U.S. Confiscating Data at the Border 630
PizzaFace writes "U.S. Customs agents have long had broad authority to examine the things a person tries to bring into the country, to prevent the importation of contraband. The agents can conduct their searches without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. In recent years, Customs agents have begun using their authority to insist on copying data brought to the border on laptop computers, cell phones and other devices. The government claims that this intelligence-gathering by Customs is the same as looking in a suitcase. In response the EFF is filing a lawsuit attempting to force the government to reveal its policies on border searches. 'The question of whether border agents have a right to search electronic devices at all without suspicion of a crime is already under review in the federal courts. The lawsuit was inspired by some two dozen cases, 15 of which involved searches of cellphones, laptops, MP3 players and other electronics.'"
Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Funny)
The above response is an automated response generated by our Complains Department Internet Crawling Machine. You have received this reply because your post scored +5 in the Homeland Security Dissatisfaction Scale(TM). Federal regulations require us to notify you that positive Homeland Security Dissatisfaction Scale(TM) Scores are automatically recorded along with your Unique ID (under Save America From Teh Internets Act anonymity on the internet has been eliminated for your...(stifling a laugh) protection). You might/will receive a notification and/or visit by DHS officers for an interview in order to clarify if you pose a threat to our way of life(TM) and to the safety of our society (silent "sieg heil" salutation in the background).
Please explain why that's flamebait? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that flamebait? This isn't just searching for contraband, this is looking back through web history files, email and sensitive "thought data" without bothering with either probable cause or a warrant. Any reasonable person has a right to resent this type of intrusion, not to mention confiscating expensive equipment without due process.
More frightening than the act itself is the attitude of creeping intrusiveness justified by people who went through the American educational system. I don't think anyone in the history of the world imagined themselves being part of an emerging police state. In almost every instance it was a gradual process where the principles were acting on some type of perceived imperative. The people involved believed they were justified. The GRU, the Stasi, the SS and a thousand organizations like them started with a social imperative.
Don't think we'll ever be that bad? If there are no checks and balances, no oversight and no way to challenge over-reaching policy what's stopping us from getting there? There has to be a line even for terrorism. This far and no farther. Instead we keep kicking that can farther down the road.
It's not the actual policy. It's not this little thing or that little thing, it's the attitude that the ends justify the means underlying each little step.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Boiling a frog? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not an American and I don't live in the US anymore but I do keep an eye on what's happening. My satellite TV is good enough to bring me "FSTV" (Free Speech TV, if you have DishNetwork its there around 9000) Last night they ran the amazing film "America: Freedom to Fascism" by Director Aaron Russo. It knocked me over and even though much of the info was not new to me the way he put it together really put a punch in it. http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ [freedomtofascism.com] or find it on torrent. Ron Paul does a pretty good interview about the Federal Reserve.
What possibly could be a threat in data that Customs needs to confiscate it? Are Customs being used to provide data to the government? Are Customs being used to provide information for American companies? Are Customs being used just to get Americans accustomed to the idea that they have nothing private?
Re:Boiling a frog? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like they can prevent someone like me, a 125lb. programmer with glasses from boarding a plane with a bottle of water but Osama, oh yea where's Osama?
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Informative)
1) Explaining takes a lot of time and in this case the explanation has been stated many many times and should be fairly common knowledge to the average Slashdot user.
2) Sending people to look up a piece of data on their own forces them to find the answers for themselves rather than having them spoon fed as is quite common in the current US society. (And other places from what I hear.)
Oh and the boiling frog reference?
When cooking a frog live you put it in a cold pot of water and heat it slowly and the frog doesn't notice the temperature change until it's too late. If you were to just put it in the hot water it would jump out and thus be harder to cook.
The US gooberment is boiling frogs as we speak...
Real frog-boiling (Score:5, Interesting)
Because "we the people" not just let it — we demand it to, and vote out people, who are opposed to it...
