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

71–80 of 139 posts

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

#71

Post by cheeseprocedure »

jlgreco wrote: post #66
cheeseprocedure wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, I don't understand the underlying principles enough to answer that question. How would journalling interfere with the behaviour of a tool like Eraser?

(I do know that SSDs change the nature of the problem dramatically, as their internal storage allocation techniques tend to be opaque to the operating system. One cannot guarantee that an instruction to overwrite block X will be interpreted in the desired manner.)

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

#72

Post by scarmig »

pmorici wrote: post #60
Anechoic wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? As governor, Romney spoke out against same-sex marriage and tied to get an amendment passed to ban same-sex marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Sam...

That's an over simplification of what is in the Wikipedia article. It also says, "He also opposed an amendment, then before the General Court, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples." It sounds like he supported equal rights and benefits but opposed the use of the term "marriage" being applied to gay couples. Still seems like a superficial difference to…

I'm guessing you're neither gay nor female. Romney said a thousand different things over the years: what matters is what he would have implemented, which would have been the program of his then-owners: the hard-right.

The amount of damage another Alito or Scalia would have done to the rights of women and sexual minorities by itself blows the idea that their difference was just "superficial" out of the water.

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

#73

Post by tptacek »

steveklabnik wrote: post #58
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.

> I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this. Most liberals I know just shrug. It's why the far left has so much contempt for liberals in general. Every time I criticize Obama, I have to go out of my way to qualify that I'm _not_ a Republican, either.

Maybe what you're uncovering here has less to do with the mentality of Obama supports and more to do with the superficiality of terms like "liberal" and "conservative". There are vegan liberals who want to outlaw the consumption of meat. To them, most of us are posers too.

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

#74

Post by ataggart »

tptacek wrote: post #53
lhnn wrote: post #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…

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.

The word "reasonable" is not in the 4th Amendment, nor does it contain text granting the power to search without a warrant.

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.

I do find it interesting that many people consider probable cause sufficient grounds to conduct a warrantless search. Probable cause is one of the requirements to get a warrant, thus such thinking leads to the absurd situation where warrantless searches have a lower bar than warranted searches (which have additional requirements).

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

#75

Post by cheeseprocedure »

chmars wrote: post #39
cheeseprocedure wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Overwriting data to safely delete it is usually enough, most of the recommended additional overwriting is snake oil. Unfortunately, overwriting data still takes a lot of time. Using system encryption is therefore easier: You delete the key and your data is as good as overwritten a million times … all modern operation systems offer system encryption by default.

Disk encryption wouldn't defeat an attacker that had access to your keys (either by compromising a running system or through a cold-boot attack[1]). If the keys are available, the contents of the disk are accessible. Overwriting deleted files would still have value in these cases.

[1] https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/coldboot-sec08.pdf

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

#76

Post by tptacek »

ataggart wrote: post #74
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.

The word "reasonable" is not in the 4th Amendment, nor does it contain text granting the power to search without a warrant. 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…

You're right. I should have said "the concept of reasonableness" instead of "the word reasonable". Either way: unless you think James Madison was incompetent, the subjective word "unreasonable" appears in the amendment alongside the objective word "warrant" entirely in order to give the courts leeway to make case-by-case decisions about authorizing searches. The word "unreasonable" was no clearer in the 1780s than it is now.

There are times on HN when I am probably on very shaky ground arguing about con law concepts, but this is not one of them. Every modern Supreme court from Lochner through New Deal through Warren through Rehnquist has validated the idea that the 4th Amendment does not include a rigid requirement for every search to be accompanied by a warrant.

(Before reading Ely's _Democracy and Distrust_ this week, which, fantastic book, I'd have said "every Supreme Court ever", but now I'm not so sure since Ely cites a floor speech supporting the 14th Amendment that implies the 4th Amendment was interpreted differently in the mid-1800s.)

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

#77

Post by greenyoda »

tptacek wrote: post #65
lhnn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This event, described at the end of the article, does not sound like a "casual, minimally invasive search" to me:

"At an Amtrak inspection point, Pascal Abidor showed his U.S. passport to a federal agent. He was ordered to move to the cafe car, where they removed his laptop from his luggage and “ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password,” according to the lawsuit.

Agents asked him about pictures they found on his laptop, which included Hamas and Hezbollah rallies. He explained that he was earning a doctoral degree at a Canadian university on the topic of the modern history of Shiites in Lebanon.

He was handcuffed and then jailed for three hours while the authorities looked through his computer while numerous agents questioned him, according to the suit, which is pending in New York federal court."

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

#78

Post by tptacek »

greenyoda wrote: post #77
tptacek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This event, described at the end of the article, does not sound like a "casual, minimally invasive search" to me: "At an Amtrak inspection point, Pascal Abidor showed his U.S. passport to a federal agent. He was ordered to move to the cafe car, where they removed his laptop from his luggage and “ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password,” according to the lawsuit. Agents asked him about pictures they found on his lapt…

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

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

#80

Post by yareally »

to3m wrote: post #7
PavlovsCat wrote: post #2

What's a watchdog? A lap dog you can wear like a watch? I suggest to call it "watch dog" then, just so it doesn't get confused with http://www.google.com/search?q=watchdog&tbm=isch

"watchdog" is slangy terminology for a consumer rights organization or an industry regulator. It's, like, a metaphor, man. I don't know about the US but the term is commonly used in the UK. (I suppose "watch dog" would be a dog that watches, or something that watches dogs, or, as you suggest, a dog that's somehow got something to do with wrist-mounted timepieces.)

It's used in the US as well (quite a bit in the media for the purpose you defined) so not sure what the OP is getting at really.
Post reply on HN