FISA and Border Searches of Laptops 421
With the recent attention to the DHS's draconian policy on laptop searches at borders, a blog post by Steven Bellovin from last month is worth wider discussion. Bellovin extrapolates from the DHS border policy on physical electronic devices and asks why authorities wouldn't push to extend it to electronic data transfers. "...it would seem to make little difference if the information is 'imported' into the US via a physical laptop or via a VPN, or for that matter by a Web connection. The right to search a laptop for information, then, is equivalent to the right to tap any and all international connections, without a warrant or probable cause. (More precisely, one always has a constitutional protection against 'unreasonable' search and seizure; the issue is what the definition of 'unreasonable' is.)"
Old school (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Old school (Score:5, Funny)
I have a teletype connected to a tin can that crosses the border with a long peice of twine, connected to another tin can connected to a modem.
That seems to fit the "definition of unreasonable" quite nicely.
Re:Old school (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary speweth forth:
The fourth amendment gives the specific definition of reasonable:
Probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, a description of the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, which in turn forms the basis for issuing a warrant, and the warrant itself is the legal pivot upon which the authorization of the federal government to search, or not search, turns.
The states must follow suit because the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Local jurisdictions must follow suit because they must comply with the laws of the state they exist within.
Any argument about "reasonable searches" not being explicitly defined in the 4th amendment is entirely sophist. The 4th goes into very specific detail on exactly that subject, and was written by people whose primary interest was limiting federal power. You can't say that the conditions required for a reasonable search aren't laid out in there. You certainly can't say that the terms for an unreasonable search are laid out in there -- those aren't unreasonable terms, they're reasonable terms.
With the specific and explicit definition of what 'reasonable" is right in hand, given by the constitution itself, the definition of "unreasonable" is crystal clear: everything else.
Now, if congress wants some other definition of "reasonable" in there, then amazingly enough, there is a mechanism specifically provided for them to get that accomplished; that is article V, Amendment. There is no other way they can legitimately effect such a change.
They can, however, assert unauthorized power by simply making unconstitutional legislation, just as they have with ex post facto laws, the inversion of the commerce clause, various kinds of censorship, and an entire laundry list of other unauthorized power grabs; and in such an effort, they will continue to enjoy the support of the executive and the judiciary, because after all -- they're all part of the same system, and all benefit from accruing additional power.
It is very important that we, as citizens, remain cognizant of the difference between the authorizations of power made by the constitution, and the naked grabs for unauthorized power made by oath-breaking members of the executive, congress, and the judiciary. What little power we have -- essentially that of "throw the bums out" with regard to our own members of congress, and the executive -- should be used whenever we detect such unauthorized activity.
The problem is that most people don't bother to read the constitution, and are wholly unaware that the federal government has widely violated its constituting authority in many areas; there's an almost impossible obstacle to overcome with regard to informing the public as to just how far outside the lines the federal government has extended itself.
Re:What you're missing/ignoring: (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, this is not true. What it is, is a constitutionally unauthorized law, but it is 100% in force, not null, not void, and the government can and will use its massive power to enforce it unless or until it stopped by the courts. Barring actual revolution, that is.
Some of the most glaring faults in our system are that there is no punishment for congresscritters and judges for violating their oaths; no recompense for people hurt by unconstitutional laws; and there is no review system that ensures that laws are even remotely constitutional prior to them coming into force. All we can do (within the system) is vote 'em out or hope that the courts will return to 10th grade reading skills and thus gain the wit to interpret the constitution as it was meant to be; an exercise in plain English. Unfortunately, our voting system is a process that favors the majority, and the majority are, to put it kindly, uninformed on the one hand; and on the other, the justices at SCOTUS are, again to be kind, incompetent to do their jobs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Old school (Score:5, Funny)
"Little Frog Legs" and I use smoke signals. Peace, man!
Re:Old school (Score:5, Interesting)
My laptop has a sticker on it that says "Property of Exxon-Mobil" and a bar code that looks very official. It has never been searched at the border.
Re:Old school (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Old school (Score:5, Funny)
Just tell them you bought the laptop from a former TSA employee . . .
Look on the bright side... (Score:2)
About 5 months of this nonsense left at the time of this post, and all these wacky rules can be repealed after that, thank goodness:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushclock.htm [about.com]
You wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You wish... (Score:4, Insightful)
Much as I agree that there will probably be a change in course, rights, once take away, are very slow to return. I can foresee that a new president keen to lose his 'inexperienced' image would be reluctant to take that strong a stand against the powers that be at Langley, etc.
