Bill To Add Accountability To Border Laptop Search 495
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) has introduced a bill that would add accountability to the DHS searches conducted upon the laptops of those crossing the border. Specifically, it would require the issue of receipts to those who had their property confiscated so that it could later be returned, would limit how long the DHS can keep laptops, would require them to keep the laptop's information secure, and would create a way to complain about abuse. Finally, the DHS would be required to keep track of how many searches were done and report the details to Congress. Rep. Sanchez also has also issued a statement about the proposed bill."
US Citizens only (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:US Citizens only (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't visit.
Our government is sending a clear message that we don't want you, can't you take the hint.
Our government has made it clear, non citizens are not humans, and therefor cannot expect human rights. Is it really so hard to understand?
Re:US Citizens only (Score:5, Interesting)
I got the message loud and clear in 2002 (that was before the fingerprinting started) and haven't visited the US since (that's after about 20 previous visits, on which I parted with a significant amount of my tourist Euros).
While, depending on the airport, immigration to the US was never fun (hello! Miami) the whole affair got absolutely loathsome after DHS called the shots.
As a matter of fact I even refuse to transfer plains to a third country through the US, since you don't need to collect your bags and go through immigration and customs in transit on just about any European hub.
To conclude: I got the message loud and clear and here's hoping you're having a nice, slightly fascistic police state that makes all of you feel right at home.
Just to be clear: I'm not pissing on USians here. But what this administartion pulled off with a disregard of the most basic human rights (hello Mr. Torture President) is so depicable, that I for one certainly don't want anything of it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Trust me, flying into Miami is never fun no matter what your citizenship status.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a probably dumb question.
Is transoceanic travel by ship feasible anymore? I've always wanted to visit Australia, and have always hated airports, etc. Are there still ships you can do that on?
Probably you can't avoid the customs bullshit in port either, but I'm wondering if they bother to search laptops and fingerprint everybody that floats in.
Yeah, it's not really speedy or overly practical, but I'm the type that rides a motorcycle to Cabo, rather than taking a 2-hour flight.
Re:US Citizens only (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of the major cargo shipping companies also carry passengers.
http://thetravelersnotebook.com/how-to/how-to-travel-by-cargo-ship/ [thetravelersnotebook.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just to be clear: I'm not pissing on USians here.
Please don't use that term. Even those of us who agree with you don't like it. It reminds me a president who says "democrat party" instead of "democratic party" because he knows it annoys them. Granted, it's a rather minor annoyance compared to what we feel when we see what the rednecks and fundamentalists have turned our country into. Everyone will still know if you are referring to America (the USA) and America (the two continents) from your context. I know we've got to fix this place ourselves, but
USian is perfectly legitimate. (Score:3)
And frankly people are entitled to use terms that are not ambiguous.
USian (or USan or USean) works perfectly well to describe a citizen or related entity of that country.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is interesting what you can come up with when you start researching. Since I have no particular stakes on this subject, from the start it didn't matter to me if I were right or wrong. My only stake on this was the fact the USA education system is seriously lacking on regarding geography, but that would be preaching to the choir here.
As I said in another post, there are some source that mention Central America as a separated continent, including one of my high school books, which I just confirmed by calli
Re:Yes you are (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither in Mexico, nor in Canada did I ever experience such abyssimal treatment by border officials then in the US. Last I read, both are part of America.
Thus USians is valid in this context.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it isn't. YOU are wrong, he is correct.
While the United States of America is located WITHIN the continent of North America, (which it gets it's name from) the PROPER term for people from the U.S.A. is "Americans". It is the short form of "Citizens of the United States of America". People from Canada (also part of North America) would take exception to being called "Americans". Not because they necessarily dislike America or because they think Canada is on a different continent, but because it is I
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, you've got SEVERAL facts wrong there:
Re:US Citizens only (Score:4, Insightful)
You joke about this, but it's deadly serious. I think one of the most damaging long-term effects of the current situation is that a lot of the worlds elite used to want to go live in the USA. Now many don't. The effect of that is that the USAs status in the world in multiple fields will gradually decline.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Her suggestion only applies to US citizens, though. What about the rest of us?
