Unacceptable American behaviour!
 

.
How would you like it if you were visiting France or Venezuela or Japan, and the customs agent demanded to make a digital copy of your laptop’s harddisk? Would you as an American accept this – for "security reasons"? Would the current or coming President accept that American citizens acquiesce to such draconian foreign demands?

No way! Not even if the latrines froze in Guantanamo.

There would be a huge diplomatic stink. It is utterly inconceivable that the White House or Congress (or the Pentagon) would accept American businesspersons having their sensitive data impounded in foreign countries.

Yet this is exactly what US authorities are supposedly considering!
This is the most outrageous post-9/11 move that I have seen on the digital front.

Someone please tell me that The Mirror is totally wrong, didn’t check their sources, don’t understand the subtle differences between British and American English.

If this truly is a measure to be implemented, then I hope many other countries will make reciprocal demands of American travellers, especially those on First Class. Starting with politicians that back the measure.

That way someone can order Homeland Security to concentrate on sensible deterrents, we can forget such absurd thinking, and get on with our lives.


Respectfully,
ArcticStones

.

Unfortunately, this isn't surprising. When they tried to claim that water boarding wasn't torture, we all knew where things were headed. Fortunately, the group responsible for these things has limited time left in office.

A Cnet version of basically the same story:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9892897-38.html

According to the CNET article that cwtnospam cited, the Americans are not the only ones doing it - the British are accused of doing similar things. Maybe this will push us back towards cloud computing. If nothing is stored locally, then they can't really copy it now, can they?

As one who has taken his shoes off one too many times at airport security screenings, the answer never lies with knee-jerk solutions. There is always a better way, and many times the solution that government comes up with is usually less than pragmatic. The next administration will be no better.

Yes, this is flat out unacceptable behavior.

A really interesting article about this subject is on the EFF site:
EFF Answers Your Questions About Border Searches

Trevor

I agree that it's ridiculous. Hopefully the government will back down. Any information on who is behind this?

PS- As a point of order, could you change the title to. "Unacceptable behavior from the US State Department" ? I didn't vote for the current administration, and even if I had, I have little control over what they are doing now. It seems a bit unfair to group all of us into this.

One solution for folks who have a desktop and a laptop: Make a bootable backup of your entire laptop harddrive. Erase ~/Users. When you get where you're going, use VNC, ARD, or Timbuktu to "phone home" so you can grab anything you need. Another is to burn the sensitive stuff you need to a DVD and mail/FedEx it where you're going, then erase all of it from your laptop.

What always boggles my mind about these "Homeland Security" (and I assume, kiddy porn, and bootlegged movies/music) measures is that they are so readily evaded by anyone who cares -- they only inconvenience and invade the privacy of everyone else.

Consider -- one kook tries unsuccessfully to light a bomb in his shoe, and all travelers to or within America must remove theirs. The terrorists really are winning.

Hell, people are being flagged as terrorists and not being allowed to fly, and they don't know it.

How bad is that?

Another solution would be to ftp, scp, or rsync necessary data.

I think I'll keep a few encrypted disk images on my systems whenever I travel. I'll fill them with pictures of kittens and blue skies, but give them cryptic names. Anybody that wants to mess with my files will do a whole lot of work for nothing! :D

No question our individual rights have been on a downward spiral for some time. Random searches of individuals as well as luggage were allowed in response to a security threat... and hence we gave up some rights in return for increased security. I think this was a reasonable trade off, but of course authorities overreacted. Finger nail clippers are a terrorist weapon capable of endangering a flight and must therefore be confiscated? Yeah, right.

Obviously, data on a laptop isn't going to bring down an aircraft, either? Another overreaction? I don't think so. This goes much further. Way, way too far in my judgement.

I believe the random search concept is flawed in its entirety and represents a serious violation of our constitutional rights. If there is a real threat, you need to be searching everybody. If there isn't a real threat, you don't need to be searching anybody. Random searches are nothing more than fishing for violations... and is clearly an infringement of our right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

There is no justification for this. Where's the ACLU when we need them?

Losing the war
 

If one of the key terrorist objectives is to change the "barbaric" Western way of life, and greatly lessen our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, then it is hard to conclude otherwise.