Except that you've NEVER had any rights when it comes to custom's searches.
Sorry, you can't blame this one on Bush. As much as you'd like to.
Re:You wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, you can't blame this one on Bush. As much as you'd like to.
But the indefinite detainment we are now subject to we can blame on Bush, or more appropriately, the people that voted for him. Before all the hysteria, it I was clean, they had to let me go. Not any more. Pretty soon they'll be able to hold me for not having a laptop for them to search. They'll think I'm hiding something. That's like being told I should carry some cash on me so the mugger has something to walk away with, otherwise he'll get pissed and just shoot me. Every border crossing is turning into a mugging.
Re:You wish... (Score:4, Insightful)
"But the indefinite detainment we are now subject to we can blame on Bush" ...and completely irrelevant to the topic, which is search and seizure when entering the US. Please go to a relevant story to bash Bush.
Who are the morons modding this as 'insightful'? What is this, moveon.org?
Re:You wish... (Score:5, Funny)
Pretty soon they'll be able to hold me for not having a laptop for them to search. They'll think I'm hiding something. That's like being told I should carry some cash on me so the mugger has something to walk away with, otherwise he'll get pissed and just shoot me. Every border crossing is turning into a mugging.
Wow. First to see that in a post that isn't clearly a troll, and then to see it modded +5? Slashdot's really turning into Digg.
Frankly, your post is one of the most absurd ones I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Pretty soon you'll be criticising people for not posting at all, like they're trying to hide their opinions from the Slashdot masses. Then you'll be mugging them. I've seen these scary, slippery slopes before.
Re:You wish... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not a coward but I don't want to get mugged, especially for not posting, so let me just say that I agree that these slippery slopes could lead to our being mugged more frequently, eventually in our own homes, all for the crimes of not posting or owning laptops.
You know who else didn't own laptops? The Nazis.
Re:You wish... (Score:5, Interesting)
Experience, sonny. I've watched them tear apart my car more than once. I've been flagged for not having a credit card and checked luggage. I've bought my tickets less than 24 hours before departure, with, god forbid, cash! Evidently I fit a "profile". While all their smuggler and "terrorist" buddies wizz on through for answering all their questions "correctly". They are goons. I don't care if you think it's troll. It's the truth. And it ain't pretty.
Re:You wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said I'd just use google image search and search for "family pics"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In general, you're absolutely right about the problem of getting rights back once forfeited.
However, I suspect that if the US did permit arbitrary low level staffers to intercept and redistribute any information crossing the border that they wanted to, that permission would be revoked fairly quickly as the rest of the world started rerouting the Internet to guarantee not going via the US.
Of course, it would never come to that. Businesses and public figures concerned about the dangers to themselves of sensit
Re:You wish... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be surprised if the government here in GB plays along for long. Privacy, surveillance and the database state are becoming big issues here right now, both legally and politically, while support for the US throwing its weight around is a pretty universal vote-loser, all of which are bad news for a government so weak it can barely stand up. I expect a significant change in approach in time for the next general election in a couple of years, if not sooner if they give their current leader the boot and find yet another one after the summer recess.
In any case, the government doesn't have much choice about European data protection rules, which our businesses are bound to follow regardless of the government saying nice things to the US. There are already concerns in the business press about issues such as more distributed data storage and processing facilities, which can't be set up in locations that don't adhere to the same data protection standards as European law requires without jumping through hoops with customers and/or incurring negative PR. The US is one such location.
And even without legal obligations, the costs and risks associated with travel to the US are reaching the point that a lot of businesses will no longer make the trip. There have already been reports of business people being refused entry for the most stupid of reasons because of so-called anti-terrorist measures, and as I said before, it probably won't take more than a few high profile leaks after business laptops went missing while containing confidential data to start a serious backlash. Make it impossible to transfer data securely via the Internet as well, and the US just became one of the most business-hostile countries in the Western world, and no amount of sucking up by European governments is going to make European businesses run risks they don't need to in the current economic climate. Many of those that don't have well-established, substantial operations in the US will probably just give up on it until sanity returns.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
the best taxes are the ones that are labelled 'temporary', those are most certain to never disappear.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
"he next administration (assuming Obama wins) will probably be more interested in taking away our "treasure"."
