Because if they're international soil (or, for that matter, the US decides to declare its airports to be international soil), then suddenly the US can and probably will decide that the law is whatever they want and there isn't a constitution because it's not the US.
The US government has already decided that under you as an international traveler don't really have rights. In effect:
If passengers are deemed to be inadmissible, they have no constitutional rights even if later taken to an American prison. Mason told Judge David Trager that's because they are deemed to be still outside the U.S., from a legal point of view.
Hopefully, this has been shot down.
But, make no mistake about it, at least once someone has tried to assert that you are neither in nor out of the US, and haven't got a whole lot of recourse. The current administration has decided for themselves that they have some very broad powers which aren't subject to the laws.
Unfortunately, trailers have little to do with movies anymore. Trailer designers and technicians have made an art out of what they do: making the most boring movies look exciting and fun.
Indeed!! A lot of work goes into making some crappy movies look good in 45 seconds.
I have seen movies in which all of the good scenes make it into the trailer. And, I've seen trailers with footage I'd swear never actually made it into the film.
Being detained by customs does not give you a criminal record. If you're a non-citizen, it may indeed cause trouble in entering the country again. To get a criminal record, you must be tried and convicted of a crime.
While all of that is true, nowadays being put on the "naughty list", or having a name like someone on the naughty list, or being brown-skinned is enough to effectively punish you as much as if you'd been convicted.
There has been a Canadian citizen in Sudan who has (had?) been trapped there because, while he had never been charged with anything, he had been suspected of doing something. He got trapped, and could come home due to being on the no-fly list. Basically, years in legal limbo.
I wouldn't assume getting detained by customs wouldn't necessarily cause you problems. When your name ends up on the unpublished, unfixable, or secret lists of people they don't want to fly... it's as good as if you'd been convicted.
Do you really want to find out the limits of where your theoretical rights end and where your abridged, post 9-11 rights end?
That's so 15th century, Bruce. How about "encourage"?
Because... they mean different things? No, seriously.
We have a whole plethora of words at our disposal with which to convey subtly nuanced meaning and/or sound like pompous gits, depending on the gravity and artifice of the situation. Why, the sheer range of verbal and literary shenanigans available to us is both rejuvenating and invigorating -- allowing us to express ourselves through many permutations of linguistic machinations.;-)
I suppose we could go the 1984 route and strip out all of the words for which people think there is no longer a valid purpose. That way we'd all come down to a nice, easy level of communication, and eventually strip certain kinds of thoughts from people.
In the meantime, some of us will reinforce the veracity of our arguments and interactions with our more polysyllabic linguistic choices to more adequately articulate the lucidity of our positions on topical considerations.
That should really confuse this so called "security expert" Quite frankly, I would be one of those guys who refuses to divulge my password. Even if I did, he / she wouldn't know what they were looking at since I don't run Windows. I think most of this is just to demonstrate that the laptop is not an explosive device, and really is a functioning laptop.
Nope, they've decided that the contents are a valid search to make sure you're not carrying in any information which could be used to cause havoc.
The court upheld that they can search it, so they've moved beyond merely confirming it's not an explosive.
I would be curious to know what status you, as a foreign visitor entering the US, would have if you refused to comply. At a minimum, they might refuse you entry, so you'd have to pay to get dumped back onto the first return flight. They may decide that you don't have the option of not co-operating, and just straight up incarcerate you.
It may be that under some circumstances you could refuse to comply, but I don't know how broadly they've been finalized at border crossing -- for citizens or non-citizens.
Well, they'll just get you for failing to declare livestock.
You could bring a dead badger, but they'll get you for importing unauthorized meat.
What you need, sir, is a zombie badger.
There is no checkbox for importation of undead mammals with bad temper (yourself after several hours in airplanes doesn't count), so you don't get int trouble for not declaring it. You just have to be sure to prevent the zombie badger from eating the brains of everyone during the flight.:-P
While I absolutely understand why people need to try to keep some of their data private, I worry that people trying to do this will land themselves in hot water.