When the Federal Income Tax [wikipedia.org] was first introduced in 1864, it was only 3%. We are now boiled up 35% (having touched 88% in 1942) and you don't seem to scream.
So, pardon me, if I don't object to Customs Agents copying (not "confiscating") data for examination too much — they've been searching through travelers' material possessions since their "service" was introduced...
We are now facing a very real danger of Ms. Clinton getting elected — because, as analysts say [nypost.com], of support for her among single women, who "desperately need" the "schools, mass transit, childcare", that she promises to deliver them. What those analysts — and everyone else — omit, is that those women want all of these benefits "for free", or, as we know, at somebody else's expense.
In other words, don't accuse the government — it just follows the people's wishes...
Re:Real frog-boiling (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, don't accuse the government — it just follows the people's wishes...
Though I will agree that we've certainly done this to ourselves.
Re:Real frog-boiling (Score:5, Informative)
I realize it's slashdot so you didn't read the article, however, it does quote a woman who's laptop was taken with the assurance it would be returned in 10-15 DAYS. That was a year ago and she's still waiting & being stonewalled. I don't know about you, but if I was on a business trip & had my laptop taken for 10-15 days - my trip is pretty much shot.
Further reading of the article shows someone detained for 1.5 hours while the entire contents of their phone was reviewed --- and then missed call logs deleted for the time in question. Add to this the refusal of the department to provide any information via FOIA requests and you have a very fishy situation.
The obvious questions are:
- Who reviews it and for what?
- Under what circumstances is it passed to whom?
- What safeguards are in place to ensure the security of the data?
- What happens to that data?
- How long is it retained?
- What recourse is available if the data is released to the wild?
None of those questions have ever been answered by Customs, and that's a frightening prospect. The only comment that they had was that their agents are 'trained to handle confidential data'. Of course, according to the last GAO report, they lost over 400 of their own laptops the previous year.I know several people who carry data on laptops that, due to legal restrictions, cannot be shared without a court order. So, where does that leave them? Even Federal employees cannot demand that you break the law.
As for the briefcase argument, I do not believe that they sit there with a photocopier & copy the entire contents of a phone book, but they have copied SIMM cards.
As for your argument about money & following the peoples wishes, well, perhaps if the government hadn't lost $1B in cash in Iraq, we could afford to actually fund the school projects that are already mandated. Also, I doubt that 'the people' are wishing that the government continues to increase the restrictions on copyright. That is definitely a big business wish. Pay attention to where the money comes from and goes, big business has more influence right now than the people in terms of what is actually being passed into law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow! A real Commie-agitator on Slashdot... Somewhere an empty noose is swinging on a lamp-post waiting for you...
Yes, there is a strong push towards it. Those "wishes" don't make it right, however.
No, you are confusing things. "To each according to his need" is a Communist, rather than Socialist ideal. Nothing wrong with it in itself, except that all known attemp
Re:Real frog-boiling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
12th place out of 177 countries human development index is bad. It is also skewed by differences in life expectancy and welfare reporting. Under weight and premature babies in the US, and countries like Denmark spend an enormous amount of effort in being saved which typically ends up with them living past a day and being recorded as an infant death instead of a fetal death. In countries like Sweden, noraway, the UK and all,
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you really believe that we're in the midst of a gradual erosion of rights that defies historical precident in American society.
If you apply a little historical perspective, you'll find that these issues move back and forth over time, and that to a large extent a seletive focus on the negative combined with recent increases in the flow of information have created an illusion of a slow, steady march toward oppression. In truth I'd say the long-term trends have been positive.
Not to say that we shouldn't question each and every increase in authority that government tries to claim for itself -- we should. But this "boil a frog" meme is nothing but tired, lame, non-productive alarmism -- on top of the fact that once you realize the underlying premise of the analogy is false, it starts sounding stupid.
Should the border officials be allowed to copy data? Actually, maybe so. Crosing national borders isn't like moving about the streets freely; the search and seizure rules have always been different at the border than during, say, a routine traffic stop (and probably should remain so, though certainly that's a different debate altogether).
