Device Security: How Border Searches Are Really Used 223
onehitwonder writes "Newly released documents reveal how the government uses border crossings to seize and examine travelers' electronic devices instead of obtaining a search warrant to take them, according to The New York Times' Susan Stellin. The documents reveal what had been a mostly secretive process that allows the government to create a travel alert for a person (regardless of whether they're a suspect in an investigation), then detain that individual at a border crossing and confiscate or copy any electronic devices that person is carrying. The documents come courtesy of David House, a fund-raiser for the legal defense of Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Pfc. Bradley Manning." A post at the ACLU blog (besides being free of NYT paywall headaches) gives more details, and provides handy links the documents themselves.
Any different than those other governments? (Score:3)
The documents reveal what had been a mostly secretive process that allows the government to create a travel alert for a person (regardless of whether they're a suspect in an investigation), then detain that individual at a border crossing and confiscate or copy any electronic devices that person is carrying.
Can some fella convince me that the government here, is any different as compared to those other governments?
Ohh wait, those governments are not democratic but ours is...
Re:Any different than those other governments? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ohh wait, those governments are not democratic but ours is...
No it's not. If you're only allowed to vote for 1 of 2 people that mostly agree on everything, your vote doesn't really count. If you're voting democrat or republican YOU are the problem.
Re:Any different than those other governments? (Score:5, Insightful)
voters are not the problem. the system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem.
people like you keep perpetuating the myth that american voting system matters at the national level. it does not. stop being stupid, ok? the sooner we remove this myth, the sooner we can get on with fixing THE SYSTEM.
voters are not the main problem. we'll always have idiots who vote against their own best interests, but the last few cycles, D or R would not have mattered one bit when it comes to privacy and removing PATRIOT (etc).
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things the parties do cooperate in is making sure that no third party ever gets influential enough to threaten the duopoly at the federal level. They keep campaign spending high to maintain a financial barrier entry, and make sure that there is no media coverage for competitors by shunning any media organisation that acknowledges third parties or independents exist.
3rd parties are viable -- see 1992. (Score:2)
One of the things the parties do cooperate in is making sure that no third party ever gets influential enough to threaten the duopoly at the federal level. They keep campaign spending high to maintain a financial barrier entry, and make sure that there is no media coverage for competitors by shunning any media organisation that acknowledges third parties or independents exist.
The R and D parties do no such thing. Voters do this. When voters have shown sufficient interest in a 3rd party candidate the media gives that 3rd party candidate coverage and access. In 1992 Ross Perot was leading the presidential race at one point with 39% of likely voters, an 8% lead over incumbent George Bush and a 14% lead over Bill Clinton. He not only participated in the debates but was considered by many in the media to have won the first debate. After a severely f'ed up campaign he still received 1
Re: (Score:2)
Perot solved the spending problem by throwing his own wealth into the campaign - no-one not a billionaire could hope to do what he did.
Donald Trump proves its more than money ... (Score:2)
Perot solved the spending problem by throwing his own wealth into the campaign - no-one not a billionaire could hope to do what he did.
Perot's wealth may have jump started his campaign but it was his message and how it was received by the voters that made him a viable candidate. With today's social media it is easier than ever for a 3rd party to get his candidacy off the ground. Recent 3rd party candidates have failed because of their message, it didn't connect with many voters. Unlike Perot who had a message that initially connected with voters on a very large scale.
If it were merely a question of money Donald Trump would have been a v
Re: (Score:2)
It should be noted that Obama rejected Federal Matching Funds in order to be free of spending limits, and spent rather more than $1 billion dollar per election.
Which at least implies the possibility that someone "not a billionaire" could manage, since Obama wasn't, and did.
As to whether a third-party candidate could or not, guess it depends on how good he is at fund-raisin
Re: (Score:2)
As to whether a third-party candidate could or not, guess it depends on how good he is at fund-raising.
Social media has changed things in this area. If a good 3rd party candidate with a good message appears he/she will find raising money far easier than any 3rd party predecessor. Again, its up to voters and only voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ that was 20 years ago. That's literally a new generation of voters now. And don't know you 9-11 changed everything?