Actually I hate to be the one to break it to you but your treasure is already gone. what is likely to happen is your going to get the bill for it by the next president.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah. Canada has a system similar to this, and yet no matter who I vote for, every time there's a legislation vote that matters, the US Government gets 30% of the vote, US Industry gets 50%, Canadian Industry gets 10%, and the other 10% is on vacation.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You haven't been reading the other /. articles today, have you ?
Bush took away our "treasure" (Score:2, Insightful)
the next administration (assuming Obama wins) will probably be more interested in taking away our "treasure".
It's Bush that has taken away our "treasure", by spending upwards of $500bn on a useless war. We will be paying for that for decades to come.
If you look over the last 50 years, it's clear: Republicans are bad for the economy and are fiscally irresponsible.
If you want fiscally responsible policies, vote Democrat.
Re:Bush took away our "treasure" (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want fiscally responsible policies, vote Democrat.
Right... that'll help. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid exceed the entire military AND discretional budget (not just the Iraq war) and all are horribly broken.
Get your ignorant head out of your knee-jerk, liberally biased ass, do some actual fact finding/checking and come to the realization that ALL big government is wasteful, inefficient, deceitful and corrupt.
By the way... the interest on our national debt alone matches half of the figure you spew for the Iraq war. This expenditure is 100% waste every year that buys us *nothing* and it's all the result of f*ucked up presidential/congressional/senate decisions for the past eighty years. During which time no party other than democrat or republican has been in power.
if you really want fiscally responsible policies... vote them all out of office and start taking care of yourself for a change.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
that ALL big government is wasteful, inefficient, deceitful and corrupt.
In the US. Oddly, the rest of the world seems to manage just fine. Just compare various health statistics versus total expenditures... the US is dismally low, in terms of health performance, yet spends the most per capita, while countries around the world who spend less on a universal, government run system consistently outperform the US across a broad range of categories. I know, this flies in the face of your libertarian fantasy wo
Re:Bush took away our "treasure" (Score:5, Insightful)
Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid exceed the entire military AND discretional [sic] budget (not just the Iraq war) and all are horribly broken.
Think how many countries we could occupy if we weren't wasting all our money on social programs!
[I]f you really want fiscally responsible policies... vote them all out of office and start taking care of yourself for a change.
Since you make the "start taking care of yourself" suggestion in contrast to the "knee-jerk, liberally biased" programs such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, I'll just say that you and I -- and everyone else -- were born naked and helpless. We depended on others to provide us with food, shelter and clothing until we could provide for ourselves. The condition of our births was in no way a result of any planning, effort or desire on our own parts. We did not earn the ability to take care of ourselves through our own virtue or labors, and our continued good fortune is only partly within our own power to ensure.
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Tax and spend" meets "borrow and spend." Who do you think will be paying for the Bush years, a leprechaun with a pot of gold?
It's not that the Bush admin had zero interest in being the party of balanced budgets, they had negative interest! Pushed the throttle all the way, man - he robbed you, me and everybody else. Record deficits, and do you think the Bush tax cuts would somehow never come home to roost? The perfect setup, "We Republicans cut your taxes, and look what the Democrats did they raised taxes." Well, duh.
Republican politicians know their constituency; people like you have short memories, no sense of history, and will vote 'em right back in to rob us all over again.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, so how do you explain the fact that the Democrats, who run both houses of congress and who are completely in control of budgeting and spending and the raising of money, have no interest in reigning in spending? The president DOESN'T MAKE THE BUDGET. He only signs it after both houses of congress do what they want to it. So, you've got Nancy
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, so how do you explain the fact that the Democrats, who run both houses of congress and who are completely in control of budgeting and spending and the raising of money, have no interest in reigning in spending?
Well, in their defense, if the house passes a spending bill the Pres doesn't like, he just vetoes it and then cries out that the dems don't want to support the troops.
It's a shitty situation, and the dems are partly responsible, but they have an extremely slim majority (and can lost in the Senate to a filibuster), and a remarkably belligerent president to deal with, so it's hardly fair to blame it all on them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they should counter with some factual arguments about tax-and-spend policies in the White House
I'm sorry, what? First off, I think you mean "cut-tax-and-spend" policies. It's not the Democrats (who are traditionally painted with that brush) that have fucked up the US budget, it's the Republicans (who're supposedly fiscally responsible).