If you believe that customs should be able to search for contraband and/or undeclared items upon which import taxes would be levied, then it is inconsistent to hold that they can't examine the data you're carrying. Of course, we expect them to follow certain rules -- just like we expect them not to confiscate your legally-owned-and-carried valuables.
Does "examine" require them to "copy"? Maybe -- depends what they're looking for. That's where legitimate questions can start to arise. It should be clearly defined what their authority is, and it should be clearly defined what they are (and are not) allowed to do with any data they retain, how long and for what reasons they can retain it, etc.
But that all has a lot more to do with controlling corruption amongst border officials than it has to do with unworkable cajun cooking techniques.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, this is one of the more overt practices of a police state. It's even more worrisome when people forget that the very philosophical and documented building blocks of the nation is a piece of paper that restricts the federal government from doing exactly what this article reports:
This cannot be suspended except under marshal law and I've missed that memo if it's been announced. When the government stops recognizing their limitations and begins using forms of law enforcement and fear-mongering to bypass those limitation, then it's most definitely a police state.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it's all too easy to turn "unreasonable" into "reasonable" by way of many small "reasonable" steps over time.
Re:Nothing new here, calm down, move along. (Score:5, Interesting)
Searching and reviewing != copying and archiving.
Let me just say, I live in a former "communist country". And this sounds exactly like the bad old days my grandparents sometimes talk about.
The way I see it, you guys are being screwed. Slowly, but oh so absolutely.
I know I won't be coming your way any time soon.
Boiling a frog, indeed.
Re:Nothing new here, calm down, move along. (Score:4, Interesting)
Under the US constitution, the people have a right for their papers to be secure from unreasonable searches. Considering that data itself cannot be a threat to anyone, it's pretty clear that this search is unreasonable. And even if data could be a threat, there are so many ways for data to enter the country that interdiction at the border is not a reasonable strategy to stop it.
All governments therefore have the right to surveil your electronic storage media, paper documents, perform cavity searches, and whatnot.
Except for the US government, who is specifically forbidden by its constitution. And really, just because everyone does it doesn't make it right.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Interesting)
This (data being copied at the US border) was communicated within my organisation (one of the largest banks in the world) quite some time back. We are no longer allowed to bring work-laptops when entering the US. Meetings were rescheduled to take place in Switzerland instead (sorry people of the US - you'll just have to endure jetlag more than was previously the case).
The US is very rapidly turning into a developing country. What a pity. I do hope that you turn things around and regain the previously held title of "land of the free".
Until then, we (the rest of the world) will be forced to continue reducing our exposure to you as it has turned out to be detrimental to business, economic growth and freedom.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Informative)
Last year while I was crossing at Sault Ste Marie the Canadian border patrol (whatever the agency is called) flipped through my journal, and then asked me to log into my laptop. They had me stand well out of visual range while they went through it. It was totally unexpected by me, and it left me feeling violated and angry.
I checked my logs for USB activity during that time and there was none, fortunately. Actually a history of their session showed Gnome help had been accessed before they apparently gave up.
Since, I've configured my desktop to prompt for both username and password. I have two logins: will and william (not their real names). will is my actual account, while william is essentially empty. From the "asked me to show a recent document" in TFA, I guess now I should have a little sample data to make it somewhat convincing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- You carry a laptop from your company
- For the data/software on the laptop, you've signed an NDA
- Your laptop is searched at the border and data is copied and archived from it; this to me seems basically the same as your house being searched without a warrant
Are you responsible for the breach of the disclosure agreement?
Anyway: I guess it's time to carry almost empty laptops and access your company data over VPN/SSH/SFTP etc.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost every time an injustice is reported, there's someone to point out how much worse it is some place else, as if that makes everything ok.
If I posted counter examples of countries where people have more freedoms and used that to back up a claim of injustice here, you would probably counter with something like "so move there then..."
