anyone worried about US borders wrt ebooks?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Directly from the official release:
"Officers may detain documents and electronic devices, or copies thereof, for a reasonable period of time to perform a thorough border search. The search may take place on-site or at an off-site location."

Note that it says "detain electronic devices OR copies thereof". In other words, we reserve the right to send your electronics to the NSA or wherever for further analysis. And all over the document it goes on about "reasonable" but it doesn't come out and give any limits for "reasonable".

Somewhere in there it also says that if they do take your stuff for further examination, "responses [from assisting agencies] should be received within fifteen (1 5) days", but also "CBP may permit extensions in increments of seven (7) days." - with no upper limit mentioned.



And I keep telling you, that is not the point - refer to the earlier linked article about "I have nothing to hide and other misunderstanding about privacy" - I will link to it again as you should really read it. I can't believe an attorney (don't know if you are, someone in the thread mentioned it) does not see this. They have no right to access that data. You can pooh-pooh it and call me paranoid all you like, but I have no control over copies of that data. If they tell me it is destroyed, can I be reasonably sure? Why? Because they tell me so? From the same guys that proposed the Total Information Awareness program (which was quickly renamed "Terrorist Information Awareness" in 2003 after a media outrage)? The same guys from that little NSA/AT&T outing?

From here in the Netherlands, "land of the free" is starting to sound increasingly like a sad joke, and to see people actually supporting and defending these lame "anti-terrorist" measures is a shock to me.

Perhaps the first time some animal flies a couple of planes full of innocent passengers, into a couple of skyscrapers full of innocent people, in YOUR country, you'll think differently about more border security. Had our people done a better job and kept these animals out to begin with, maybe things would have been different. Hey, they wanna take my laptop/reader? Go for it. Don't care. Just do it for EVERONE, okay? And I shouldn't call them "Animals". Thats an insult to animals. There is no word in the human language that can describe what these things did. And as for "The land of the free" being a joke? Is that why people die in the desert every frickin day to get here illegally? Is that why they are streaming into this country from every country? Perfect we're not, but I don't see people knocking down your doors to get in..........

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

If you are worried about your company's confidental data, then please tell me, what in that data would interest a custom's agent?? You think the custom's agents of the world are going to unite to overthrow your company??

True, but it misses the point.

I may have nothing to hide. And I certainly don't mind things like bomb-sniffing dogs, and X-rays of my luggage to insure I'm not smuggling a gun or something. But when a customs officer or TSA employee wishes to examine the contents of my laptop or other device, I have an issue. whether I have anything to hide or not, I see no plausible reason for them to look.

(And in fact, the only checks I've encountered while traveling thus far have been requests to turn on the laptop, to prove it's a functioning device, and not a disguised explosive.)

Talking about being happy if it blocks terrorist plans or kiddie porn is nonsense, for the reasons you mentioned earlier relating to protecting confidential company data. Anyone stupid enough to travel with that sort of thing on a laptop deserves to be taken out of circulation simply to keep them from breeding, let alone whatever the offending material is. It's far too easy to simply stash the stuff on a server and access it from wherever you are. There's no need to carry it with you, and too many reasons not to.

I live in NYC. I was here during 9/11. I have rather vivid memories of the experience, and firmly support measures intended to swat those doing such things and insure it doesn't happen again. But I support effective measures, based on some understanding of the issues.

I'm willing to bet we could drop about half of the so-called "security" measures that have been imposed post 9/11 with no perceptible increase in risk. Too much of what is there now is a result of the way the game is played in politics. In a for profit business, you win by showing more revenue and profit on your bottom line this year than you did last year. In a bureaucracy, you win by being able to request a bigger budget and more staff next year. So the folks involved in providing this security will be endlessly inventive about coming up with threats they need people and money to defend against and the politicians behind it are far more interested in making sure they get re-elected than in actual security provided by their efforts, because they'll have all of these activities they can point to and say to the voters "Re-elect me! I'm protecting you!"

Protecting me. Uh-huh. From what? And who will protect me from you?

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" are still words to live by.
______
Dennis

[RickyMaveety]

QUOTE=acidzebra;230908]Directly from the official release:
"Officers may detain documents and electronic devices, or copies thereof, for a reasonable period of time to perform a thorough border search. The search may take place on-site or at an off-site location."

