Appeals Court Affirms Warrantless Computer Searches 390
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from ComputerWorld:
"Laptop computers and other digital devices carried into the US may be seized from travelers without a warrant and sent to a secondary site for forensic inspection, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last week. The ruling is the second in less than a year that allows the US government to conduct warrantless, offsite searches of digital devices seized at the country's borders. A federal court in Michigan last May issued a similar ruling in a case challenging the constitutionality of the warrantless seizure of a computer at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Several other courts, including the Ninth Circuit itself, have ruled that warrantless, suspicion-less searches of laptops and other digital devices can take place at US border locations."
"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:5, Interesting)
"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy
"We had your laptop searched for no reason, we never suspected you of doing anything wrong..."
This way, nobody could ever complain of discriminatory treatment based on race, nationality, religion, etc.
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:4, Interesting)
Detroit is in the Constitution-Free Zone [aclu.org], so this isn't much of a surprise. It's sad what we threw away in the War on Drugs, and will of course perpetuate in the Wars on Whatever's Handy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:4, Informative)
It gives no information.
This does:
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone
Basically, 99% of Californians are considered to be living "on the border", which is crazy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:4, Insightful)
It's crazy on several levels.
First, the actual border between the U.S. and international waters is several miles out. The place where water meets shore is not actually the border.
Second, people living "on the coast" aren't literally on the coast, they are unambiguously on the U.S. side of the border, but "on" in that context means "adjacent to". So it's basically a pun on two different uses of the word "on".
Third and most ridiculously, the definition of border they are using includes being 50 miles from the border!
So even if we took the actual land/water line to be the border, and accepted the metaphorical usage of "on" in the phrase "I live on the coast in California".... If you were living 50 miles away from the coast, you wouldn't say "I live on the coast"! You'd say "I live an hour away from the coast."
That's why it's crazy.
Re: (Score:3)
Right. It's 12 nautical miles (22 km). [wikipedia.org] If my imaginary geography of California is correct, the 12nm of the east side of that 100 mile strip is largely unpopulated coastal mountain region, thus having no large effect on the number of people in the "constitutionless" zone.
Second, people living "on the coast" aren't literally on the coast, they are unambiguo
Re: (Score:3)
The US border patrol operates fixed and roving checkpoints as much as 100 miles from the nearest border, even on roads that do not cross the border. The fact that you are unambiguously on the U.S. side of the border is irrelevant. You can still be searched and your stuff seized without warrant and now without suspicion.
I know, I've gone through those checkpoints. It's irrelevant to them that I'm not actually at the border because they're using a crazy definition of "border", but it's very relevant to the Constitutional issues. That's the whole fucking point!
Re: (Score:3)
They wouldn't say that anymore if Chicago tried to apply city-tax to their income.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They would almost certainly say that the 4th amendment was not intended to apply to traffic across the national boundary
Kind of funny that they didn't, then.
That's not the good link! (Score:5, Informative)
This is the one to ram the point home!
http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map [aclu.org]
live in the orange? then this story applies to you!
they can search whatever the hell they want if you live there.
no warrant
no recourse
Re: (Score:3)
http://bit.ly/100MILES [bit.ly]
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I the only one who wants the ACLU to publish a map of the revised US map, if you remove the parts that aren't covered by the US Constitution
Re: (Score:3)
And flag, blacking out the affected stars and what stripes correspond to affected states and original 13 colonies respectively. Or make the stars look like cigar burns and the stripes like ash.
Re: (Score:3)
Based on the treatment of Wikileaks, the US citizens accused of terrorism, police spying on purely political organizations, etc, etc, it looks like their website already has such a map here [aclu.org].
Also consider that an international airport qualifies as a border for customs and immigration purposes, so presumably the next argument will be that arbitrary searches are allowed within 100 miles of one.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, posting the map alone is rather nonsense. If I remember correctly, it's the zone US custom says they can still halt you and search your luggage and vehicle for customs, without any warrant, or at least the ACLU's interpretation of it.