BULLSHIT
The proper response to this crap is to complain loudly, in court if possible, in the streets if not. When someone does so, you cheer them on, support them. Sarcastic comments like yours are "un-american".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Person 1: "Why are we eating at McDonald's again? This food is lukewarm and the service sucks!"
Person 2: "Well, why don't you try eating out of a garbage can? McDonald's is MUCH better than eating out of garbage can! See? We're at the best place to eat in the world!"
Person 1: "Well, at Quiznos, they have these toasted subs that are yummy! They cost a little more than McDonald's, but the location down the street h
The "We're Better Than X" Fallacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Sir, this is a despicable argument.
The point is not that the US is "better" than some dictatorship or chaotic hell-hole.
The point is that the US today is much worse than the country defined by the US Constitution and bravely won by its founding citizens.
To compare the US to a dictatorship or chaotic hell-hole is an insult to every American who has fought and died to protect the ideals of the US Constitution.
As for your right to vote, it's true that the citizens of the US have not yet been asked to relinquish it. Instead, elections are a circus of toadies funded by powerful interests. The US has been brought to its current state by people who were ~elected~. Think about that if you decide that your Constitution expresses ideals worth fighting for and even dying for.
Great people conceived the US Constitution. Brave people have defended it and died defending it. The measure of the success of the US is NOT weather it is better than some dictatorship or chaotic hell-hole. The measure of the success of the US is whether it is the nation that the Constitution intended it to be.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really tired of hearing this argument. I'm an american, I love my country but I see things wrong with it and I know it could be improved.
Yes, it's better here than it is in Iran. You know what? That's not good enough. I'd like to think that our country is being held to a higher standard than "better than Iran and Afghanistan."
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Funny)
That's a terrible idea.
Unless it's Ben & Jerry's Peanut Butter Cup, then ok.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in terms of the number of people in jail, which is probably a good way to gauge oppression, you are #1.
Welcome to the 37-year "War on Drugs", which so far has cost more than any other war except WW2. Pretty stupid waging a war against your own citizens - sort of like pushing on a string.
War on Drugs (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong: Richard Nixon, 1969. Its been that long ...
Look at the figures and weep. The US, on a per capita basis, beats everyone else.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita [nationmaster.com]
The neighbours to the north and south manage to be MUCH lower ... feeling oppressed yet?
Re:Seriously.. (Score:4, Informative)
OK, per capita [nationmaster.com] then:
#1 is United States with 715 per 100,000 people.
Then follows Russia, Belarus, Dominica, Iran, etc. until finally we come to the first Central European country, albeit until recently under soviet rule,
#35 Poland: 210 per 100,000 people
Then we have Uzbekistan, Israel, Bahrain, and others, until we come to the first Western European country. That is, a country which, similar to the US, has no war at its border and lives in prosperity. Just that they were a fascist state until 1975:
#61 Spain: 144 per 100,000 people
Then follows China, Bahrain, etc. USA's comparable neighbor incarcerates a sixth of the USA's number:
#75 Canada: 116 per 100,000 people
Now we enter a bracket that includes many Western European countries, and Saudi Arabia, until:
#93 Germany: 96 per 100,000 people
#108 Sweden: 75 per 100,000 people
#119 Norway: 64 per 100,000 people
And so on. Don't make me unfriend you again
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should look up "police state" in a dictionary [reference.com] sometime.
Does the 5th ammendment apply? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does the 5th ammendment apply if I have strong encryption on my laptop? Can I simply refuse to give them the passphrase, or will I end up in Gitmo?
Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? (Score:4, Insightful)
But IANAL.
What about? (Score:4, Interesting)
If they CAN refuse you entry, what happens if the country they send you back to denies you re-entry? Do you just spend the rest of your life hopping back and forth on planes until someone gives in?
I honestly, don't see how they could deny entry to a US citizen, for any reason. Can someone please clarify?
Re:What about? (Score:5, Informative)
"A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent."