Note that it says "detain electronic devices OR copies thereof". In other words, we reserve the right to send your electronics to the NSA or wherever for further analysis. And all over the document it goes on about "reasonable" but it doesn't come out and give any limits for "reasonable".[/QUOTE]

No "in other words" .... that is your own take on it. It is NOT what the policy says. So, I shall just ignore that part of your argument, which has no basis in fact.

Note also that the word used is "detained" ... not "confiscated." I see nothing that indicates "off site" shall be the NSA. A reasonable period of time is something that has been defined by the courts of the United States in hundreds of thousands of state and federal cases. You read those, and then get back to me.


QUOTE=acidzebra;230908]Somewhere in there it also says that if they do take your stuff for further examination, "responses [from assisting agencies] should be received within fifteen (1 5) days", but also "CBP may permit extensions in increments of seven (7) days." - with no upper limit mentioned.[/QUOTE]

And if they do "take your stuff" for "further examination" you can bet your boots it will be because they found something highly suspect. I do not imagine for one moment that this sort of stuff is going to happen while someone tries to figure out if your copy of "Great Expectations" is from Project Gutenberg or not.


QUOTE=acidzebra;230908]And I keep telling you, that is not the point - refer to the earlier linked article about "I have nothing to hide and other misunderstanding about privacy" - I will link to it again as you should really read it. I can't believe an attorney (don't know if you are, someone in the thread mentioned it) does not see this. They have no right to access that data. You can pooh-pooh it and call me paranoid all you like, but I have no control over copies of that data. If they tell me it is destroyed, can I be reasonably sure? Why? Because they tell me so? From the same guys that proposed the Total Information Awareness program (which was quickly renamed "Terrorist Information Awareness" in 2003 after a media outrage)? The same guys from that little NSA/AT&T outing?[/QUOTE]

And, I keep telling you ... if you are not quoting primary source material or case law, then I really don't give a rat's ass what they have to say. Some idiot's article is not the law. Everything you read in an article on the internet is not necessarily the truth. So, since I have no reason to believe that what it says is (1) the law or (2) true ... why exactly should I waste my time reading it?? Is it a first hand explanation of policy by Customs?? No?? Then, please ... only waste as much of my time as you absolutely have to.


QUOTE=acidzebra;230908]From here in the Netherlands, "land of the free" is starting to sound increasingly like a sad joke, and to see people actually supporting and defending these lame "anti-terrorist" measures is a shock to me.[/QUOTE]

Oh, and the Netherlands isn't a land of the free?? That's so sad to know. I, myself, have never used that term with respect to the United States. It makes us sound like some sort of paradise. This is not paradise. It is a country, a country that is entitled (just like yours) to protect it's borders. A country whose Customs and Immigration Departments have decided to have a policy of searching digital information. Now, before you start going on and on about "land of the free" and "rights of the citizens" and yada yada ... keep in mind that travellers from other countries are not entitled to the rights of a citizen ... and your personal opinion of the United States matters not one iota to me. You are entitled to it ... I am entitled not to care about it.

However, since you are not a citizen, you don't have standing to complain about the search policy in the first place. I'm sure someone will let you know as soon as they decide to extend US Constitutional rights to everyone on the planet. As far as any citizens who have complained ... it would appear that they were engaging in illegal acts, which makes the complaint a little hollow, don't you think??

Sorry .... sillly me, of course you don't think ... you read some person's article and let them do the thinking for you. Why let the law get in the way, right?

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

QUOTE=acidzebra;230908]I see nothing that indicates "off site" shall be the NSA.

I stated "...or wherever" but you omitted that. I think the policy lists a number of agencies, but no matter - the crux is they CAN take your stuff (for no other reason than a highly qualified border guard thinking you look fishy), while in an earlier post you argued "they are not confiscating your digital media or documents when you enter a country" but now you are arguing that they may take it, but only for this "reasonable amount of time" for which I apparently need an education in law to appreciate it. Which I don't have, I'm a lowly network engineer.

And, I keep telling you ... if you are not quoting primary source material or case law, then I really don't give a rat's ass what they have to say. Some idiot's article is not the law. Everything you read in an article on the internet is not necessarily the truth.

And I realise this. The author is Daniel J. Solove, associate professor of law at the George Washington University Law School. It was published in the San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, p. 745, 2007 and GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 289. But you have made it abundantly clear that you won't read it, which is fine.

Oh, and the Netherlands isn't a land of the free?? That's so sad to know. However, since you are not a citizen, you don't have standing to complain about the search policy in the first place.

