Examining the Search and Seizure of Electronics at Airports 699
Angus McKraken brings us a Washington Post story about how travelers are seeking more well-defined policies and rules about the search and seizure of electronic devices by U.S. Customs officials. The EFF has already taken legal action over similar concerns. We recently discussed the related issue of requiring people to disclose their passwords in order to search their private data. From the Post:
"Maria Udy, a marketing executive with a global travel management firm in Bethesda, said her company laptop was seized by a federal agent as she was flying from Dulles International Airport to London in December 2006. Udy, a British citizen, said the agent told her he had 'a security concern' with her. 'I was basically given the option of handing over my laptop or not getting on that flight,' she said. 'I was assured that my laptop would be given back to me in 10 or 15 days,' said Udy, who continues to fly into and out of the United States. She said the federal agent copied her log-on and password, and asked her to show him a recent document and how she gains access to Microsoft Word. She was asked to pull up her e-mail but could not because of lack of Internet access. With ACTE's help, she pressed for relief. More than a year later, Udy has received neither her laptop nor an explanation."
Re:Proprietary data (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, DHS can't actually say those rules, so instead they give out some bull about "random selection".
Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:2 options.... (Score:5, Informative)
Not checked baggage (Score:3, Informative)
Re:United Police State of America (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycerol [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin [wikipedia.org]
Re:Decoy Data (Score:3, Informative)
Now when someone looks at your hard disk they see a single 2GB encrypted volume. They can get your password and decrypt that volume, but they can't see the second encrypted volume within the first. And because all of the data is encrypted you cannot tell the whitespace from encrypted data on the disk. It's pretty slick actually.
I'd like to think that if I were confronted with this that I would tell the TSA agent to fuck off, then point out that anyone who wanted to get "contraband" material into or outside of the country wouldn't store it on their laptop to begin with. They'd put it on a memory stick that's hidden in their suitcase, or, more likely, keep in on a server outside of the US and access it remotely from a free WiFi AP at Panera. But once again we have security theatre at it's best.
Re:guilty until proven otherwise (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern (Score:5, Informative)
Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. (Score:2, Informative)
At the Dulles airport, they make crap up and just hassle you because they can. You feel like you're in East Germany in 1961.
But what can you do?
The unfortunately part is Dulles in the 60's and 70's was always a joy to fly in and out of. As recently as the late 90's I used to take my kids there to watch the planes take off and land. It was a fun way to kill a sunday afternoon.
Now of course, Airports are beyond miserable.
Discussion of relevant precedent (Score:5, Informative)
Has been happening in Israel for years. (Score:3, Informative)
I guess that's just the cost of "democracy" in the Middle East.
Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing random about invasions (Score:2, Informative)
Justifications may have needed some work in some cases but there is nothing random about US invasions, no lack of reasons. Popular reasons in reason history consisted of the spread of communism and shooting at us.
Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s). Was required to get rid of it (90s), but failed to do so under UN supervision or to properly document it so that the UN could verify after the fact. The US didn't want to take Saddam's word on it, and didn't trust in the UN's ability to discover the truth in the face of non-cooperation. Saddam wanted enemies to think that he may still have it, that would be a deterrent. His plan backfired. The truth of the matter is that no one really knew for sure until after the invasion and there were thousands of US boots on the ground going into every lab and palace. The fact that nothing was found, that the US got the unexpected answer, does not change the fact that short of such unfettered access we would have no answer. Saddam also had a tendency to shoot at US aircraft, not justification in itself but it does help to set a certain mood with regard to overall relations and level of trust.
Afghanistan: The people behind 9/11 were here, and they were being protected by the government.
Iraq I: They invaded Kuwait, were told to leave, and did not. Even the UN blessed this one.
Grenada: Communists building a runway capable of handling long range Soviet bombers. The spread of communism was feared.
South Vietnam: Communist North Vietnam fostering a civil war in the South, and invaded the South to a degree. The spread of communism was feared.
South Korea: Communist North Korea invaded the south. The UN blessed this one. The US also feared the spread of communism.
Re:I don't travel myself... (Score:4, Informative)
If you DON'T declare it and they find out, then kiss it goodbye. You broke the law, so they take the money.