When i am crossing the USA border with encryption that is not crackable with ease - like keys over 1kb long - the enforcers (beleive to) have enough reason to put me in jail, either to annoy, prosecute or study me. And besides that: rumor has it that even when one uses or develops heavy encryption outside North-America soil, they might want to jail that person when it visits the states later on.
Re:What about? (Score:4, Informative)
"A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent."
When i am crossing the USA border with encryption that is not crackable with ease - like keys over 1kb long - the enforcers (beleive to) have enough reason to put me in jail, either to annoy, prosecute or study me. And besides that: rumor has it that even when one uses or develops heavy encryption outside North-America soil, they might want to jail that person when it visits the states later on.
Not all admissible evidence is "evidence of criminal intent".
In fact I would argue the availability of encryption software and the NON-USAGE of it, is evidence of innocence (or at least proof that the accused is no hardened criminal and deserves some leniency)!
They never said that the encryption is necessarily evidence of wrong doing. Only that it is admissible as evidence. It would be for the jury to decide whether or not it proves anything; guilt innocence or otherwise.
""We find that evidence of appellant's Internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him,""
He was convicted for the actual testimony from the girl. There was no evidence he has even encrypted anything at all. The defense was attempting to have the conviction thrown out on the basis that somehow this evidence was irrelevant and tainted the verdict. The evidence was slightly relevant (barely), and it was not prejudicial anyway, so the trial was fair.
Even if the appeals court found the evidence completely irrelevant it wouldn't have reversed the ruling, since in light of the fact that nothing had actually been encrypted it is absurd to think that the jury somehow had a reasonable doubt about the girls testimony but the existence of unused PGP software erased that doubt.
No way did a judge say "evidence of encryption software = evidence of criminal intent".
the only way to exclude evidence is to prove it is absolutely irrelevant or that it is so misleading that it would threaten the validity of the verdict. (or that it was obtained by government misconduct).
at the end of the day most good prosecutors who have a good case aren't going to harp on little minutia of barely material information. They are going to confuse the jury into thinking that somehow this detritus is supposed to prove something, and if you get some jury members fixated on the idea that encryption software that hasn't been used is supposed to prove something they might just acquit because they lost the crowns line of reasoning.
for whatever insight it gives into the mental state of the user of a computer it is tangentally relevant and would be admissible unless it was misleading or too confusing. evidence of general behavior around an object relevent to the crime (the computer) is somewhat relevant.
the existence of microsoft word would have been deemed admissible. it also proves no crime per se. But some newspaper might say "microsoft word is evidence of criminal intent!"
Something is rotten... (Score:5, Insightful)
Under what jurisdiction are these detention centers? I assume that, since you can be held without trial, access to an attorney, etc. without even having been accused of a crime (because if you are accused then they can just let you in and arrest you on the spot), the detention center must be somewhere outside of US jurisdiction in order for them to be able to strip you of rights that the Constitution and various laws and court cases forbid them to strip from you...
Something doesn't smell right about all of that.
The way I see it, there should be 2 choices: 1.) you are accused of committing a crime, they let you in, you are arrested, and then you get your day in court, or 2.) you are not accused of a crime so they let you and in and you are free to go. There really shouldn't be any middle ground there, if you are US citizen returning to the country.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm surprised to see that this is apparently true. Crazy stuff.
Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? (Score:5, Informative)
yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you are joking, but I'll bite....
Are you suggesting that the Constitution only provides safeguards and rights for US citizens in America, and not everybody else who might be there? Can I still expect the police to provide the same level as protection to me and my property as they do for others?
If the answer is 'No', then why should anyone other than a US citizen consider complying with your laws - surely they only apply to Americans and not to the rest of us?
A line has just been crossed... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think more than a few corporations will object to this, though, if only because sensitive data really shouldn't find its way into the hands of these people... who knows what might leak?
pretty sad (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also pointless, given that data can be stored easily and encrypted on the Internet, on flash drives (some of which are tiny), or even hidden steganographically.
