Homeland Security Changes Laptop Search Policy 273
IronicToo writes "The US Government has updated its policy on the search and seizure of laptops at border crossing. 'The long-criticized practice of searching travelers' electronic devices will continue, but a supervisor now would need to approve holding a device for more than five days. Any copies of information taken from travelers' machines would be destroyed within days if there were no legal reason to hold the information.'"
5 Days? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, now they will just take away my laptop for 4 days. Good thing my flight is in two hours, and I am not back for 6 weeks...
-EL
Re:5 Days? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, obviously, you should have planned ahead and arrived at the airport one hundred twenty-three hours before your flight, to give yourself ample time to find parking and clear security. It's the responsible thing to do.
Re:5 Days? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They can take and keep my laptop all they want, I'll just hook up the real data disk to a new laptop and install Truecrypt and I'm good to go.
Re:5 Days? (Score:5, Funny)
...normally placed safely in the checked luggage..
You're apparently using a definition of "safely" with which I was previously unaware.
Kabonnnng! (Score:3, Funny)
>> ...normally placed safely in the checked luggage..
> You're apparently using a definition of "safely" with which I was previously unaware.
Checking baggage is safe-- that is, safe for the crew and passengers. It's just not safe for guitars.
Yeah, ever since the TSA hired that "McGraw" fellow there have been a lot of incidents of smashed guitars in the luggage... Apparently the TSA is looking the other way because this is supposedly helping to curb terrorism...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/10/aclu-23-of-us-population-lives-in-constitution-free-zone.ars [arstechnica.com]
"the Constitution-free zone that exists a US borders and airports actually extends 100 air miles inland and encompasses two-thirds of the country's population. The US Border Patrol can set up checkpoints anywhere in this region and question citizens." So in theory, you next stop and search could be like this
http://www [youtube.com]
Re:5 Days? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:5 Days? (Score:5, Informative)
I've fired services techs (now called "geeks") for making copies of personal data including bank/money/quicken databases, address books, etc..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My understanding was that this was about when someone goes through Customs. That happens when you arrive in the country, not when you are getting on a flight.
It does, except when you come from Canada, where there's pre-flight customs clearance. And according to http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2008-I-001/documents%5Ctop_20_countries.xls [doc.gov] Canada is the top country of origin when flying into the US, so it affects a large number of people.
-Malloc
Well that sounds reasonable (Score:2, Insightful)
And since the Constitution only protects against *unreasonable* search and seizure, there is nothing wrong here.
It's just a goddamned piece of paper.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not at all reasonable. Frankly, there is no reason that the borders should be checking laptops. Why should they be allowed to withhold any media I have on me, be it paper or a laptop. If they want to make sure it's a laptop and not a fake bomb, thats one thing. But the contents of the laptop should be of no concern to them.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:5, Funny)
It's our right as citizens to be secure. If your papers (computer) is dangerous, it is reasonable to seize it.
From the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
It is not long, just quote the whole thing. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Did I just hear a woosh?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
:-/
Whoosh.
Just.....whoosh.
How you could miss that one, I have no idea.
You weren't really paying attention, were you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:5, Funny)
Well, as they say,
Re: (Score:2)
It's our right as citizens to be secure. If your papers (computer) is dangerous, it is reasonable to seize it./quote. I want to be secure from people who think like you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How exactly is my paper going to be dangerous?
What could someone have coming into this country on a laptop that needs to be seized for any amount of time?
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:4, Funny)
How exactly is my paper going to be dangerous?
You tell me, buddy.
Why don't you just tell us what's on your computer? Why are you acting so suspiciously?
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is my paper going to be dangerous?
That piece of paper may be a "financial instrument" AKA stock, bond or check that is worth something. That in turn might be used to fund drugs or heaven forbid, "terrorism". It might also be a piece of tissue that can be used, you know, to wipe your arse AKA "bio-hazard". Either way, they have to protect the [artificial man-made] nation from the evil bogeyman.
The evil bogeyman (Score:3, Funny)
How exactly is my paper going to be dangerous?
That piece of paper may be a "financial instrument" AKA stock, bond or check that is worth something. That in turn might be used to fund drugs or heaven forbid, "terrorism". It might also be a piece of tissue that can be used, you know, to wipe your arse AKA "bio-hazard". Either way, they have to protect the [artificial man-made] nation from the evil bogeyman.