Well, you're all terrorists, right? :-/
*sigh*
Why does government have to be so clueless?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't *have* to be. But it generally is when you put a bunch of people who despise the notion of "government" in charge of running it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So why do you expect that this proposed legislation should be any different?
Re:US Citizens only (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Almost everything applies to persons, not citizens.
And yes, I know border searches are thought to be an exception to the fourth amendment.
Anyway, I think the Congresswoman's statement was a misstatement (or at least hope it is)... I doubt they'll actually say "Well, normally I'd give you a receipt, but you're an alien so fuck you," even given the interactions I've had with CBP staff.
Re:Read the Bill itself (Score:5, Informative)
Yep, it doesn't even mention the word "citizens". The bill itself is quite short and makes a lot of sense.
Take a look: HR 6869: Border Search Accountability Act of 2008 [loc.gov]
It's a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
While some of my conservative peers may disagree as to the utility of the bill, it proposes wide-reaching accountability which can only help us all out.
As a personal anecdote, I travel a lot between two cities in southern New Mexico. Between them is a border patrol point through which I must regularly cross. While most of the border guards are quite friendly and accommodating, I'll occasionally run into a few who are generally in a really foul mood. I've often been asked the usual questions (where are you coming from, where you are going, etc), but from time to time, they've asked me what I'm carrying in my backpack, why I'm carrying it, and so forth. I'm all for discouraging illegal activities, but spending a few minutes answering questions adds up over the course of a month or two! Of course, I don't expect that they'd confiscate my belongings, but I would want some accountability if they did. Since I do need my laptop for working on various things between classes at university, going without it would certainly have real quantifiable repercussions.
I also imagine that most of their questions are directed toward me because I don't look like someone who fits in well in this part of the country--I look European, not Spanish, and most caucasians in this region tend to have darker features, are ranchers (easily identifiable as such), military, or are Germans assigned here with the German air force. As such, I've always figured it was a matter of time until they wind up grabbing a hold of my laptop via random search. Since I write short stories from time to time and have an assortment of partial manuscripts (on an encrypted partition, but who's to say they wouldn't force me to release the password?), I've always been mildly concerned that seizure of my laptop could result in someone who might be less ethical than most obtaining my copyrighted work and illegally distributing it. Yes, I've heard the argument that if I don't want to lose something, don't carry it on my laptop, but that's largely impractical and precisely what encrypting a partition is intended to discourage: petty theft. Thieves who had the means available to break such encryption are probably uninterested in lowly manuscripts and more interested in corporate data or information pertaining to national security. But law enforcement, on the other hand, could potentially force me to divulge such passwords! Perhaps someone who is more familiar with law pertaining to such search and seizures could offer some advice in this particular case.
Considering lost time, productivity, and somewhat valuable materials, it's a bit upsetting that average citizens in this nation have to worry about such ridiculous things. If someone working under law enforcement were to steal data of mine for his or her own benefit, you bet I'd want accountability! I'm sure that sort of accountability does already exist through established channels, but how are you to know that an unscrupulous individual didn't steal something from your computer for his own personal gains (software, mp3s, personal data)? The only downside I see to this bill is that it doesn't highlight an effective method of accountability and detection of theft, such as requiring multiple personnel to be present when examining data to ensure no such theft occurs. That alone could create an additional check and balance within the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Almost everything applies to persons, not citizens
In general I agree with what you are saying, but try explaining that to some people at the holiday camp down in Cuba. Now that is probably the most extreme possible example, but to me it does counter your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, unfortunately at the moment my argument is true in theory, and often false in practise. That could be easily resolved were the American people to elect a leader (and Representatives like Ms. Sanchez) who actually forces the government to respect the laws that are currently on the books to protect our rights.
Bush et al have created a set of shadow laws that aren't on the books but can be called upon a person at will when they piss off the Government. They aren't on the books because they know that the
Re: (Score:2)
Guantanamo Bay.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension FTW.
"The holiday camp down in cuba" == a euphemism for Guantanamo Bay, a US military installation and now prison/interrogation facility. It happens to be located in Cuba (leading these scum to claim US law/constitution doesn't apply)
Re: (Score:2)
Ow, you just hurt my brain.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Non-citizens in the US don't have anywhere the same legal protections as citizens. This is to be expected in ANY country that you visit where you are not a citizen.
