anyone worried about US borders wrt ebooks?

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Period ... end of discussion. It isn't there. It's not happening. If it matters that much to you, either email it or leave it at home. It is NOT a violation of civil rights ... never has been, probably never will be. So, please to get over it.

Yeah. you see that is one of the problems right there. In Europe, such privacy actual is a civil right (or rather almost at the level of human rights). I understand that this is not the case in your country but the sentiment is the same, even if the legalees are different. Kinda like arguing a country that hasn't singed the Human Rights Charter can simply ignore it, although that is of course a completely different level. Still, your country defends and employs torture and uses foreign bases to get around pesky regulations.

Apart from general privacy, things like back-scatter scanners are very problematic (especially since they are only security-theater, no real security).

Besides, if your private data (bank stuff, corporate stuff, etc but also emails and the like) is encrypted (as every sensible person should with a laptop) and you refuse to give the password, then can confiscate your stuff. Legally, you need to provide the password because customs have just about unrestricted powers but from an ethical stand-point, why the heck should you? If customs just wants to have a look, maybe. But if they want a copy, then absolutely not. The US has a history for sharing such stuff or else just having terrible security (like most governments...).

The things I personally hate is:

• The US requires extensive info from the airlines while breaking their data protection agreements with the EU (which caused the EU to lower the reqs )
• A foreigner can be detained indefinately and without access to lawyers or Red Cross
• Finger-prints and other biometric data (with their shitty comp security)
• None of these things get you any real increase in security. The airport stuff is rediculous (scanners, gels or fluids, pointy things, metal things,...)

But boy is that off-topic

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by Milarepa

My post was not about living in an entirely free, entirely safe society. In fact, it is just the opposite. You can EITHER have freedom or you can have security. The two principles do not co-exist very well. It seems to me that too many Americans have already decided they would prefer security. We will pay for that some day.

That is not entirely true, actually.

Firstly, you can have neither and that is where the US and others are heading. What they do is called security theater and is only designed to appease the general populance. The effectiveness is almost zero but a politician doesn't want to be seen as doing nothing even if the alternative is pure bullshit. Ditto for offshore drilling.

But you can have reasonable security and still have a very high degree of freedom. It is simply hard to do and not as shiny and media effective as the general nonesense politicians perfer.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by joblack

"All of you folks in foreign countries .... really, I wish to hell and back again that my country would stay the heck out of interfering with policy in your countries. Having said that, I really wish that you all would get a better education in the laws and politics of my country before spouting off things that simply have no basis in fact."

LOL ... you're quite amusing. You should consider that some foreign visitors have a better view of your actual state of 'freedom'.

In a state of law there could be no "enemy combatant". I have read about some trials where the people aren't guilty but are still in custody because they 'could be dangerous'.

This is a police state ... only how much 'police state' is in question.

This could be possible in Nazi Germany - but today it isn't.

In fact I'm not only talking about 'border problems' ... I'm talking about the global tendency.

Laptop seizures

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ED4K125G92.DTL

There is also a difference between arrogance, ignorance and assertiveness. You possess the first and second ... but the last is missing.

Discussion is the way to go ... not global bashing.

OK kiddo .... let's look at the article .... shall we??

Here it is in full ..... let's take it point by point ....

For at least the last six years, federal border agents have been taking travelers' laptop computers away from them to be searched without any evidence of the travelers' wrongdoing. Border officials have been able to share copies of the laptops' contents with other agencies - and to prosecute travelers for crimes based on what they've found on the illegally searched and seized computers.

OK ..... this is point one. The border agents are conducting searches. Border searches do not, and have never, required evidence of wrongdoing. This is an important point that this article's author chooses to ignore ... but let's move on.


Anyone's computer (or flash drive, hard drive, iPod, cell phone or pager) can be seized, and has been seized. According to a recent survey by the Association of Corporate Travelers, 7 percent of business travelers report having their laptops searched by the federal government. One of the reasons why the public is finally learning about this program is that businesses were starting to get worried about their trade secrets leaking out to rivals. It's an unfortunate way to learn about this infringement upon our Fourth Amendment rights.