The words of Georg Apenes, head of the Norwegian Data Inspectorate (a key guarantor of citizens right to privacy and protection from undue surveillance), come to mind. He is doing his utmost to fight against misguided draconian efforts, and particularly against various and sundry Directives coming from the European Union. Here is what he says when he wishes to encourage his colleagues:

"We will surely lose the war, but in the meantime we must do our utmost to win as many battles as possible."

If I didn’t know better, I would think there was an unholy alliance of domestic "anti-freedom terrorists" to:

• get potentially repressive laws on the books,
• implement repressive measures,
• create a permanent state of anxiety
• get people to accept universal surveillance
• get people to accept other preemptive measures
• eliminate constitutionally granted rights

and the aforementioned foreign terrorists.

Do I know better?


Respectfully,
ArcticStones

.

hmm, did anyone read that article about what the UK are planning, where they want to create a database of everyones dowloads, browsing history etc... OUTRAGEOUS

That's a great idea! In fact, what if the entire hard-drive was encrypted (e.g. via FileVault) and you told customs that the person you were meeting had the password (i.e. you didn't yet know it). As far as I am concerned, they can copy 160GB of encrypted data, and let the NSA spend the next millenia wasting time to find kitten pictures.

Furthermore, if anyone did really want to transfer sensitive information into the country, they wouldn't do it via an unencrypted laptop!


This one? As a result, I have now set up Mail so that I can send and receive encrypted e-mail. As above, they can store my encrypted e-mails, but if they actually spend the time to 'crack' them (which would be illegal in my view), all they'll get is meaningless e-mails about encrypting pictures of kittens!

As most people already know, anyone who really wants to avoid being caught will find a way to achieve it, so these measures are pointless (maybe the postal service isn't doomed after all....!). It is a lot of governmental hot-air designed to make it look like they're doing something useful, when in fact the only effect is to waste yet more of the taxpayers' money.


Control is achieved through fear, and ignorance. If the populace thinks that they require the protection of the state, then it is much easier for the state to do what it wishes. Governments may be elected by the people, and are meant to hold the peoples' interests at heart, but the truth is rarely that ideal.

A point I made back a page was that we really don't know the objective of this search -- what do they expect to find? One horrifying thought that occurs to me is that this is DCMA and/or kiddy porn driven.

hmm how do you set that up out of interest?

Worse, it's driven by local political ambitions. Hitler blamed the allies for Germany's humiliation after WWI, in order to gain and hold power. The same thing has happened in the US, and I don't doubt it's happened in Europe too, although to a lesser extent.

A Constitution -- and a "Constitution"
 

Have you ever tried to read the proposed "Constitution" of the European Union?

The Constitution of the United States of America consists of approximately 4500 words, corresponding to :) 15 loosely typed pages.

It is one of the truly great documents expressing the inalienable rights of human beings and voicing our aspirations. In my humble opinion, the American constitution is perhaps the clearest vision of the spirit of democracy expressed by any nation on Earth!

This is why the current "security measures" so rankle me.

The core of Norway’s Constitution, enacted in 1814, comprises 6500 words (about 23 typed pages), and it is partly inspired by it and the Declaration of Independence, as are the constitutions of many other nations.

When the European Union, on the other hand, tried to formulate a "Constitution" they wrote more than 400 pages! :eek: That’s not a constitution – it is a travesty. Its sheer volume evidences that this is an exercise in obfuscation, not clarity. Which is why it was rejected in several national referenda. Such a behemoth document is created by a bureaucracy – not people of Vision!

I was once asked to participate in a group that was to translate 3000 pages (or was it 5000) of addenda to the EFTA agreement. Language should not be abused in such a fashion. How many politicians do you think are going to read that before voting for it? Perhaps even a lesser share than that which gave the Patriot Act thumbs up... It is a job I declined.

No, I’m afraid that I am unable to muster any more confidence in the EU than in the present Homeland Security technocrats on the other side of the pond.

-- ArcticStones

.

Exactly so. It is not about a terrorist threat or passenger safety at all. The would be enforcers have found a loop hole and are rushing through it.

Lest we all forget, random searching of baggage and such for contraband at the customs desk is pretty standard policy among all nations. "Do you have anything to declare?" Is pirated software or kiddie porn contraband? They can sort through your underwear, but not your hard drive? Still strikes me as crossing the line.... but, it is a new frontier in the information age.