And 20 years ago people were saying the same thing as today. That the Republicans and Democrats and media prevent 3rd parties from getting any traction. Those people were wrong back then and those continuing to say so are wrong today. Its all about a candidate's ideas connecting with the voters. Perot made the connection, Nader and others did not.
Re: (Score:2)
And the last hundred years of Political Science has said that it is the electoral system itself that prevents 3rd parties from getting any traction.
Its a 100 years of 3rd parties with poor candidates and poor messages combined with 100 years of voter party loyalty. People just want an excuse for why **their** favorite 3rd party candidate failed so they blame the system. The truth is that its a failing of candidates and voters. The system is still one person one vote.
Re: (Score:2)
The R and D parties do no such thing.
You're obviously ignorant of their role in excluding third parties from presidential debates via the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Wrong. Third parties are not excluded. Candidates polling less than 15% are excluded. The likely voters are excluding the candidate not the R and D parties. Today with social media that 15% barrier is a far easier hurdle than it used to be.
If you want to criticize someone pick the correct entity, the complacent voters who are loyal to their parties. People like to falsely blame the R and D parties, the electoral college, billionaires, corporation, etc because people don't want to admit the simple truth.
Re: (Score:2)
He not only participated in the debates
He participated in the 1992 debates, but was not allowed to participate in the 1996 debates.
Yes, in 1992 people did not know he was a nutcase. In 1996 they did. Perot self destructed personally and politically after the 1992 debates. In 1996 he did not have the sort of support he did in 1992. Likely voters abandoned Perot, nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
This is completely beside the point (although true). The problem is that the voting system allows for such a thing to happen. Ever wondered why no European democracy has a two-party state? Well, they have sane voting laws. First past the post system without runnofs is just insane. Gerrymandering, electoral college, come on. Once the US was an inspiration to every democracy in the world. Now it has become a laughing matter.
Re: (Score:2)
voters are not the problem. the system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem.
To a certain degree, this is correct; look at how hard many groups and organizations worked to keep Ron Paul off the ballot and out of the spotlight during the last Presidential election, for example.
However, that does not absolve the voter from responsibility - there's a write-in slot on the ballot for a reason.
Voters are the problem, voters have the power (Score:2)
voters are not the problem.
You are mistaken. Voters absolutely have the power and they squander it. Folks who say that money controls politics are mistaken. Money is just a tool to persuade those who have not made up their mind or are wavering in their commitment. The true political currency is ***votes***. This is easily proven, if a voter is resolute no amount of expensive TV ads can change their mind. Two examples. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Association of Retire Persons (AARP). These are two of the most
Re: (Score:2)
Cutting down on bribery ("lobbying" with cash in hand) would help make this possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I gave you the solution to your problem. Stop voting for the parties. It's as simple as that... and the parties haven't diverged on any major policy since WW2, so don't give me that shit. They disagree on some non-issues that get people hot under the collar like abortion, gun rights, carbon taxes... but nothing that would really change anything. Improve the economy and women wont need as many abortions, people wont rob as many banks and maybe we'd all be able to afford electric cars. The problems in this co
Re: (Score:2)
[T]he system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem.
I can tell you how to fix it, but you won't like it.
Destroy the television network. Completely. Leave behind only internet based video. If televisions can't make spectacles out of candidates, then all the "my guy vs your guy" people would become too bored to be involved in elections. Why do you think everyone only knows about 2 candidates? It's because that is what they saw on television.
Certain people in our country (and sometimes not even citizens) have been privileged with having exclusion access to
Re:Any different than those other governments? (Score:4, Insightful)
For one thing, you are free to post on slashdot about it without serious concern that you'll be dragged away to a secret prison. Yes, there *are* government abuses in the land of the free, but realistically, they're pretty rare. It is the freedom that exists that allows you to hear about them in the first place, and to have that discussion.
And yes, we are a democracy, but like all large organizations, the ship of state turns slowly. We do screw up, spectacularly (Dred Scott, Volstead act, etc), but on the whole, these things do get corrected. It just takes decades, not the minutes or hours that modern society working on "internet time" seems to want.