Secondly, *factual* arguments? We're talking about the US public, here. Let me illustrate how this would go:
Congress: Here's the budget. As you can see, we're cutting b
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Interesting)
I would say sooner. What a lot of people have suggested to me is that the Bush administration wanted spending up to make it look like the economy was healthy, just until he got out of office. That is why they looked the other way whilst people were tossing out cheap credit. I think the Republicans want to lose this election so the bomb drops on a Democrat's watch.
Basically, he deliberately maxed out Obama's credit card for him and remortgaged the house, with the plan to later on call him fiscally irresponsible.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This won't stop anytime soon. The reason the law got enacted was because someone with kiddy pics got stopped at customs.
I see the latest update in this is that your mobile devices can seized.
http://www.wmexperts.com/featured/can_customs_seize_your_windows.html [wmexperts.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
About 5 months of this nonsense left at the time of this post, and all these wacky rules can be repealed after that, thank goodness:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushclock.htm [about.com]
You do realize that most of these rules are at most rewordings and formalizations of what was already policy in 2000?
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Informative)
You're kidding yourself if you seriously think Obama or McCain are going to so much as lift a finger to change this. Both of them believe in rule by the government, for the government. Why the hell would they want to fight to gain the powers of the US president only to give them up to the people?
Plus I assume you are referring to Obama, but lets not forget he voted for FISA. We as a people need to figure it out that charismatic != honest and to take whatever either candidate says with a very large grain of salt. Remember, they only care about your vote and will gladly promise you the moon to get it. You'd think we would have learned this with President Bush II promising us a classical conservative utopia yet delivering a neo-conservative hell, but I guess we're all a little slow on the uptake.
WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)
What Would Jesus Think Was Unreasonable?
Re:WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)
What Would Jesus Think Was Unreasonable?
"And if they take your laptop, give them your digital camera, iPod and cellphone, too." (Mt 5,40, paraphrased)
Re:WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)
the issue is what the definition of 'unreasonable' is
With this Administration's tortured definition of torture, one shouldn't be surprised when they have an unreasonable definition of unreasonable.
Re:WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)
Purely a guess: getting nailed to a log just for suggesting that people should try to be a little bit nicer to each other.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Offtopic? Seems pretty ontopic to me - he was, after all, the supreme political dissenter during one of the most brutally oppressive periods of history. And used words like "neighbour" and "friend" about brown, white and black folk all equally.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, come on. The Romans weren't angels, but there have been lots of worse oppression than what you got under the Empire of Tiberius. Even Caligula's terrors were inflicted on the aristocracy in Rome; he didn't wreak all that much havoc on the average citizen in the provinces. You want to know what Pontius Pilate's only entry in actual history is? He took down the
Re:WWJTWU (Score:4, Insightful)
How odd; tha grandparen troll is unmodded, the guy who says "getting nailed to a log just for suggesting that people should try to be a little bit nicer to each other" gets modded offtopic? THE WHOLE THREAD IS OFFTOPIC!!
I'll tell you what Jesus would say - when he was asked if you should pay tribute to Ceasar, he asked whose picture was on the coin. He would say "unreasonable" means what the Supreme Court says it means. Man's laws are no concern of his, he has bigger fish to fry.
AFAIK the bible doesn't say anything about privacy or your rights. So the very question is moot. But the whole Bush administration has been pretty unreasonable if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
Man's laws are no concern of his, he has bigger fish to fry.
Yes you tell yourself that man's laws are meaningless compared to an imaginary "heaven" when the lion is chewing on your leg.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He does make a fairly strong claim in John 8:56-59
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208:56-59;&version=31 [biblegateway.com];
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
In verse 59 the Jews knew
Re:WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)
If Jesus was here today, I know EXACTLY what he would do.
He would scream "Metal carts, pulled by unseen demonic horses! Iron mountains!" in Aramaic, then go hide somewhere.
Wrongthought (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the land of the free begat the great firewall of America?
Save the Children: Watch out for the terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
In our (as a country) fear of Terrorism and our fear for the safety of our children, we are slowly strangling ourselves of our vitality. Soon, we as a country will be like scared little children hiding under our beds from a thunderstorm. And in the meantime, the rest of the World will eventually pass us by.
Re:Save the Children: Watch out for the terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
From here [cnet.com]: At a Senate hearing in June, Larry Cunningham, a New York prosecutor who is now a law professor, defended laptop searches--but not necessarily seizures--as perfectly permissible. Preventing customs agents from searching laptops "would open a vulnerability in our border by providing criminals and terrorists with a means to smuggle child pornography or other dangerous and illegal computer files into the country," Cunningham said.