Hmmm .... here the author uses the word "seized" rather than searched. Although later on he/she notes that seven percent of business travelers report having their laptops "searched" not "seized." Since the author provides not one reference to anything that would actually indicate that all these people are also having their laptops either seized or confiscated, I'm still not certain as to where everyone seems to have gotten this idea. But, again .... let's continue.

Hard numbers about the number and demographics of the people who have been affected by this policy aren't available because - surprise - the government has not been collecting the data. What's even more alarming is that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, right here in San Francisco, has offered an endorsement of the policy. In April, the court upheld the government's right to conduct searches of electronic data without any suspicion of wrongdoing. Hope you left your financial records at home.

Indeed, the 9th Circuit upheld Customs' right to conduct searches of laptops, and to use what was found therein (namely a large amount of child pornography) to prosecute a pedophile. I don't recall that they used any of his financial data in the case, or that Customs suddenly has whole teams of accountants on hand to see if returning citizens are tax cheats, but .... hey, why worry about facts when you are writing an article, right???

Hope you didn't have any use for them, either - this policy allows officials to hang onto those laptops as long as they want. In some instances, travelers have lost their computers for months.

Again .... an actual reading of the actual policy indicates that Customs cannot "hang onto those laptops as long as they want." They can hang on to copies of the data for as long as they need to search it, but the policy does not necessarily provide for them to seize a laptop if the original search demonstrates no need to do so. And, of course, the author only makes a vague reference to travelers losing their computers for months .... with no citation. Gee .... way to back up your argument .... provide not a single fact that anyone could actually validate. Whooooo hoooo!! American journalism at its best.

Fortunately, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is trying to right as much of this wrong as he can with legislation that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches, as well as prohibit profiling based on race, religion or national origin. Customs border protection would also be required to disclose statistics about who is being stopped for searches - and why.

If he's successful, this will be a really new idea, one that has never been tried out before in any country that I know of. Require a "reasonable suspicion" to conduct a border search. So, no more going through anything you carry with you ... smuggle anything you want, gang ... unless the drug dogs start looking at you and snickering.

Oh, and let us hope that Senator Feingold is most emphatically NOT an attorney. I mean ..... heaven help us if the man has any kind of law degree. That would just be wrong on so many levels.


While travelers from all races have reported laptop seizure, many advocates suspect that this policy is hitting Muslim or "Muslim-looking" travelers harder. (We'll never know until we get the data.) No surprise there - and once again, an easy way to sow discord and mistrust amongst communities from which America desperately needs help.

Now .... again, the author seems to be mixing up the ideas of a search and a seizure. They aren't quite the same ... but I suppose one isn't quite as sexy as the other. Then, and I love this bit .... many advocates "suspect" that the policy is hitting Muslims? Really, the author has just finished telling us that they are searching (oh ... sorry .... seizing .... even though it's really just searching) laptops from "all races." OK .... I suspect this author is talking out of his ass ... does my suspicion (reasonable as it may be) make it true?? Just asking.

Though the bill isn't finished yet, we couldn't be more supportive of the concept. It is unconscionable that the federal government has gotten away with such a blatant breach of our privacy for this long. The sooner it's corrected, the better.

Now .... let's see, the Federal Government of this country has been conducting border searches for one hell of a long time, and it's never been considered a breach of "our" privacy before. And ... who exactly is this "our" ... the people of the United States?? The people of the entire world?? A little bit of clarification would probably help here, but that's not the purpose of the article, apparently.


Feingold will not be getting much help from the White House. At a recent hearing on the policy before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, the Department of Homeland Security declined to even send a witness. Apparently, the White House doesn't feel the need to explain what it's doing to Congress or to the American people.

Feingold will not be getting much help from anyone who knows anything about Fourth Amendment law either. It has never been held that routine border search is even covered by the Fourth Amendment. I'm not exactly certain what the White House has to do with this particular policy ... granted it is a policy set out by Customs and Immigration .... but I don't recall seeing anything stating that the Chimpanzee in Chief drafted the policy. But, do you think it might .... just might .... have something to do with the fact that routine border searches have never (ever) been found to be a Constitutional violation??


We would beg to differ.

Well, of course you would. It wouldn't be a good incendiary article if you didn't ..... carry on, pardon the interruption.