It has been 50 years since the famous march on Washington. While there is still a ways to go, if you look at what has changed since then, it is dramatic: in the 60s, DC was still segregated: African Americans riding the train south had to get off in Baltimore and move to the "colored cars" at the back. There were riots and conniptions in the 70s & 80s about integrating schools. When was the last time you heard about people firebombing school buses in the US?
Yes, all of this stuff about the NSA is disturbing, and it should be. But realistically, the mere fact that we are discussing it here is a good thing, and for all the grandstanding in Congress, there will be changes. They'll be slow; there will be bodies of dead pioneers along the sides of the paths of progress; but change will happen.
And here's your chance to poke at your representatives. Ask them (or tell them) how unhappy you are. Granted, your comment will likely just wind up as a checkmark on a tally sheet prepared by an underpaid congressional intern, but the existence of those tally marks does have an effect in the long run. Politicians aren't totally stupid and beholden to their funding sources. You start seeing 90% of the tally marks in the column for change, and you start thinking.. there's not enough money in the world to buy ads to support the 10% column, I'd better start thinking about it.
Re:Any different than those other governments? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with everything you say is it can be countered with "for now".
As your government gives itself more and more power to intrude on your lives, ignore your Constitution, or use one set of laws to skirt around another the abuses magnify.
So, you can say to yourself now "well, they haven't taken this away yet" and convince yourself everything is OK. But in a few years if they've taken that and even more away from you, it's too late.
Complacently thinking everything is fine when it's increasingly not just means that by the time you've got nothing left there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
Slowly expanding the scope of these things over time means you should be worried, because eventually that 100 mile 'border' zone can cover your entire country, and searching your digital devices or scanning through all of your information can be used for everything they feel like.
Nobody plans on ending up in a police state, but if you don't stop the steady march while you can, it's all too easy to wake up one day and realize just how badly screwed you are. Joseph McCarthy demonstrated how easily things can change.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke"
Re:Any different than those other governments? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine, but one day when you can be detained anywhere based on arbitrary things, ask yourself if your willingness to pretend that nothing is happening was the problem.
It's a fact that they've been steadily cutting into Constitutionally protected things, and that it's getting worse. Just ask anybody in a state where these 'border' stops covers the whole state.
If you want to act like it isn't getting worse and isn't likely to continue to do so, then you haven't been paying attention.
Dismissing the argument on the basis that it's a slippery slope and therefore invalid is the height of willful ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
A distinct, established and visible trend is slightly different than slippery slope. And although the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy so is disregarding things because someone made a logical fallacy.
Basically "just because it's a slippery slope doesn't mean it's not a downward spiral".
Re: (Score:2)
Can some fella convince me that the government here, is any different as compared to those other governments?
Yes. The ACLU filed lawsuits and the judge ruled against the government. Documents were then compelled to be released.
In those 'other' countries the ACLU would not exist (members dead or tortured and rotting in jail), the judge would not exist, or if he did and he ruled against the government he would have been shot and no documents would have been released. Oh yeah, and I would have been dr
Re: (Score:2)
The documents reveal what had been a mostly secretive process that allows the government to create a travel alert for a person (regardless of whether they're a suspect in an investigation), then detain that individual at a border crossing and confiscate or copy any electronic devices that person is carrying.
Can some fella convince me that the government here, is any different as compared to those other governments?
Ohh wait, those governments are not democratic but ours is...
Let me fix that for you...
Ohh wait, those governments are not democratic but ours WAS...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You might want to check history of passports [wikipedia.org] as an hint that crossing borders has not always been so traumatic, even when borders were as well established as now (ref to Europe before WWI)
Re: (Score:2)
England doesn't have a government. It also doesn't secure its borders.
Britain, however.....
Re: (Score:2)
Can you spell Gestapo?
Yes, I think it's spelled G-O-D-W-I-N.
What's the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Only reasons I see to examine everyone's electronic devices are:
A) keep privatized prison populations growing
B) revenue from confiscated electronics
C) revenue from war on drugs
I guess that's believable
Re:What's the point (Score:5, Insightful)
In the light of recent developments, if I were to get any of my devices searched at the border of a country (any country) and it wasn't confiscated outright, my default stance now is to treat the device as compromised until I can nuke it from orbit, do a complete re-install of the OS and reload any data from backups.