I mean, if they find out that you are going to great lengths to hide stuff, they're not going to be happy with you. Isn't it a chargeable offense to deliberately try to hide stuff from customs? The presumption will be that only people with something to hide will be trying to conceal their stuff.
The more people try to evade it, the more they'll learn, and then everyone will be subjected to really insane scrutiny. Eventually, they'll just refuse admission with laptops, or just copy all of the hard-drives or something evil like that.
I guess in a business environment, have a couple of laptops which are used for traveling and contain very little information might be an option. For people with their own laptops, I guess that's not a really good choice.
I guess there's no easy solution to traveling with your data and trying to keep it from prying eyes.
Me, I don't think I'd be overly willing to try to directly foil customs. That's why I fly without pants and carrying a teddy bear nowadays, and check everything else -- they'd rather you just moved on than stand there with Mr Bear in your nammies.;-)
What kind of maniacal beast would cook their brand new multi thousand dollar laptop in the oven?? Maybe he was hit over the head when he was a kid with laptops and this is some kind of twisted cathartic therapy?
Do you really believe, deep in your heart, that someone hasn't accidentally done something equally insane to their machines?
I bet somewhere in the Annals of Documented Carnage (TM) you'd find an example of a laptop being subjected to something in that vein. It simply has to have happened.:-P
Heck, I'm sure someone here will provide a close example.;-)
It would have been more disasterious if he gave it to a 4 year old and telling them to be careful with it.
I think you have a potentially valuable line of research there.
I'm sure you can apply for a grant to study the relative destructiveness of children of various ages under various instructions.
You can fully quantify the Index of Capacity For Destruction under controlled (and uncontrolled) circumstances. As a control group, put them in the hands of people who think they're power users or pointy haired bossed -- they seem to be able to break almost anything and claim they did nothing to it.
Of course, my prediction is the kid from "Toy Story" is going to be your most disaster-inducing group. I'm sure you can find some parents of children with an unbridled capacity for damage who would be willing to hand you their little monsters^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdarlings.
Well, ok. Technically, the rules aren't being made here
I would disagree with this (though, not generally what you're saying).
Getting courts to uphold your position becomes the law of the land. Between lobbying to get the laws passed in the first place, and getting court rulings which support the idea we pay thousands per song and they pay nothing.... they are absolutely establishing the 'rules' by which we all have to play.
Unfortunately, the rules are heavily stacked in their favor.:(
The only reason, ONLY reason, to use Java is because you are psychotic and have a deep, long standing hate for your users and wish to inflict some of the most insidious pain and torment upon them.
Well, I do hate my users and wish to inflict pain on them, but I don't want to use Java.
Is there a way I can inflict pain and torment in a platform agnostic way?;-)
So if I blog something, and title it a 'call to arms', am I suddenly relevant too? No, you first have to include incendiary slashdot summaries like Company X to SPY on YOU!
OK, let's cut out the middle man here, and go straight to what Charter is saying:
How does this service actually work? It uses completely anonymous information and, based on your surfing and search activity on the Internet, it infers your interests in certain product or service categories, such as automobiles/sports cars, fashion/handbags, or travel/Europe, and so forth.
Translated... we're going to inspect the contents of your packets, and infer what you are looking at. Then we will use that information to increase our revenue by supposedly giving you more relevant ads.
So, tell me, how exactly is reading my packets that much different from "spying" on me? I expect my phone carrier to not listen to my calls to decide what inserts they should put into my next bill, because telcos are supposed to have an arms length relationship with your data.
This is not nearly as inflammatory and knee-jerk as you make it out to be. They actually are reading what you do.
And, for the record, it can't be "completely anonymous" if they know to put it into my web-page. They may claim that they can't tie it to you, but, if they know to give you an ad for Depends Undergarments, at some point, they decided that you needed to receive that targeted ad.
2: You ISP has gone to an ad-supported model that results in a drastic reduction of your monthly fees.
*laugh* If only that were true. They're trying to gouge you by selling you the service, and then make some more money by selling you targeted advertising based on what they have scraped out of your packets.