The Netherlands is one of the most liberal societies I know which tries to define 'free' as broadly as possible. Sure it is not perfect and the weather sucks, but what are you going to do. And I didn't realise I needed "standing" to voice my opinion on an open internet forum, on a post titled "anyone worried about US borders wrt ebooks".

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Perhaps the first time some animal flies a couple of planes full of innocent passengers, into a couple of skyscrapers full of innocent people, in YOUR country, you'll think differently about more border security. Had our people done a better job and kept these animals out to begin with, maybe things would have been different.

While I completely sympathize with you on the matter of the incredible cruelty of this horrible deed (I think the entire world does), I disagree with your assessment that you can protect an entire country in this way. I also fear that in your anger and shock, you may overreact and allow people to seriously abridge your civil liberties while not providing any adequate & real protection except for maybe a feeling of security.

[pshrynk]

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

I stated "...or wherever" but you omitted that. I think the policy lists a number of agencies, but no matter - the crux is they CAN take your stuff (for no other reason than a highly qualified border guard thinking you look fishy), while in an earlier post you argued "they are not confiscating your digital media or documents when you enter a country" but now you are arguing that they may take it, but only for this "reasonable amount of time" for which I apparently need an education in law to appreciate it. Which I don't have, I'm a lowly network engineer."

Well, keep reading .... they are supposed to take "copies" and only the orginal media if that is necessary to the search. As mentioned, for 99.9 percent of the people passing through US Customs, the new policy will mean very little, if any, change. The only reason I can see them taking someone's digital device for further examination, is that the cursory search uncovers something fishy (for lack of a better word).

And, yes, taking something for an extended search when the initial search has uncovered something that makes an extended search necessary, and subjecting that something to an extended search "for a reasonable period of time" is not the same as confiscation. When something is confiscated, the person it is taken from does not get it back.

That is something the people using this term either do not understand, or do not care to mention, since saying your stuff is going to be confiscated for no reason at all sounds so much more interesting. It just happens not to be true.

Originally Posted by acidzebra

And I realise this. The author is Daniel J. Solove, associate professor of law at the George Washington University Law School. It was published in the San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, p. 745, 2007 and GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 289. But you have made it abundantly clear that you won't read it, which is fine.

Oooo .... a real live law review article?? Oh, wow .... I wrote one of those once. Yep ... they have no force of law whatsoever. None. Zip. And, you say this guy is an "associate professor"?? So ... low man on the totem pole writing for a law review I have never heard of (and I practiced in San Diego for close to 20 years). That's really impressive. I should really drop everything I'm doing and listen to what this clearly brilliant individual has to say. (And, just in case you are missing the sarcasm here .... trust me, it's there.)

Originally Posted by acidzebra

The Netherlands is one of the most liberal societies I know which tries to define 'free' as broadly as possible. Sure it is not perfect and the weather sucks, but what are you going to do. And I didn't realise I needed "standing" to voice my opinion on an open internet forum, on a post titled "anyone worried about US borders wrt ebooks".

You only need standing to make complaints about the rights of citizens being infringed ... and like that there. Yes ... Netherlands ... liberal society ... everyone gets along so well. Must remind myself to tell you the story of Anne Frank some day. She was a citizen of the Netherlands as I recall ... and it was another citizen who turned her in.

But, hey .... anytime someone is quoting second rate law review articles and song lyrics to defend their position ... well, it's a sorry state of affairs.

As mentioned ... if you are all that worried about what US Customs is going to find on your digital device, then before coming to the US:

1. Remove all child pornography from all digital devices;
2. Remove your plans for building a dirty bomb;
3. Remove all pirated digital media;
4. Remove all company materials that are comprised of:
a. Child porn;
b. Plans for building a dirty bomb;
c. Pirated media;
d. The details of your drug smuggling operation.

Or, if it is impossible for you to remove these materials from your digital device, then why not consider travelling in the Netherlands?? They have a liberal society. They'd just love to have a few thousand people murdered at The Hague.

[acidzebra]

Again you seem to imply I have something to worry about (I don't), and again you miss the point that this will have almost zero impact on those who DO have something to worry about and will have a definite impact on people who have nothing to worry about but who are unfortunate enough to cross US borders and meet a disgruntled border guard (you estimate 1% of people, which is how many people who enter/leave the US daily? and how much government resources will this tie up?).