They have been successful in creating havoc, but as yet have failed to achieve their end goal which is a change in Western policy, and in my view have made no progress toward achieving that. The more relevant question, I think, is do we have the will to refuse to lose. We do.

A revised Statement of Confidentiality?
 

.
I often sign a Statement of Confidentiality with my clients, as I am sure others here do.

Frankly, a Statement of Confidentiality wouldn’t look terribly good with this added clause:

"Confidential information may be seized by US authorities, and the service provider (me) cannot be held accountable for any consequences of what might happen to said information as a result of such a seizure."

Nope, it just wouldn’t do.

Oh, the terrorist will fail eventually. Their own methods guarantee it. They've caused change, but while that change hasn't been good for us, none of it is in the direction that they would like.

The question is, how much damage will we do to ourselves before they fail. So far, we've done about 7 years and half a trillion dollars of significant damage.

My oldest daughter travels a lot on business. In the last few years she has been held and interviewed by the FBI because her name was on a list somewhere. Missed her flight by the time they discovered that she was much younger than the bad gal. She has lost a digital camera because one must leave ones bags unlocked. She lost some costume jewelry -- stolen in an airport.

My point is this -- why should I believe that an examination of the contents of my HD would respect the privacy of those contents -- that the very people examining it wouldn't steal valuable images, engineering plans, creative works, patent data in process, contract information, legal briefs, etc. when they can't even keep their hands off some inexpensive costume jewelry? The problem is that no one minds the minders.

How is searching your hard drive fundamentally different than a customs agent searching through the same materials (legal papers, health data, social security numbers, personal finance, pending patents, etc.) only in paper form contained in your briefcase?

My initial reaction to this was the same as the OP.... outrage. The more I ponder, though, the less sure I am that outrage is appropriate. Think maybe NovaScotian has a point.... the real problem is somebody needs to be monitoring the monitors.

Other than obviously being PO'd about the delay and an intrusion into what we consider personal, how would we feel if they were allowed to look at our hard drives only in our presence and were prohibited, under penalty of criminal charges, of keeping or producing any record/copy whatsoever of the contents that were legal? Would that change anything?

From Juvenal, in the first/second century A.D.: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (sometimes translated as "Who watches the watchmen?")

The ACLU, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), the Association for Corporate Travel Executives, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Rutherford Institute, and prominent technologists such as Bruce Schneier are all engaged in fighting this.

Trevor

Search ≠ seizure
 

I have accentuated the key word in your post. I would have somewhat less problems with customs agent searching, in a controlled and controllable fashion, for specific things on my harddisk.

What I cannot stomach is them copying the entire harddisk, or a very large portion thereof.

You said it: You might tolerate customs agents flipping through your legal papers, contracts, negotiations briefs etc (perhaps to ascertain that they are not SAM blueprints).

But I am reasonably sure that you would not appreciate Customs photocopying the lot of your papers.

Or am I wrong?

I think that's a key point, AS. When a customs agent riffles through your briefcase or through your suitcase, they do it in front of you, and they don't take anything out of your sight unless you haven't declared it or it is not permitted (oranges, etc).

We're in agreement on the photocopying. In fact, I don't like the idea of them searching anything that does not represent a potential threat to the aircraft and its passengers..... i.e. looking at my laptop to verify it is not a bomb is one thing, checking data on the hard drive is another matter entirely in my view. The latter is simply fishing for a crime when no reason exists to suspect one.

I was trying, ineptly, to make two points:

1. There is a long tradition of border searches in most all nations. Is this a simple extension of that tradition to a high tech search of high tech baggage (and nothing to do with terrorists)?

2. It is as much the way it is being done as it is the fact that it's being done (without any safeguards/protections for the citizen being searched).

Course, it goes without saying that likely none of us trusts the bureaucrats to keep anything private.

Did you catch the news story about the woman who couldn't get through the metal detectors because of a nipple ring? Officials ended up requiring her to remove the ring, which she did but sustained an injury in doing so. That one is going to court.... I mean just how intrusive and humiliating has this got to be to make sure a boob is not a bomb? Can they really not tell the difference?

ah, me... you forget that 'the terrorists' were nothing more than an excuse in the first place. no state or organization in the middle east has ever been a valid threat to the US (except maybe Saudi Arabia and Israel - lol). this whole thing was engineered as a power grab from the getgo. keep in mind that the Patriot Act had been popping in and out of Congress on Republican initiative since about 1990; their concern was not terrorism, but rather keeping closer control over financial transactions on the internet (purely domestic surveillance). 9/11 just gave them the excuse they needed to get it past, and the resultant wars were ways of solidifying their domestic agenda.

very sad, really.

