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

DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 139 posts

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#61

Post by drivebyacct2 »

pmorici wrote: post #46
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #28

Earlier 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-…

>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.

I'm kinda flabbergasted. I genuinely believe that Romney/Paul would have been a significant setback for LGBT rights in America. At the same time, I can point to numerous things that were accomplished in the Obama administration that have made my life better. I agree that voting defensively is not the best, but I certainly understand why people do it to protect their self interests.

Also, ironically, that article points out that contraception often costs far more than $9, implies that many of the low-cost alternatives are provided by organizations that Romney and Paul both expressed interest in defunding, or via insurance that the most-in-need-of-family-planning have no access to, etc.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#62

Post by jlgreco »

Evbn wrote: post #10
betterunix wrote: post #4

So, 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.

F is better than F-

Is it really? The result is the same, either way you fail, the only difference is how you feel about yourself afterwards.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#63

Post by readme »

betterunix wrote: post #4

So, 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.

Sure, Obama just signed the NDAA allowing indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial, and then said "Don't worry, I won't use it"

Right, he said he won't use it, so lets not worry! Good thing the courts have currently put the brakes on it!

I voted for Ron Paul last election (primary) and Gary Johnson in the final election, not because I agree with his (Ron Paul's) religious sentiments, or even his economic ideas. I had to vote for him because he was the only viable candidate that would guarantee our civil liberties.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#64

Post by jlgreco »

stfu wrote: post #55
ScottBurson wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what TrueCrypt is for: giving you plausible deniability.

But it takes a lot of work and planning to let this look natural. i.e. switching the systems back and forth so the plausible deniable partition looks legit etc.

Use the decoy/plausible deniable system for your day to day mundane uses (facebook, netflix, or whatever other computer usage won't be private anyway.), and the 'real' system for your periodic private activities.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#65

Post by tptacek »

lhnn wrote: post #59
tptacek wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution does not forbid the government from conducting searches without warrants at the border. The word "reasonable" is in the 4th Amendment in order to defer judgement about what searches are and aren't constitutional to the the courts. Unfortunately for your argument, SCOTUS has for many many decades held that border searches are, subject to some limitations, reasonable.

I think that, aside from disagreeing with most of that principle, it is futile to search the contents of electronic devices at the border. I could ship an encrypted device through mail, I could use steganography and encryption to upload a file to a personal server and have someone immediately unplug said server... there are lots of ways to transport digital files that don't involve the physical device at the border.

My response to this is complicated (but I'll keep it short):

* I agree with you that anyone who wants to avoid being effectively searched at a border can and there's little the government can ever do about it.

* I think most of the people carrying (say) child pornography into the country aren't too bright to begin with, so maybe that doesn't matter.

* I remember being very upset about the border search exception when I learned about it 10 years ago. It still bugs me.

* If the principal you're disagreeing with is that the state's interests in a secure border outweigh the individual's right to be free from casual, minimally invasive searches, you should know that you're disagreeing with something like 10+ SCOTUS opinions going back to at least the early '70s.

* If the principal you're disagreeing with is that the 4th Amendment allows judges to fill in the blanks on what "reasonable" means, and that "reasonable" overrides "warrant", know that you're disagreeing with something like 175 years of jurisprudence.

* I definitely agree that electronic searches are nonminimal and highly invasive.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#66

Post by jlgreco »

cheeseprocedure wrote: post #36
karka91 wrote: post #32

On this note, maybe someone want's to program an application that would select random unused portions of hdd and write random data to them? Something like a daemon/windows service that would take care of the data that hasn't been fully purged by os delete. I would do it myself, but I lack knowledge in low level api's

This application fits your needs on the Windows platform: "Eraser is an advanced security tool for Windows which allows you to completely remove sensitive data from your hard drive by overwriting it several times with carefully selected patterns. Eraser is currently supported under Windows XP (with Service Pack 3), Windows Server 2003 (with Service Pack 2), Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7 and Windows Se…

Does this properly work on a modern journal-ed filesystem? My impression of the equivalent linux utilities is that while they appear to work on modern linux filesystems, they no longer provide as much security as you might think.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#67

Post by tptacek »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #56
tptacek wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What good is what the Supreme Court said, if the DHS freely violates it? Nothing personal, but you seem to pay more attention to what the law says then what actually ends up happening. This is a common issue in American politics

How does this mentality response to Japanese internment camps? Should we have given up on the whole enterprise after WW2?

For whatever it's worth to you, when you take a detour from your argument to point out what you think I believe, that is in fact a personal statement. I take no offense, but don't kid yourself about what you're doing.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#68

Post by tptacek »

readme wrote: post #63
betterunix wrote: post #4

So, 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.

Sure, Obama just signed the NDAA allowing indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial, and then said "Don't worry, I won't use it" Right, he said he won't use it, so lets not worry! Good thing the courts have currently put the brakes on it! I voted for Ron Paul last election (primary) and Gary Johnson in the final election, not because I agree with his (Ron Paul's) religious sentiments, or even his economic i…

That's an extreme oversimplification of what the 2012 NDAA said. In fact, the 2012 NDAA limited executive authority over US detainees; it did not expand it.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#69

Post by tptacek »

betterunix wrote: post #4

So, 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.

An article like what?

I voted or and contibuted to Obama because I felt he would fight for public schools and against nationwide voucher programs, and because he supported meaningful health care reform.

I had absolutely zero expectation that Obama would waste political capital revamping CBP.

The TSA is a far bigger problem for ordinary Americans than CBP is, and a more constitutionally offensive one. I think we can all quickly agree that electronic strip searches of all American citizens are an affront to the word "reasonable".

And yet it never crossed my mind not to vote for Obama because his DHS supported the TSA. Why? Because something like 70% of Americans support the TSA, and, simultaneously, game theory more or less demands that any administration support all counterterrorism measures. There was no possibility that any winning candidate was going to eliminate the TSA. The problem wasn't Obama or Romney; it's the American people.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#70

Post by flogic »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #43
flogic wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There weren't any good third party candidates.

Not even Gary Johnson?

I'm pretty much a stereotypical progressive these days. I'm not very excited by libertarian's plans to cut entitlements. More importantly, I'm rather dismayed that they seem to focus on that before civil rights.
Post reply on HN