Don't forget to put a zip bomb on all your devices. :-)
DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
41–50 of 139 posts
Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
#42In the anecdote in the article, the guy who had his laptop searched was asked for a password. As far as I know, there is no legal basis for compelling a password at the border. He could've just said no. The price would probably be losing the laptop. I've very curious about the legality of password compulsion in the US. With so much moving to cloud storage, the feds are going to lose their picking rights if that don't…
The price would probably be losing the laptop. … probably after spending hours of uncertaintity in some DHS waiting areas, interrupted only by DHS officers shouting at you from time to time – in case of an American national. For a foreigner, the result could be even more unpleasant. The first part of my just-written paraphrah by the way is standard for the so-called DHS secondary check if you enter the US and some sy…
..if they know the username of the account.
Beyond that, I don't think there is any legal basis to compel a password. Do you know of one? I'm curious about it. In the UK, apparently, there is but only for criminal investigations.
Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
#43So, remember a few months ago, when people like me were saying that the third parties are the only hope in America's democracy? Then a bunch of people said that Obama was worlds different from Romney, and that comparing Obama to Bush was lunacy. I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this.
There weren't any good third party candidates.
Not even Gary Johnson?
Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
#44Here are guidebooks from the EFF and BCCLA detailing your lack of rights at the border and practical steps you can take.
https://www.eff.org/wp/defending-privacy-us-border-guide-tra...
http://bccla.org/our_work/electronic-devices-pocket-guide/
Organizations like these and the ACLU do incredibly important work protecting your freedom on relatively small budgets. While a lot of people on the comments here are shocked to read this report, remember that even getting it released is the result of years of pressure from the ACLU. Those of us who benefit most from a free society, and technological progress have a special duty to make a donation and to get involved. It's a worthwhile investment in your future.
Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
#45>“We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,”
Well frankly, in that case, I don't give a shit what you conclude, because you're mentally incompetent.
"We also conclude that following the Constitution for Americans reentering the country would put us in a bind for looking at whatever we want, so we're going to say that you don't need that right to privacy."
Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
"anyone who is a woman or gay will almost surely agree with me." Only because politicians pander to their perceived voting blocks. Is there any evidence, out side of statements made during the campaign, that Romney actually holds views towards gays and women that are substantially different than Obama's?
So at the time of voting, ignoring for a moment third party candidates... I can vote for someone who claims that they will make my life better (but might not), or someone who campaigned on and is a member of a party who's platform is decidedly against making my life better (but... he might be on my side anyway secretly?). Isn't it obvious who I'd vote for? (keeping in mind that I didn't actually vote for either of th…
All those things listed for Romney were actions taken in relation to his campaigning for president it isn't surprising that he would do those things in that context because a segment of the Republican base supports those positions. Surely if he were anti-gay or a closet misogynist there would be evidence of that in his record of actions taken as a governor.
Take the example of the "mandatory insurance provided birth-control" issue that arose during the election. That's like a $9 per month benefit so if you voted for or against someone because of that and ignored things like heinous civil liberties policies you would essentially be saying you could be bought off for 9 bucks a month. That seems insane to me.
edit: point being that the common reason for not voting for the third party candidate is fear that the other guy wins. I'm suggesting that that's a stupid reason if the difference is $9 + campaign rhetoric.
edit: This article sites generics as costing $9 per month http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/real-cost-birth...
Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
So at the time of voting, ignoring for a moment third party candidates... I can vote for someone who claims that they will make my life better (but might not), or someone who campaigned on and is a member of a party who's platform is decidedly against making my life better (but... he might be on my side anyway secretly?). Isn't it obvious who I'd vote for? (keeping in mind that I didn't actually vote for either of th…
All those things listed for Romney were actions taken in relation to his campaigning for president it isn't surprising that he would do those things in that context because a segment of the Republican base supports those positions. Surely if he were anti-gay or a closet misogynist there would be evidence of that in his record of actions taken as a governor. Take the example of the "mandatory insurance provided birth-…
Everyone has different priorities. Among my priorities are civil liberties issues. Again, I see no reason to think that Romney would have been better on any front and for the very reasons that you imply (heinous civil rights violations) I chose not to vote for Obama.
I'm not sure what you're advocating I suppose. I don't think people said that the $9 a month was important to them (I kinda doubt that figure for people w/o insurance but I don't know) but were instead saying "I'm not going to vote for some rich white dude that wants to tell me what I can do with my vagina".
Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
#48Didn't DHS also declare that 100 mile range from the border is basically Constitution-free? This is mighty convenient, as they can now search everyone like this within that 100 mile range.
DHS can say whatever it wants, but SCOTUS says that the search has to actually take place at the border. See for instance Almeida-Sanchez v. US.
"Constitution free" is obviously hyperbolic.
Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
#49Aren't they just going to lose this at court? The degree of suspicion required for different kinds of border searches is something that has already been tested before SCOTUS.
Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
#50I was just wondering: In the case that the confiscated electronic devices are encrypted, are you obliged to decrypt them or do you have the right to politely refuse ? If not would claiming plausible deniability (I.e I don't know the password) be a viable alternative?
In the US, you are only required to decrypt devices as ordered by court via subpoena.