Re:What's the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Installing backdoors would be too easily detected, eventually. But if I were running a secretive national spy agency, I'd have the border patrol grab any certificate files, credentials or VPN keys as a matter of routine to go into the big database. Never know when they might come in handy.
If anyone objects, claim it's to fight terrorism or child porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Installing backdoors would be too easily detected, eventually. But if I were running a secretive national spy agency, I'd have the border patrol grab any certificate files, credentials or VPN keys as a matter of routine to go into the big database. Never know when they might come in handy.
Why think so small? The blueprints for motherboard, peripherals, memory sticks, etc., all are available to any government. Not just ours. All they have to do is seize an engineer, or a laptop here and there, or intercept communications... oh, and there's always the courts too.
If you lose physical access to your device, don't trust it again. Don't decrypt the data. It's gone. Even if you're holding it in your hands, the only thing for you to do is scrub it as best you can and put it up on eBay. It's not your
Re: (Score:2)
my default stance now is to treat the device as compromised until I can nuke it from orbit, do a complete re-install of the OS and reload any data from backups.
I know how to do an OS re-install and data restore, but can you tell me where you get the nukes?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you do an OS reinstall on a tablet?
Because unless you're installing your own ROMs, from what I've been able to tell the "wipe device" only deletes the user stuff, but doesn't reset the OS to what it was when you got it.
I'm not being sarcastic, it's a real question ... because I'm not convinced that if I wiped my Nexus 7 it would actually throw away any updates I've received, just clear off some of the stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Put in the productivity software and have some VPN you trust to get your work/holiday data back, travel with the laptop but nothing thats personal on it.
No vids, no chat logs, no IM names, no images with faces/locations/gps/name/serial numbers in the files, no web cache, no digital books with your drm.
Just random free software and free games
If your data is cloned, M
Who says they return your specific device? (Score:2)
The smarter move for them is to clone your device onto their hardware and give it back to you. No matter what you do, you're still owned, since presumably whatever they give you back has extra stuff (memory/software/hardware) to make sure they have access to your information and possibly remote access to the device.
This wouldn't be something trivial they would do for random people getting the standard cavity search, but for select targets it wouldn't be impossible. Surely the NSA has the leverage with App
Re: (Score:2)
do a complete re-install of the OS and reload any data from backups.
What makes you think reinstalling the OS will get rid of the spyware? It could easily stored in the BIOS (many commercial laptop theft prevention services work this way and survive OS reinstalls, so why can't gov't. spyware?), or in some hardware modifications made to your device while in custody. They could easily install a hardware keylogger or a network monitoring device without your knowledge which phones home with all your secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
... and then sell my compromised one on eBay... to pay for the cost of replacement... no way that one I just bought from someone else who had the same idea.... Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
There's the reason from TFA: "Circumventing due process w.r.t. search warrants, court orders, etc."
Also, how about industrial/commercial espionage? The US Government expects companies to do some dirty work for them, maybe they return the favor every so often so there's no hard feelings.
Re: (Score:3)
D) Harass anyone the government doesn't like, e.g. reporters who have written stuff critical of US war efforts.
E) Find out privileged secrets by illegally searching attorneys representing defendants on high-profile cases, e.g. Chelsea Manning's counsel.
How is this news? (Score:2)
Does anyone really think that the government wouldn't invoke any available power to achieve it's ends?
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The exception is an exceedingly narrow definition of what constitutes "unreasonable".
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they call it the Patriot act.
It has been a decade or more since you(we) had any "constitutional" rights.
you know terror, thinking of the children, ect.
I think that the real crime has happened at a much higher level than the mouth breathers at customs.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't anyone remember why we had the cold war? (Score:2)
We built the largest military alliance in history, and built a massive fleet of weapons capable of destroying all life on the planet because we said that the idea that you could live in a state where you had no privacy was inherently wrong.
Only devices? (Score:2)
I've been wondering if the OpenBSD CDs I got in the mail are the same ones they mailed me. Seems like they're all mailed from the same place; wouldn't be too hard for the American Stasi to swap them out for compromised ones, once they got it set up.
For some bizarre reason OpenBSD doesn't sign their releases. Way to throw us under the bus, Theo.