Seriously? I can't think of any examples of democratic countries with working legal systems that don't protect visitors. Can you give any examples (other than the US) of legal systems that treat tourists and business visitors like shit?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know Japan is pretty much the opposite! Foreigners have pretty much all the basic rights as citizens, and the people there will generally bend over backwards to help you(searching the entire building for someone who speaks English, etc).
I really must disagree (and please forgive the long reply; this stuff needs to be said). People bending over backwards to find an English speaker? That's called "hospitality", and has nothing -- really, nothing -- to do with one's legal rights or legal protection from
Re: (Score:2)
We must Learn Our Place.
Re: (Score:2)
no (Score:5, Insightful)
you think that businessmen, travelers will still maintain u.s. as a destination of choice, if this shit of a practice stays the same ? hell, or even just stays though changed ?
there are heaploads of countries in the world to travel to and do business with.
Re:no (Score:5, Interesting)
correct, I already stopped going to the USA for business & pleasure both.
I used to travel there three or four times every year, since Bush has come to power and the US went nuts it declined until a few years ago I stopped going completely after one border harassment incident too many.
The US border guards are on par with some of the worst that I've seen on the east-west German and Polish borders when the Iron Curtain was still firmly in place.
Funny how things come full circle...
Re:no (Score:5, Informative)
I wanted to go the US many years ago, visit New Orleans (pre-Katrina) and soak up the local culture.
Ever since people have been treated like criminals upon entering the country I decided I would never go to the US, not even if my job demanded it.
It's a shame though.
Re:no (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever since people have been treated like criminals upon entering the country I decided I would never go to the US, not even if my job demanded it.
My job does demand it ... and I am increasingly thinking it's time to start looking for new employment.
Re:no (Score:5, Funny)
what happened to the guys who saved Europe from fascism 60 years ago?
They had some economic problems then invaded Georgia. Why?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's because we put sociopaths into those jobs.
Hey we dont want them working with the rest of us, so we put them on the borders and airports, as far away as we can from the rest of the population.
Sorry about that. We cant figure out what else to do with our insane other than jobs at DHS and as Border Guards.
Plus they work cheap!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You too can be a border security agent too!
Just pass a rigorous job placement exam, "Yup, this one's breathing," and you're on your way to joining the elite border security agent corp!
Re:no (Score:5, Funny)
Is that about the practical ability to perform full cavity searches?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry non-US citizens, the Constitution and it's amendments only apply to US Citizens, no matter how much some people may want them to apply to the world.
Got a cite for this? Like, say, the passage in that document where it says that it only applies to citizens?
Re: (Score:2)
Well at the right time too, with the economy the way it is, no point going there for business, there are better places to find business.
As for pleasure, US really doesn't offer anything unique, there are better, safer (safe from authorities on a power trip) and cheaper destinations to spend your money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you looked at our country lately (US)? There's worse problems than racial profiling to deal with right now. I am insulted that this law suddenly enables laptop searches where right now it's a violation of the 4th amendment. People are forgetting that aspect.
Re:no (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, this is only anecdotal evidence, but I've had:
- my shoes confiscated (steel toes)
- my laptop and removable drive booted and searched
- my camera searched (and unfortunately it had a very large flash card in it so that took a while)
- my fingerprint taken as if I'm some common criminal (as opposed to a classy criminal)
- my mugshot taken
- missed my connecting flight
All this in Miami on a fucking stopover for an Amsterdam to Panama City flight, in other words I was not even planning to visit the states on that particular trip
So, that's it for me, no more US of A, I'll see you guys on the flip side of the revolution, if it happens in my lifetime I'll be happy but I'm not holding my breath for it.
If that's the face you want to present to the outside world then I wish you good luck.
For the record, I've been a pretty outspoken critic of the Iraq war, both in private emails as well as in public writings, possibly that reason enough to 'flag' me. Makes you wonder about the kind of society America is becoming.
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
Because when I leave my fingerprints on my drinking cup, they're not being entered into a searchable database in an attempt to link me with criminal activity.