One is left to wonder how long before they start actually replacing ads on other sites with their own ads
That's exactly what they've said they're going to do -- in their eyes, they can make more money by changing the ads from 3rd party sites with ones they're getting paid for. They're not talking about selecting the right ads to show you on their pages, but changing the ads you'll see.
Does that mean that the ISP will be altering the copyrighted material sent by the websites? Surely this would create an unauthorised derivative work?
I should hope at some point, that very theory will get tested in court.
Agree completely that for an ISP to change to contents of a page I request from a 3rd party is just plain wrong. What next, redirecting you from URLs critical of them onto URLs which sing their praises? Preventing you from reading about the services of competitors?
Modifying the requested data is way too invasive, but it seems to be consistent with the whole strategy of "monetizing what your customers do". What you want is irrelevant, you're just a revenue stream.
As has been said so often, I hope things like this cause the networks to lose anything resembling common carrier status -- right now, they're just a network, so whatever you send it up to you.
Oh, I know those people too. It's not really the norm though. I would say that it's common enough that almost everybody knows 3 or 4 people who are picky eaters. But when trying to make dinner plans with 10 people, it's usually just the one that's picky.
And, buggers it up for everyone else as they're stuck in a venue which only serves bland food you can get anyplace.
Than again, as a vegetarian, I guess I occasionally get to be the fly in the ointment to be sure that there's something I can eat. Steak houses and seafood places often have nothing whatsoever on the menu I can eat.:-P
I think by westerners, you really mean people in the United States.
Well, I mean "North Americans" I guess more accurately. I can't speak to Europeans other than the old stereotype of the English eating boiled everything.;-)
I know a lot of Canadians which fall into the category of people who only eat a very limited set of foods. Heck, a co-worker had an old class-mate visiting with his wife -- she was the most fussy eater you could imagine, she had a categorical that she wouldn't eat food that had "sauce" on it -- which to me is most foods. In a group of adventurous eaters who would rather do Indian, Thai, Chinese, or whatever, her fussiness and willingness to literally only eat the most boring of food was appalling. She wouldn't even eat Italian food!! I've had co-workers for whom anything outside of that very proscribed "Canadian Food" is cause for great consternation.
I don't have any valid statistics on it, but I almost wonder if the people who do like 'ethnic' food tend to dine out more and fill in the gaps. I dine out at least once/week, and I definitely gravitate to more exotic foods.
I know a lot of Canadians for whom a dish with black pepper is "spicy" and things like curries, or stir-fries, or anything a little off their narrow range is an absolute no no. Something which I completely don't get.
I was actually stunned when the kids of one of my brothers friends gladly tore into a curry I had made, and we're talking 5 and 7 year olds. Apparently they'd been fed exotic food from a young age and were completely fearless eaters.
Most of the people I personally know are some of the most adventurous eaters I've ever met. But, a few (significant) exceptions are completely unsophisticated in their food choices.
We also make a lot of home made food, that most people would just get out of a can. Home made soups and sauces taste quite a bit better than what you get at the store, and are a lot more healthier. Even the low sodium soups at the store contain more salt than most people would put in a home made soup. Real home made food just tastes a lot better. Sadly, I think a lot of people don't realize, or forget just how much better home cooking is.
A lot of people have never had good, home made food. I've seen a tremendous amount of kids who won't eat anything that isn't chicken fingers and fries. I also know a lot of adults who won't eat any form of 'ethnic' food since they have no exposure to all of the yummy flavors out there and don't want to try it.
People have become accustomed to boring, packaged food which is full of sodium and other chemicals. I remember as a kid being at scout camp and my dad made spaghetti -- to all of the kids who had only eaten Chef Boy R Dee, the small amount of spices in the spaghetti sauce was too much for them.
I cook most of what gets eaten in our home (my GF loves it since she has a private chef), and packaged food just doesn't hold a candle to what a good home cook can do -- both in terms of cost and flavor.
Westerners born in the last 20 or so years have a very limited palette and no adventure when it comes to food. Let alone an interest or understanding of actually making their own food.
I think we need to start planing for an Alternate Network other than the Internet.
It would have to be WiMax-based (or better) to handle the traffic.
But, ultimately, all of those packets have to travel over one of the backbones.
