Don't travel to the US.
And if you are already there, best not leave if you plan to ever come back. (I hear there will soon be a wall to enforce this anyway.)
Former Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal says he was interrogated for three hours by America's border cops after arriving at San Francisco airport – because he refused to unlock his work laptop and phone. Gal, now employed by Apple, today claimed he was detained and grilled on November 29 after landing in California following a trip to …
Canada does still have an extradition treaty with the USofA but as the private prison system in the US is run without consideration of Human rights that should be reconsidered. If you're not on that list you'd be OK.
The American prison system is truly frightening. http://time.com/5405158/the-true-history-of-americas-private-prison-industry/
based on past experiences, we are talking about petty officials with huge egos that have been given a vast amount of legal power. Petty Officials who take an extreme amount of pleasure in intimidating, bullying and in many cases assaulting people. The real trouble is when they pick on someone that actually knows their rights, so these little piss-ants double down on the intimidation.
You don't have to do anything wrong. Trump and his "Trumpettes" will take care of that for you. If your name sounds too foreign, or you might not be a Trump Fan, or you originated from Europe, you may have a problem. If you're Russian, you'll get through with no delays.
You don't have to do anything wrong. Trump and his "Trumpettes" will take care of that for you.
Wow.
Your TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is showing.
I guess you're not old enough to have been traveling pre-9/11 and then post-9/11.
The extra scrutiny has been around for a while.
And before you go off on Trump, here's a free clue. This has been going on during the Obama presidency. As well as during Bush.
I'm sure I'm going to get down voted, but just trying to keep it real.
Compared to Obama, Trump is relatively clueless when it comes to using Big Data.
(Obama's Big Data team was based in Chicago during his campaigns.)
You are correct in that TDS isn't related to excessive abuse of power by Border Control. And you are probably right Trump is relatively clueless when it comes to using Big Data, but he is pretty clueless no matter the subject. However, I really don't feel like travelling to a country where the population (in whatever way) elects somebody like Donald Trump as president.
Sad thing is there are all too many in this country who crave Farage for PM or Yaxley-Lennon
Many of them probably relish world resembling V for Vendetta (though Maybot seems to rapidly be heading down the Adam Susan route - locking herself away, persecution complex, refusal to listen to reason etc)
I'd take Farage over your glorious retarded socialist Corbyn any day of the week.
Although I do have to say if I ever wanted to queue for hours for bread and kill zoo animals for a rare treat of meat then he would be an excellent choice.
His policies have proven to be so successful in Venezuela, a country the leftist cheers for nearly a decade before the inevitable fall into destitution, starvation and violent public unrest.
In related news, another clueless person soaks up Fox News prop^H^H^H^Hnews without critical thinking or referring to alternate sources of facts.
Please, please, pretty please. Build the wall. Then build one at your northern border as well.
If you promise to stay inside, I'll even chip in.
AC - you need to wean yourself off of 'fake news'.
Most likely this was a case of over-aggressive law enforcement. It happens sometimes. The fact that officers wouldn't let the guy contact his attorney says it all, I think. They had his passport, they knew he was a citizen, and (allegedly) making threats to intimidate is completely inappropriate. ACLU will have a field day with it, as they should.
<joke>Maybe he should've said "asylum"</joke>
It could be over agressive LEO or not.
They knew who he was before he was flagged. Was it a random thing and he pissed them off? Maybe
Or something about him got himself flagged.
Maybe it was something he said in social media.
Maybe it was something else.
Bottom line, we won't know and the guy would be less than honest.
"Most likely this was a case of over-aggressive law enforcement"
Bullshit. They knew who he was and what has he done earlier. Definitely not random abuse of power, but very planned targeted attack to one person.
*Someone had ordered these thugs to attack this guy*. Literally. Now, who would that be and why?
Why someone wanted so bad have Apple internal secrets that obvious criminal activity is OK to achieve that?
Swiping that aside as random act is a blatant lie: Demanding trade secrets (i.e. company laptop) _does not happen accidentally_ anywhere.
Right, the 'just following orders defense'.Believe that has been tried before and was found to be lacking.
It's scary the people who believe that they will be able to use this as a defence and somehow not be held responsible for their actions.
Might as well use "The debbil mayd meh doo ut!".
"If I've done nothing wrong, why am I afraid?"
Because "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is total bollocks spouted by overcontrolling totalitarians who know what's good for you even better than you know yourself*. If you hear anyone using that phrase you can safely conclude that whatever idea they are trying to prop up with this argument is deeply flawed. (I would have said 'could be safely ignored', but actually with these f***ers its best to keep an eye on what they're up to)
*Funnily enough in the US, a lot of these same people rail against the 'nanny state'.
yeah I think the Mueller probe and the current followup insanity is a good example of why "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" does NOT apply when aggressive federal agents attempt to force you into something _like_ a 'perjury trap'...
Maybe Trump will become more of an advocate of civil rights as a result? he's currently busy fixing other problems (illegal immigrant caravans and securing the southern border, etc.), but "taming" the TSA and (allegedly) aggressive airport customs inspections might be the next thing to tackle.
personally, I don't much like taking my belt off to walk through a metal detector at an airport, having to hold up my pants and waddle, and then lose them when I spread my arms to get scanned. You're welcome everyone, I am "the streak". It has gotten _SILLY_.
Don't travel to the US.
Not an option for me - I get sent periodically with work.
I just have an "America phone", which they're welcome to unlock, hack, malware or otherwise root to death. It gets a factory reset to cleanse the lower hanging fruit after each trip. It only gets used in America and has very few apps on it and is signed out of all accounts until I'm away from the airport.
I have a special user account on my "Amrica laptop" with very restricted permissions which is used only to unlock the laptop at the border. Again the laptop is rebuilt after each trip.
I'm well aware firmware hacks won't work be removed using any of the above, but there's only so much I can do. I never take any of my "real" kit with me - not because I have anything to hide, but because I don't want anything hidden upon it (trojans, state malware etc).
Isn't having an obviously clean and pre-prepared phone or laptop just used as an indication of trying to hide something?
Why, they will ask, does this phone not have a Facebook account on it, where we can see all your seditious posts about your hatred of Freedom and the great leader Donald? You're not leaving until we see you log into an obviously active Facebook account, and Twitter. Don't have accounts for either? What are you, some kind of non-conforming freak?