Of all the security checkpoints in all the border crossings in all the world, he had to walk into this one...
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this press release change anything? Not really. It just lays some groundwork for more "routine" searches. Anything beyond that they have to give some bullshit reason ("national security") to keep it longer.
What's to stop this bullshit agency from making a mockery of their press releases? I can guarantee you that the goons they have on the "front lines" haven't been told about this "press release".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The DHS has always held the belief (with the Supreme Court's backing) that people and their belongings at customs checkpoints at the airport (or at a border crossing) aren't within the country (yet), consequently, the constitution doesn't apply to "inspections" within those checkpoints.
This is insane (as is the idea that there are a whole bunch of things which are perfectly fine to do in, say, Guantanamo Bay, which wouldn't be OK to do in the US). The constitution does not grant rights - it merely enumerate
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try claiming your "natural rights" in Chile. Or China. Or just about anywhere outside of a very small number of places on the planet and you will find these rights aren't considered to be very natural at all. They are a figment of your imagination.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
From where are these natural rights derived? Nature does not come with any rights.
According to the Declaration of Independence, they are in fact provided by nature: "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."
They are gained, and protected. The constitution was designed to specify and protect our rights, if nature provided them it would hardly be necessary.
Natural rights exist whether or not they are enshrined in law or protected by force. The US Constitution is not written to enumerate the rights of the people. The constitution was written to establish the form and scope of the US Government. Furthermore, nature has provided you with your fists and your wits with which to protect your rights. These may not be entirely sufficient at all times, thus further protection is warranted.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the GP is correct. There are no such things as natural rights. Even sillier is the phrase "inalienable rights." If they were inalienable, we wouldn't have to worry about them being taken away, would we?
OK, this is a definition problem. Inalienable is not the same thing as inviolable. Inalienable means they cannot be given away or surrendered. They cannot be separated from the person. E.g., One cannot sell one's self into slavery. It does not imply that they are self-enforcing. One's rights, whether natural or social or whatever can be violated without ceasing to exist. When fact violates law we have crime.
The concept of natural or inalienable rights is not uniquely American or religious or spiritual.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
You're frustratingly right about the courts and I don't understand the justification. The ideals were established for citizens because there were supposed to be the right way of running a government. So why are people allowed to circumvent these ideals just because someone is flying into the country? I don't know why so many of my fellow citizens have grown to fear people from other countries. If we believe or moral ground is the example for other countries to strive for then shouldn't we rigidly follow our own rules?
For me, I was once asked to leave my backpack at the counter of a liquor store in Vegas. I had my work laptop in it with a lot of sensitive information involved in setting up one of our events. When the keeper asked me to do this I promptly left as I won't do business with people that treat me like a criminal. Why should we treat incoming travelers like criminals? The vast majority are regular people who don't like being treated as though they have committed a crime anymore that I like to. It's very frustrating that people live their lives in fear when it's almost completely unfounded.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)
By that argument, if a gang of thugs flew into the United States, never left the international arrivals area, and committed heinous crimes while there---plotting assassinations, designing nuclear weapons, calling for hits on their enemies, execution-style murders, gang rape, etc.---they would not be in the U.S. and thus could not be prosecuted under U.S. law. For that matter, any sort of crime---mugging, graffiti, public urination, public drunkenness, public nudity, arson, etc.---would be completely legal as long as you don't leave the international arrivals area. Does arson only become a crime when the fire spreads outside the international arrivals area? This also means that terrorists could legally set up training camps in the international arrivals area of a major airport. Why does the DHS want to harbor terrorists within our borders?
Another scary thought: it may not happen today or tomorrow, but statistically speaking, before the heat death of the universe, some psychopath will likely murder a child in the international arrivals area, get off because he wasn't on U.S. soil, then kill again. Then we'll have another law on the books named after some dead child, all because the government feels such a desperate need to violate its own citizens' right to privacy. The very thought of such a thing happening should give every DHS agent chills. It gives a particularly ironic twist to using the words "think of the children" while executing illegal searches for child porn....
Alternatively, if Cuba or North Korea flew a firing squad into some U.S. airport, lined up its soldiers along the walls, and shot everyone who came through, that, too, would win an award for irony, watching as a not-free country helped a "free" country to be more free.