Re:pretty sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Which also brings up the following line of questioning by border guards: "Why are you traveling with a blank laptop? You wouldn't keep a blank laptop around unless you had something to hide."
Copyright (Score:5, Funny)
Sick the RIAA on 'em! (Score:5, Funny)
I had an insightful reply typed up... (Score:4, Funny)
before 1984... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or...
A prior honest President genuinely though the security measures were necessary. Then a corrupt Big Brother saw that the mechanisms created could be exploited and was attracted to power. He then said all the right things and got himself elected. The tools to control were already in place.
Well, today in the US, and especially the UK, those mechanisms are already firmly in place. Even if your current government is not evil, there's nothing stopping the next one so being. With the new powers one can wield what evil person wouldn't want to gain control? One eventually will come to power. It is inevitable.
It's probably already too late.
Re:before 1984... (Score:5, Insightful)
The mechanisms to control society are firmly in place. If you are evil, this has to be attractive. There WILL be evil people trying to get into power. Now, or soon.
Now these evil people are not going to base their campaign on "hello, I'm evil, vote for me". They will SEEM to be perfect candidates. Just as Hitler did, just as Mussolini did, just as many other examples did.
The difference is, right now, the infrastructure is already in place. Once in power you can be evil all you want and there's nothing to stop you, short of revolution -- which bearing in mind the obesity, alcohol dependency, and apathy of most US and UK citizens, won't be successful.
Again, there WILL be evil people trying to get into power. The temptation is too great, government has far too much power. Those people will not seem evil. One of them will eventually succeed in gaining that power.
Or foolishly, like the Germans in the 1930's you can assume everything will be fine and the ballot box is the voice of truth. The government is not the problem really, of course politicians are greedy and corrupt -- all of them. Always are, always have been, always will be. It is those who are accepting and trusting of them that are the real danger to society.
Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant (Score:4, Insightful)
Curious... (Score:3, Informative)
Customs inspections began during the administration of GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1789 to be exact. It was the FIFTH act of Congress. You might think they all had a pretty accurate inkling of the intentions of the framers at that juncture.
The simile doesn't fit... (Score:4, Insightful)
wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
Industrial espionage, including by the US, is a very real concern.
Just how secure is their storage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Story in the Washington Post (Score:4, Informative)
"Eventually, he agreed to log on and stood by as the officer copied the Web sites he had visited, said the engineer, a U.S. citizen who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of calling attention to himself."
Then explain why you were checking all the Iranian sites. "Oh, the cable, of course. Please step over here sir."
How Long Before... (Score:4, Insightful)
And then the RIAA and MPAA will demand that "illegal content" be stopped.
Every special interest group that can tie their interests to computer data will want in after that.
Cell Phone Search (Score:5, Informative)
I live in San Diego, about 10 miles from the Mexico boarder. A lot of San Diegans, including myself, go down there all the time for clubs and cheap shopping. On the way back to the US, I've got about a 5% chance of being stopped and taken to Secondary Inspection-- I've been in Secondary 5 times in the past 5 years. The first agent who you speak to when going through the normal process can flag you to be in Secondary if he thinks something is suspicious or out of order.
Usually Secondary just involves a more detailed search of my car and 30 minutes of sitting in a waiting room with a bunch of Mexicans. One time in Secondary was quite different. In this case, the first guy asked me where I went in Mexico on this trip. I couldn't pronounce the name (Via Bueneventeura in Chapultapec, Tijuana), and I guess he thought I was making it up or telling him a story. He put a note on my windshield and directed me towards Secondary.
For some reason this particular Customs agent in Secondary didn't believe that I am who I said I am. He kept asking me why I would go to a foreign country without my passport (at the time, you only needed to bring a driver's license and that is all I ever brought with me). After asking me questions for over an hour (literally, what hospital was I born in? where did I go to elementary school? etc...) and looking me up in various databases, the guy starts going through my stuff.