I fail to see how having a separate front-end access point could eliminate this problem. Surely you aren't proposing a completely separate networking infrastructure which would never travel over the same fibers as they do now -- that would likely be a very difficult thing to do, wouldn't it?
You still need routing to the rest of the internet. A completely separate network would be kind of useless.
Every EDS supported machine I've seen in the last 6 years was either Compaq or HP.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that nothing will change.
Well, I know several people who work for EDS.
Dell and Sun equipment isn't uncommon, depending on the customer and what they need. Who knows what that will mean going forward, but, some of their big customers aren't going to be told what machines to run things on -- some of them are pretty big organizations.
Thanks to Mr Satellite, China cannot stop the world from mapping the Sino nation. It can, however, demand a lot of money and make the world think it can.
Well, China can always shoot down your sattellite, but that might be construed as a hostile act.
If Google has any actual people in China, those people could be subject to arrest or intimidation if they don't comply.
Remember, in China (and, increasingly more places), the truth is what they tell you it is. Their view on how information is handed out is a little different than ours.
Slashdot Mirror
The US government has already decided that under you as an international traveler don't really have rights. In effect:
Hopefully, this has been shot down.
But, make no mistake about it, at least once someone has tried to assert that you are neither in nor out of the US, and haven't got a whole lot of recourse. The current administration has decided for themselves that they have some very broad powers which aren't subject to the laws.
Scares the crap outta me.
Cheers
Indeed!! A lot of work goes into making some crappy movies look good in 45 seconds.
I have seen movies in which all of the good scenes make it into the trailer. And, I've seen trailers with footage I'd swear never actually made it into the film.
Cheers
While all of that is true, nowadays being put on the "naughty list", or having a name like someone on the naughty list, or being brown-skinned is enough to effectively punish you as much as if you'd been convicted.
There has been a Canadian citizen in Sudan who has (had?) been trapped there because, while he had never been charged with anything, he had been suspected of doing something. He got trapped, and could come home due to being on the no-fly list. Basically, years in legal limbo.
I wouldn't assume getting detained by customs wouldn't necessarily cause you problems. When your name ends up on the unpublished, unfixable, or secret lists of people they don't want to fly
Do you really want to find out the limits of where your theoretical rights end and where your abridged, post 9-11 rights end?
Cheers
Because
We have a whole plethora of words at our disposal with which to convey subtly nuanced meaning and/or sound like pompous gits, depending on the gravity and artifice of the situation. Why, the sheer range of verbal and literary shenanigans available to us is both rejuvenating and invigorating -- allowing us to express ourselves through many permutations of linguistic machinations.
I suppose we could go the 1984 route and strip out all of the words for which people think there is no longer a valid purpose. That way we'd all come down to a nice, easy level of communication, and eventually strip certain kinds of thoughts from people.
In the meantime, some of us will reinforce the veracity of our arguments and interactions with our more polysyllabic linguistic choices to more adequately articulate the lucidity of our positions on topical considerations.
Cheers
Nope, they've decided that the contents are a valid search to make sure you're not carrying in any information which could be used to cause havoc.
The court upheld that they can search it, so they've moved beyond merely confirming it's not an explosive.
I would be curious to know what status you, as a foreign visitor entering the US, would have if you refused to comply. At a minimum, they might refuse you entry, so you'd have to pay to get dumped back onto the first return flight. They may decide that you don't have the option of not co-operating, and just straight up incarcerate you.
It may be that under some circumstances you could refuse to comply, but I don't know how broadly they've been finalized at border crossing -- for citizens or non-citizens.
Cheers
Well, they'll just get you for failing to declare livestock.
You could bring a dead badger, but they'll get you for importing unauthorized meat.
What you need, sir, is a zombie badger.
There is no checkbox for importation of undead mammals with bad temper (yourself after several hours in airplanes doesn't count), so you don't get int trouble for not declaring it. You just have to be sure to prevent the zombie badger from eating the brains of everyone during the flight.
Cheers
While I absolutely understand why people need to try to keep some of their data private, I worry that people trying to do this will land themselves in hot water.