Or the U.S. .government might simply seal off all the borders. clamp their hands over their ears, and shout LALALALALALALALA! Sounds more like our government to me. After all, nothing could be more important than the government's right to catch stupid criminals who aren't smart enough to ship their pirated DVDs concealed in children's toys, upload their homemade videos of sex with underage girls in Thailand to a server in the U.S. instead of carrying the unencrypted files on their desktop, or download their Al Qaeda propaganda through somebody else's open Wi-Fi access point after they get home. I mean, do they seriously catch any significant number of criminals this way? And if they do, aren't they at least as likely to be able to catch such morons in a million other ways without burning our Constitution in the process?
Just my $0.0137 (adjusted for inflation).
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it, and more thoroughly than I would have. Kudos.
Re: (Score:2)
By that argument, if a gang of thugs flew into the United States, never left the international arrivals area, and committed heinous crimes while there---plotting assassinations, designing nuclear weapons, calling for hits on their enemies, execution-style murders, gang rape, etc.---they would not be in the U.S. and thus could not be prosecuted under U.S. law. For that matter, any sort of crime---mugging, graffiti, public urination, public drunkenness, public nudity, arson, etc.---would be completely legal as long as you don't leave the international arrivals area. Does arson only become a crime when the fire spreads outside the international arrivals area?
As has been seen by the War on Terror(tm), the US government has no problem with extending its authority beyond its own borders whenever it sees fit. I don't see how a silly "international arrivals area" would stop a country that has shown to arbitrarily invade entire countries based upon only the most spurious of information.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The DHS has always held the belief (with the Supreme Court's backing) that people and their belongings at customs checkpoints at the airport (or at a border crossing) aren't within the country (yet), consequently, the constitution doesn't apply to "inspections" within those checkpoints. That gives the DHS and their goons all the leeway they want in "confiscating" or "inspecting" all the stuff they want for as long as they want.
By that logic, no US law applies at the checkpoint. In fact, in all likelihood no law of any description applies at the checkpoint.
In which case, their right to take your laptop, detain you or otherwise inconvenience you doesn't stem from a formal legal system with the checks and balances that implies, it's because they've got a large number of armed goons at their disposal and you have nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you need to consult out founding fathers. They thought it was so reasonable to search things comming through the borders that they instituted the very first warrant-less search at the border law in the very first session of congress. This law was later held up by the US supreme court as being necessary for our sovereignty that the very right of sovereignty would be jeopardized without it.
There is a history of this going back to many of the people who drafted the people and who even signed it.
Re: (Score:2)
I Believe 'em (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I Believe 'em (Score:4, Funny)
Sure... All the TSA employees already got 3 laptops each out of the system.
They're full! Don't need anymore.
captcha: customs
How odd
Re: (Score:2)
I believe 'em. I mean, they wouldn't lie to us, would they?...
That man is a terrorist. The police are always right. The government is acting in your best interests (please hand over your wallet). Everything is going to be fine. Thank you for your cooperation, citizen.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We need it to pay for health-care for you and the millions of uninsured... Is that, what you were trying to say?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, we've spent the last decade building a lot of big, really expensive mobile hardware, training staff to use it, and then sending both overseas to be destroyed. And apparently we actually have to pay for those. Who knew?
Re:I Believe 'em (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Step 1: mail each of your laptops to a different state governor before you leave on your trip.
Step 2: Attempt to carry a firearm across the border, get arrested by the FBI.
Step 3: Get transferred to the same FBI building as your laptops.
Step 4: Initiate a terrorist action from inside the FBI.
Step 5: Profit!
So... (Score:3, Interesting)
I, for one, definitely trust the letter and the spirit of the law to be upheld on this one. We've never had trouble with illegal intelligence gathering here, especially not when the agency involved is opaque and largely unaccountable. It should be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, definitely trust the letter and the spirit of the law to be upheld on this one. We've never had trouble with illegal intelligence gathering here, especially not when the agency involved is opaque and largely unaccountable. It should be fine.
Zim: Computer, give me all the information you have on the FBI.
Computer: The FBI is a government law enforcement agency.
Zim: Continue.
Computer: Insufficient data.
Zim: "Insufficient data"? Can't you just make an educated guess?