So... what should I do? (Score:2)
I am a US citizen and travel out of the country fairly frequently. The work I do is "innocent" and "I have nothing to hide" but I do interact with "foreigners" and with the government random collection of metadata and "six degrees of separation", I could end up in this situation and considerable inconvenience (or worse).
I've been thinking of using a Chromebook which I could wipe before crossing the border.
Any ideas?
Next time I travel with the broken laptop (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Install OS/2 on it, just to mess with them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm over 30 and never used Windows ME in my life, not even for one second. All I heard was that it could cause seizures.
Re:Just upload your encrypted data online (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't exactly shocking news.
To save them and you the inconvenience of physically handing it over, I guess?
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't know all email and FTP servers were located in the USA.
hey, look over there! new iphones. (Score:4, Insightful)
horrifying news about civil rights, but obama shouldn't sweat it because new iphones are being announced in an hour so everybody's attention will swing to that.
Re: (Score:3)
New iPhone with a fingerprint scanner, wink-wink. Know what I mean?
Re: (Score:2)
bahahaha and Find My iPhone to help you in case of theft. Not to mention, all of your emails, texts, phone logs, contacts conveniently in the cloud!
Re:hey, look over there! new iphones. (Score:5, Insightful)
When are you guys gonna elect some libertarian guy who at least stops your evil forgein policies?
I'm afraid we need more than a wink and promise from a presidential candidate, but rather real checks and balances restored. Depending on the good character of the guy that gets elected not exceed his authority seems unreliable.
Re:Just upload your encrypted data online (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just upload your encrypted data online (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you missed the part about it being encrypted?
I doubt it; did you miss the recent news regarding the NSA?
People are still trying to figure out if TrueCrypt is compromised.
Re:Just upload your encrypted data online (Score:5, Informative)
Why use TrueCrypt instead of mainstream encryption with a long key length?
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/the_nsas_crypto_1.html [schneier.com]
If you're really paranoid (no offense), you can encrypt with every known algorithm in series. Then only one of them has to actually work.
I'll take the last one first; although it's counter-intuitive, encrypting with every known algorithm doesn't actually increase security all that much. One of the main reasons is that as long as the algorithms used are known, an analyst can use the predilections of the various algorithms against the series, actually decreasing the number of possible outcomes. Of course, to do this the attacker would actually have to have some level of cryptanalysis training, but we're talking NSA here. They'll identify and use these tricks if they think it's worthwhile.
As for the first, one of the things that TrueCrypt (which is pretty bog standard mainstream encryption, and it uses only known and tested algorithms -- it's the implementation we're questioning here) provides that baked-in solutions usually don't, is plausible deniability. TrueCrypt allows you to encrypt data into the slack space of an already encrypted archive, thus allowing you not only to have two sets of data depending on the passphrase used, but to easily overwrite one set by modifying the other.
This means that if you're forced to give up your password at, say, the border, you can give the original password; they'll decrypt the archive, and if any data inside the encrypted image is modified, byebye secondary encrypted dataset. This means that you can protect not only against forced release of data, but also against modification (which can also be done with a hash check, but any fiddling will lose access to the original data).
Of course, anyone suspecting such a setup may write something to the inner archive to wipe your outer archive if it exists, just to prevent you from moving that data in the first place, but that's about as far as they can go.
If, for example, Miranda had been transporting a truecrypt archive on his thumb drive, had memorized the password to the Snowden files (or not even been given it) and then had a scrap of paper with the password to his more benign data on him, the confiscated USB drive would have shown absolutely nothing. IF he ever got the drive back with the data intact, he'd still have all the Snowden data (providing the password came through some other channel -- which wouldn't be difficult).
Re:Just upload your encrypted data online (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't exactly shocking news.
Oh, I disagree! The USG has established 100-mile 'non-Constitution' zones around the national borders. Due process and security of personal information is suspended.
How is that not shocking?
Re: (Score:2)
This makes ALL of Michigan such a zone. Be wary of travelling here.
Re: (Score:2)
this just in. crazy gov't overreach results in a terrible loss to the economy.
is anyone really surprised?
time to impeach (Score:2, Interesting)
It's time to impeach obama. It's the best way for citizens to send a message to gov't that we will not accept these programs. Not just impeach, but impeach in the house, convict in the senate, and remove from office.