Feingold's bill need not infringe upon the executive branch's long-held authority to conduct routine searches at the border for purposes of seizing drugs and other contraband. That authority is vitally important for our national security and public safety.

Oh .... and suddenly routine searches are vitally important for our national security and public safety. So ... it was ok to stop that pedophile?? No one intruded on his Constitutional rights when they stopped him from bringing contraband (illegal goods, in the form of lots and lots of child porn) into the country??? But .... ok .... I really do wish you would stop changing sides here ... you are going to make me dizzy.


But it's clear that the federal government needs to be reminded that all travelers, whether U.S. citizens or not, do not surrender every shred of their rights at the border. Nor should they be required to surrender every shred of their personal belongings without being offered a reason to do so - or any legal recourse should the government find something objectionable on that laptop and decide to prosecute them for possessing it.

And .... I keep wondering when the author is going to give us a least one example, that can actually be validated, of something other than a routine search of personal belongings. I realize that the author keeps insisting that laptops are being "seized" ... but those surveys only talk about routine searches. As for having "no legal recourse" .... heck, even the pedophile had legal recourse when he was charged with possessing child pornography. He lost his case, and lost again on appeal, but that doesn't mean he didn't have any legal recourse. But .... ya gotta love the author for getting in there and blinding the reader with an amazing lack of facts.

Feingold's legislation should help clear up this unfortunate misunderstanding, but it's a shame that the White House needs this reminder. The argument against this policy is laid out pretty clearly in the Fourth Amendment. But then, the Constitution isn't something this administration has spent much time studying.

And ... neither has the author. So .... shall we look at the Fourth Amendment for a moment??

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.

Now, there's that pesky word that the author doesn't care to acknowledge .... "unreasonable." So, the people (which has generally been held to mean the citizens of the United States ... but I digress), have a right to have security against unreasonable searches and seizures. But then, it doesn't say ALL searches and seizures ... just that they can't be unreasonable. So, reasonable searches and even reasonable seizures are allowable. And, guess what .... the courts of the United States have held over and over and over again, that routine border searches are reasonable. Gee, even this author admitted that .... go figure.

Further, it states that all Warrants must issue on a showing of probable cause .... well, yes, in order to get a warrant issued, you do need to make a showing of probable cause to a judge. However, routine border searches are considered reasonable searches that can be conducted without a warrant.

Having said that, if a pat down search at the border doesn't demonstrate any drugs, and yet the dog is still snickering, border agents are empowered to detain the individual until a warrant me be obtained and a more complete search may be conducted.

And ... the same thing is true of data. If a routine search is permitted by the laws, including the courts, of this country ... and there is no probable cause for a warrant to issue, then Customs is going to have a bit of explaining to do. However, in the one court case that the author almost cites to .... but really doesn't .... the routine search of the laptop uncovered a whole lot of probable cause to arrest this man's ass, and to try him and convict him. Of course, he tried to argue that all that child porn they found on his computer should be thrown out, because there was no "probable cause" to conduct the routine search at the border. Just one teensy problem with that argument. Customs does not need probable cause to conduct routine searches.

So hey ..... while I don't think much of the article as a whole, simply because it has more logical holes in it than some pieces of fiction, it is an entertaining read.

And, of course, I understand completely that you will have to exercise your need to call me names .... go right ahead if it makes you feel good. Keep in mind, however, that in order for something like that to actually upset me, I have to first respect the person who is saying it. Other than that ... well, it's just so much water off the duck's back (Daffy .... see, I worked you into the post ).

And, Milarepa .... since you have such a low opinion of attorneys, I hope you never need one. Really, I do ... it would be an awful thing that you should have to look for help to a person you despise.

And, good luck with your campaign to wipe attorneys out of Congress, and off of the Supreme Court. Make certain you fully research any candidates you might vote for in the future to be sure they do not have any sort of legal education ... although, why stop there?? How about we just make it a rule of law that, if you run for office you have to be completely illiterate. Then, they would all just work from experience ... none of that nasty old "book larnin" to get in the way.

[joblack]

Oh man you´ve got too much time (and probably some narcissistic behaviour disorder).

I´m glad I know a lot of North American people, if not you would be the right example for every Europeans´ prejudice for a typical American.