In practice, I suspect it's 100 miles from a land border - not the whole west and east coast - and they will probably have seen you cross the border and sent a patrol out to search you. But in a literal reading of the law, neither is a requirement. In principle they can s
Re: (Score:3)
What does not make sense to me in that map is that Chicago is considered "on the border" Last time I looked, the Southern tip of Lake Michigan is nowhere near a border.
No, you see it. (Score:2)
There are no rights in those zones. Those zones will be growing to encompass the entire country, soon.
What we need is a Consitutional ammendment on this (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering the way the government is behaving today and the way the courts are acting, I don't think anything short of a Constitutional amendment is going to protect our property against unreasonable searches and seizures. But something like that would probably never get the 2/3 majority it would need in Congress.
Re:What we need is a Consitutional ammendment on t (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would a new amendment make any more difference than the ones we already have?
Re: (Score:3)
Great idea!
I would propose maybe the following wording:
Re: (Score:3)
The current wording of the 4th Amendment SHOULD already protect us from these kinds of searches/seizures. The government is simply ignoring it, and We The People are allowing it to happen.
Funny what people will give up when they're scared.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect you were going for the dramatic effect of interpretation and not following any logic put forth by the amendment or courts in the rulings.
This matter has been settled fact in the courts for years before your father's father was even a gleam in hit's father's father's eye. The constitution protects you from unreasonable searches, not all searches. It does prescribe a way to get searched, but does not forbid reasonable searches.
The Very first congress of this nation passed a law allowing the unwarranted searches at borders. This was challenged in court some years later and the courts said that the right of sovereignty made it reasonable to search people and their things at the borders. This meant that the 4th amendment was not violated in these border searches. The only thing that has changed since then is the placement of the border and how wide it seems to be when concerning these searches.
A new amendment disallowing all searches or defining a border search would be followed and would be different. But they are not ignoring the existing constitution in this regard..
I agree with the first congress that searches and seizures at the border are "reasonable". I just don't agree with the "border" extending 100 miles inland, as the ACLU claims.
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad what we threw away in the War on Drugs
Yeah, such as a snowball's chance in hell of solving any drug problems.
Imprisoning a million people for non-violent offences and turning them into hardened criminals isn't exactly the greatest crime-fighting strategy ever devised. Especially when it costs 55,000 USD per person per year. But then why bother trying to improve recividism rates when, with privatised prisons, you have a financial incentive to keep as many people in prison as possible?
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:4)
If a police officer has probable cause [wikimedia.org] to believe a crime is being committed, he doesn't need a warrant to intervene. The standard of evicence for probable cause is usually par with what would be needed to actually get a warrant, but does not actually require you go through the hoops to actually secure a warrant. It's usually used in cases where getting a warrant would mean enough time lapsing that the suspect could escape, but could easily be extended to the example in TFA.
You or I probably have nothing to worry about from such a search. I'd be seriously miffed if they decided to take my laptop away for "search", but it wouldn't really cause me any concern at losing my data, as there isn't anything on my laptop that isn't replaceable, and I'm due for buying a new one anyway... when they find nothing incriminating on my laptop I could easily file suit and have them contribute to the cost of a new one. That said, I've crossed the US border from Canada dozens of times, and have never been asked to do more than turn my laptop on. Usually, not even that, they just wave the wand over it to sniff for bombs, x-ray it, and send me on my way. They have never wanted to snoop around my home directory, and even if they did I wouldn't have a problem with that... all of my private files and sensitive information is stored on a fileserver at home (that I can access via VPN if I really need to when I'm on the road), and all they'd find in my "Documents" directory are programs I've downloaded from the web (Firefox, GIMP), savegames from Dragon Age and Civilization, and I think there's probably a couple of lolcat pictures in there that I've been lazy about deleting.