What I want to know is who exactly "smuggles" child pornography around on a laptop. They may have it on their laptop, but they're not "smuggling" it into the country. They more than likely downloaded it from someplace that's already accessible to anyone in the country anyway.
You may be able to prosecute them for it, but it's not going to save any children. Anyone that wants it will just hide it better, and you'll end up arresting people that have a suspect image or three in their browser cache that they've probably never even seen. This is just more bullshit fear-mongering to further strip us of our liberties.
why worry about sneakernet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Aren't there easier ways of bringing in naughty pictures and files than sneakernet?
The gov agrees. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government agrees that they should have the right to investigate each and every connection that goes in or out of the United States, no warrant required. It's impractical to actually watch every connection in real time, or to store them all, but they certainly believe they should have the option to investigate whichever connections they choose at a whim.
Re: (Score:2)
Well let's hope... (Score:2)
Re:The gov agrees. (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod parent up. Only 2 years ago it was impractical to sniff all traffic and identify P2P and insert reset packets. It was unreasonable to record all phone conversations. It was unreasonable to have thousands of cameras around the UK monitoring everything. It was unreasonable to have cameras that recognize license plates and automatically bill you for running red lights.
Dude, don't give them any ideas! (Score:2)
Just stay calm, don't be nervous, don't look at their faces, and don't say anything..
No offense, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, any country is safer if nobody wants to go and visit it anymore.
"I want everyone to remember why they need us" - liberties and freedoms that are eroded in the name of security and protection never seem to return once the threat is lifted again, and each one is another step on the path to Totalitarianism.
Re:No offense, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have our own versions of unlimited surveillance and a 'black bag' type system if they think you're a terrorist.
While I don't support the theory that the US gov did 9/11 themselves... given their actions so far it's not that far of a stretch to say they may have held back from preventing it in an effort to give themselves more power... or at a minimum are using the situation to their advantage.
Terrorists goal is to disrupt life, and make us change our way of living because of fear. I'd say that we're letting them win every time we remove another freedom due to fear.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No offense, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
That quote becomes a lot more sinister, when you write it the way John Hurt says it in the movie: "I want everyone to remember why they need us". He's not emphasising the "need" part - he's emphasising that they need "us" i.e. THAT particular regime.
It's not that we need a government - it's that we need THAT particular government.
The comments leading up to the final chapter, are just as sinister:
"The security of this nation depends on complete and total compliance. Tonight any protester, any instigator or agitator will be made example of." - Sounds vaguely familiar. Maybe not while coupled together, but I've certainly heard these two sentences, or very similar ones, from prominant politicians.
Of course the full rant by John Hurt leading up to your quote is very scary and familiar in its whole:
"What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. This message must resound through the entire interlink. I want this country to realise that we stand on the brink of oblivion. I want every man, woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos. I want everyone to remember, why they need us!"
Again, sounds vaguely familiar. Even sounded rather familiar the first time I heard it in the movie. Yet, I can't for the life of me figure out quite why that is.
Unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the Supreme Court has said that the Constitutional limits on Copyright, "for a limited time", that "limited" means whatever Congress says it means, then it follows that "unreasonable" means whatever Congress says it means, too.
The cops opened my unlocked garage and "had a look around", I guess that's reasonable. They searched my car because it was parked outside a dope house (I had no idea; my passengers were collecting money owed them by a slumlord they were cleaning houses for) as well as my person. I guess that's not unreasonable, either.
Why is it they had to amend the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, but not other drugs?
The Supreme court, in effect, says that the Constitutuon is meaningless. We, the people, no longer have any rights. And you can bet your wife's ass that they're already reading your mail and seeing who you connect to on the internet. The people running things today don't believe in the rule of law.
It's called encryption. (Score:2)
Encryption is especially going to work when the data is only crossing electronically. They can keep it as long as they want, and it won't do them any harm.
Remember folks, if there is just one person (you) or two person's who share an alternative safe means of correspondence, then TrueCrypt works well. Otherwise, GNU Privacy Guard [gnupg.org] or similar systems work just as well (assuming that everyone involved knows how to use them).