The customs agent wanted to search my smartphone (Sony Ericsson P910i at the time), but he didn't know how to use it. I asked him what he thought he could possibly find in there that could be contraband. At any rate, he didn't know how to search my phone, and I wasn't going to help him. There was a big toothmark in my phone from where my dog chewed on it, and I told him that because of the damage to the touch screen, I couldn't actually go through the files on the phone anymore. He wasn't too happy with that answer, but he accepted it anyway.
Another hour later I started complaining to one of the supervisors on the floor-- I had been sitting in this smelly waiting room for 2+ hours with no access to a bathroom, and there was no apparent reason to keep holding me. By now the agent must have confirmed in at least 12 different databases that I am a US citizen, born and raised. I'm also just about the whitest nerdy white guy with a Boston accent that you could ever hope to meet; not exactly the archetype of a foreign agent or drug smuggler. The supervisor finally gave me leave to go.
Of course my car had been turned upside down-- glove compartment and everything else turned out. Rather than complain again, I just wanted to get out of there.
Since then I always bring a passport, and I definitely don't go across the boarder as often as I used to since that experience.
Re: (Score:3)
Encrypt (Score:5, Interesting)
Good timing with the Truecrypt 5.0 release. This is search/seizure without cause and is against basic rights but this shouldn't be too big a deal. It isn't for me.
I travel with everything inside a Truecrypt hidden volume. My OS is exposed in the regular volume along with browser cache showing activity to news.google.com. That's it. The rest of the system is contained within a hidden volume.
I've been asked to turn my PC on and type in my "password" and I do so cheerfully. They see exactly what I allow them to see: The OS with browser cache to news.google.com. They seem satisfied and I get waved on.
I can play this game and I win. I'm not waiting for the courts to tell me what is/isn't right/wrong. I already know what's right/wrong. It's irrelevant (to me) how this all plays out in the courts. No thief, public or private gets my data.
-[d]-
That is not the point (Score:4, Insightful)
This "game" should not even be played in the United States of America. The fact that you feel the need to hide that which need not be hidden is a true metric of just how far the U.S. has gone down the wrong road.
If the U.S. government was a spouse, the entire world would be telling us to get a divorce on the grounds of an abusive relationship.
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who would go to the trouble of transporting data on physical media, when it can be transmitted over the internet?
Because, (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn, I really, really, hope that's just my tinfoil hat talking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Random data? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let them waste their time copying those disks.
When they ask what they are, I'll tell them the truth: They are unused one-time pads that are designed to be used to encrypt corporate data. If they ask, I will also tell them truthfully that if they leave my sight they will not be used.
Oh, I'll also include a disk that has nothing but a copy of the Bill of Rights on it, just to see if they are paying attention.
Same as looking in a suitcase?? (Score:5, Insightful)
And now its "same as looking in a suitcase"??
obviously "who" does it makes a difference.. The government has your best interests at heart, honestly!!
They're just making a backup for you... (Score:3, Funny)
Aren't they a nice bunch?
Job Opportunity (Score:4, Funny)
Virii, trojans, and worms. Oh my! (Score:4, Informative)
Use TrueCrypt. Problem Solved. (Score:3, Informative)
Hell, TrueCrypt 5.0 is out, and it even runs on OSX now.
Please tag usbbuttplug (Score:3, Funny)
National security (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, there might be one or two that slip through, or people already inside the borders who begin terrorist activities. We should probably do this same kind of thing at state borders, too.
And the big cities. I mean, New York has already been attacked. Chicago has the tallest building in the nation. And there are plenty of huge metropolitan areas that could be ripe targets. We should make sure that our big cities are safe.
Speaking of buildings, we should probably also conduct these searches whenever someone is entering a large building. That would certainly relieve the fears of the people who have to work in (or near!) high-rises every day.
