Tor Developer Detained At US Border, Pressed On Wikileaks 637
suraj.sun writes with this news from CNET: "A security researcher involved with the Wikileaks Web site — Jacob Appelbaum, a Seattle-based programmer for the online privacy protection project called Tor — was detained by US agents at the border for three hours and questioned about the controversial whistleblower project as he entered the country on Thursday to attend a hacker conference. He was also approached by two FBI agents at the Defcon conference after his presentation on Saturday afternoon about the Tor Project. Appelbaum, a US citizen, arrived at the Newark, New Jersey, airport from Holland Thursday morning, was taken into a room, frisked and his bag was searched. Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained. They asked questions about Wikileaks, asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is, but he declined to comment without a lawyer present, according to the sources. He was not permitted to make a phone call, they said." Appelbaum told me that he just spoke at length with The New York Times, and quipped that his Defcon talk about Tor was "just fine, until the FBI showed up"; this post will likely be updated with more details.
Update: 08/02 03:59 GMT by T : Here's the NYT's coverage.
The horror (Score:5, Interesting)
Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.
Some of the most horrific words the war on terror has produced.
*shudders*
Re:UFFSA (Score:2, Interesting)
His business partner posted classified documents to the web. They asked about that. according to the summary he was told he was being detained, but not arrested. They have the right to ask those questions because a close associate committed a crime.
Tell me, if your robbed and your stuff is traced back to a house with two occupants; one who the police are pretty sure did it, and the other who they don't think did it, but don't know. According to your logic they shouldn't be able to talk tot he second one. Are you really sure that's the argument you want to make?
"Detained" (Score:5, Interesting)
He is an American citizen, so there isn't an Immigration issue here. So the only thing left for "detaining" is Customs while they go through his stuff. Well, they can do that.
The article actually does say the "detaining" was him waiting for customs to search his bags, laptop, and cell phones (one of which they "seized").
What does not seem normal is the Army being there. He is not a combatent. He is a US Citizen. I do not see how the Army can tell him he is "detained."
POV (Score:1, Interesting)
That's just your point of view, and the point of view of the invaders to that nation. To a lot of people there, those are traitors, quislings...and that is even if these wikileak documents aren't disinformation, another of their bogus false flag ops.
And in my opinion, anyone who believes the government whackjob nutcase conspiracy theory about 9-11 is a drool. Why anyone would believe a source like the US government, which routinely lies about most everything, especially very important things, is beyond me.
Re:UFFSA (Score:5, Interesting)
But how many countries *routinely* detain people for that amount of time for no reason at all? I have traveled to something like 50 or 60 countries, including some of the last remaining communist ones and I never experienced anything like what I have experienced trying to enter or leave my own country: The People's Republic of North America.
Re:UFFSA (Score:5, Interesting)
3 minutes isn't reasonable if there is no evidence of a crime. And what the hell is "detained"? If they don't arrest you should be able to go your own way.
You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your rights from them; you give them permission rule, only so long as they follow the rules: laws and constitution.
And name calling never made an argument more persuasive.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Goes with the job (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's an obvious ploy to get him to start talking. More obvious is the line about "human rights being trampled". Once he starts talking the hope is he'll spill some information the FBI doesn't already know. Many people fall for this kind if thing as it appeals to their ego. Appelbaum is obviously smart enough to realize there's really nothing for him to gain by talking to the FBI, and only things to lose.
Re:UFFSA (Score:1, Interesting)
The crime? Possible involvement in esponiage. Possible treason for supplying classified information to foreign enemies.
....Then you gather evidence then prosecute/arrest the "suspect", . Abusing the border interrogation system in order to obtain pressured information from an American citizen is way messed up. If there is a crime, arrest. Otherwise screw off.
Re:UFFSA (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait.. WHAT??
If they want answers to such trivial things they can start by giving him a call or write an e-mail (or try google...) - detaining someone against their will for 3 hours to "learn" is by no means acceptable.
Re:arrested/detained? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're both wrong, so we should abolish it. FDR used it in a case against 8 men (Ex parte Quirin). Bush used it against some 775 detainees at Guantanamo and unknown others. So, we can say that Bush is approximately 100-fold more in the wrong than FDR was.