Re: (Score:2)
And that's exactly what they'll do - keep it as long as they want. Who said they want your data ? Maybe they're just after your shiny new laptop/camera/iPod/etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As it happens I *am* about to go the US. And I am taking an encrypted USB memory stick and my iPod and this whole thing has me fairly nervous. The best thinks I have going for me is that I am a US citizen, and I can speak passable English. So I hope they (the TSA in Atlanta) will continue their previous habits of being bigoted and spending more of their time on suspicious looking people (whatever in the hell that means). The last time I went there they were generally being assholes to everyone around me
Re: (Score:2)
Sssshhhh!!! The DHS boneheads might hear you!
Just like IRC and Usenet, when it comes to the DHS the first and second rules about PGP is that you don't talk about PGP. If this is your first time at the key signing party you have to sign.
Contrast with the mail (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Wikipedia articles don't do that guy justice.
Re:Contrast with the mail (Score:5, Insightful)
The US was founded after a long fight for freedom from the UK, an oppressive parent country - and the constitution reflects that, deliberately enshrining and limiting the rights of the government, not the people. If the right was not granted to the government, the government didn't have it.
Specific limitations were explained where they contrasted to the old system. For example secure in your person and papers, right to form a well organised malitia, absolute freedom of speech etc - all these things defined as actions the government could not interfere with, where previously they were frequently interfered with and/or denied.
Since that time, the common interpretation seems to have reversed; it is now assumed that if the right is not granted to the people, the people don't have it.
So where clearly the point of privacy in mail was meant to contrast to the previous system by granting privacy in communications (like mail), it has now been taken to mean no privacy in any form of communication except mail.
Yes, and that's news? (Score:3, Insightful)
is equivalent to the right to tap any and all international connections
Yes, it is. And you can assume that all international traffic is, in fact, tapped by the US and other nations, including data, voice, SMS, Skype, other VoIP, and FAX.
I think the real question is what kind of legal cases this information can be used in (so far, it appears, none), and which cryptographic protocols have been compromised.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Confiscating laptops just syncs the Customs policy with what they are already doing with electronic traffic. Perfectly logical, citizen.
Laptops are property? So what? Plenty of precedent for holding evidence, and for holding it forever, since the dark ages of the Steve Jackson Games raid. Actually, it seems like you can trace a lot of this legal lawlessness back to the War on Drugs.
Me, I can't afford to personally give the government laptops. Should be great for eee sales. And Ferriss (4 Hou
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll make a prediction (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple and effective. All you need is your data online (like machine at home powered on) and the ability to reach it. Except the case when you'd need to transfer gigabytes of data, this would be the best solution.
I'm trying to collect incidents + horror stories.. (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a few interesting ones, a few boring ones but I NEED MORE !!!
The book to read is "The Puzzle Palace" (Score:3, Informative)
Guess what, the NSA has been exercising "the right to tap any and all international connections" for decades. As long as one end of the connection is outside the US they can listen in.
I want some of whatever policy makers smoke (Score:2)
Whoever thought of putting such policy in place must be a moron. If I have anything worth hiding while getting into US, you can bet I am not going to carry it on disk but encrypt it, put it on a server and copy it securely via ssh once I am in.
And if the point is just to give a false sense of security, just cornering random people and having random checks (turn on the laptop sir and enter the password) works as well without needing to keep the laptop indefinitely. Retards.
I recently traveled to US and refor
Search and seizure.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Too hard (Score:4, Interesting)
Whilst I liked visiting the USA, its increasing stance against visitors is becoming too invasive to care anymore.
The first time I was forced to electronically store my fingerprints on your systems for an unknown period of time was the start of the end.
How wrong we were to assume that bio passports were enough to subdue to spooks.
Have a 'nice' day!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> How wrong we were to assume that bio passports were enough to subdue to spooks.
Nothing will ever subdue the spooks. Each time we bend on something, they'll ask for more. You need to put a line in the sand and say "no further".
I actually stopped visiting America in the last few years. Being French, I clearly felt "persona non grata" after the Iraq war started.
As my experiences at America's borders have always been rather poor, I then just stopped going there after the increase of the security theater.
I
HR6702 (Score:5, Informative)
Sec 2(a)(1) sums it up nicely:
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no search of the digital contents of the device or media may be based on the power of the United States to search a person and that person's possessions upon entry into the United States, unless that search is based on a reasonable suspicion regarding that person.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For my tax dollar, the wording has to be a lot stronger than that to be worthwhile, particularly when the owner of such a "device or media" is a U.S. citizen or resident alien. Replacing "reasonable suspicion" with "search warrant" would be ideal; barring that the phrase "probable cause" would be an improvement over the status quo. For non-resident aliens, the only consequence of re
Streetlight effect (Score:5, Insightful)
I forget where I read it, but I recently a news article that mentioned the "Streetlight Effect".
