Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I face investigation for terrorism

craigmurray.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#441

Post by jl2718 »

qingcharles wrote: post #204

I was once investigated for terrorism by Special Branch in the UK in about 1996. They came to my parent's house at a weekend to question me. I'd just happened to have gone home for the weekend to see my folks. I was running perhaps the largest warez site on the Internet at the time, so I thought I was super busted. The detective sat me down and said to me, "What do you know about a plot to kill the President?" and I…

Back then you could send an email “from” any address without verification, and I’d bet they weren’t sophisticated enough to detect that. There were many open and/or hacked SMTP gateways. I went to a federal military school and showed people how to do this on our own .mil servers. This would be deadly serious today, but email was 95% jokes and flame wars anyway, so it just made things more hilarious. Even Stanford CS’s SMTP in the 2010s allowed unauthenticated “from” addresses, and someone was using it to impersonate the Google founder emails for promoting and funding their startup.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#442

Post by woooooo »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #435
woooooo wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only other neighboring state is Egypt and they get billions of dollars a year from the US as a condition of their peace with Israel. Between that and the blockade of their coast, they're 100% sealed off from any trade, fishing or immigration that Israel doesn't choose to allow. Maybe "occupation" isn't the right word but they don't get to act like an independent state.

I'm not arguing that Gaza has been occupied, but was there anything stopping from leaving by sea, besides access to boats and not having recognized passports?

Yes, there's a blockade administered by Israel for security reasons. They can't even fish their exclusive economic zone.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#444

Post by acdha »

OhioMan2943 wrote: post #364
kypro wrote: post #4

> I was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act > I was not arrested but detained, and therefore had no right to a lawyer. > I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information. > I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this. This is what I find so terrifyin…

Is there any 'legal' way to get around sharing a password if asked to? I'm thinking either a rotating password that you learn only when you need to access a device/file that is on a separate device that you store somewhere else. Or we take a leaf out of nuclear launch keys and two people have part of the password- if any of this is remotely different- obligatory IANAL

This is a legal problem, not a technical one. If you’re required to turn something over your choice is to do it or sit in jail (or worse if you get the full NYPD/Gitmo treatment).

If you’re really lucky, you can convince them that whatever they’re looking for doesn’t exist but consider how hard it is to prove a negative like that. In most cases, that devolves to the second outcome above, possibly with some destruction of evidence charge.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#445

Post by pacoWebConsult »

csomar wrote: post #354
Laforet wrote: post #56

Arbitrary search and seizure at the border has been a steady feature in western countries for, like, the solid part of the past two decade. I have travelled to the USA three times during this period and during every single visit I had been pulled aside by the TSA for extra screening (SSSS). In the last 5 years or so when I return to my home country of New Zealand, I have been repeatedly searched by customs which has…

The reason for this is the expansion of the TSA (or airport security body). When you have a very small number of people/devices, you just let people in. When you have a large apparatus, you make use of it. And the large apparatus will try to find work for itself by stopping as many people as humanly possible. They'll also stop the most normal people out-there because they tend to make less of a fuss about it. Recentl…

That's because TSA doesn't do the security at SFO [1] SF has had issues with drug trafficking through the airport due to this [2].

[1]: https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/answering-holiday-trav... [2]: https://www.sfgate.com/cannabis/article/sfo-armed-robbery-un...

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#447

Post by kbelder »

stef25 wrote: post #432
OhioMan2943 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any 'legal' way to get around sharing a password if asked to? I'm thinking either a rotating password that you learn only when you need to access a device/file that is on a separate device that you store somewhere else. Or we take a leaf out of nuclear launch keys and two people have part of the password- if any of this is remotely different- obligatory IANAL

VeraCrypt has a plausible deniability feature. May not be tight enough for the NSA but could work for some glorified traffic cops at the airport.

To expand on that, the idea is that a password-protected encrypted volume may have, in its empty space, another password-protected volume, which is indistinguishable from random noise. You can't tell whether it exists or not. Inside that could be another one, and so on.

At least that's the theory, I haven't messed with it to see.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#448

Post by t0bia_s »

mikrl wrote: post #428
t0bia_s wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ignorantia juris non excusat" is precedent for any democratic state. It's there for long time. And it could end your freedom any time if your are not encyclopedia of all current laws, regulations and restrictions of country where you live.

Ok but I remember a few occasions where people have got off easy for being ignorant of the law. I don’t want to be partisan but the most striking example I remember was when Comey weighed in on Secretary Clinton’s email server saying “there was no criminal intent” If you’re ignorant of the law, you cannot have a criminal intent, or am I missing something?

How can I possible know 2 milions regulations, restrictions and laws that we now have in state where I live? It's not humanly possible.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#449

Post by KenArrari »

kypro wrote: post #4

> I was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act > I was not arrested but detained, and therefore had no right to a lawyer. > I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information. > I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this. This is what I find so terrifyin…

I ran into a similar problem entering the US on a ferry from the Bahamas.

I think I may have been misled but apparently if you're on the border you aren't allowed to refuse to talk/refuse searches/etc. So they forced me to search my phone and spent about 6 hours interrogating me about my political opinions, family history, etc.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#450

Post by 543631351726 »

xdennis wrote: post #274
Cenk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be considered resistance to the ongoing occupation of Gaza and the war crimes that Israel commits there (according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B’Tselem etc)?

[flagged]

[dead]
Post reply on HN