Your body language is a major deciding factor at border crossings, btw. If you're cagey or sketchey in answering the questions of the border guard, that's going to set off some major alarms. I'm usually a very tired person when I cross the border, because I usually take off-hours flights, either a red eye or an early morning departure, and that probably reflects with the border guards. Couple that with the fact that I'm female, have past military experience, and have current military and civilian clearances (all of which probably comes up when they scan my passport), and I'm probably put into a very low risk category for doing something nefarious on a plane. I still have problems with those damned backscatter xray machines though.
Sex offenders: the new jews? (Score:5, Insightful)
WHOAH, how is that fact even relevant? Even convicted criminals have civil rights. Just because you find this guy personally repugnant doesn't mean that he isn't a person under the constitution.
Replace 'sex offender' with the word 'jew' and try to repeat your statement without sounding like a Nazi. Go on, I dare you.
Re:Sex offenders: the new jews? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it's not like anyone would ever force Jewish people to be tatoo'd with an identification number or anything...
-Rick
Re: (Score:3)
"registry itself exists to protect people by making it easier to track potential re-offenders"
Not that there is much evidence to suggest that it actually increases safety to any appreciable extent, or is a cost effective way to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
They came for {group} and I did not speak out, because I was not a {group}, then they came for me and there was no one
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:5, Informative)
I believe TFA makes it pretty clear that "the border search doctrine allows such actions even without reasonable suspicion or cause".
So, the ruling says that despite the fact that "this wasn't some joe-blow they picked at random", it could be ... and it would be equally valid.
Don't try to kid yourself that only when they have some suspicion or information ... it upholds the notion of suspicion-less searches. Meaning, anyone, any time, for no reason and without justification.
Look past the fact that this particular guy was a sex offender ... the ruling does. The scope of this is far broader than just that.
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:5, Insightful)
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER
What kind I wonder? The term has been diluted to meaninglessness by systematic abuse.
- Guy who sent nude pictures to their girlfriend before they were 18?
- Guy who called a coworker a stupid cunt?
- Guy who downloaded bad drawings from the Internet?
- Guy who downloaded bad pictures from the Internet?
- Guy who flashed children?
- Guy who raped children?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:4, Informative)
and don't forget the ever popular "Guy who peed outdoors"
Re: (Score:3)
winning the war on tourism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:winning the war on tourism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Similar situation south of the border. I hate being sent on business travels to a country that hates my people an treats me like a coke dealer and reserves the right to look at my junk on a whim. So I refuse to carry my own equipment there, insisting on my boss providing equipment on arrival. It works because company laptops aren't personally assigned.
Re: (Score:2)
Harpertroll is trolling
Re:winning the war on tourism (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, if it weren't for Jean Chretien more or less giving the finger to the U.S. after 9/11, Canadians at least would still be able to cross the border relatively hassle-free.
JTF2 was in Afghanistan before anyone but the CIA. How exactly is that "giving the finger to the US"? Or do you just like using abstract, metaphorical claims to hide the absence of factual content behind your position?
Chretien declined to get Canada involved in Iraq, showing more sense and guts than many other Western leaders. Given how close our ties are to the US it was a damned gutsy move, and most Canadians are deeply grateful for it.
For Better or for worse (Score:2)
How does this differ from warrant-less searches of anything else when crossing US Borders (pockets, glove box, trunk, luggage, etc)?
Re: (Score:2)
Does this bother any other travellers? (Score:4, Interesting)
I travel with a laptop for remote access to business stuff, even on holidays (emergencies only, of course). Because of travel to the USA I've specifically bought a EEE that could be confiscated without too much out of pocket expense, but it's a real pain to operate some things on the tiny 10" screen instead of my purpose-bought Dell.
Does this seriously bother any other /.-ers? Having to double my personal hardware just to accommodate US travel is a pain in the ass for the overwhelming number of legitimate travelers, and there's nothing that couldn't get-into/leave the country via the internet anyway. Seems like there's no benefit at all to this nonsense.