I'm a little amazed at the lengths you will go to to discredit an author and an article which you have not read, I was merely suggesting it as interesting reading material relevant to the discussion, not as an authoritative source, and I certainly did not quote from it. I think I mentioned that several times. This law stuff must be really competitive, huh?

[silencer]

The thing about this entire 'new' argument that has popped up overnight, is that it demonstrates the American attitude that "If you ain't got nothin to hide, then you aint gonna mind if we's just gonna do what we feel is best fur da country". The forum is also being flooded with inaccurate information by a few people with an agenda.

American civil liberties were suspended in 2001 to a large degree, and power to law enforcement agencies became a game of how much before people say no.

The earlier suggestion that the world wants 'American charter rights' extended to them is laughable because when the US government disembowels a legendary document like the US Constitution, why would anyone suggest others want to fall under it?
Canadian law and UN law has far more civil protection built in than anything the US may want to force on you in the last 8 years.
It is important to note that when I pass into the USA, I lose the protection and freedom I enjoy under the Canadian constitution and therefor have to rely on the recently hobbled US legislation.

I was at an international computer law convention in Washington in 2005 or 06, I can't recall. As I walked down the street I was arbitrarily detained 4 times by plain clothes officers. Being a blond Scottish Canadian, I was on my way usually in 5 minutes or so. Why did they stop me? I had a digital camera and was walking down the street. Thats freedom.
One officer was kind enough to tell me that I couldn't walk on the left side (where everyone was walking) of the street because I had a camera, and men would be ordered to come out and smash it. It is important to note, I wasn't taking pictures, I just had a camera. So I asked if I could continue walking down the right side, through the park were there was no sidewalk. He said "Sure, you can do anything you want. This is America".

After that, I started asking a lawyer from Cypress to walk with me because she was an expert in international law. It came in handy.

The US Constitution's amendment 4 states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This has been established to mean ''...where practical, a governmental search and seizure should represent both the efforts of the officer to gather evidence of wrongful acts and the judgment of the magistrate that the collected evidence is sufficient to justify invasion of a citizen's private premises or conversation.'' - United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297

You have the constitutional right to secure your "papers" and "effects". You have the right to be protected against groundless warrants. You POSITIVELY have the right to protect yourself against searches WITHOUT warrant.

Despite "if you ain't got nothing to hide" mentality, the US government has violated constitutional law with this particular measure of searching laptops.

Stand up for the constitution and stop letting people tell you that 'we' have to violate it and your rights because - what is it you said? A plane full of people decide to fly it into a building? Some might call that treasonous talk.

Well, being a Canadian, I don't really care much if you folks are ok with betraying the US constitution, even though you swear oaths to uphold and protect it. I DO care though when you treat our border like something you own. My computer is not legally searchable under the rights and freedoms of the US Constitution (no matter what the current thinking is). The constitution trumps all other US laws. Any regulation or law that violates constitutional guarantees is illegal. Therefor I would simply mail my documentation and data if for no other reason than to not be complicit in illegal government actions. We don't have to deal with that stuff in Canada, and I feel bad for you. Perhaps Mr. Obama will remove any Bush administration laws, and re-empower the people of the USA.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

[silencer]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

She isn't shooting her mouth off without thinking. Ricky is an attorney, and has some actual knowledge of the law. Provide citations to the relevant law and precedents that support your theory, and you and she can argue intelligently.
______
Dennis

This person is no attorney. Judging by the statements here, this person couldn't pass the LSAT.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by silencer

This person is no attorney. Judging by the statements here, this person couldn't pass the LSAT.

Whether or not you agree with what is being said, a little respect is called for. Or were you never taught that where you come from?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by silencer

The thing about this entire 'new' argument that has popped up overnight, is that it demonstrates the American attitude that "If you ain't got nothin to hide, then you aint gonna mind if we's just gonna do what we feel is best fur da country". The forum is also being flooded with inaccurate information by a few people with an agenda.

American civil liberties were suspended in 2001 to a large degree, and power to law enforcement agencies became a game of how much before people say no.

The earlier suggestion that the world wants 'American charter rights' extended to them is laughable because when the US government disembowels a legendary document like the US Constitution, why would anyone suggest others want to fall under it?
Canadian law and UN law has far more civil protection built in than anything the US may want to force on you in the last 8 years.
It is important to note that when I pass into the USA, I lose the protection and freedom I enjoy under the Canadian constitution and therefor have to rely on the recently hobbled US legislation.