Also, Bush expanded the meaning and use of the term (to automatically include anyone in the Taliban or al Qaida, regardless of actions) in his November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism".
So again: We should abolish it. As has been indicated under the Obama administration in a statement by Attorney General Eric Holder on March 13, 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant [wikipedia.org]
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:arrested/detained? (Score:3, Interesting)
So which constitutional rights do you have? Which laws apply? It was said he came from Holland, do Dutch laws apply?
It seems weird that having just landed, you do not benefit from any protection, and they are free to do as they will. How come that US law applies to a plane that flies around the planet, having departed the US, until it hits the ground in another country, but the other way around doesn't work?
So effectively, until the plane lands in the US, it is still under Dutch law, but not yet under US law? Where is the coherence in this?
Would someone who is enlightened enough please explain?
PS: I'm a security consultant, and have been quizzed quite a few times by US border, but also in the Ukraine, Australia, and where not. It never went very far, usually just being asked if I had any hardware that needed to be declared, and people asking information about the smart cards they were using.
Re:UFFSA (Score:2, Interesting)
IAAL but IANAIL (Score:5, Interesting)
(I am a lawyer but I am not an immigration lawyer)
Immigration law "airside" is complex. You are right to say that you are not yet on USA soil. However, that doesn't mean that the agents are entitled to act without limit. Their actions can still be reviewed by a court, and they cannot act beyond the powers given to them. For example, they are undoubtedly empowered to detain a person where necessary to determine their immigration status (for example, they suspect a US passport may be forged). However, the power to detain is also going to have limits. For example, an agent who detained an individual because they were wearing a hat from a rival baseball team may well be exceeding their powers, and that decision could be found illegal on review.
So, as the above poster mentioned, if they had a "hunch" that the person was entering illegally, then they may well be allowed to detain them. But this hunch seems based on the idea that the person might be involved with a criminal activity. Are the Border Patrol entitled to decline entry/detain a US citizen suspected of crime? I don't know. And what empowered US Army representatives to speak to the man? Again, I'm unclear. If Border Patrol were done with him, and they detained him to enable Army reps to speak to him, they would, possibly be using their powers for a purpose not authorised by the empowering instruments.
I would be very interested to hear exactly what grounds the individual was detained under, and whether it was within the scope of the empowering instrument. I suspect that this may have been pushing the boundaries, but without knowing the laws I can't possibly say for sure.
I look forward to being corrected by anyone with more knowledge than me.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?)
That's a great example, some time later in court:
officer: "the defendant as per his own admission was the last person to see the late Mr. Dorm A"
you: "what just happened?!"
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:3, Interesting)
What IS The Law? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can someone (who knows what the hell they're talking about, and can give cites) please tell us what the actual Federal law is that controls this situation.
Because I tell ya what, folks: some son of a bitch detains ME and they got some 'splainin' to do!
"Am I under arrest?"
"No? Then shoot me, mother f*cker, or get out of the way."
And I'm headed for the door. And ANYONE who lays a hand on me is guilty of assault, and I plan to protect myself.
Screw it; my retirement pay comes in whether I'm in jail or not.
Toad
Re:So what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's more worrying than the detention etc.
Why? A crime occured... classified documents were given to unauthorized group, and the government is looking for both who leaked them, and who helped the leaker get the classified documents out. Asking him his opinions on the wars... a prime motivation for the leakers, almost certainly, is no different from investigators asking a suspect opinions like "Do you think the victim deserved it?"... it's all about building a case and establishing motivation. There is absolutely nothing unusual about this. Investigators and prosecuters have been doing it as long as there have been investigators and prosecutors. There's nothing unconstitutional about it all. After all, you DO have the right to remain silent. If you don't, that's your business.
BTW, how is what the leakers did any different than people that gave classified docs to the Soviets and Chinese? Motivation? It's the same motivation. My government is wrong, and the best way to change that is to help their enemies. Here's a bag of classified documents.