But you don't have to enter a building to do something bad. Just being out on the street, you could have some kind of chemical or biological weapon, or a dirty bomb. (Remember Jose Padilla? We're lucky we caught him.) The police should be able to search public spaces, including the people in them, at their will. Really, you're in a public place, you should expect to be inspected.
Okay, we've got all that covered, but that's all defensive. If we really want to rid this world of the threat of terrorism, we need to go to the source. Let's see
That's going to take a lot of resources. A lot of people. We'd have to really get the citizenry on board here
Not everyone can keep that up, though. I mean, we're people! We have jobs and families! We shouldn't have to bear the burden of constant vigilance; if everyone has to give up their regular lives in order to become a police officer, the terrorists have won!
We live in an age of technology! We can develop a giant database, and fill that database with information collected by audio and video recording equipment. We can install that surveillance equipment in all those places above I've demonstrated that terrorists can be found, have them all feed into the database.
National borders, state lines, cities, public buildings, city streets, shopping malls, private homes.
In all seriousness: I would much rather live in fear of terrorism than in fear of my own government's attempts to prevent it.
interesting consequence there... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then, in that aspect the whole argument of the RIAA that 'copying cds is illegal' is debunked by the US government.
You could easily say the following: 'Copying CDs is the same as looking at them in a store' and get away with it.
Cellphone contacts ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, can they copy data I have the copyright on ?
I am a programmer, I sometimes carry source code with me, supposing I didn't encrypt them, could they copy it ? Knowing that my job contract makes me responsible in case I provide valuable company IP to someone without authorization, am I liable for this ?
If there is an old copy of the anarchist cookbook on my hard drive (hey, I've been young and silly once upon a time!), can I be charged with terrorism ?
Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
How many border agents does it take ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... to image copy one hard drive in a year?
Sheesh! These guys must be totally incompetent idiots if they can't make a copy of a hard drive within a day, and return the laptop. If they think the owner might use that data to commit a future crime, then keep the hard drive and return the rest of the laptop. If they think the owner might commit a crime even without the data, then arrest the owner. Just keeping laptops makes no sense.
The beauty of disk encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it guys, we have to study how the french did it in WWII and update it for the 21st century. The Nazi party didn't die, it took hold in the U.S.A. and has been slowly asserting itself.
We have to present evidence anonymously because even though we may have freedom of speech, we have to watch out for trade secrets, copyright infringement, and the lawyers. Blow the whistle and lose your home and livelihood, no jail time, nope, just homelessness and poverty. So, they can destroy you without even making you a martyr.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Corrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hey nice laptop you got there. We need to hrm... search it... will have to take it down to forensics... we'll send it to you when we're done..."
"Where's my laptop?"
"Still searching..."
"Can I get it back"
"No! National security... 9/11... terrorists... child pornography... gay marriage... cats and dogs living together... enough key words yet?"
Re:TrueCrypt (Score:5, Interesting)
1. There is no encrypted data, I just didn't format that partition yet.
2. There is no encrypted data, that file must be corrupt. What did you do to my computer?
3. Here's the encrypted data, it's a copy of my tax forms for 2006. There is no hidden partition.
Pick one.
Re:TrueCrypt (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Same as this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same as this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Far distant dystopian future: With transporter technology, customs "copies" you at the border and keeps a copy of you in stasis for further questioning/interrogation. "You are free to go. Your copy will stay behind for questioning. Don't worry--you won't feel a thing."
I keep thinking back on a USENET posting titled The Legend of Ruritania [venona.com] (this may not be the official link, but is the oldest preserved copy I could quickly locate).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You got THAT right.
Re:Pssst... (Score:4, Insightful)
With restrictions such as due process, that is. Unless you're going to come out and say "oh well, the government can jail or kill whoever it wants with impunity". The funny thing is that citizens have similarly restricted rights, for instance, they can kill in self defense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, given that in TFA, one "Udy" had her employer's (Radius) laptop stolen by customs, I think we can say "confiscated".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It shouldn't matter what the data is, the point is that they deleted data after looking at it.