Computer: O... kay... Um, founded in 1492 by, uh... demons, the FBI is a crack law enforcement agency designed to... uh, I dunno, fight... aliens?
Zim: I KNEW IT!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh if the evidence was over 18 they have a great reason. What do you think they are a bunch of pedos?
Welcome to the border (Score:5, Funny)
Please enjoy your stay in the United States of America, we have searched your laptop and destroyed our copies of your vacation bikini pictures after looking at snapshots of your fine fine body projected onto the conference room wall for an emergency assessment meeting. We did not find anything that would indicate that you might be dangerous outside of the bedroom, so we have kindly loaded your laptop with a government issued keylogger and trojan. We hope you enjoy your time here as much as we enjoyed your pictures. Please take more, we'll be waiting.
Sincerely,
the Department of Homeland Security
Re:Welcome to the border (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Sir or Madam, Please enjoy your stay in the United States of America, we have searched your laptop and destroyed our copies of your vacation bikini pictures after looking at snapshots of your fine fine body projected onto the conference room wall for an emergency assessment meeting. rest deleted
If this were message ever sent, I would hope the salutation would by shortened to "Dear Madam"
Re:Welcome to the border (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe he was referring to the Sir and bikini... But hey if that floats your boat go for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently Napolitano has lost her mind if she's allowing shit like this. She was the sole bit of sanity in the mad world that is Arizona state government until she left.
Re: (Score:2)
For a date, you mean? Some guys who need badges and guns to establish their machismo are really turned on by cross dressers. ;^)
A press release, nothing more (Score:5, Insightful)
but a supervisor now would need to approve holding a device for more than five days. Any copies of information taken from travelers' machines would be destroyed within days if there were no legal reason to hold the information
.
"A supervisor." Not a judge or someone who has had formal training in law, but a coworker.
"if there were no legal reason to hold the information." They'll just claim they haven't had time to investigate it yet. Or "national security reasons", which is the same as not giving any reason at all. Legal reasons can be manufactured as needed -- our laws are sufficiently complex and vague that a reason can always be found to arrest, detain, and then jail someone. Laws exist to enable authorities to silence or remove people they don't like -- YOU can't enforce the law on someone else, after all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does that mean there's a law to enable citizens to arrest, detain, jail, silence AND remove the government officials we don't like ?
Like uh, I dunno, the TSA ?
In the millions (billions?) of unwarranted searches performed under guise of national security, how many serious, dangerous, organized, threat-to-the-safety-of-the-nation terrorists have been caught and permanently neutralized ? In other words, what's the hit rate for this malware filter ?
If the answer is zero, you need to start thinking about a coup
Copying files (Score:5, Informative)
There's no "legal" reason to keep files stolen by the uneducated border minions unless:
1. You are not an American.
3. You have "trade secrets" that can give American companies a competitive advantage.
And that's one reason why business travel across the Atlantic / Pacific to the US has declined.
Re:Copying files (Score:5, Funny)
1. You are not an American.
3. You have "trade secrets" that can give American companies a competitive advantage.
2. Classified
Re: (Score:2)
How did you know there was a number 2, and that it was classified? I'm afraid we're going to have to ask you to come in to clarify some things, sir.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, it wouldn't have anything to do with high fuel prices, a global economic slump that has international trade very tight for now, or perhaps the fact that people are finally figuring out that they can use GoToMeeting and VoIP conference bridges to get a whole lot of things done without having to move human bodies between continents to agree on a marketing program or manufacturing schedule. Nah, it's Eeeevil
Re:Copying files (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, it's Eeeevil Laptop Searches. That's it.
Nor could it possibly be the security theater hassle as a whole;
I traveled through Europe right through the Irish troubles and never saw so much BS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Captain Obvious... (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if the other 954 laptops required passwords for login...
Re:Captain Obvious... (Score:4, Informative)
I wonder if the other 954 laptops required passwords for login...
I'm inclined to believe it's the other way around. While I haven't done any international travel, from what I understand as told to me by co-workers who do travel abroad, laptops (and in some cases, Blackberries) have to be decrypted and ready to inspect. Passwords do not stop these Security Agents from investigating a laptop, and we have had several employees who have missed their flights because they were not allowed to continue with encrypted devices.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if that happened to me on an outbound flight, I would be inclined to sue for several million dollars in lost revenue to encourage DHS to use some common sense.