Isn't having an obviously clean and pre-prepared phone or laptop just used as an indication of trying to hide something?
Yes it is. I have seen cases where people get grilled on why they have only a few contacts in their phone address book, why there is no Facebook app on the phone, and whether they have anything to hide. (Other countries immigrations officers do that too, though. For example Australia.) Don't bring a phone at all? Highly suspect.
The idea of using a "burner" phone or laptop may not be really working any more. Avoiding the country altogether sounds more and more like the only reasonable recourse. What a sad world.
Why don't you have a phone or laptop?
My religious beliefs prohibit the use of modern technology, I believe abstaining brings me closer to god and our lord and saviour Jesus Christ
recite the last part loudly enough in the USA and it would be a brave TSA agent who "harasses" the god fearing pious christian......might "inspire" the GOP to decide the TSA is going too far, particularly if the religious right take umbrage at the persecution of one of the faithful........
What are you, some kind of non-conforming freak?
Actually, yes. I don't like being lied to, manipulated, and being told how to vote by a California corporation that wants to supplant the US government with its own laws and leaders. As a result I am proudly Facebook-free, not even an account beyond that shady shadow profile thing they tend to do.
If this is less about Facebook and more about wanting to know who I talk to, just ask my phone provider for the call and text records -- in fact I believe you may already have them, but if not the NSA should be able to call them up fairly rapidly?
Just take a Doro phone and waffle about the "good old days" or some such. (seriously though they make decent handsets for the tech phobic or aged mobile user, my grandad in his mid 80s is really happy with his, he even managed to send a text [something he's not managed since, albeit ask him anything about plastering, tiling or roughcasting he's your man, he used to make ornate ceiling light features from scratch (the kind you see in old houses)])
Just take a Doro phone and waffle about the "good old days" or some such.
Mate of mine has gone to one of those after going through a pile of other phones.
Must admit when I get a bit more disposables that don't have other junk to be blown on, I'll probably get one for myself.
Definitely like what I've seen of it.
Isn't having an obviously clean and pre-prepared phone or laptop just used as an indication of trying to hide something?
No it indicates that my (GSM) phone is too advanced for most US phone companies and their infrastructure and I need to buy a cheap and nasty throwaway one that will work there. Even if this is no longer the case, it is a reasonable statement.
Dont you risk detention along the lines of:
"These gadgets are clearly not your everyday gadgets....why?"
You really have no clue...
They will never ask that.
Sure you may get some other questions, but seriously anything you have on your laptop, Google already knows. ;-)
But back to this guy...
He should have just said... here's my personal kit, knock yourself out.
The Apple stuff? If you won't let me contact Apple then I can't.
Of course Apple actually has a policy in place on how to handle this... had he actually tried to look.
And again... he never talked about why he got flagged.
Posted anon for a reason.
Meaning that I know what they are likely to ask and not ask.
You give them a flip response like some suggest.... you will face extra questioning.
You lie you get flagged for more questioning.
Depending on how bad the lie, you can be arrested.
You try to act like a lawyer... you will get flagged for more questioning.
The reason they let him go is that he would have complied if he could have contacted Apple to get permission which means he was trying to be compliant. So there was no intent on his part.
But that doesn't mean they couldn't bounce him from GOES.
All major global companies have rules about what to do when traveling internationally. Did he follow what Apple has published?
"Meaning that I know what they are likely to ask and not ask."
What you "know" is irrelevant as this isn't a random case but a targeted personal attack to this guy and Apple. At that point "likely" does not mean a thing as these thugs knew exactly what they were after: The laptop.
Refusing to allow the call to Apple is obvious sign of that because then someone in Apple would know that this person's laptop is possibly compromised.
"What you "know" is irrelevant as this isn't a random case but a targeted personal attack to this guy and Apple. "
WTF? and YOU don't know THAT. It is not a FACT that he was targeted. He BELIEVES it, but that does not make it fact. HE doesnt know that. YOU dont know that.
What YOU THINK you know is irrelevant, and spouting half truths and repeating opinions doesn't make it any different, but makes you look like an ass.
I had to travel to the US recently, so I checked company policy for my company devices - And they said to roll over if asked.
I was expecting to get flagged for my lack of social media accounts, and I asked the officer how his day was going (and his tone softened noticeably). Probably very suspicious activities on my part, but it worked out OK.
This post has been deleted by its author
Yeah, I know the proper commentard thing to do when you get lots of downvotes is to take like a (hu)man, stiff upper lip and all.
But, hey, let's doubledown and grab some more downvotes.
First, a lot of people will blather on about their deep secrets that governments want to steal. But really nothing to see (that's me btw). Might be quite a few of you, but given the site I'll assume at least some of you have valid reasons for concern. So that's NOT why I was being snarky.
There's something that's been around for a while called stylometry. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/01/identifying_peo_3.html Basically, you can be "fingerprinted" by your vocabulary, punctuation, etc... It's supposedly quite accurate and I'm pretty sure that's at least one domain where our current pseudo-AI big data stuff shines.
Now, I know that almost no one uses their real names. But if you are, for some reason, important enough to be on a government's security services radar because of your work in tech (and that is essentially what the CTO of Mozilla is claiming happened) do you want to bet that they don't keep a profile of what you write, even under pseudonyms? And then tie it back to perhaps blog posts or public speaking engagements under your actual name? I mean, you are going on about taking all sorts of deep precautions. Some of which, as others pointed out, look downright calculated to attract extra customs attention. Even if that's not the case today, the internet never forgets so you can always be profiled 5 years from now.
If you are writing under AC, then I don't think that they can tie you back to your known profile using a short snippet ( 2D FLATSO!!! s aside). And I rather doubt El Reg would volunteer your handle, absent a warrant.
So, why take the risk and post under your handle? Would you really want custom to be able to tie "I use burner electronics" type of posting to you? Given the great latitude custom agents have to make decisions they could refuse entry and that leaves a permanent black spot. "Have to travel frequently to the US for work" may turn into "can't travel to the US".
And that from people claiming to be so clever as to take all sorts of precautions? Hah! Take a page from the posters that say "AC because current employer".
"I never take any of my "real" kit with me"
Last time our company guys visited US they didn't have anything at all with them, no computer, no phone, nothing. Some clothes and that's that.