The terrorists were an excuse to invade Iraq, but they were/are more than that. In their minds, they've been fighting us since after the first Gulf War. They bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, US Embassies in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and were planning 9/11 as far back as 1993.

I wasn't claiming that the terrorist would lose because of anything we're doing to stop them. Our efforts have been wasteful at best. I was just saying that the things that the terrorists do have never caused the kind of change they would like. They never will, no matter how incompetent our leaders are, because it isn't what we do that limits their success. It's what they do that ensures their failure.

.
Let us not expand this into a discussion of the First, Second or Third Gulf War, or terrorism in general.

I hadn't intended to, but they are closely related. If terrorists are doomed to fail against even modest or inept resistance, then unreasonable searches of papers and/or computers become even more absurd.

I do not travel in my current job, and when I did I had the option of driving or flight. I took driving, as taking flight, left me without a car, and a taxi as my only mode of transport. Work would not pay for a rental, but would reimburse me for a taxi.

Enough of my background for this post.

I was wondering, if you kept any sensitive data in an encrypted disk image, password protected, would you have to give up that password? If they copied it, because they deemed necessary to copy my hdd, they would not be able to decrypt it, without significant time, or me giving up the password. Would they even know what it was?

I am posting this because of other posts saying to mail themselves a DVD of their data (what if it gets lost, or sent to the wrong address?) or "cloud computing", which is nice, but if I have to work on multiple gigs of data, and my connection is really slow at the hotel, this could be bad for business.

Even though I do not travel, I do use my laptop in public places. I always keep my data for work in am encrypted disk image. I unmount it via sleepwatcher, if I forget to unmount it when I sleep my laptop. If someone were to steal the laptop, because I left it, or because I was robbed, at least the data would be encrypted, and somewhat safe.

"terrorism" is just the contemporary flavor of WAR. Since wars have been always won and lost the same will go for terrorists. Some of the battles will be won, some will be lost. But the ultimate purpose of war to kill and destroy will succeed.
As for americans(people in general) who did not vote for particular government does not leave them out of responsibility of deeds of that government.

wow, i can see where this thread is beginning to head.... and it dont look good

Agreed. And if it goes there, it’s dead.
Please! The issue of this topic is search and seizure of data contained on laptop harddisks.

hmm well as far as i see it (granted im young and not as wise as some members in this topic) regardless how the topic starts, if its something to do with homeland security, the topic will eventually go towards terrorism and the inevitable aftermath that this thread is so close to....

Maybe we should have a politics section, be it, it would have to be strictly modded.. but allow a little more freedom then you guys allow?

The problem isn't technical, it's political.
 

We all (ok, most of us) know how to encrypt our files or use the internet to get them to/from a server. It would be relatively simple (although tedious) to arrive at an airport with a laptop that has no personal or business data on it, get to your destination, download the needed items, do your work, save it back to the server, and then head back home with the laptop wiped of all data.

Anything else would be a political statement — not that there's anything wrong with that! If you encrypt a bunch of Disney or Norman Rockwell type images to your computer, you're setting up the TSA to feel your wrath through a passive aggressive use of Free Speech. It's a political solution to a political problem, and if enough people do it, it might work!

more to cwt's point, this topic was explicitly political from the first post. you guys just don't like it when it strays into 'unacceptable' political opinions. the simplest and fairest solution to the problem would be to ban *all* posts that are political in nature.

make for kind of a boring forum, though. :)

True. I was trying to couch it in technical terms! :D

yeah... I never have been good at that 'subtlety' thing, though. ;)

A bit of self-moderation...
 

Granted, the simplest solution is to ban absolutely all posts that are political in nature. And there are some who are itching to have it be just this way. And purely political posts are expressly forbidden.

I for one believe that it is meaningful to discuss those aspects of technology that touch on the political, and sometimes those aspects of legislation that have a technological dimension. In my opinion some of the most worthwhile discussions of the past have been of this nature.