To do so, repubs need to win the senate in 2014. So anybody who cares about their civil rights, regardless of political persuasion (liberal, conservative, republican), needs to support and donate to republican candidates in the 2 or 3 swing states in the next election. Nate Silver knows which st
Re:time to impeach (Score:5, Insightful)
... So anybody who cares about their civil rights, regardless of political persuasion (liberal, conservative, republican), needs to support and donate to republican candidates...
The solution to the problem of an overreaching Democrat president is not, nor ever will be, to elect Republicans. The only peaceful solution is to never elect a Dem or Repub again.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is provably impossible by mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't understand the assumptions that a theorem is based on, then it's not mathematics.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, I'm party neutral on this. I don't care as much who replaces obama, because dem or repub are basically the same here. I want to tear this guy down and send a message to any politician that we're not sheeple. Call it the "Article II, Section 4 Solution".
realistically, the only way this will happen is if the repubs get the senate. that's the path for impeachment, so let's go down that path. then we can argue over who will replace him. Short term it will be biden to finish out the term, then
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm telling everyone to tear down the current administration as a warning to all pols who want to be in office - we are watching you and will take you down if needed. To do this we need to get repubs in the senate. but in 2016 we can vote for whoever - I'm not saying support party A or B.
Alternatively, what would you recommend as a realistic path to impeachment?
Re:time to impeach (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you noticed the deafening silence from the Republicans (including even Tea Partiers) who were crowing about impeaching Obama over Obamacare? You should think about why they choose to clam up now that they have an actual legitimate reason to want him impeached.
The answer, of course, is that the Republicans are just as complicit in the totalitarianism as the Democrats are.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing illegal *yet (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, this was all approved by congress through various legislation after Sep. 11 and then (rubber-stamped) approval by FISA courts. What are you saying is grounds for impeachment?
*note - I am NOT a supporter of the massive surveillance of U.S. citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you saying is grounds for impeachment?
*note - I am NOT a supporter of the massive surveillance of U.S. citizens.
Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The president violated his oath to defend people's constitutional rights. This violates the oath he took. The magnitude of his willful violations are so extreme that the only possible course of action is impeachment.
It doesn't matter what the legislature or judiciary did - Obama took an oath of responsibility then stomped all over my rights. open and shut.
Re: (Score:2)
The R's started a lot of this crap, the Ds just failed to kill it with fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As replied below, this easily will not fix anything. When both parties are the problem focusing on the immediate fix guarantees to change/fix absolutely nothing.
So Obama gets impeached. Biden is in the pocket of the RIAA -so how do you think that would go, for example?
Your idea is about as viable as suggesting violent revolution .Neither will end better than they started, for certain.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be all for that, and for exactly the same reasons, but have Republicans even suggested the idea of impeachment? Obama is much more useful to them as a whipping boy. It's like all the GOP leadership with the ban-abortion promises, they'll never do it because it's too useful a platform every election. (But besides that, no one in the GOP is even whispering about impeachment.)
Re: (Score:2)
Impeach only Obama? That's highly partisan and very shortsighted. Impeach Obama, and all of the senate, and all of the house, and all cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, NSA personnel, etc. Then see what we can do about pressing charges against W Bush, and Bill Clinton, and HW Bush, and Jimmy Carter (you think they had nothing to do with this build up?).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just upload your encrypted data online (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not shocking, considering the current disregard for personal privacy currently administered by the government. It may be shocking if you take out the fact that many people are already aware of the fact that we have lost the war on privacy, and now are just going through the dance pretending that it's something we can win.
The US government has had a taste of knowing everything, and now thinks that it is our best interest to suspend/revoke/rewrite privacy laws because they just hinder investigations. Nevermind the fact that the rights of citizens should come first by our own principals.
Either way, shocking or not, this has been going on for over 10 years now, and will only get more invasive as new ways are revealed, and we become more complacent to the methods already used.