Local branch of the company arranged those for them for the duration of the visit and they downloaded everything they needed from company intranet.
Much less hassle on the border and no spies ("border control") to corporate secrets.
Whoa!
Do you think being a non-UK citizen traveling to the UK for work is any better?
Getting your passport stamped which flags for inspection every time you go back to the UK is not fun.
And this for complying with the US/UK treaties on doing work and not requiring a work visa. (Yes, I was even charged money to call a number in the UK to speak with an official who agreed with what I was doing and that I was in compliance. )
So please... don't be a smug git.
Fair?
Yeah, lets pile on the US and say "I'd never go there..." which makes me think of the woman in 'Keeping up Appearances' (Bucket)
The truth is that something caused this guy to get flagged.
He also compounded his mistake by trying to play Perry Mason and tried to incorrectly use his constitutional rights.
He could have tried to argue the 4th, but already the courts have sided with the CBP.
If you're going to travel... make sure you know what's on your laptop, storage devices and be prepared to be stopped. This way you'll have no issues.
The truth... what no one seems to have considered... what happens if you turn over your devices and you end up catching a virus/malware?
Can you then sue the Government for damages? ;-)
Will the CBP also provide a document showing chain of custody?
If they are seizing your equipment under color of law, then they have to follow the rules, don't they? ;-)
I know what's on my laptop / other devices, and i don't want the US government getting it's grubby little mits on it. I also don't want my kit rooted for general inspection from US "Intelligence" agencies.
It's not about what's on it, it's about what they might put on it while they have access and what they might decide to keep a copy of.
And if they put something on it...
That would be grounds for a lawsuit, which would be difficult but you could win.
(You'd have to show that you were religious about anti-virus protection, and that you scanned the device once you got home.) Also you would need to be able to produce a chain of custody showing that you handed over your device.
There's a bit more, but you get the idea.
"The truth is that something caused this guy to get flagged."
this has NOT been established, by the way. Additional journalism might uncover any facts that prove 'getting flagged' but I don't think that evidence exists. Most likely won't be uncovered without a lawsuit of some kind.
I expect to see that lawsuit fairly soon.
"Not established he was flagged". True, but:
I seriously doubt a random CBP officer would have recognized the dude enough to ask questions about his previous employment. So what magical government source does he pull information about past employment of Joe Random Citizen from, with zero notice. (Which means there's established workflows for this, which means it's under legal scrutiny -- this is not calling your buddy in the police force to ask about outstanding parking tickets of your daughter's new boyfriend.)
There are two ways this could break down...
1) He is in GOES and they do a background check of members. Assume that it would have past addresses and employment history.
They know who he is before he boarded the plane. So this wasn't random...
2) He gets selected randomly from the set of GOES passengers on the flight.
They have his background information, and he says something to flag him for further questioning. He could have been caught in a lie, or something.
Assume that they also have his social media posts. (I doubt it, but its possible)
Is there a third option?
So what magical government source does he pull information about past employment of Joe Random Citizen from, with zero notice.
Before the plane leaves the terminal, the other end (especially places like the USA) already knows who is on the plane.
In most cases, the tickets have been booked some time in advance, so at the time of booking there is a good chance TPTB know your itenary where international flights are involved.
He had to get entry/exit visas for the country/ies he was visiting, and being somewhere in Europe...
Being he's a non-natural US citizen, perhaps (I don't know) he has some extra requirements around leaving the country?
There is no "zero notice" when you travel internationally (well, when it involves air travel of some duration, driving up to a border post is another matter - we Kiwi's don't get to do that very often :) ). Your tickets are booked in advance, you have to apply for visas and have to notify when you expect to leave - your plans are known well in advance.
Yes, we don't know what we don't know.
However my point is that there isn't a 'random' check where you are whisked away for further questioning.
I mean that random selection is possible, however how you answer the initial questions would cause the situation to escalate.
I don't expect a lawsuit.
He has no case.
He could try to sue that he was illegally detained under color of the law, claim a violation of his 4th amendment rights, but the case would be dismissed outright because of prior case law supporting the government.
If they are seizing your equipment under color of law, then they have to follow the rules, don't they? ;-)
Short answer: No
Longer answer: Shirley, you jest. This is the USofA, Co, Inc. Fuck Yeah! We (and only We) decide what the rules are for this hour subject to change without notice and yer gonna like it whether you like it or not!
Been in and out of the USA many times as recently as several weeks ago, incidentally also to San Francisco. Fingers crossed, I would state that I have never once had a problem entering the USA, but it is always harrowing to see some unfortunate almost literally dragged away by the goon squads.
Just to make our American cousins feel better about it, the UK "Border Agency" can be infinitely worse. There is something about giving low pay grade public servants police-style uniforms that turns them into 'Pound Shop Hitlers". Coupled then with putting only one PSH on the 'None EU/UK Citizens" immigration control desk at peak arrival time is guaranteed to make someone lose their temper .. which just plays into their hands.
Indeed, I've had a few run ins with UK immigration, and I'm a citizen born and bred. I just hate their attitude and make it plain that I hate it. I have time to waste. And i make it clear I WILL be using their actual names on social media if they try to make my life difficult. They usually sigh and move on to lower hanging fruit
I've never had any issue entering the UK in the 10 or so times I've been, in fact, out of the couple dozen countries I've visited only the USA has ever given be any sort of trouble at the border. And I've been to Russia, China, most of Europe, Japan and Korea.
For every country except the USA, it's rare that they even talk to me, they look at my Canadian passport and just stamp it, no questions asked.
I have an idea:
a) fed-ex all "real" devices to/from your destination endpoints
b) carry only what you need to have on a 'burn device'.
It's not hard (in most cases) to create a gmail (or other) mail address, then forward everything to it while you're away, and fix it back when you return.
And other than listening to music or watching movies on a plane [SD cards good for this], a smart phone isn't all that necessary.
Avoid the problem entirely by making yourself a VERY small "digital target".
Or you can have FUN with them by doing something like this:
1. use FreeBSD on your laptop
2. create a jail that TSA can log into. Make sure the passwords are pejorative towards them.
3. Make it log into a console, not a GUI, and pressing any ALT+F-key gets you a virtual console into the jail [I know how, I have done this, and it's not that difficult]. You can still SSH into the host from the jail...