I was at an international computer law convention in Washington in 2005 or 06, I can't recall. As I walked down the street I was arbitrarily detained 4 times by plain clothes officers. Being a blond Scottish Canadian, I was on my way usually in 5 minutes or so. Why did they stop me? I had a digital camera and was walking down the street. Thats freedom.
One officer was kind enough to tell me that I couldn't walk on the left side (where everyone was walking) of the street because I had a camera, and men would be ordered to come out and smash it. It is important to note, I wasn't taking pictures, I just had a camera. So I asked if I could continue walking down the right side, through the park were there was no sidewalk. He said "Sure, you can do anything you want. This is America".

After that, I started asking a lawyer from Cypress to walk with me because she was an expert in international law. It came in handy.

The US Constitution's amendment 4 states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This has been established to mean ''...where practical, a governmental search and seizure should represent both the efforts of the officer to gather evidence of wrongful acts and the judgment of the magistrate that the collected evidence is sufficient to justify invasion of a citizen's private premises or conversation.'' - United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297

You have the constitutional right to secure your "papers" and "effects". You have the right to be protected against groundless warrants. You POSITIVELY have the right to protect yourself against searches WITHOUT warrant.

Despite "if you ain't got nothing to hide" mentality, the US government has violated constitutional law with this particular measure of searching laptops.

Stand up for the constitution and stop letting people tell you that 'we' have to violate it and your rights because - what is it you said? A plane full of people decide to fly it into a building? Some might call that treasonous talk.

Well, being a Canadian, I don't really care much if you folks are ok with betraying the US constitution, even though you swear oaths to uphold and protect it. I DO care though when you treat our border like something you own. My computer is not legally searchable under the rights and freedoms of the US Constitution (no matter what the current thinking is). The constitution trumps all other US laws. Any regulation or law that violates constitutional guarantees is illegal. Therefor I would simply mail my documentation and data if for no other reason than to not be complicit in illegal government actions. We don't have to deal with that stuff in Canada, and I feel bad for you. Perhaps Mr. Obama will remove any Bush administration laws, and re-empower the people of the USA.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

It amazes me how those who come here as guests have the effrontry to criticize how this country is run. Its not for you to do so, anymore than it is right for me to criticize anything about your country. We don't need your sympathy, and you can take Obama keep him to help you out. Thats just one more problem we don't need.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

It amazes me how those who come here as guests have the effrontry to criticize how this country is run.

Yes, the US never meddles in the business of other countries.

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Whether or not you agree with what is being said, a little respect is called for. Or were you never taught that where you come from?

You mean respect like the repeated implication that because I don't like invasion of my privacy, I must have something to hide?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Yes, the US never meddles in the business of other countries.
Of couse what you say is true. We also spend BILLIONS yearly supporting those countries. How much do we send you? But what has that to do with
my quote?
You mean respect like the repeated implication that because I don't like invasion of my privacy, I must have something to hide?

Privacy? what privacy? You are living under an erroneous impression if you actually think you have any privacy whatsoever. Do you actually not realize that if someone wanted any type of information at all on you, they could have in in a matter of a few keystrokes and a credit card? Thanks to the internet, and unscrupulous people, there is no privacy anymore.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Privacy? what privacy? You are living under an erroneous impression if you actually think you have any privacy whatsoever. Do you actually not realize that if someone wanted any type of information at all on you, they could have in in a matter of a few keystrokes and a credit card? Thanks to the internet, and unscrupulous people, there is no privacy anymore.

I would have to disagree - while there is a lot of publicly-available information about me, all of it is information that I choose to make public. With massive bribes and power you might dig a little deeper, but even that will only get you so far. Privacy is very much alive, but I agree that we must guard it fiercely, lest it disappear or be taken from us. And it is much harder to regain once lost. Which is why I argue that you should not give it up so easily for the feeling/illusion of security.

Also, I don't think you send any money to the Netherlands, but I might be wrong. We don't need handouts-with-an-agenda (or without, for that matter), and if the dollar keeps heading south, you might need ours in the future. Looking at the USD vs EUR for the last few years, whoever runs your country has much to account for (click on the 5-year view).

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by silencer

This person is no attorney. Judging by the statements here, this person couldn't pass the LSAT.

Actually Ricky did pass the LSAT and makes quite a good living as an attorney. Just sayin'