Even though there are those of us that disagree with this, and fight it as much as we can, it will not change the fact that the general population already has the mentality of "If you have nothing to hide...", and the government continues to keep it's mis-fires localized and on the "fringe", people will continue to give up their rights until we reach that ever lovable point of no return (which I honestly believe we have already passed).
Re: (Score:2)
"... people will continue to give up their rights until we reach that ever lovable point of no return (which I honestly believe we have already passed)."
Very recently, a Federal judge ruled that the government must show probable cause in order to search or seize, even at the border or in the so-called "constitution-free zone".
How far this ruling will go remains to be seen.
Re: (Score:2)
The very law that defines an extended border explicitly requires probable cause. The judge is just upholding exactly what the law says. This is the same law the ACLU cited in justification of their constitution-free-zone claim.
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/287-1-definitions-19608292 [vlex.com]
The constitution free zone appears to be an invention that incorrectly combines the rules for the border with the definition of "extended border" in the law linked above. I don't think this was just a confusion though, instead I thi
Re:Just upload your encrypted data online (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't exactly shocking news.
Oh, I disagree! The USG has established 100-mile 'non-Constitution' zones around the national borders. Due process and security of personal information is suspended.
How is that not shocking?
Yeah, but many of this have been fully aware of this for some time... Shocking news would be if the general public and mainstream media gave a fuck.
Re:Just upload your encrypted data online (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't even proclaimed. A lot of this is mostly confusion and misdirection. The DHS has given rules about the border and functional equivalents; these do not extend 100 miles inland. Functional equivalents means airports. There is a separate and unrelated law about immigration that has an "extended border" in which certain searches are allowed and which requires certain preconditions (including probably cause). These two things are separate from each other.
No one will believe this though. Someone c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The SCOTUS can shoot down a law before it becomes a law. They never have. They choose not to. But nothing is stopping them from declaring "if X becomes a law then our courts will not enforce it".
Re: (Score:2)
This is not really an accurate statement. The ACLU has claimed there is such a thing but the government has never said anything about a 100 mile zone in which no warrants are required. They have said "border and functional equivalent" (ie it includes airports as points of entry). The "100 miles" in Title 8 refers to illegal immigration boder control, as in searches of airplanes that cross the border or limits of border patrol areas; the maximum "reasonable" limit is 100 miles but reasonabe also takes int
You got it backwards (Score:2)
So instead of giving it to the border patrol, you tell them to get there own copy from the NSA.
There, fixed that for you.
Re: You got it backwards (Score:2, Informative)
So instead of giving it to the border patrol, you tell them to get *their* own copy from the NSA.
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3)
So instead of giving it to the border patrol, you tell them to get their own copy from the NSA.
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if they abuse it to target and gain access to things they couldn't legally inside the country. It seems to be coming to a head here -- here are documents showing exactly this -- the illegal motivation.
Re: (Score:2)
*Her* name (and gender) is whatever the fuck *she* wants to call *herself* and be referred to as. That some "official" document says otherwise is irrelevant.
Re:Chelsea? (Score:4, Insightful)
The "treason" charge didn't seem to happen and Manning was certainly never convicted of that. Oliver North didn't get charged for treason for selling weapons to a terrorist group that had killed over a hundred US Marines only a year prior, selling them via a declared enemy of the USA no less. Manning doesn't even show up on the scale.
Re:Chelsea? (Score:4, Insightful)
Did someone remove the right to decide your own name too? They're falling so thick and fast now, I may have missed it.
You have the right to decide whatever name you want to be called by. I have the right to form an opinion of you based on that name. If I really hate your name, I may choose not to use it, but that won't stop it being your name. That's as far as our respective rights go.
Gender identification is a bit more involved. But declaring it a "silly whim" just shows you know nothing about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they waste YOUR time. You could spend hours in detention. Miss your flight connection and need to buy very expensive last minute one-way tickets.
Then when they arrest you for possession of child-porn, what is the next part of your plan. Or are you sure that a government that is willing to apply this sort of underhanded trick is not willing to falsify data to arrest someone who is "obviously" a bad person.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, many of us do something about it. The problem is so many people either believe the "for the children" bullshit or default to the "doesn't affect me" logic that those of us that care are a drop in the bucket. I think the fact that we can't get away from a two-party system is evidence of that.