4. When TSA has you power it up, he sees a classic login prompt on a text console. When he asks for user+password, give him the one that's pejorative to TSA. "What, that's my password!"
5. If they want 'root' password too, give them THAT one. A FreeBSD jail has a different security context, so root's password is not the same as the host's. Make THAT one pejorative towards them as well, or a profane term, or something similar.
Anyway, you give them what they want, just like they ask, and they shouldn't complain, but you're also protesting and pissing them off. Smile the entire time.
This post has been deleted by its author
like the security theatre at the airports, US border crossing is one of those challenges, which you either, well, challenge by applying a "don't go there" policy - or adapt. And, for adaptation, cloud is (still) your friend. Until they start using them brain scanners (which is likely, not if but when the technology is perfected). Then... well, I hope people will figure another anti-instrusion way. Fake, implanted thoughts, perhaps ;)
"(I hear there will soon be a wall to enforce this anyway.)"
I would love to see how a country will be able to place a wall across its entire Pacific, Atlantic, AND Golf coastline, seeing as how traveling by boat is already a notorious route for those seeking ill gain.
Uhm actually it does.
You and most here have no clue as to how much data each country has on you from the time you book your flight... and then when you actually board the flight.
What isn't being said is why he got flagged in the first place.
I used to do a bit of globe trotting and never got flagged.
The only time I had issues is when I couldn't get a good set of finger prints or photograph of face... the machines are geared towards people who are 5'6" so as someone over 6' you have to bend down to get a good shot. Only then do you get flagged, talk to an agent for 30 seconds and told to move on.
And if you don't have GOES, you can always use the passport app which some claim is faster than GOES.
The sad truth... even if he didn't use GOES, and just used his passport and walked thru the system, he still would have been flagged for further inspection.
His real mistake is to think he could take the 5th (its the wrong amendment) He could have tried to argue the 4th, but that too would have failed.
"What isn't being said is why he got flagged in the first place."
No. Because nobody but the CBP agents know. But what they grilled him about is probably a clue.
Ask Jacob Appelbaum about this. He has a few stories like this one to tell.
"I used to do a bit of globe trotting and never got flagged."
Congrats. And that means... what? That it's probably his own fault?
/shakes head
You're right, the CBP knows why the flagged him.
But then so should he...
Something he said. Some place he traveled, who he met with...
His political views. His relatives.. A whole slew of possible reasons.
Or it could have been random and he said something to piss them off.
I've never had an issue w CBP in the US. In the UK? Different story.
The thing is, it didn’t fail, it succeeded . They let him go with no charges and didn’t seize his property, so I’d call that a win. Yes it took 3 hours, probably because they were pissed they couldn’t bully him into compliance- so by all means hate on the CBP, but the guy won.
According to the article he was compliant, but said he couldn't hand over his Apple stuff without talking to a lawyer or someone from Apple.
He wasn't lying or didn't appear to be lying.
So what would they hold him on.
The major thing... Apple has deep pockets. Meaning they could go to court and fight this where average citizen couldn't.
There's more, but the bottom line... he lost his GOES and we'll have to see what happens on his next international trip.
I would love to see more people challenging random border searches esp. re: unlocking cellphones and/or laptops. I know it's not up to "regular folk" who can't afford the legal expenses individually, but having help from civil-liberty organizations is a way to go. Unfortunately this would paint a pretty big target on people's backs and make it tough traveling in the future.
It's OK if you're a citizen, because what are they going to do? But if if you're a foreigner, all you're going to achieve is getting frogmarched back to your plane (at your own expense) and told never to come back.
If you have to go to the USA, get a landfill android and netbook to take. Let them have fun with your zero data.
If you have to go to the USA, get a landfill android and netbook to take. Let them have fun with your zero data.
You're better off with a memorised password only and data stored in an online container, then buy your gear there as it's a lot cheaper (well, maybe not that much longer due to Trump's messing around with trade agreements). I'd just take a simple phone along, and if they want access to that, fine - it'll just have my lawyer's number in it :).
I set up all of that a long time ago, I work with too much confidential data to ever take that risk.
Wow.
Check your attitude mate!
You think the UK is better?
Think again. And yeah its from personal experience.
I've been put in to the penalty box many times in London Heathrow and almost missed my connecting flight because of it.
And yeah, until I got a new passport, I was always flagged for extra attention.
"... even recommend them for certain undemocratic authoritarian countries, like say, the USA, UK,"
.. and Soviet Union when it was still existing. Probably applies to Russia as well.
Anyway, I had passport full of border control stamps and visas to SU and before trip in US I was strongly advised to get a new passport, by Police.
Applies to other way round too, of course, but less problems: The US people are even more paranoid/bullies at border than SU people were. Russian border control is very formal but no intentional bullying like this if papers are OK, these guys are professionals.
re: "But if if you're a foreigner,..." very true
a very, very, senior colleague of mine from work (CERN at the time) was frogmarched out of the US Border Area (which seems not to be the US so none of that 'amendment' constitution stuff applies anyway) and sent back immediately to Geneva because the CBP at the time asked him a few questions.
Charles Angry (accurate pseudonym) was not impressed, I don't know if he showed them his 1984 physics nobel prize, or just his weekly teaching contracts with MIT & Stanford etc. but he was evicted, for a week or two until diplomacy was brought to bear. I haven't been back since either - tho' I really like the place.
Somewhat similar story with a friend of mine: She is a physicist who flew in from India to attend a symposium on NMR. When they heard that she was here for something "nuclear", she was held for a number of hours as the TSA went up the chain trying to figure out what to do. Eventually, they called in an expert, who started laughing when they claimed she was here to steal nuclear secrets, and she was allowed in without further incident.
I guess you really don't know the law or talk to enough lawyers.
The case law is settled. The government wins, if they play by the rules.
No civil liberties group will raise this issue because there is no new argument that can be raised.
The 4th Amendment challenge was done and the courts shot it down.
You can challenge them... but at what cost? Weigh that against the contents on your laptop or phone.
Its not worth the fight.
As I said, the Government has to play by their rules. And when they don't you can sue. But even then they stack the deck against you.
We can look at the Obama Administration's unmasking of US individuals who communicate outside the US. The capture of intel by the NSA is legal. Unmasking for political reasons is not. We'll hopefully see more information on this after the Mueller report is released to the public.