;-)
I mean, if they find out that you are going to great lengths to hide stuff, they're not going to be happy with you. Isn't it a chargeable offense to deliberately try to hide stuff from customs? The presumption will be that only people with something to hide will be trying to conceal their stuff.
The more people try to evade it, the more they'll learn, and then everyone will be subjected to really insane scrutiny. Eventually, they'll just refuse admission with laptops, or just copy all of the hard-drives or something evil like that.
I guess in a business environment, have a couple of laptops which are used for traveling and contain very little information might be an option. For people with their own laptops, I guess that's not a really good choice.
I guess there's no easy solution to traveling with your data and trying to keep it from prying eyes.
Me, I don't think I'd be overly willing to try to directly foil customs. That's why I fly without pants and carrying a teddy bear nowadays, and check everything else -- they'd rather you just moved on than stand there with Mr Bear in your nammies.
Cheers
Do you really believe, deep in your heart, that someone hasn't accidentally done something equally insane to their machines?
I bet somewhere in the Annals of Documented Carnage (TM) you'd find an example of a laptop being subjected to something in that vein. It simply has to have happened.
Heck, I'm sure someone here will provide a close example.
Cheers
I think you have a potentially valuable line of research there.
I'm sure you can apply for a grant to study the relative destructiveness of children of various ages under various instructions.
You can fully quantify the Index of Capacity For Destruction under controlled (and uncontrolled) circumstances. As a control group, put them in the hands of people who think they're power users or pointy haired bossed -- they seem to be able to break almost anything and claim they did nothing to it.
Of course, my prediction is the kid from "Toy Story" is going to be your most disaster-inducing group. I'm sure you can find some parents of children with an unbridled capacity for damage who would be willing to hand you their little monsters^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdarlings.
Cheers
I wonder if anyone has any statistics on just how long stuff by FP lasts.
I seem to recall having a fleet of it when I was a kid, much of which had been through my brother (a human wrecking machine as a child, I'm told).
As far as I can tell, that stuff is nearly indestructible in the hands of all but the most determined children.
Cheers
I would disagree with this (though, not generally what you're saying).
Getting courts to uphold your position becomes the law of the land. Between lobbying to get the laws passed in the first place, and getting court rulings which support the idea we pay thousands per song and they pay nothing
Unfortunately, the rules are heavily stacked in their favor.
Cheers
Well, I do hate my users and wish to inflict pain on them, but I don't want to use Java.
Is there a way I can inflict pain and torment in a platform agnostic way?
Cheers
Well, our Privacy Commissioner is wondering that.
Cheers
OK, let's cut out the middle man here, and go straight to what Charter is saying:
Translated
So, tell me, how exactly is reading my packets that much different from "spying" on me? I expect my phone carrier to not listen to my calls to decide what inserts they should put into my next bill, because telcos are supposed to have an arms length relationship with your data.
This is not nearly as inflammatory and knee-jerk as you make it out to be. They actually are reading what you do.
And, for the record, it can't be "completely anonymous" if they know to put it into my web-page. They may claim that they can't tie it to you, but, if they know to give you an ad for Depends Undergarments, at some point, they decided that you needed to receive that targeted ad.
Cheers
*laugh* If only that were true. They're trying to gouge you by selling you the service, and then make some more money by selling you targeted advertising based on what they have scraped out of your packets.
That's exactly what they've said they're going to do -- in their eyes, they can make more money by changing the ads from 3rd party sites with ones they're getting paid for. They're not talking about selecting the right ads to show you on their pages, but changing the ads you'll see.
Or, are you being ironic?
Cheers
I should hope at some point, that very theory will get tested in court.
Agree completely that for an ISP to change to contents of a page I request from a 3rd party is just plain wrong. What next, redirecting you from URLs critical of them onto URLs which sing their praises? Preventing you from reading about the services of competitors?
Modifying the requested data is way too invasive, but it seems to be consistent with the whole strategy of "monetizing what your customers do". What you want is irrelevant, you're just a revenue stream.
As has been said so often, I hope things like this cause the networks to lose anything resembling common carrier status -- right now, they're just a network, so whatever you send it up to you.