-Matt
Re:Does this bother any other travellers? (Score:4, Insightful)
I travel internationally frequently on business as do many of my friends and colleges. Of the over 50 total trips I'm aware of my circle of acquaintances taking, never once has anyone been stopped for a warrantless computer search. While there are certainly personal liberty concerns related to presumption of guilt/innocence or guilt by association, the practical reality is that unless you're a friend of Julian Assange, you're not likely to ever encounter this.
And even this friend of Julian Assange was not forced to divulge his encryption key and had his laptop returned. (http://randomchaos.us/hacking/another-hacker%E2%80%99s-laptop-cell-phones-searched-at-border.html)
So if you are concerned about the potential of these searches, encryption may be a more practical way to feel safer.
Re:Does this bother any other travellers? (Score:4, Informative)
"So if you are concerned about the potential of these searches, encryption may be a more practical way to feel safer."
I'm sure an American Muslim traveling on business with his company's confidential data, encrypted to prevent corporate espionage, feels oh so safe and unlikely to be inconvenienced by a search.
Re: (Score:3)
While there are certainly personal liberty concerns related to presumption of guilt/innocence or guilt by association, the practical reality is that unless you're a friend of Julian Assange, you're not likely to ever encounter this.
Or you look Muslim. Or you just happen to be someone who pissed off a border agent or TSA guard. Maybe in practice it doesn't hit you personally, but when it comes to civil liberties an encroachment on anybody is an encroachment on everybody.
It's worth noting that the uproar about the backscatter machines really started when wealthier white guys started getting the same sort of degrading treatment that non-white travelers had been getting for years. I certainly noticed the last time I flew anywhere (which w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just have it shipped to your hotel before you arrive. Notify the hotel to expect a package and hold it for you and you shouldn't have a problem. Which, of course, just goes to show what a ridiculous piece of security theater the whole thing is.
Re: (Score:3)
If they're consistent, that also allows warrantless searches of any postal package - and I think they do. Happened to me once here in Norway, the package had a nice sticker saying opened by customs.
The best option is just to have a clean machine and download everything over the Internet. Last I checked there was no such thing as digital customs. Security theater doesn't even being to cover how silly this is.
Re: (Score:2)
Shout it to the heavens (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering I live ~1.5hrs from 3 major US border points, 2hrs from 5 border points. I consider the entire thing useless, including one point that is unmanned. Traveling to the US is a pain in the ass, I haven't done it in nearly 3 years. Hell traveling to asia and europe is easier. If they don't want my business, or my tourist money that's fine. Because Japan does even if they require biometric data upon entering.
whyyyyy? (Score:2)
can someone explain what justification they are offering for this decision? besides what seems to be the only obvious answer of simply allowing the law enforcement to do whatever they please?
Re: (Score:2)
As someone else above mentioned it's about this: Constitution Free Zone [aclu.org]. They are basically validating that the Constitution Free Zone pertains to computers/data just as much as it pertains to your pockets, bag, car trunk, etc.
Mind, I don't agree with it and never have but there is a lot of precedence for this. I'd like to see the whole shebang overturned but we're definitely only going to see the digital aspect of it get worse unless all this "close to the border" BS is completely overturned.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing the justification would be that inspecting your data is merely the electronic equivalent of searching your possessions and your person.
It is an interesting question: what is the legal status of your data? Is it your "possession"? Can having certain types of data be considered an illegal act? Can possession of data make one dangerous to others?
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, the official list will have stuff like "obscene materials" (child porn), terrorist activities, and the like.
A reason you won't see is "we want your corporate secrets". Industrial espionage - nothing's better than seeing a competitor crossing hte border, seizing his laptop and sending it off the American company
Re: (Score:2)
can someone explain what justification they are offering for this decision? besides what seems to be the only obvious answer of simply allowing the law enforcement to do whatever they please?
Won't somebody think of the children? Law enforcement needs to be able to stop people from importing kitty porn into the states at the border! Because obviously there is no other way to get data into the US than hand carrying it on a laptop! If you are against having your laptop arbitrarily taken away from you at the border, then you must be in favor of child pornography, you pervert!