You want to learn more, go to the Judicial Watch website which is the number one group raising FOIA requests and have had to deal with the US Government playing dirty tricks to hide information.
"Its not worth the fight."
Let the nazis win by default, right.
"As I said, the Government has to play by their rules"
And you lie: They don't "have to" do fu**ing anything they don't want to do. No proof of crimes, no crimes.
*That's* the way it's done.
"Its not worth the fight."
smart ass reply: "Let the nazis win by default, right."
No. But it takes two things to be successful against the gov't: time and money.
Unless you are extremely wealthy, you will run out of money(time) before it will. Your innocence or guilt is beside the point. The government has virtually unlimited resources to prosecute you. If you are less than a multimillionaire, it's not worth the fight.
If you are less than a multimillionaire, it's not worth the fight.
You are correct in saying they will probably win.
But....
The reason why they are so easily able to win is because of such attitudes. If everyone stood up to TPTB when they abused their powers, instead of rolling over and taking it, they would quickly learn NOT to waste their time and resources by playing against the rules.
The courts (when they're not part of the game) also get annoyed with it and quickly tire of seeing the same government departments up for the same charges by different people. They can very quickly start to stomp not on the little guy but on TPTB who are abusing their powers. I've watched it happen myself, and sometimes it is a real pleasure. A good judge knows the private citizen won't have the same resources as TPTB, and also knows the PC won't have the knowledge or experience whereas TPTB have been there before, have the experience, and should know what's what. After all, they can afford expensive lawyers to advise them.
So if we don't roll over, they eventually get the idea. It's the same reason why so many occupation shave failed over time. A good chance you'll lose - many will, but in time the fight will be won.
I am speaking from exceptionally bitter experience.
"The case law is settled. The government wins, if they play by the rules."
No it's not. Cases are still ongoing, and the highest ruling to date (Riley v. California) says a warrant is required for any kind of detainment, but the "border search exception" has not yet been put to the Riley test. Cases concerning this combination are still running through the courts, and SCOTUS has yet to rule specifically on electronic devices at the border.
In other news, if they decide to EXECUTE you, according to their “supreme court” you do not have the right for it do be done painlessly. (Even if you are a citizen.)
OK, it’s not as bad as Saudi Arabia or a few other places. But why anyone from the relatively-civilised parts of the world would ever want to go there is completely beyond me.
The main differences between Trump and Obama or Bill Clinton is that Trump usually says what he is going to do, no matter how rotten it is. Whereas Obama and Clinton would greasily lie about how good their intentions were, and "mistakes were made (but not by me)".
Given the choice between an outright swine like Trump and a corrupt, dissembling hypocrite like Clinton or Obama, give me the swine any time. At least he's not pretending to be better than he is.
Jesus could have been speaking about Obama when he said,
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness".
You seem to have forgotten to mention Geedubya the architect of the war on terror who was able to create the large and complex Patriot Act almost overnight after the surprise and shock of 9/11 and effectively removing many of America's supposed rights equally as quickly.
Sorry to disappoint you, but this sh**show started after 9/11 when *all* politicians were happily complicit in signing away all rights for *anyone* including US citizens when they approved the Patriot Act. That act has ripped the heart out of many rights that people had. The DHS was authorised by it, the CBP gets funding through it (via DHS), and while everyone pointed fingers at the evil bagman in Pakistan, the quietly industrious in the US government got on with turning the country more and more into a totalitarian state.
Of course, other countries are just as bad, the UK has RIPA and other acts that were authorised by similarly complicit politicians for the sake of 'protecting our citizens', as do others. All that you need to do is look at cases of people detained at the UK border (and trust me, the back rooms at Border Control in LHR Terminal 3 are *not* pleasant). So, as much as we like to harp on about Trump, Trump is just taking what his predecessors did and ramping it up some more. It's the faceless, nameless mandarins you would never see in the Capitol or the Houses of Parliament you need to worry about, not the ones who end up with their faces on telly...
You got taken to a back room?
I just got placed in to a penalty box while they drank their coffee thinking about what to do with me.
I guess it pays to being clean cut and polite... ;-)
Of course having a major Fortune 100 Global client as my reason for travel could have helped.
Unless you refer to the penalty box as the grotty room (with a one-way mirror) behind the door behind the entry desks, no, believe me, the back rooms are no better... What you look like doesn't really matter. You're all stuck on bad airport seating in an airless, beige room with crap neon lighting, no power and certainly no mobile signal (and warnings that mobiles are to be kept switched off) until it's finally time for you to be spoken to by a dour-faced Border Agency official trying to establish whether you're there to steal someone's job and enrich yourself on the benefits system, or whether you're really just there for 3 days for a series of meetings.
Why would I want to go there? Occasionally to visit friends but mainly because it is in the way when I visit a lot of places I do want to go to. Once upon a time there were international transit lounges where you could wait for an onward connection without having to clear customs and immigration. Seems a sensible idea to me - saves a lot of time and work for both travellers and border officers.
It's not a mystery though. The US never considered its airports to be transit points. They always were a port of entry. As such, their designs have *always* been a "come off the plane, through the border, then fly somewhere else".
At LAX, Air New Zealand used to have a so-called 'sterile lounge' for passengers transiting through Terminal 2 on NZ001 (while the plane was being refuelled for its next leg) but who didn't enter the Koru Lounge (which required you to go through border control), but since ANZ moved to the Tom Bradley Terminal (the massive international complex at the end of the loop), that's disappeared because again, the US doesn't want to bother with keeping travellers segregated, so you're required to enter the country.
Kastrup Airport in Copenhagen has a similar layout. You need to have a transit visa to travel through it (unless your country has visa-free access to Denmark/EU), otherwise you are kept airside in a tiny space by passport control until your flight departs (and its gate has closed) and you are collected by car and driven across. It's not pleasant.
Until Amsterdam Schiphol went to 'central security', they also had a similar thing... If your flight arrived at a non-Schengen gate and you were leaving from a non-Schengen gate, you were either ferried across by bus, or you had to go through border control into the big pool of Schengen people. They've since (thankfully) done away with the 'at gate' security rubbish. Brussels Zaventem ditto. Frankfurt still has some gates where there is border control and security at the gate (particularly Terminal 2 for some... ahem... 'third world' airlines and destinations).