It's Customs, Not TSA (Score:3, Informative)
(Not that that makes it right, but it helps to identify the correct culprit when complaining to the powers that be or even when just spreading the story.)
Re:Nothing random about invasions (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with this argument / logic is that the United States (via its administrations & intelligence agencies) is guilty of even worse transgressions, so other countries have more than adequate justification for attacking us.
Justification / rationalizations may sound good when pitching the story to popular media, but aren't good for long-term stability. "Eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" - at some we've got to stop poking eyes out, even if we can justify it.
Need some examples of US action that other countries could (have?) use for justification of military/terrorist action against the US? Check out this sobering list of CIA "secret mercenary armies" [listverse.com].
Re:Nothing random about invasions (Score:4, Informative)
Duly noted. I get upset about the senseless loss of life.
However, since the start of the war, there have been numerous reports that the Administration misled the American people by inflating the threat. Here is a quote from one such source [carnegieendowment.org]. Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence failures noted above, by:
My Experience (Score:2, Informative)
Don't let them confiscate your laptop! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nothing random (Score:2, Informative)
It wasn't preemption, it was murder. Operation Iraqi Freedom scanned a whole lot better than Largest Act of War Ever Even Counting What We Threw At Bin Laden. The decision to invade Iraq was made with the knowledge that the Iraqi standing army posed no serious threat to anyone. Period. Don't take my word for it, take Colin Powell's. [google.com]
You bring up the weak Iraqi missile program, and then explain why it wouldn't have been needed to deliver `WMD'. Drop one letter grade right there. Perhaps you didn't know that the missle program existed mostly on the back of cocktail napkins after initial attempts to break the 150 km limit were discovered and destroyed, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/01/07/AR2005040204936_5.html [washingtonpost.com]. But you completely forgot to mention that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion, nor any long range missiles, and officials in both the White House and the Pentagon knew it.
Re:Nothing random about invasions (Score:4, Informative)
I realize "facts" are the antithesis of the 'pub agenda, but your spin is so weak...
1) the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center
Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.
2) the Khobar Towers attack
the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects. On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)
3) the August 7, 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.
4) and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.
No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.
But, let's be clear: By December 21 the CIA had made a "preliminary judgment" that "al Qaeda appeared to have supported the attack," with no "definitive conclusion."
In other words, with only days left in office, Clinton still didn't know who was responsible for the attack. It was left to the next bumbling president to follow through. And, as of yet, he has not. Also, under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism.
Bush, on the other hand, did react.
Yes, he attacked a country that really wasn't involved and then attacked another country later that had even less to do with the attack. So, really, not the best points to be making. Oh, and where's Osama? Gee, Dubya made damn sure to clean up daddy's messes, but hasn't really done anything positive for his own country.
at least when civilians are killed by the US military it is by accident and not on purpose unlike the cowards who attack the US.
Oh, that's ok then. I'm sure all of those orphaned children over there will see it that way and maybe they WILL see us as liberators?!
Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern (Score:2, Informative)
I can see two reasons why your post was a troll.
1. Ones persons verifiable personal contact to an act of terrorism is not "utterly meaningless" - it is at least one datum.
I guess if I were to call a fact that your school buddy lost a leg in 9/11 "utterly meaningless" I would be marked as a troll too.
2. Regarding the media - I think from my post it was quite clear that I don't think that muslims are bad people, and I gather you don't follow Fox News... headlines line "KUWAIT CITY -- Valentine's Day is just three days away, but one Muslim politician is heading up a committee to make sure it goes completely ignored.". What sort of reporting is that???
If I were to say something like "And what about those Christian American paediophile soldiers who pack-raped a 14 year old Iraq girl then shot her and her family in Mahmoudiya - those sons-of-a-b@#$h Americans are evil". That, my friend, is quite a worthy troll.
Notice how the "those" in that sentence refers to the the five soldiers and is 100% true (assuming they have been . Notice how the "American" adjective seems to tar all Americans with the same brush. Do you disagree with me about those Americans being evil? If not, do you support murder and rape? That is the Fox News way... the American "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" School of making News.