Return of the Phrases of the Damned (Score:3, Funny)
I think if that happened to me on an outbound flight, I would be inclined to sue for several million dollars in lost revenue to encourage DHS to use some common sense.
Sure. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love to see it tested in court, merely because AFAIK financial liability for unreasonable detention is largely an untested area of law. The cases I'm aware of that (fail to) set the bar for reasonable border searches are all cases in which there was at least some degree of probable cause for conducting such a search (e.g. something illegal in plain sight) and in which the searches turned up something illegal as expected. Basically, they were all the sorts of cases in which it would have been surprisin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The way we do it, from a US TLA viewpoint (Score:4, Interesting)
Our employees have no problems going in or out of the U.S. with laptops even though we require all laptops with data on them to be fully encrypted. When an employee is, say, going to France (worst case; it's illegal to enter France with an encrypted device) we copy all their data to the network, take it off the network, wipe it clean, and install a base image. When the user gets to France, they are met by one of our techs who installs full disk encryption, joins the machine to our network, sets up a VPN, and copies their data from our U.S. servers to the laptop in France.
When it's time to return home, the tech in France copies all data to our servers, takes the laptop off the network, wipes it clean, and installs a base image. When the user gets back into the U.S., a local tech fully encypts the machine, puts it on the network, and copies the user data from our servers to the laptop.
Now, this seems like lot of trouble to me. But it prevents our employees from having any problems with customs in either France or the U.S.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, stupid question, but if that's the case why is the person physically transporting a laptop in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier to just have a laptop already setup and ready to dump
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Those of us who support these guys have asked the same thing. The only thing I can come up with is that my agency is paranoid about individuals having more than one computer. We have loaner machines, for example, but they're kept at a central location and mailed around the country when someone needs one. We keep almost no spares on hand.
This whole "cut hardware expenditures to the bone" attitude causes lots of problems. Not the least of those problems is the time lost when people travel abroad. One not
So they will have to give back ... (Score:2)
... my hundreds of a gigabytes of random bits I've been collecting?
The big broown truck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ship your "good" machine in and out of the USA and use a disposable to watch movies in flight.
What should we think that they don't hold and search a laptop just because it's shipped instead of carried on board?
Note to self: buy another laptop (Score:2)
I wonder what software they use to scour the machines they investigate? Or is it
Re: (Score:2)
Who in their right mind lets a "production" machine out of the building? Production machine stays put. Travel with a secondary notebook or better yet
a low cost netbook. (Best use yet for netbooks,, cheap throw aways).
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. My laptop has no data on it, and with rare and temporary exceptions, it will stay that way. All data is in boxes that stay in secured areas, which I access via encrypted VPN.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Make backup of laptop prior to travelling. Store "working" backup image at home on your main workstation.
2. Mindwipe the drive (zero it with formatting software particular to the drive - WD offers "Data Lifeguard Diagnostic", Seagate offers "Seatools")
3. Restore a pre-built image of the drive with only the software you need to do your work, including software to securely remote to your desktop at work (where the real work files are located.)
4. Pack laptop, backup software, and copy of factory image
5
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about? Think of the children.
Once it's out of your hands, I think the only safe course of action is to assume that they've made a bit-for-bit copy of the drive and installed a persistent, impossible-to-detect back door. Chances are slim that they're actually doing this, but the technology exists and since there is no way for you to know that this didn't happen I think you need to assume that it did. The costs of transmitting and storing the contents of
Five Days? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless there are nuclear bomb plans on the desktop, why would we be holding these devices for any days? Why are searching people's data anyways, when any serious criminal could simply upload their data to a server, drop it in a Dropbox account, or just encrypt it before crossing the border?
We need to be encouraging tourism and business travelers, not pulling this crap.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unless there are nuclear bomb plans on the desktop, why would we be holding these devices for any days? Why are searching people's data anyways, when any serious criminal could simply upload their data to a server, drop it in a Dropbox account, or just encrypt it before crossing the border?
We need to be encouraging tourism and business travelers, not pulling this crap.