Until Amsterdam Schiphol went to 'central security', they also had a similar thing
Nonsens, Schiphol has a well deserved reputation for being very transfer friendly as it is a major transfer hub with a smallish home market. You may have experienced it sometime during a reconstruction, but generally the "airside" part of it is hazzle free for transfer passengers (except for the long distances).
Not true. I remember transiting through US airports without having to go through customs and immigration.
The change happened, surprisingly enough, shortly after 9/11. A few months later I had the misfortune to transit through LAX, and was frankly incredulous at the new rules. Some airport staff acknowledged that they didn't know why it had changed, but it had and I now had to spend my 3 hours on US soil standing in lines and explaining to jaded and undertrained officials why I didn't have an address there.
It changed because many of the 9/11 hijackers transited from Canada before boarding their destined flights. They realized that someone could exploit an international transfer to attack a transit city, and there's no real way to make any safeguards against that unless all the passengers are re-screened upon entry.
Security rescreening of international transfer passengers can be done without going through customs, all major and most minor airports outside of the USA have that possibility. However, that same security rescreening wouldn't have caught those 9/11 hijackers either as box cutters were allowed through by US security as well.
That's where the crux of the problem is... But it's easier forcing your new draconian rules on everyone when they officially enter your territory (through passport control). Airside outside passport control tends to be 'international waters' and law and the reach of the law become a lot more nebulous :-)
"Security rescreening of international transfer passengers can be done without going through customs, all major and most minor airports outside of the USA have that possibility."
But not the baggage necessarily (including the checked baggage). Because of inconsistent international standards, all baggage (hand-carry and checked) need to be re-screened upon entering the US, to help prevent using a lax or bribed origin country to slip a suitcase bomb onto a US flight.
Security rescreening of checked baggage can be done without going through customs, all major and most minor airports outside of the USA have that possibility and most do since shortly after 21 December 1988 (Pan Am Flight 103, Lockerbie). And nearly all of them do that without bothering the passenger about it if there is no problem.
Quite apart from the fact that most US government employees actively enjoy inflicting pain on others, they have apparently never worked out how to kill someone painlessly. Indeed, all the news about the three methods mostly used - the electric chair, gas and the needle - is about how hideously painful and prolonged a death they cause.
All those forms of execution obviously and deliberately flout the constitutional prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment". That they are vilely cruel is undeniable, and none of them is much used in any other nation. The few countries that still execute serious criminals do it by more merciful means such as hanging or shooting. (Both of which are almost instantaneous and relatively pain-free if done right).
if done right
Hanging by traditional methods is very difficult to get right. Supposedly most executions resulted in slow painful asphyxiation rather than the instant painless neck-breaking that's intended, and that's why it's no longer used. (That is: it's no longer used because it's nasty to watch when it goes wrong, not because it's painful for the executed).
You would think with modern technology they could improve it though. I'm thinking some kind of high powered pneumatic robot that just rips the con's head clean off..
Most forms of execution including some of the apparently humane ones leave the brain active for up to four minutes according to some reports. That includes beheading where there are old stories of heads continuing to try to speak, eyes rolling and looking around. A slaughterhouse humane killer that effectively stirs the brains almost instantly may be better but messier.
Nuking would work but may be too expensive.
It's called a guillotine.
Also, there are two kinds of hanging. One, without a "drop" causes death by asphyxiation, as noted above. I think it is still used in some parts of the world - often in public as a deterrent....
The other, the one with a "drop", causes death by breaking the neck. It was used in the UK until the death penalty ceased to be used in the mid-1960s. Yes it could go wrong but my understanding is that the length of the drop would be selected according to the weight of the criminal to cause a very quick death by breaking the neck without either ripping the head off or not being an abrupt enough stop and causing asphyxiation. A particular problem if the prisoner had attempted suicide by cutting his throat.
My wife is descended from William Calcraft, the UK's last public executioner: Wikipedia link. He specialized in "short drop" hangings where the hanged could take a long time to die. Apparently he was favoured by the establishment for people that they really disliked - Although some said that he was just incompetent, or that he liked to "entertain" the crowd...
You don't understand. The methods now used are kind to the witnesses, who no longer have to watch a neck snap at a hanging or see blood splatter from a shooting or beheading. A lot of the opposition to capital punishment goes away if you can make it seem neat and painless and especially not-bloody - even if it is actually is even more painful. Sad really.
There was a documentary on the BBC a few years ago about a more humane way of executing prisoners on death row. One suggestion was to replace the oxygen in the air with another gas such as carbon monoxide or nitrogen. The person just feels sleepy has a slight feeling of euphoria before passing out and eventually croaking from hypoxia.
This is apparently the method favored by the Final Exit folks. For one thing it's extremely difficult to screw up. They usually use helium, because it will displace oxygen out of an upside-down bag.
The stories of people who have been rescued after accidentally entering nitrogen-purged confined spaces seem to confirm that this is painless. Unconsciousness happens almost instantly, death within a few minutes. (This is why spaces like that are so dangerous.)
As to why it's not used, I think maybe it's the connotations that gas chambers have had since WWII or so.
Michael Portillo did a program about the best/nicest to do away with people. He experienced hypoxia in an RAF (I think) testing facility used to train pilots to recognise the signs and would have happily died if the instructor hadn't put his mask back on.
A telling part of the program was when he told an American that being executed via hypoxia would be painless and you go out on a high, the American spat out something along the lines of 'I don't want murderers and rapists to die happy, I want them to suffer.'
America! The New World, a developing nation, peopled by Europe's religious nutters, rouges and chancers - with a few good people too no doubt :)
This (and many of the other comments) from presumably knowledgeable tech people give me pause. Google and Facebook fly entire planeloads of tech people to and from China (PRC) every weekday. Friends of mine fly there without a qualm in order to source parts. And yet, there is no more totalitarian government in the world, nor one who kills more of its citizens every year, nor one who intercepts more WIFI and cell messages/texts/emails. But people find the US difficult? Won't fly there? Yes, some of the security staff are IQ < 95. Many of them feel they'll make their boss less angry by overdoing rather than under-doing it. Now, if they could just move the airport guys over to the cargo terminal to catch the drug shipments, they'd make a bit more sense to me. I would also point out this peculiarity, that US government agencies and contractors have hired (and arranged visas for) PRC physicists and programmers. This confusion has apparently been going on for several decades.