Thin edge of the wedge, my friend. Oh sure, you can say, "What have I to hide?" Well, when body cavity searches become routine (some may say they are) will you say, "I don't have anything to hide in my colon anyway; Have a gander!"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because most countries you visit don't assume they'll have to track you down using them by virtue of you being a "foreigner".
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said many times since 9/11/01 that Bush is the greatest terrorist the world has ever known. No one in recorded history has managed to terrify upwards of millions of people in such a short amount of time.
Business trips (Score:3, Interesting)
Trust me - I don't want to visit the US. But working for a multi-national company, I may have to for business. The war on tourism (that has accompanied the war on terrorism) makes it a very unpleasant and scary experience.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there are plenty of people who travel to the US as part of their work.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty who have to transit through, at the very least. Most countries in the western hemisphere have much more well defined flight routes through the US than they do through any European or Asiatic country.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two usual reasons. Business, as everyone else has mentioned. Love is the other, as in my case. The sacrifices I have to make to get through the border to see my girlfriend are well worth it in the end, in my opinion.
I would guess that the latter reason is growing in numbers as well, what with the Internet and dating sites out there now. Border officers clearly are quite used to hearing it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between mail being searched and your laptop taken indefinitely for their "investigation"
Woohoo (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, we can be pretty much assured that things like this that take power away from the government will never really see the light of day and both parties will get their "cater to the base" points in for bringing it up and bickering about it.
Re:Woohoo (Score:4, Interesting)
Disclaimers: I an not a US citizen but I'm married to a US citizen living in Europe.
I'm not trying to troll here, this genuinely puzzles me.
Re:Woohoo (Score:4, Informative)
How can a bill be amended to address several unrelated things,
Think of a bill like a patch to source code. There is no way for the version control software to require that patches add only one feature. To enforce such a rule, you have to have peer review and a strong cultural commitment to that rule. Basically it has to be implemented as a soft rule rather than a hard rule.
Now US politicians all seem to think the end justifies the means. And usually the ends are very greedy ends (i.e. get reelected anyway possible). With that sort of attitude commitment to any sort of soft rule quickly goes out that window. Now tacking on these sorts of things makes it easier to get them passed (people who like the bill enough will pass it anyway) and makes it easier to get the bill passed (add a pork barrel project for a senator and now he'll vote for the bill). If *ahem* breaking *cough* ... I mean stretching ... the rule helps you or your allies get ahead and ends justify means, then of course you'll do it. On top of that because it's not a hard rule no one can concretely say you've broken any rules and it never gets punished.
It is bad but unfortunately quite common to see bills made up of a collection of unrelated compromises in order to get enough people to vote for it. What baffles me is that you say it doesn't happen in Europe (or at least not as much). Please, what is your secret to pulling that off?
Re:Woohoo (Score:4, Informative)
The other frequent occurance is a bill that has no chance of failing. "Let us vote to declare Cancer a bad thing and that we should research ways to fight it!" well of course everyone is going to vote yes, so all those little congress critters start tacking on a bunch of crap knowing that they can add a ton of garbage before a bill like that has a chance of failure.
The biggest problem is the naming of bills. PATRIOT ACT for example. You can't vote against it, if you vote against it you are not a patriot and you support terrorists. Or the Child Online Protection Act...can't vote against it unless you support pedophiles. Doesn't matter how aweful the language in the bill is, the name is what people here and form their own warped ideas of what the bill ACTUALLY does.
Ultimately, this was the reason "line item veto" was proposed. Normally the President has to shoot down the whole bill or pass the whole thing. He wanted line item veto to "stop the pork and unrelated stuff" so he could veto out parts of the bill and leave the rest. Now, the reality is, for someone who has been paying attention, he has been using signing statements like they are line item vetos (or attempting to). A signing statement is just a note about "this is how I interpret the bill, and as long as it is interpreted this way I pass it". So...the real goal was to once again expand executive power so that he could line item veto out oversight clauses and the like. So he could basically rewrite any law AFTER it had passed out of congress and then sign it into effect.