Assange is a little different, as he's a foreigner on something of a crusade against "American Imperialism", but Bradley Manning is no different from the couple that were just sentenced to prison for shoveling classified info to Castro for years.
Re:of course (Score:4, Interesting)
As a citizen of the United States?
Wow, I can't imagine what would have happened if he hadn't been a citizen of the United States...
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?)
If you had bothered to watch the youtube video, the Law Professor describes a story about a guy getting jailed for answering such "friendly" questions. How? He said he has no idea who the criminal was, was nowhere near the crime, but had no alibis to prove it, so the cops locked him up. Then they found some woman to testify that they saw that guy at the crime scene, and he was found guilty in court.
You should also watch the recent Penn & Teller episode about Criminal Justice. A black man was imprisoned for 35 years for a crime he never committed. He too had made the mistake of cooperating with police, and they rewarded him by taking away half his life. He was released when DNA evidence showed that the "criminal's blood" on the knife did not match his blood.
Don't Talk To Cops. Ever.
You'll just framed, even if you're innocent.
"You have the right to remain silent..." - US Supreme Court
Re:Well, good (Score:1, Interesting)
Some of the TOR (The Onion Router) development itself was initially funded by US Naval Intelligence, yes.
Bullshit. (Score:4, Interesting)
If our country wasn't randomly bombing the shit out of all manner of other people, and actually keeping an informed and healthy electorate whose votes were actually counted, we wouldn't need a system.
This country has been sliding deeper into fascism since JFK was shot in the face. We need a system now because the evil corporations who control everything (news, transport, government, education, food) are doing evil things that honest and decent people are definitely considering fighting with violence.
You may call George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin terrorists, but they were fighting tyranny, and as such were heroes. Just as anyone currently fighting the US government and it's corporate oligarchy is also a hero. I myself will fight any maniacal fascism with such a "system". I would do that because I believe in the Bill of Rights. I believe that all men are created equally, and I believe that the rights of individual people supersede the rights of corporations to continue to profit while murdering as many living things (people included) as possible.
Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure have, in fact I wrote the Wikipedia article on it. Where does it state that you can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen?
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Interesting)
The first terrorist bombing in NYC occurred on September 16, 1920 on the corner of Wall Street and Broad Street. It was a "horse drawn wagon bomb" which instantly killed 38 people and seriously wounded 400 more (which given it was 1920 probably meant they just died slower). If you go to the JP Morgan building you can still see the holes the dynamite propelled metal shrapnel tore in the building, they never repaired it.
At the time they handled it as a crime, nothing more, despite the fact that political pamphlets calling for the release of political prisoners were found nearby and the bombing was believed to have been tied to a group which had been distributing letter bombs to politicians for at least a year prior. They didn't go to "war on terror". They didn't use the incident to justify flagrantly violating the constitution. Imagine if they had though. What sort of country would we live in now if they had?
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Proper vehicle maintenance avoids #1 and #4 entirely.
#2 - ignore them and continue about your business. You have no obligation to speak with them.
#3 - you should have turned off when you saw them turning everyone else away, or when you saw that they had the road blocked.
There's no reason to invite unnecessary contact with anyone wearing a badge. Unless you like being detained and having your vehicle and/or person searched.
I'll admit I'm very biased against police -- I've spent far too long in areas with small-town police departments where corruption is the norm. But as a result, I don't give a damn if the two guys in ski masks just robbed my bank's local branch while I was in the parking lot, I'm not saying a damned thing to the police.
Maybe things are better in larger cities, but having seen the news, I doubt it.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't agree with it in the least, and hate the fact that the Federal Govt. thinks they can just stop people driving around in their own country for no other reason than to ask us if we're citizens.
This is the very essence of the whole "papers please" issue. I don't care what the justification is. Being subject to random stops to be questioned by LEOs is one of the defining characteristics of a police state. It's scary that the majority of our elected officials seem to be in support of this sort of thing. I mean, being stopped and asked if you are a citizen. It really is like something from the old USSR. I am convinced that eventually the majority of Americans will decide in favor of safety over freedom. This is only the beginning.