Anecdote (Score:3, Interesting)
So, basically (Score:2)
If you have to travel outside the US, make use of FTP, webmail, etc to move your sensitive data. And own a cheapass laptop that you don't mind getting confiscated.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to travel outside the US, make use of FTP, webmail, etc to move your sensitive data.
Yeah, cause that's secure.
If this is Constitutional... (Score:3)
Then the Constitution needs to be fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, it's not, but the Constitution has been deemed a threat to national security and as such has been demoted in level of importance.
Re: (Score:2)
I think your/their constitution has been "fixed" a few too many times already.
you know what the problem is? (Score:2)
The problem is people who are still prepared to travel to the USA. You are the ones making this acceptable. You are the ones happy to bring your productivity and your coin into a country which should be ostracised until it stops treating visitors as criminals and returns to something resembling reasonable.
I gave up my business interests in the US following their slow bastardisation of the notion of rights after 2001. I made a personal loss, but I feel all the more human for it. And it serves its purpose. Af
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but I am. And I agree about the feel more human. Oddly, I've never felt more human since I moved to Canada from the UK. It's not perfect, but I feel I have more of a say and that the politicians are less slimy. Alas, that is changing too though :(
Hasn't this kind of search always been legal? (Score:4, Informative)
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but before we all start quoting 1984...hasn't this kind of search always been legal in the United States?
"That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration...Authorized by the First Congress (1789)"
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-04/18-border-searches.html
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but for data, it doesn't seem to make much sense since the same search doesn't occur for data that travels over the border. All I have to do is wipe my drive before I enter, then pull the data over the net later. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it makes any sense.
Well, kinda (Score:5, Informative)
So border searches have always been legal. The Supreme Court has ruled before that you've no expectation of privacy at the border, and that nations have the right to secure their borders by searches. This has been pretty uncontroversial for a long time. However the thing is these searches were for security and for preventing smuggling and the like. So what they could do (and did) was check your bags, your car, etc for contraband and/or dangerous items. Then you were on your way.
Well laptops are different and make two new problems:
1) They are actually seizing them, with no evidence of anything wrong. In past searches they could look through your stuff for any reason or no reason at all, but if everything was fine, you went on your way. With laptops they claim the right to seize them, and hold them for an indefinite period. That is real different than a search. Imagine if at the border they took your bag and said "We are going to take this off to check. We won't tell you who gets to look at it or when you can have it back. We don't have any evidence there is anything wrong, but we are taking it anyhow."
2) Computers are like journals, or other personal writings in many ways and those were not searched/copied at the border. So while they could go through your bag and look for drugs, they couldn't take your personal papers, copy them, and read through them. They weren't allowed to pry in to any and every detail of your life, just check for security reasons or smuggling reasons. You can see how a laptop, particularly one that has e-mail stored on it, would be very similar to personal papers.
That's the issue here. Nobody is saying they can't have a look at the laptop to make sure it isn't a bomb, or hasn't had its innards removed and replaced with drugs. What they are saying is they shouldn't be able to take the laptop, hold on to it for an indefinite time, copy the data, hand it out to other federal agencies and not tell you who, and so on.
Border patrol can seize your stuff. (Score:3)
That searches made at the border
The point is, that the word border is being redefined to cover places where 66% of US citizens live. Basically this means that officials can seize the personal possessions of most Americans without any legal recourse at all.
Perhaps you believe that these officials can be trusted. Perhaps that is the case today. However, there is a reason why "malfeasance" is a word in the dictionary.
Personally... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm... (Score:3)
We Lost (Score:2)
And the Terrorists WON!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
You're just getting that?
I blame Bill Clinton. If he hadn't been busy getting a blowjob from a fat chick he'd have been able to go to Afghanistan, climb up the side of a mountain with a bowie knife in his teeth, and gut that bin Laden sonofabitch while he slept.