The first post in this thread was mine, because I thought this topic was of precisely such a nature. So if the topic itself is to be faulted, the fault is fully mine.

Such discussions require a fine balance of all participants. And we have seen that balance achieved many a time before. That does, however, require a bit more subtlety (I believe that’s the word you used TW), and refraining from not blowing the topic wide open. Perhaps the most accurate term for this is self-moderation?

Can we do that?

The alternative is far stricter moderation -- and, in my humble opinion, a more boring Coat Room.


Respectfully,
ArcticStones

.

I would tell them that I didn't know it. That I would obtain the password from a colleague upon arrival at my destination. ;) Would they be able to crack it? Perhaps in a few decades, with the right number of processors working on it. Or maybe the NSA does have some super secret back door. That's what the encrypted images with pictures of pretty flowers are for. :D

The fact is that without a warrant, they have no probable cause to search anyone's hard drive, so the search is unconstitutional. It's our duty to fight against it in every legal way possible.

Encrypted hard drives will not solve this problem.... you'll either give 'em the password and/or show them how to access the encrypted files or you won't be getting on the airplane (or through customs). Uncooperative folk go to the end of the line. Afraid the bureaucrats have the hammer on this one.

What we need is a flash drive that looks and works like a ball point pen.... ala 007, hidden in plain sight. That'd be a lot more fun than up/downloading a bunch of stuff and zeroing out your hard drive before a flight. Always a little exciting to blow something by them when they don't have a clue.

Like most endeavors to catch criminals, they only catch the dumb ones.

That's what the other half of the strategy is for. ;) After decrypting a few thousand images containing these, there will be little enthusiasm for randomly searching hard drives.

Edit: Of course, if your encrypted images are buried within a bunch of folders, it's likely they'd copy everything to their hard drive and not know they had files they couldn't access until long after you've left the airport.

Will a flash drive even set off metal detectors? SD Cards?

In other words, is there any electronic storage medium that could remain in your pocket as you go through security?

Or perhaps carry-on sushi? :cool:

Ha! Put a tail on that fish, wrap it in tin foil, and pack it with your lunch, and I think you've got a winner here.

Going back to the original post ... I am still at a loss to understand just why the officials would think they have time to do this, or why they would ever want to go through the manpower expense of in-depth looks at passengers' hard drives without at least some hint that something may not be right. This is a time consuming, monster of a task for an airport security screen.

Given there will be nothing on the hard drive capable of bringing down an airplane, what's their motivation for doing this? It just makes no sense. Ranks right up their with "Officials Save Flight From Exploding Nipple Rings."

It's a world gone mad!

It's worse. At least with nipple rings, until you verify that is what they are, there is some small chance that the metal could be part of a weapon.

errr... how does a $20 gigabyte flash drive with a $3 plastic fake sushi cover end up being $99 dollars???!?

lol - Arctic... I never lose my temper, and I'm always reasonable in discussions - i.e. I'm quite good at self-moderation. what you're requesting is self-censorship, because other people on the forum don't happen to agree with my opinions, and don't happen to be as good at self-moderation as I am. to which I can only say "piffle".

enough said, in my opinion.

Because if falls prey to the same economic pricing mechanisms as a liter of petro.... it has nothing to do with the cost of producing the product. One must believe in supply side economics and the tooth fairy to understand fully how this works. Trust me, though, it is fair, any excess profits have been earned, and the CEO deserves her 8 digit bonus. :)

Sushi is the part I don't understand.

ok, I have to ask... how do you explain the tooth fairy using supply side economics?

I believe this is called entrepreneurship. :D

TW, I see that you have added a rather impressive self-characterisation a few posts down. I won’t spoil it by commenting. ;)

Today's kids are a lot more savvy about economics than I ever was. The little one and his buddies got together and compared notes on this tooth fairy reward thing. They quickly decided they were not being fairly or equally treated by said tooth fairy.

Recognizing they had a limited resource that was in high demand (being excited at the tooth fairy's reward makes parents very happy), they formed a cartel and set a "fair price" for each tooth. Then each child told their parents little Johnny got $1 for his tooth. This set the expectation that anything less than $1 would not make the child happy and thus would deny the parents the joy of seeing them excited and happy.