What A Sensible Law--Sanchez Is Toast (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Tinfoil, are you seriously suggesting that because of this issue, Sanchez will be voted out of office in favor of somebody who doesn't want limits on Customs? Do you really think that the people (the voters) hate their rights so strongly that not only do they want her out of office, but they want to replace her with somebody who wants to take away their rights rather than limit the government's power?
Or are you suggesting that the entire US election system is a fraud and that the people aren't actually
Re:What A Sensible Law--Sanchez Is Toast (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing tinfoil-hat about it. Most people simply count as idiots and should not have the right to vote.
I can't find the link at the moment, but a few years ago a group of (Stanford?) students caused quite a furor over a mock petition drive to revoke a few dangerous "new" laws "recently" passed - The US Bill of Rights reworded into plain English. They had around a 70% positive response rate (ie, people who supported revoking the Bill of Rights).
Most people don't want freedom. They want TV and McDonalds.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I can see it happening, I'm just not expecting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that the people (the voters) hate their rights so strongly that not only do they want her out of office... Or are you suggesting that the entire US election system is a fraud and that the people aren't actually voting for their representatives?
Because one or the other must be true, otherwise your tinfoil fears make no sense.
Your view is quite limited and depressingly naive.
It may not be the people who hate congresswhores who forget their place and actually stick up for the citizens. See, when ONE does something GOOD, it makes the others look BAD.
If it looks like this might become, gods forbid, a habit, then you can expect it to be "discovered" that Sanchez's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate was once in the same zip code as Osama Bin Laden's manicurist, and she's trying to destroy our government from within!
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno what it is like in the US but here in the UK a lot of people tend to vote primerally based on the party not the individual.
What that means is that if a member of parliment pisses off thier party the party can kick them out. Once kicked out of the party they will find it very hard to hold on to thier seat in parliment since as well as the oposition party they will also be competing against thier old parties official candidate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Err ... no? If you've got a proper audit trail, it's hard to fake elections, anonymous or not. It's the audit trail that makes elections hard to fake, not the absence of anonymity.
I don't see why voting should be an anonymous thing.
In that case, you've probably never been the victim of death threats (or more), vandalism, discrimination or being sent to the nearest re-education facility for how you voted in the l
Good Lord! (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, I got into the wrong field, I should have become a border agent so I could my hands on free laptops every day.
Re:Good Lord! (Score:5, Funny)
Legislating common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
I must be reading that wrong because it sounds like Congress doing something that makes sense. It's unfortunate that it takes legislation to get DHS to pull their collective head out of their butt. This should never have been a problem that needed solving.
Re:Legislating common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
1)How will the laptop be returned? Who will pay the shipping charges?
2)Will the government pay for damage during confiscation and/or return shipping?
3)What kind of receipt? Will I have to hand over personal information to identify myself -- which is put in a database and probably not encrypted? What data retention rules will be applied to that database?
4)Complaints -- another black hole into which citizens communicate and no response is ever received. I suggest the bill require the DHS to pay all damage/theft claims first; then try to obtain a refund if the claim is found false.
5)Report to Congress? What a waste of time. I want all that information on a GAO audited web page: how many items confiscated, how many were actually forensically investigated, how many returned to the owners, process time from confiscation to return, how many damage claims and how much it cost, how many arrests as a result of confiscation.
And while they are creating the web page, I want that receipt to provide access to a web page where I and my companies lawyers can track the process of my confiscated equipment. When the item is returned, it will link to the UPS/FedEx tracking number so I can track the return of my item.
Re: (Score:2)
Simpler solution:
Guard: Give me your laptop.
Citizen: Give me my receipt.
Guard: Here you go.
Citizen: Okay, here's my laptop.
Citizen: Hey, this is a receipt for a packet of gum!
Guard: What about it?
Citizen: Where's my laptop?
Guard: What laptop?
The End
Re: (Score:2)
Laws rarely address implementation specifics.
Good to know. (Score:2, Insightful)
That people will be more secure when they search laptops for.....ehm...terrorists?
Re:Good to know. (Score:5, Funny)
How about not searching the laptops at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cause there's no legitimate reason to do so.