This may have something to do with fact that China doesn't portray itself.to the world as the defender for Freedom and Democracy(tm), while incarcerating more of its own citizens than the big bad China, openly admits to using torture (sorry, 'enhanced iterrogation'), has constant foreign interventions, topples a democratically elected government doesn't do what the US wants and dabbles in the occasional threat against its supposed allies (like passing a law to invade The Netherlands if a US citizen is ever put on trial at ICJ in the Hague), Then it on occasion goes on full scale wars of agression (this is the legal tern btw and a war crime) on blatantly proven false pretenses.
Yep, can't imagine why anyone would have more of a problem with the US than with China.
After all, USians are obviously 'The Good Guys'(tm) in all this.
"Given the current level of political incompetence in the UK, can we be far behind?"
Hate to tell you *but* ....... we are a 3rd world country in all but name and have been there for years. !!!
The level of incompetence we are seeing with the Brexit process (nothing to do with being for or against Brexit !!!) is a perfect indicator.
(Another indicator is the fact that we have to 'simplify' the whole thing to a buzzword 'BREXIT' to allow the politicians to explain the whole thing to the dumb voters. Their level of contempt for the people that put them in the HoC is showing more than usual.)
We have shown the world that we are living off 'past glories' and could not plan our way out of a wet paper bag. Our failure to decide what we want and inability to get past 'tribal wrangling' shows that we are no better than any 3rd world country !!!
Down vote if you 'need' to but you really need to remove the 'rose tints' and see the country as the rest of the world sees us, before it is too late !!!.
Such a shame as Britain used to be 'Great' !!! ;) :)
And I'm trying to figure out why Apple travel policy is not to take any devices with you, or make sure they're wiped before coming back through US customs. Surely the basic idea is don't try to take valuable accessible data through customs? Might be a good idea to lock your own cloud account too, then report back to corporate in person for an unlock.
And make sure you use a quantum resistant encryption algorithm to transfer data once in the destination countries. Just because us serfs don't have quantum computers to break symmetric crypto doesn't mean 5 eyes doesn't (or the FSB, or China's security agencies)...
"And I'm trying to figure out why Apple travel policy is not to take any devices with you, or make sure they're wiped before coming back through US customs."
What if your job transfer large amounts of confidential data from one country to another: too much to do through the Internet? AND you need to be able to bring it back (say, updated)?
Mail it encrypted. At least the copying will be more limited than the other way, and theoretically the encryption should hold the secrets until they are of no further commercial relevance.
Or accept the fact that if you force your employees to do this, one will eventually crack and give up your sensitive data like an unwanted kitten. At which point either your competitors will suddenly be able to force you out of the market, or you might find yourself on the wrong end of various probes (GDPR violations for starters).
Mail sounds safer, if slower....
Yes, I do. The bootloader for my android device contains some encrypted secrets, and there are some more in all of the extra blobs Google's put on. Unfortunately, I do not have the ability to decrypt those for you. After you've stolen my phone by force after I refused to give it to you and attacked it with whatever you're going to use, could you let me know the keys for those as well? I could use them. Thanks.
What if your job transfer large amounts of confidential data from one country to another: too much to do through the Internet?
How big would that have to be exactly? I mean, bandwidth in most places is pretty good and most cities have some pretty fast leased lines available.
I'm not suggesting you're wrong, merely looking for some idea of the size of data you'd have to transfer to be "too big for the internet".
"[L]ooking for some idea of the size of data you'd have to transfer to be "too big for the internet"."
It could be a lot of things, depending on the details of where it came from and where it's going. Remember the original quote to "never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full of tapes [or micro SD cards] driving down a highway". Consider what would happen if you have data about mineral investigations taken on board a ship in the middle of the ocean. You have been operating many devices, and the analysts now have to take the data. It is a lot of data that needs a lot of computing capacity to understand, and neither the analysts nor the computing is on board. You want to get that data back to corporate headquarters. If you're on the ocean, you probably don't have fiber out to you. A satellite will be bandwidth limited. If your file is very large, the satellite would be prohibitively slow to get the data in, and would also shut down the internet for all the people on board. Meanwhile, you could write the data to a hard drive and fly it back by helicopter in a matter of hours.
It requires you to generate a lot of data, and it is more likely if your internet is slow, but it is done at times. For example, the massive amounts of data received by astronomers' radio telescopes is too large for the internet, and they put a bunch of hard drives on an airplane to get them back to the research institution.
The irony is that all of this is within reach of the average intelligent specialist operator who can read instructions, whereas border control has a simple problem called volume.
In addition, smart operators know where to get passports in different names so the no-fly list becomes a no-frigging-point list as well (other than a bit of security theater for the plebs) and given that the chips in passports can be rewritten (from some 30 meters away even), updating the embedded biometrics is also not going to be hard.
By the way, note that we're still assuming here that the Bad Guy point of entry is still by plane. There's plenty of wet stuff surrounding the place too.
Frankly, they're wasting their time IMHO other than for petty idiots, but someone is making VAST amounts of profit running all of this..
By the way, note that we're still assuming here that the Bad Guy point of entry is still by plane. There's plenty of wet stuff surrounding the place too.
That coast line is still somewhat limited in length. The next bunch of Bad Guys will come in by plane, but will not land at any airport. Instead they will use parachutes and good luck finding them.
Somewhat limited? The US faces two oceans and its east coast curves around to extend westward, too. All in all, the US has over 5,000 miles of coastline just in the lower 48 states (Alaska with its jagged coastline and Aleutian archipelago can double that total by itself, while Hawaii can tack on about another 750). It actually cracks the top 10 in terms of total coastline. Archipelagos like the Philippines and Indonesia rank higher, but the real kings are the Arctic countries where their coastlines are especially ragged (Russia, Greenland, Norway, and Canada are in the top 10, Canada is #1). Antarctica does rank in at #10, but that's the only Antarctic landmass to speak of.
As far as I know, a drive will not no longer touch areas marked as bad because in the case of real damage you get into CRC failures and repeated attempts at recalibration - the drive gets very, very noisy and throughput pretty much dies (it also causes cache discards). That's why it tends to be a one way process.
Until you reset the bad sector map you have effectively marked an area of the drive as off limits to the head. It's a good thing you require low level access to the drive to do this, because it's a WAY more effective means to put data out of reach than, for instance, encryption - it's instantaneous.
