is disqualified to receive a pension from the US government.

    This ruling is illegal.

    As with any violation of the Bill of Rights, the Nuremberg Precedent applies, as a right arising under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people). All government officials have an individual and personal responsibility to recognize this as an illegal policy and not enforce it.

    No person can be required to cooperate with this illegal ruling. For any government official to make an arrest of person that refuses to cooperate, or even detains them, is considered criminal kidnapping. Physically taking a laptop, or copying the files on it, is considered armed robbery.

    This responsibility is no different from the individual and personal responsibility all government officials have to refuse orders from their superiors to put undesirables in a death camp. In both cases, the government is exceeding its legal authority by violating fundamental rights, and everyone in government is expected to have the intelligence, education, and common sense to be able to recognize this, and the integrity to act appropriately.

    Any person who allows this former judge to hold a position of public trust or responsibility becomes an accessory to the original violation.

    Further, a reasonable expectation of freedom from search or harassment being a fundamental right retained by the people under the 9th Amendment, for any legal professional to uphold this ruling constitutes unethical practice of law, as interference with reasonable expectations creates an artificial demand for the services of the legal profession by making the law confusing and scary. The 9th Amendment right to ethical practice of law requires that even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided; this goes far beyond mere appearance.

  100. Someday I'd like to be proud to be an American... by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    I'm embarrassed to admit though that today is not that day.

  101. Re:Thank My Lord and Savior... by linuxiac · · Score: 1

    that you aren't American! Bad breath, very bad attitude, probably doesn't like guns, freedoms, Rights, nor, understands them...