DHS isn't about criminals, it's about gaining more control over normal people.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are searching people's data anyways
because they can? because they want to? because its a fishing expedition. they MIGHT come up with a goldmine.
or, they wont; and they'll simply trample on the most basic right to privacy, left and right, until we demand they stop.
btw, 'we' is not really we; its someone in power who finally gets personally pissed off enough by this that he does something. until the ruling class object to this, it will continue to be a personal invasion.
we know there's no good reason
What if I refuse to reveal a password? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
copy of information (Score:2)
They're welcome to hang only my truecrypt volume as long as they like.
5th Amendment FTW
Re: (Score:2)
They're welcome to hang only my truecrypt volume as long as they like.
5th Amendment FTW
They won't have to. They politely ask you for the password to proceed with their inspection and when you politely decline, they politely inform you that you cannot board the plane until you do.
Can you install a kill switch on a laptop? (Score:2)
They can't take something that looks like a laptop but is in reality a paper weight, right? So if I have a kill switch that makes the laptop not work what are they going to do? They would probably still take it but if they can't BOOT the thing... if it doesn't even work... what can they do?
Madmax had his kill switch tied to explosives... but I guess that would be a "no no".
Re: (Score:2)
What if it's legitimately broken? I was carrying one of those through airport security once -- what happens if they say "Boot it" and you say "can't, the PSU is fried"?
Destroyed (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
The U.S is fast becoming a
Can still smuggle covert data into the US... (Score:2)
Even if there *were* something nefarious someone could do with a few million bits on a computer, this sort of thing won't stop them.
If I want to get into the US with the Blueprints for the Big Terrorist Plot, all I have to do is encrypt them and upload them somewhere (terrorists can use gmail too!), come into the US with a machine with nothing on it, then get inside and download it again.
Flash memory cards have gotten big enough that you can store practically anything you want on one of them. What's to stop
Re: (Score:2)
They should ask for RFC3514 [faqs.org] compliance from hardware and OS manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. I've never used microSD for anything, so I have no idea how much you can store on it. My mom's camera takes SD and mine takes CF, so I'm familiar with those formats.
Pfew... (Score:3, Interesting)
That will really help. Terrorism is always a legal reason; and nowadays even thought-crime is being used as a reason to imprison people (yes! see gitmo). They have no business with my private information. No matter if those are love letters or plans for a bomb of some type. I will crypt the data. You copy the data, but I get to keep the hardware, right? Why can't they publicise it that way? Why the delay of five days? It is an ineffective policy and an ineffective change. They still pester people for no reason.
I used to be all for the Law Enforcement, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lost in this whole discussion with Homeland Security -- is how do we make sure the people watching us, aren't the problem?
It's been almost a decade now, that I've felt that there was NO OVERSIGHT on people with power, and of course, we only put on trial the few bad apples that are disposable. But if we cannot have anyone at the Fed accountable for destroying the economy, if we can't have anyone at the Pentagon accountable for absolute failure on 9/11 and then LOSING $2 Trillion dollars that seemed to miss the headlines on 9/12, what the heck is the point of sniffing up every business man's trousers --- if they are REAL bad guys, they might just be working for Homeland Security.
Did anyone investigate why Homeland Security was funding the CIA's "Prostitutes and Poker" scandal at the Watergate Hotel? Did someone just declare "bygones" and we all forgot about it?
There is no transparency and accountability in regards to abuse. For all we know, HS could copy the hard drive of someone from GM and give the data to someone at GE for a great price. The risk/reward for corporate espionage when NOBODY IS WATCHING THE WATCHERS -- well, corruption is inevitable.
I might have some trust in Homeland Security, if they spent less time looking for dirty pictures and downloaded music files and a LOT MORE TIME, looking into things like the Sibel Edmonds testimony: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7374 [bradblog.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, what are we supposed to do? Take up arms? everyone else is giving up this liberty, and so far my best solution is "protest by excessive compliance." I.e. going through security in nothing but your skivvies and a pair of giant fuzzy bunny slippers. (and tank top, if you plan on using an airport restaurant later on.), A clear plastic suitcase, only thick enough for one layer of clothes, so you obviously aren't hiding anything, And all your important account numbers bar coded and face-painted on your
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for inspecting laptops on the border, if I need to smuggle some info in or out of the country I'd do it over the Internet. Faster, cheaper, more secure,
Re:Idiots are only slightly smarter (Score:5, Insightful)
They've already ruled that copying is stealing. Funny how that only applies to us...
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean that this is completely ok. It just means that it has ample precedent to not being un-c