They secretly agreed that if they got a quarter again, they would throw the quarter against the wall and loudly exclaim how unfair, thoughtless and mean the tooth fairy is. Either he's mean, or "I just don't deserve anything good" (play the low self esteem card cause that always works).

End result here was the joy (getting $1 instead of a quarter) tricked down to the parents. The kids increased their joy and a rising sea raises all boats, hence the parents benefitted from the trickle down.

Embellished a tad, but they did compare rewards and that had the effect of bumping the rate up.

Next time, the little one is going to get a flash drive that looks like sushi under his pillow. (Flimsy attempt to stay on topic).

Ahem. The topic was the American TSA copying and searching laptop hard drives. ;)

Ok, other countries are doing the same, but we're supposed to be leading the world when it comes to protecting freedom.

im i the only one whos completely lost?

I wouldn't be surprised.. :D

I would also hope we are trying to lead the world when it comes to protecting our citizens from those nameless persons of nameless political views who would do us harm.

At the risk of being slapped twice in the same day, this entire subject is political. On one extreme is the faction who wants to protect America at all costs. On the other extreme, we have the faction who wants to protect individual freedoms at all costs.

The vast majority of us are in the middle... we want to do both, but we would really prefer they use a little darn common sense in the process.

There are no constitutional rights being violated here. The search is perfectly legal because we gave them permission to conduct the search as a condition of entering the country or boarding the airplane. There is nothing new about this except possibly the search being extended to include electronic devices and information.

The only legal argument that has any chance of success is that they may inadvertently copy material that is protected under other statutes and hence violate those statutes (e.g. Patent Laws, Protected Health Information under HIPPA, Attorney's Working Papers, items covered by the Privacy Act such as Social Security numbers and on and on).

So, which law takes precedence? I'm betting the government's right/duty to protect our nation will be preserved, but, hopefully, with a little restraint on our airport screeners such as look but "don't tell, don't copy."

Trickle down, tooth fairies and such allude to one particular political party in the US which has particularly strong views on this subject. Cartels (and kids) and such refer to price setting by certain political entities on a product that is right in the middle of this debate and some think the major cause of US problems in the Middle East. I was obtuse and difficult to understand. My apologies for that.

Huh???? By that logic, the state could claim that you give permission to search your vehicle as a condition of receiving a license, or using the state's roads!

We give permission to conduct reasonable searches when we board a plane. There is no reason that a search of papers or hard drives would help secure the plane, so it is not reasonable to conduct such a search.

What about border searches? (if that's the correct term)
Bringing marijuana on the plane will not cause it to crash, but it's considered an illegal drug, and it will most likely be confiscated.
I think the same should be with digital items. Kiddie porn won't cause the plane to tilt to one side, but it is illegal and the its owner should be punished in the same way as the marijuana guy.
Well, that's just my opinion, feel free to criticize me, I'm only 15 and not even a US citizen yet.

This is a border search. It is different. The 9th circuit court has already weighed in:

http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/006839.html or you can google and get a dozen more references.

Supremes may have a better idea, but for the time being they can search without cause, including laptops.... but only when you are entering or leaving the country.... land, sea or air. They cannot come to your home nor take it out of your car and search it without probable cause and a properly signed search warrant.

I think this has run amok, too, but it is the law.

Aehurst, I think you're missing the real point. the constitutional protections were not written merely to save us from the embarrassment of having someone poke through our stuff. they were written because the people who wrote the constitution had a profound distrust about the good intentions of government (*any* government - this isn't a repub/dem/conserv/lib issue). for example, I have a conference in Paris I could go to, and there are some things I have written on my laptop that are critical of US policy. this kind of invasive search opens the possibility that the government could see those writings and block my exit from the country. they could possibly even block future publication. this kind of thing used to happen in the Soviet Union all the time, and there have been more than a few cases of American academics being restricted from travel or censored on particular works.

now, of course, your response to this is going to be something like "well, that's not very likely in this country, is it?" and I'd agree with you. but you are basing that statement on nothing more than a faith that the government's intentions are universally good. the founding fathers and I are not that trusting, at least not in the long run.

don't get me wrong - I have faith in the goodness of human nature, and so I'm often somewhat lax about security. but then again, if I get robbed I'm the only one who loses. if the government decides to steal our rights, we all lose.