We all know the classic joke. A man is walking down the street when he sees a drunk, on his knees, looking for something under a streetlight. The man stops and asks, "What are you looking for?" and the drunk replies. "My keys." So the man gets down on his knees to help him find his keys.
After a half-hour of fruitless searching the man asks, "Well, where did you lose them?" and the drunk replies, "Over in that alley, but the light's better over here."
This sort of security theater [wikipedia.org] reminds me of that joke.
We can't find Bin Laden. We can't stop al Qaeda. We can't (won't) secure our borders with Mexico. But we damn well make air travel a living hell for millions of innocent air travelers because, well, the light's better over here.
Re:Streetlight effect (Score:5, Insightful)
At least the drunk is actually looking for his keys.
DHS couldn't find it's own ass with a map and a flashlight.
This is news? Read "The Puzzle Palace" (Score:3, Interesting)
The NSA has had "the right to tap any and all international connections, without a warrant or probable cause" for decades.
One key difference: denial of use, missed flights (Score:3, Insightful)
Intercepting electronic communications would be the moral equivalent of copying your laptop's drive if the copy could be made without depriving you of the use of your laptop and/or delaying your crossing your borders. To date you can't copy a typical laptop's hard drive in the time it takes to move through the X-ray machine. At least, not cheaply.
If they take your laptop and as result you are without it for 15 minutes, or worse, so long that you miss your connecting flight, that's real damage over and above the privacy issues.
Perhaps a little resistance is in order? (Score:4, Interesting)
How many low-rent laptops could be crammed with utterly useless information and sent back and forth, back and forth across the US border? Like any basically stupid, attack-trained creature these border-control idiots occasionally have to learn the lesson that when you piss off the boss too often, there are going to be consequences.
Thousands of man-hours wasted on trivia and the inevitable reaming they'll will eventually get from their elected masters, hopefully the loss of some upper-level jobs...now there's some consequences.
Being held accountable is the only thing these fascist half-wits really worry about.
There is also this part to consider... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone quotes the Constitution and argues law.
Perhaps it would be better to consider a quotation from the Declaration of Independence. Remember that document? The one that put the whole lot of dirty laundry out for all to see and said:
"We Aren't Going to Stand for This Anymore"
(quotes, ed.)
Decades of abuse by a government out of control were a major cause of a war for independence. Could these same abuses, now at the hands of the current government be the seeds for a true revolution?
Looking back over the decades of dirty politics and lies perpetrated by America's elected officials and their bureaucracies, I am able to see at least some glimmer of acting in the common good. I'm not saying that it was all proper and that it was not often criminal. I am saying that I see nothing in the last 20 years that was done for any purpose but to line the pockets of a politician or corporation at our expense and to our detriment.
As though the rape of our financial well being is not sufficient, now the government seeks to remove any and all means to communicate in privacy, and to do without due process or allowing us any capability to seek redress.
I think that perhaps you should all read the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps with a mind for a couple slight updates? I think we need to publish a new one.
"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.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."
"Securing Our Borders and Our Data Act" (Score:4, Informative)
It should be noted that Ron Paul and Eliot Engel sponsored legislation [campaignforliberty.com] on July 31 to
ensure that a traveler entering the United States would be subject to searches of their data and digital equipment only if a border agent has a reasonable suspicion to believe the traveler is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.
Oh that Ron Paul, what a whack job! It's a shame he doesn't realize that the system is already fucked beyond our control and that he's simply giving those Americans foolish enough to listen to him a false glimmer of hope.
After reading TFA ... (Score:3, Insightful)
... its evident that this has nothing to do with terorists and homeland security. Its all about p0rn.
If they were really afraid of al Qaida types, they'd be looking for data going out through the borders as well as coming in.
Re:constitution...? (Score:5, Informative)
Although, for purposes of border control, almost any search is considered lawful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Although I believe airport security checkpoints and border controls are considered "not US soil".
Re: (Score:2)
"one always has a constitutional protection against 'unreasonable' search and seizure"
I doubt that if you're not an American citizen.
As someone whose 4th amendment rights have been violated twice, I can say that It's true whether or not you're an American citizen. Park in front of the wrong house and your car will be searched. If the cops want a look around your garage, they'll go on in.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A) They don't have to take any of them.
B) They don't have to give them back, and you have no recourse.