[Milarepa]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

OK ..... this is point one. The border agents are conducting searches. Border searches do not, and have never, required evidence of wrongdoing. This is an important point that this article's author chooses to ignore ... but let's move on.

And this is exactly what we are all talking about, border searches, just like other searches should require evidence of wrongdoing.

So if a law is wrong do we bring attention to the fact that it is wrong, or do we just shrug our shoulders and say "well that is the law, so deal with it?" We are all simply bringing attention to the fact that we believe in this case that the law is wrong.

I congratulate any Senator who has the courage to stand up and say, "this is wrong!" Though unfortunately Senator Feingold is an attorney by trade, and so most likely the law will be written in an incomprehensible way, and thus require years of legal battles to sort out what it is actually saying, but why not throw away additional American GDP to the court systems instead of any actual production?

[Milarepa]

Originally Posted by Ramen

That is not entirely true, actually.

Firstly, you can have neither and that is where the US and others are heading. What they do is called security theater and is only designed to appease the general populance. The effectiveness is almost zero but a politician doesn't want to be seen as doing nothing even if the alternative is pure bullshit. Ditto for offshore drilling.

But you can have reasonable security and still have a very high degree of freedom. It is simply hard to do and not as shiny and media effective as the general nonesense politicians perfer.

Fair enough.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Milarepa

LOL, sounds like you guys must have elections for judges coming up.

Stuff like that happens.

An old friend got his graduate degree in Library Science in Kentucky. He described a local election for county Sheriff, where an incumbent was running against a reform slate.

His re-election pitch was simple. "Y'all know me. Ah been yore Sheriff for nigh on twenty years now! Ah already stole everything ah want! You let them new guys in, they gonna be in there grabbin' with both hands!" His constituents apparently thought "'Course they would. Be what I'd do!", and re-elected him in a landslide.
______
Dennis

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by joblack

Oh man you´ve got too much time (and probably some narcissistic behaviour disorder).

I´m glad I know a lot of North American people, if not you would be the right example for every Europeans´ prejudice for a typical American.

Originally Posted by Milarepa

And this is exactly what we are all talking about, border searches, just like other searches should require evidence of wrongdoing.

So if a law is wrong do we bring attention to the fact that it is wrong, or do we just shrug our shoulders and say "well that is the law, so deal with it?" We are all simply bringing attention to the fact that we believe in this case that the law is wrong.

I congratulate any Senator who has the courage to stand up and say, "this is wrong!" Though unfortunately Senator Feingold is an attorney by trade, and so most likely the law will be written in an incomprehensible way, and thus require years of legal battles to sort out what it is actually saying, but why not throw away additional American GDP to the court systems instead of any actual production?

Oh .... so you disagree with my analysis of the article?? Pray do tell where you think I made an error?

Was it with the author's lack of facts?? The only thing he did say that has a factual basis was when he wrote of "the executive branch's long-held authority to conduct routine searches at the border for purposes of seizing drugs and other contraband. That authority is vitally important for our national security and public safety."

Now .... as you and Milarepa are so blindingly brilliant ... then answer two very simple questions ....

1. Do you agree with the article when it states that there "the executive branch's long-held authority to conduct routine searches at the border for purposes of seizing drugs and other contraband. That authority is vitally important for our national security and public safety" Yes or No??

2. Do you agree that in the digital age, contraband can be in a digital form and kept on computers?? Yes or No.

If no to either of those questions, then .... I'd love to know how you formed that opinion.

If yes to either of those questions, then given that you do not wish to see Customs have the ability to search for the contraband, what do you propose should be done??

Or .... are you two just into flapping your lips randomly and not so much into coming up with actual and workable solutions??

In other words, do you have something to contribute ... I mean something sensible?? Because I haven't heard much in the way of anything sensible from either of you thus far.

[joblack]

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

---
So we don´t have to talk about if some new law is legal - the point is if it takes away our freedom it´s not a good law and should be removed.

It´s a discussion of the direction of the society and the losing of freedom and basic human rights.

And Mr. RickyMaveety, Hitler came legally to power - don´t forget that (and please don´t nitpick with your detailed boring 'knowledge').