Cheers
And, buggers it up for everyone else as they're stuck in a venue which only serves bland food you can get anyplace.
Than again, as a vegetarian, I guess I occasionally get to be the fly in the ointment to be sure that there's something I can eat. Steak houses and seafood places often have nothing whatsoever on the menu I can eat.
Cheers
Well, I mean "North Americans" I guess more accurately. I can't speak to Europeans other than the old stereotype of the English eating boiled everything.
I know a lot of Canadians which fall into the category of people who only eat a very limited set of foods. Heck, a co-worker had an old class-mate visiting with his wife -- she was the most fussy eater you could imagine, she had a categorical that she wouldn't eat food that had "sauce" on it -- which to me is most foods. In a group of adventurous eaters who would rather do Indian, Thai, Chinese, or whatever, her fussiness and willingness to literally only eat the most boring of food was appalling. She wouldn't even eat Italian food!! I've had co-workers for whom anything outside of that very proscribed "Canadian Food" is cause for great consternation.
I don't have any valid statistics on it, but I almost wonder if the people who do like 'ethnic' food tend to dine out more and fill in the gaps. I dine out at least once/week, and I definitely gravitate to more exotic foods.
I know a lot of Canadians for whom a dish with black pepper is "spicy" and things like curries, or stir-fries, or anything a little off their narrow range is an absolute no no. Something which I completely don't get.
I was actually stunned when the kids of one of my brothers friends gladly tore into a curry I had made, and we're talking 5 and 7 year olds. Apparently they'd been fed exotic food from a young age and were completely fearless eaters.
Most of the people I personally know are some of the most adventurous eaters I've ever met. But, a few (significant) exceptions are completely unsophisticated in their food choices.
Cheers
Don't forget kilts, golf, and some disturbing allegations about sheep.
Cheers
Well, in fairness, unless you know what you're doing, that moonshine could cause organ failure, blindness, or death.
While I don't doubt there's a strong element of financial control at the root of that, there is likely some kernel of health and safety.
Not everyone is capable of making mooonshine which isn't toxic.
Cheers
A lot of people have never had good, home made food. I've seen a tremendous amount of kids who won't eat anything that isn't chicken fingers and fries. I also know a lot of adults who won't eat any form of 'ethnic' food since they have no exposure to all of the yummy flavors out there and don't want to try it.
People have become accustomed to boring, packaged food which is full of sodium and other chemicals. I remember as a kid being at scout camp and my dad made spaghetti -- to all of the kids who had only eaten Chef Boy R Dee, the small amount of spices in the spaghetti sauce was too much for them.
I cook most of what gets eaten in our home (my GF loves it since she has a private chef), and packaged food just doesn't hold a candle to what a good home cook can do -- both in terms of cost and flavor.
Westerners born in the last 20 or so years have a very limited palette and no adventure when it comes to food. Let alone an interest or understanding of actually making their own food.
Cheers
But, ultimately, all of those packets have to travel over one of the backbones.
I fail to see how having a separate front-end access point could eliminate this problem. Surely you aren't proposing a completely separate networking infrastructure which would never travel over the same fibers as they do now -- that would likely be a very difficult thing to do, wouldn't it?
You still need routing to the rest of the internet. A completely separate network would be kind of useless.
Cheers
Well, I know several people who work for EDS.
Dell and Sun equipment isn't uncommon, depending on the customer and what they need. Who knows what that will mean going forward, but, some of their big customers aren't going to be told what machines to run things on -- some of them are pretty big organizations.
Cheers
Well, China can always shoot down your sattellite, but that might be construed as a hostile act.
If Google has any actual people in China, those people could be subject to arrest or intimidation if they don't comply.
Remember, in China (and, increasingly more places), the truth is what they tell you it is. Their view on how information is handed out is a little different than ours.
Cheers
Oh, they show an accurate picture of the geography.
But, political things like borders and sensitive areas are a different matter.
I don't believe this is the first time a country has objected to the way an internet mapping service represents their country.
This isn't about an accurate picture, so much as a politically driven interpretation or label. The US censors some Google data as well.
Cheers