I also blame W. Actually, I do really blame W. He did more to exacerbate the fear than he did to assuage it. And he did nothing but inflame antiamerican sentiment among Muslims and pretty much anyone else who was watching him start the Iraq war w
Slippery Slope of Convenience... (Score:2)
I don't recall the Constitution saying anything (Score:3)
about border search being different from search inside the country.
What it says is
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.
Doesn't even say "citizens". Just says "people". I.e., this whole thing about warrantless border searches is and always has been unconstitutional.
But I don't expect the Alice in Wonderland court to overturn it. They'll just point to the turtles going all the way down and say that's what they've balanced the world on, therefore one more turtle will be fine.
Ninth . . . (Score:3)
They dont call it the Ninth Circus for nothing
Re:What is the purpose exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
You would be surprised how many non-slashdotters do not think of it. Do not assume that because it is obvious to you it is to everybody.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's okay. In five years, computers will probably be shipping with full disk encryption enabled by default anyway. The risk of data theft and identity theft from unencrypted laptops walking away is simply too great.
Re:What is the purpose exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
...at which point they'll pass a law making it a crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What is the purpose exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
so? make an image, expose it to a super computer and brute force your way in. it's not like battlefield communications where real time is a big plus. in this case if it takes you a month you will still get evidence from it
Re: (Score:2)
How many laptops did you put into storage while waiting for the first to finish processing?
how many additional laptops will you put into storage waiting for all of those laptops to be processed?
Re:What is the purpose exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not always that easy. The Brazilian authorities enlisted the aid of the FBI in cracking the encryption on the hard drive of banker Daniel Dantas, who was suspected of money laundering and attempting to bribe law enforcement. Despite five months of work by Brazil and about twelve months by the FBI, they couldn't get into his drives protected by TrueCrypt using AES-256 and good, long passwords. He was eventually sentenced to ten years in prison, but only on the bribery charges. The money laundering case couldn't proceed without the data on the drives.
Re: (Score:2)
What could you possibly find on a computer that couldn't also be transfered digitally over the internet using encryption?
Cum stains.
NSA gets a copy. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Over several intermediary servers, any one of which could be compromised knowingly or unknowingly. BRILLIANT!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're traveling with a laptop, you need to have your laptop at your destination. How does full-disk encryption help when your laptop is seized and sent away for cryptanalysis?
The only thing you can do is to have a virgin OS image, show it to the border thug, and hope he doesn't want to fill out any more paperwork than necessary. Then at your destination, download your working OS image over VPN.
Of course, if your computer leaves your sight at any time, you have to assume that there's a key logger on it
Unless you're dealing with HIPAA (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Truecypt: They may suspect something's there, but
a) It's plausibly deniable due to how a Truecrypt volume masks itself
b) If you're carrying something important enough to warrant the use of the USAF PS3 cluster to try and bruteforce the encryption, and you're carrying it on your laptop, you deserve to have that encryption broken for being criminally stupid.
Re:Eh, so what.. This is what people want (Score:5, Informative)
a) It's plausibly deniable due to how a Truecrypt volume masks itself
I just wanted to point out that, while they cannot detect if a Truecrypt hidden partition exists on the system partition, they can tell that the system partition is encrypted with Truecrypt.
http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability [truecrypt.org]
also note that, for system encryption, the first drive track contains the (unencrypted) TrueCrypt Boot Loader, which can be easily identified as such
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. The header is in plain view, but anything encrypted is just random data, decrypted on-the-fly. If you have a hidden volume, there's no way to prove it exists, unless you specifically affirm its existence.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't about being stupid or careless and getting apprehended with inappropriate/illegal information.
This is about them being able to confiscate your laptop, digital camera, phone, and pretty much damned near anything ... on a whim, without suspicion, and without recourse.
Some jackass of a border guard who is having a bad day or doesn't like my haircut can decide to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...does this mean they can take all of my luggage for no reason at all?
Why not? The airlines have been doing that for years!
Re: (Score:3)
PS. In this context, and in the passing of time, we have learned
Men == Women Lets not start all that...