Anyway - your arrogant behavior (=narcissism) should actually be rewarded by just ignoring further comments - but the information is for the rest of the (interested) forum group.

[pshrynk]

Ummm... That is actually Ms Ricky Maveety. Just sayin'. Again.

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

2. Do you agree that in the digital age, contraband can be in a digital form and kept on computers?? Yes or No.

Sorry for just cherry-picking but there is a fundamental property you are missing. The goal of customs is to prevent import of contraband. For physical stuff, ports (airports, sea ports, border stations, etc) are natural chokepoints and thus searching there is common sense. This excludes proportionality and the like.

Digital contraband, on the other hand, does not need to use those chokepoints. Whatever you want. you can download it once you are inside the country. But even if you should choose to import your data in that way:

• Flash memory and the like is tiny enough to allow you hide the chips just about anywhere. Secret data doesn't have to be huge. You could hide stuff inside a fake (large) coin, kept in your wallet. Or inside your watch. Or inside your calculator. It doesn't even have to be made out of metal or some other material the detectors are sensitive to. Customs will probably never detect such things.
• A properly enrypted and hidden memory region on your laptop will also probably never be found. The whole point of cryptography is to make the data seem random. Good luck differentiating random data in unused parts of the HD from enrypted data. Customs will probably never find this even if they know what they are looking for.

I say probably because you cannot say with 100% certainty and there are always idiot passengers or just lucky customs.

But again, this is security theater, not real security. And it is state-sponsored corporate espionage (Boing <> Airbus scandal from a few years ago). Much like with DRM, only regular types suffer while the pros just shrug it off.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Ummm... That is actually Ms Ricky Maveety. Just sayin'. Again.

LOL - ok. That explains it even more ...

[Milarepa]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Now .... as you and Milarepa are so blindingly brilliant ... then answer two very simple questions ....

1. Do you agree with the article when it states that there "the executive branch's long-held authority to conduct routine searches at the border for purposes of seizing drugs and other contraband. That authority is vitally important for our national security and public safety" Yes or No??

2. Do you agree that in the digital age, contraband can be in a digital form and kept on computers?? Yes or No.

If no to either of those questions, then .... I'd love to know how you formed that opinion.

If yes to either of those questions, then given that you do not wish to see Customs have the ability to search for the contraband, what do you propose should be done??

"Objection, your Honor, the question is argumentative."

Question 1 makes some wild assumptions of fact first and foremost "That authority is vitally important for our national security and public safety" that is a matter of opinion and can neither be proved nor disproved in any real way. I do not believe that that authority is VITALY important to national security or public safety.

The answer to question #2 of course is yes, but seeing as how the question to number #1 is a matter of opinion it invalidates question #2, so that question becomes irrelevant.

As I have continually stated, I simply believe that the government has overstepped its bounds, and they have done this by passing laws that enable them to do this. Are they within their legal right to "search" whatever they would like at the border? The answer appears to be yes. Are we comfortable that they are within their legal right to do this? I for one am not! I would prefer that the government get out of people's lives, I would prefer that the federal government were not centralizing greater and greater authority and that states rights would become, once again, a respected tradition. This government is on a dangerous course, and it is past time that we stand up and say, stop! Stop supporting places like Guantanamo Bay, stop passing laws that trample on civil rights, stop passing laws that ignore basic principles of privacy, stop ignoring all of these things by claiming that it is in the interest of national security. Some people will claim that all of these laws only affect the bad guys, so it shouldn't matter to us, we should be happy that the government is protecting us. My fear is how the government classifies who the bad guys are, I don't trust them to do this fairly, and in fact fear that that is an ever widening circle of innocents.

[Milarepa]

Originally Posted by joblack

LOL - ok. That explains it even more ...

You have just ruined any possible chance of anybody listening to you with regards to human rights, privacy, and dignity if you believe that somehow a women is not just as capable of a man when it comes to thoughts, brain power, and worth. It is not okay to make fun of somebody for this.

[joblack]

I disagree.

I haven't made fun of thoughts, brain power, and worth.

I have made fun of the behaviour. And there is a statistically significant difference in how the genders behave in different situations.

Obviously there is still a victim thinking for some women ('poor me') ...