Meanwhile in Norway...
 

.
Norwegian Air is in the news today. And the reason?

They are refusing to provide police authorities with passenger lists as a matter of routine. Instead, they are quoting the law, and saying that passenger lists will be provided only in those instances where they are presented a Court Order, or a Formal Request from the police.

In fact they are going further -- Norwegian Air points out that it is actually illegal for them to acquiesce to anything less than this. That hasn’t stopped SAS (Scandinavian Airlines) from turning over passenger lists in a routine fashion for years.

Interestingly, the intransigence of Norwegian Air is being applauded by the Norwegian Data Inspectorate. Let me quote Senior Consultant Guro Slettemark:

"The law is clear. The police must show a warrant or court order. This demand is important for both passengers and airlines. I firmly believe that Norwegian’s reaction shows good judgment."

Any US or other European airlines wish to follow suit? :cool:


-- ArcticStones


PS. Good point, TW. It is a question of judgment.
I have yet to see any official reason (let alone a good one) for allowing universal search of laptop harddisks and seizure of data. If anyone knows of a stated motive, please post it.

The problem with Homeland Security seems to be that it doesn't matter what the law or the Constitution says -- in the name of their mission they seem to be immune.

Oh, no. Not another critic.

I guess I am not making myself very clear.... I think this all sucks industrial pond water, too. I think searching laptops is unnecessary.

That said, the US law as it stands today is they can search your laptop at international points of entry. That is a fact, not an opinion. I am hopeful this case eventually makes it to the Supreme Court and they will reverse 100+ years of legal precedent and find that personal papers and info are not subject to search or copy.... they only need to verify it is not contraband or a bomb... that is, paper and elec info. not what is contained therein. I think there is a chance this will happen, but I wouldn't bet a nickel they will find the US does not have the right to search anything coming into this country. Virtually all industrial nations will search what is coming into their country, too.

Until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, the search is constitutional. All the logic in the world will not change that fact.

This law is not about terrorist attacks and existed many years before terrorists were considered a threat. Mostly it was about making sure you paid your tariffs.... then making sure you weren't smuggling drugs.... then about terrorist threats..... God only knows what they will use if for next.

lol - I have a joke with a russian friend of mine. I asked her what KGB stood for (because I really didn't know), and the best translation she could come up with was department for the protection of the country (i.e., homeland security). big laughs all around...

is this one of those 'they are just following orders' kind of arguments?

Strictly speaking, the search is legal and assumed to be constitutional until/unless SCOTUS says otherwise. Should they say otherwise, however, that decision wouldn't mean that it was constitutional but suddenly that changed (assuming decision is not based on a new amendment) because of their decision, but rather that it has always been unconstitutional, but its constitutionality had not been considered by the high court prior to the particular case the SCOTUS heard.

A semantic point, perhaps, but an important one, IMO.

Nope, it's just one of those "comply with the law kind of arguments" or take it it to court and get it changed. It went to court twice, the rational arguments lost. That's the way the process works and that's the way the founding fathers set it up to work. I guess one could always go the civil disobedience route if one felt strongly enough about it. I will save all the discussion about what happens when everybody only complies with the laws/rules they agree with.

Again, this is not the Patriot Act nor Homeland Security... the case was about kiddie porn. Wouldn't be a bit surprised if Homeland Security wasn't pushing from behind the scenes to establish this as a common practice, though.

Agreed. The law changes. And on occasion, so does the constitution. These kinds of changes/interpretations are not all that rare and I would be delighted if the SCOTUS reversed or modified the appeal court's decision.

BTW -- criticism of US policy is common and pretty much a way of life. I don't know a single person who doesn't criticize one policy or another on a regular basis..... abortion, foreign aid, taxes, health care, oil, trade agreements, and most certainly Homeland Security and the war, and many, many others.

yes, criticism is common because - to date - we have had laws which guarantee our freedom to speak so and laws to protect us from unfair treatment under the law if we choose to. whether you know it or not, however, the latter protections have been eroded away almost completely (though - again, to date - the government has only seen fit to exercise its full powers in a handful of cases).

the problem is not that they do; the problem is that they can. I'm sorry if you can't see that, and I hope that we (or our children) don't come to regret it.

and I'll - because it's appropriate - that old saw: "those who don't remember history are bound to repeat it." :) if you don't care to look, then you'll never see it.