What happened to reasonable search and seizure again? And don't gimmie the bullshit about this being the border, and thus completely outside the scope of normal legal protections. It's one thing to look for smuggled goods or potentially disease carrying goods, etc. But nothing you can carry on a laptop can't just be transmitted past customs over the internet. There's no actual reason to search peoples electronics at the border.
Re: (Score:2)
But nothing you can carry on a laptop can't just be transmitted past customs over the internet.
That's exactly what the "terrorists" will start doing/are already doing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well duh. It's cheaper and easier, and there's far less chance of getting caught, and you can do it in such a way as to hide who's dropping off the information and who's collecting it.
This is just about getting people to buckle under to arbitrary authority.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It varies considerably with port, mood of the border agent, and your perceived ethnic group.
its start (Score:2, Insightful)
Finally , someone that sees something wrong with present day situation for abuse of power at border crossings.
Re:its start (Score:4, Interesting)
I use the term "culture" loosely. (If that gets me a troll mod, so be it.)
NOT suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
While this bill is a step in the right direction it also indirectly legitimates the original bill by not outright removing it. They have no business to search my laptop should I come to the US, not in any way, and not in a limited way either. Period.
Re:NOT suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:4, Informative)
Why do you assume you have this right? Seriously, this isn't trolling. It's well founded that even US citizens may legally be searched when entering the US.
Reference: Border Search Exception [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Searched yes, but them taking possession of your laptop for an indefinite amount of time (in which you probably wanted to use it for your job or something?) is just unacceptable.
Use of Encryption (Score:2)
From the statement:
"Currently federal border agents may conduct border searches and seize travelers' personal laptops and other electronic storage devices without evidence or suspicion of wrongdoing."
It does not appear that this bill will change the reason you are targeted for a search. Since I'm an advocate of strong encryption I use TrueCrypt a lot. I can imagine that I could be flagged just because I have TrueCrypt installed, even if they cannot find an encrypted file system (hint - they won't)
I understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand why they have to do searches pre-flight. You certainly don't want people sneaking dangerous materials, weapons, etc. on a plane flying at high speed miles above the ground.
And I can understand why they would want to check the hardware of laptops to ensure that they're really laptops and not disguised bombs or weapons of some sort.
But what I cannot fricken understand is why they check data on laptops. Is someone really going to drop a plane out of the air because a laptop has porn on it?! Is someone really going to high-jack a plane because he has a hard drive full of copyright infringing MP3s?!
Searching data on a laptop has absolutely no relationship to the reason for pre-flight searches. It will not protect anyone and is done solely as a fishing expedition get around the US Constitution. You'd think conservatives would want to protect our Constitution. But you'd be completely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it they are searching the drives when you enter the US, so in fact you are done flying, the data in question is to determine if you are a threat to national security (I guess).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like you understand just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, I hadn't even thought of that.
Thumbdrives (Score:2, Insightful)
Actual Text of Proposed Bill (Score:5, Informative)
I found a link on Thomas [loc.gov] for the actual bill: Border Security Search Accountability Act of 2008 (Introduced in House) [loc.gov]. Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but hopefully it can clear up questions as to whether it applies only to U.S. Citizens, or to *anyone* who is crossing the border.
BTW: This is the PROPOSED text of the bill. It's by no means a law, yet, and is certainly subject to amendment before/if it ever it gets voted on.
Obvious missing option (Score:3, Interesting)
As a non-USian, I might be clueless, but wouldn't it be easier for congress to simply stop said department (an extension of the US government) snooping people's data? It's not as if child pron (as an example) will make a plane fall out of the sky or crash into a building. And if they have good reason to believe one carries such data, aren't the normal, legal routes (warrants etc.) sufficient?
Seems this politico does not want the state to give up it's unlawfully usurped power over the population - just make it seem more palatable without needing any real action - DHS is a branch of government after all, and who else will the complaints go to than the government?
Re:Obvious missing option (Score:5, Informative)
It's not specific for the US - making laws is usually easier than getting rid of them. So, if there's a way to make something that's allowed by law, but which you don't like impractical by saddling it with extra laws, that's usually preferred to repealing the law which allows it in the first place.
will make a plane fall out of the sky or crash into a building.