No argument or disagreement with that one. It is a downward spiral. It scares me to death. The Supremes have protected us more than once, here's hoping they do it again.

god willing, and knock wood. maybe we should send an email to Diana Ross. ;)

This is getting ugly -- apparently Canada is about to fall into this trap.

Copyright deal could toughen rules governing info on iPods, computers

I just heard about this too. The scary thing is the loose interpretation of security personnel. And apparently the government is purposefully leaving it vague. From the way they've worded it, a police officer could just come up to you on the street and require you to surrender the contents of your laptop without a warrant or any justification.

Have you heard if the Conservatives are tabling this as a confidence motion? Otherwise, this strikes me as political suicide. I can't imagine the majority of Canadian voters (who are used to liberal rights) tolerating something so draconian as this.

Michael Geist agrees with you, wdympcf:

"Let's Stand Up to Big Brother"

This just in:
Canadian to Check Electronics for Copyright Infringement?

What scares me is the wording "The agreement proposes any content that may have been copied from a DVD or digital video recorder would be open for scrutiny by". Which in my mind means EVERYTHING.

Architects who infringe "copyright"
 

Would you be so kind as to clarify what you mean by "tabling" in this context, as this means two very different things in the USA and the UK. And I haven’t a clue as to which of those two the Canadian meaning is closest to.

Perhaps it’s time we apply "copyright infringement" to architecture. How about imposing fines against architects who "visually quote", or use "solutions that appear copied" from previous works of architecture, without having written permission to do so? And we could make this retroactive to antiquity... :cool:

Although we share a border with our American neighbours (note that I do not spell it neighbor) and we are inundated with their culture via television, we Canadians tend to stick much more closely to British spellings and usages. The use of the verb table doesn't deviate from this behaviour (again, not behavior). In short, I was using "table" to mean "put forth for consideration".

Unacceptable American Canadian behaviour!

Unacceptable behavior.

It is of course, especially egregious for it to happen in the US, where until recently we took pride in leading the world to freedom.

Of course. I had intended to put a :):) after the post, but, alas I erred. So here's two extra! :) :)

It is unacceptable, and lots of Canadians know it. It is not just the music swappers (my laptop and iPod nano are free of any such stuff) -- it's the rest of us who don't like the notion of being presumed guilty until proven innocent.

And nobody wants to be searched "just because they can" and that is exactly where this all ends up..... not to mention a major harassment tool in the hands of a less than well intentioned official. It would be a horrible precedent to set. I hope your courts/legislative body have more common sense than ours did (and I haven't entirely given up on ours, yet).

Fortunately (for this particular case) our courts tend to be much more liberal minded than our current government. Even if this is passed into Canadian law, the courts will most likely throw it out the first time it is enforced.

From part I (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), section 8 of the Constitution Act of 1982:

From part I, section 11, subsection d:

As NovaScotian pointed out, most (if not all) of us don't like the notion of being presumed guilty. But it goes beyond that. For Canadians, it is guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms! If the presumption of innocence is provided for someone who is charged with an offence, then it certainly must be accorded to those who have not yet even been charged!

We mustn't lose site of this detail, however: They are proposing this for customs inspection of those entering Canada, Canadian or not. There is a long precedent trail permitting Customs officials much broader powers of search and seizure than a policeman has. If it becomes a regulation for Customs inspections, it won't pass through Parliament -- it'll just appear on the books.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ has this to say:

If it happens (in my view) it'll be fatal to the government in the next election.

Quoted for agreement and truth.

Then you are up against the same historical precedents for border searches looking for smugglers, contraband, and bombs and your guarantees to be free from unreasonable searches may not apply.... they've been doing unreasonable (without probable cause or suspicion) searches for many decades at international points of entry. (Just not your hard drive.)

US has the same guarantees of the presumption of innocence and to be free from unwarranted search or seizure, of course, and you can see how much that helped in our case.

Unacceptable Swedish Behavior!
 

World+dog ignores Sweden's Draconian wiretap bill

Trevor

Mike Masnick on the trade agreement in the works

Unacceptable German Behavior!
 

Unfortunately true. But it's just to get a shell account somewhere else in the world and then use ssh for everything.