Since any of these searches are done by _customs_, it doesn't matter what or what not the data on the laptop might do to the plane. It has already landed.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
receipt (Score:5, Funny)
"That is your receipt for your husband, thank you, and this is my receipt for your receipt."
!common sense. Security Theatre. (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill is NOT a sudden outbreak of common sense. A sudden outbreak of common sense would be to abandon this idiotic practice for the security theatre it is.
And people wonder why I left and don't like returning to the USA. California uber alles.
RS
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
and if it's encrypted more than once, it's nearly impossible to decrypt.
Oh, you mean with ROT26? ;)
Or perhaps RSA? Let's see...
Let n = pq, with e_1 * d_1 = e_2 * d_2 = 1 (mod phi(n)). Now let's encrypt m twice; we get (m^e_1)^e_2 = m^(e_1 * e_2); the decryption key is d = d_1 * d_2. This amounts to choosing d_1*d_2 randomly in a weird way, instead of just choosing d directly.
Even worse, if you only apply one pair of keys, you get (m^e)^e = m^(e^2); you're restricting your keyspace to the quadratic residues modulo phi(n), which lowers your security.
Depending on how you propos
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cause they're humans.
Small-note: I have a friend that works for DHS.
I hadn't talked with her in a long time, so when we met-up again, I found out she was working for DHS in the airport.
Obviously, I asked her all sorts of questions.
Her answers were really insightful:
She says that although there are a ton of things that can send out a "flag", they do not normally do that because for each flag, they have to fill out a 3-page 'report'.
So I asked her why
!common sense yet (Score:2)
Other changes proposed in the same bill: (Score:5, Funny)
* Unreasonable searches and seizures must be done with a smile or the next one is free
* Verbal abuse from border agents must refrain from using racial/ethnic epithets
* Coupon good for a free McDonald's Happy Meal issued to every person detained without charges by DHS
(Offer valid to U.S. citizens only. Void where prohibited.)
* Michael Chertoff must pinky swear not to laugh when asked if any complaints submitted to DHS are actually, you know, linked to their accountability.
This is BS: It Legalizes the Practice (Score:3, Insightful)
This proposed law, in the guise of restricting the practice of confiscating and/or searching travelers laptops, actually legalizes it. Think about it a moment: by saying "here are the requirements for doing this," implicitly it also says "you can legally do this."
I want it banned. My laptop contains the keys to my life: my bank account, my credit cards, all of my online shopping accounts, everything. It also contains all of my employer's trade secrets. No government staff should have access to that data without court order under any circumstances.
If I have to leave the country, either my laptop won't be coming with me, or I'll be encrypting the contents of its hard drive and shipping it home by UPS. (Or I suppose I could leave a backup at home, transmit any new files to my server from wherever I went, and wipe the hard disk before returning to the US.)
Re:Bill To Add Accountability To Border Laptop Sea (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It will only die if you let it. That's the way this country works, if something doesn't have much support it will die. It's a government of the people and if the people are silent or if only a few speak up then that means maybe the bill should be left to die.
Oh, and griping on slashdot doesn't count either, though I know there are a huge number of people who think it does (or worse, should). Sites like this are great at creating an illusion of support.
If this is important to you then start a public awarenes
Re:Still wondering? (Score:5, Insightful)
Child porn is not a legitimate reason to have our rights taken away.
First of all, the damage has already been done. Once it's on media of some sort, the 'child' has already been abused. Destroying copies won't undo the event.
Secondly, are you *sure* it's actually CHILD porn? Are the guards going to verify the identity and age of all the participants? No, they will not. CG, drawn, ageplay all equal child porn to them. Plus it gives them a great excuse to confiscate any device or media and detain any person they want. Good luck trying to prove it was the DHS that loaded some kiddy porn on your device after they had confiscated it and sent you off to an all expenses paid vacation in Cuba.
If you really cared about those harmed by child porn you'd be more concerned with preventing the creation of it, not hindering after-the-fact distribution. But continue on with your doubleplus good bellyfeel campaign. It's probably too scary for you to have any rights (and the commensurate responsibilities) but it's not your call to diminish my rights just so you can _feel_ secure.