Come to think of it, I wonder if you could mess with SSDs in a similar fashion by poking at the wear levelling and management mechanism.
What if your job transfer large amounts of confidential data from one country to another: too much to do through the Internet? AND you need to be able to bring it back (say, updated)?
A hollow coin is indistinguishable from the real thing and can comfortably hide one of two 256GB micro SD cards. There you go, half a terabyte - per coin. Just be careful when you tip someone.
Depends on how thick the coins are and what they're made of. In addition, if you're really worried about them make sure they're in a pile or stand edge upright - unless specifically made aware of the issue, operators don't have the time to watch for minor discrepancies.
That all said, why bother? There are so many ways to cart data around electronically that doing it physically may actually be the more risky approach.
True, but the discussion is here veering towards state actors, and they could indeed use the diplomatic channels with gay abandon.
As for Assange™, I believe that ploy failed because he had to be first accepted as a courier, and that didn't fly (and thus neither did he) for obvious reasons. Ditto for ideas of making him a diplomat.
Speaking of which, he's been miraculously quiet of late. Is that because he still hasn't got his Internet back, or are Trump and Brexit absorbing all the publicity oxygen?
How do you know they don't. There might not have been any commercial secrets of significant classification on there. Maybe he just didn't like the intimidation and the fact that they wanted to go through his private stuff without a warrant. They may also have planted anything they wanted in there once they got access.
He might also just not wanted random stabbed to be rummaging through his holiday snaps, sms, emails etc. Perfectly understandable if you ask me. Why is it any business at all of some random dude to be rummaging through you personal data?
You raise an excellent point. It's far less difficult to infiltrate the tsa and plant a nasty on someone's laptop than it is to break into some of the networks I work on.
Many of the rules I have to abide by are set by US regulators with *very* sharp teeth, could I threaten tsa with them? Nah, I'd probably never see the light of day again.
Just take throw-away devices. If CBP unlock the device and remove it from your presence, you can never trust the device again for connecting to a private network or accessing any non-public information.
A friend of mine was given advice from authorities on travelling to China: use a burner phone and burner laptop and drop them in the trash at the Chinese airport on the way back home. I would say, the same applies for travelling to the USA these days.
But have companies' accountants ever thought that way? Every expense gets considered, and you have to justify the small things a lot more than the large things. When they are logical enough to do that, and incidentally remove the cheap laptop from their depreciation process, I'll be very surprised.
A friend of mine was given advice from authorities on travelling to China: use a burner phone and burner laptop and drop them in the trash at the Chinese airport on the way back home.
I went to China with an ex-gf. If the rumours of cameras in westerner zoned hotels are true, they presumably have some excellent footage of my knobbing some lass that isn't my wife (hadn't met her yet). I'd rather that not hit the internet where my kids can see it. Thus, I'm possibly blackmailable. If the state want to compromise you or your equipment, they'll always find a way.
Put another way, if they can't, then you could find yourself 'removed from your position' by some means such that they can "work with" your replacement. Taking basic security measures is fine, but I'm not sure of the wisdom of being uncompromisable.... It might not end well. (Dr Kelly, for instance)
The photojournalist Eric Durchschmied was caught in Russia "back in the day" with a young female in his room. No hidden cameras, the door was flung open at the right "moment" and somebody took a flash photograph of him and a young lady who picked him up in the department store.
If they were hoping to blackmail him, they were disappointed, he just looked at them, smiled and asked if he could have a copy for his wife's solicitor, as he was getting divorced. They never contacted him again.
(from his autobiography "Don't shoot the Yanqui!")
They don't have to in this day and age. The scandal alone would seriously mar one's reputation. Proof is irrelevant if a hostile state is involved: they can fabricate anything they wish, and because it's a hostile state, they can protect themselves with their own sovereignty.
I have to say that's the only sensible response to blackmail.
X knows you did Y and can tell anyone at any time.
X threatens to tell everyone.
Unless you do something for X that's costly to you.
There's no way you can trust X, so effectively that information is already in the public domain for all you know, therefore you're better off just saying "OK, go for it... by the way, my lawyer is interested in your threat of blackmail and how you legally obtained that information".
I think the same about muggings, car jackings etc. "your money or your life?". What kind of deal is that? You're already threatening to kill me, therefore I have to assume you're going to do that to remove any witness anyway, therefore why should I assist you in finding valuables which may well contribute to you repeating this incident, valuables which you are otherwise suggesting you wouldn't be able to get any other way if I *don't* co-operate (which in itself suggests you're not actually willing to kill me, but whatever) --Throws wallet/car key down sewer---
Now neither of us have it. And if you were going to kill me anyway, you still will. And if you weren't, then you still won't.
Same with hostage negotiation (they've already kidnapped your daughter and threatened to kill her, how much trust can you put in them to release her even if you give all your money to them?) and a lot of other things.
Sure, it works by intimidation, but even if there was a public-outing on the horizon that you don't necessarily want, why do things their way when there's literally no advantage and they *already* proved they can't be trusted.
@Lee D
Between threats and killing you, there are a lot of things that can be done that might be a fate worse than death, both for you or your nearest and dearest, it just depends on the will of the perp'.
People make jokes about it but not too far from where I lived as a youth people had their knees nailed to the floor and joints drilled, would you want to spend your life knowing you had condemned a family member to something like that?
How to respond to threats is not easy.
Do you honestly think that the kind of people who are going to nail knees to the floor - of anyone - are a) at all interested in whether you don't have what they want in the first place, b) going to be letting you walk away to talk about it even if you capitulate, c) not going to those tactics against absolutely anyone else if they thought for a second it would help them?
Sorry, but in legal, moral and self-defence terms, you have to treat any credible threat as coming from someone perfectly capable of that action. As such, you have to assume - and it's not a bad assumption - they're going to do it anyway, no matter what you do. The second you give up the info, they're not going to think it's enough and do more. And then they'll do you, because you're not co-operating. And then kill all the witnesses because they're just that type of person.
Like you say - if they're already at the "inflicting a fate worse than death" stage, then... what do you think it going to improve about that situation if you co-operate? They'll merely kill you and everyone else anyway.
You respond to credible threats as if they are going to be carried out. Whether that's a threat of a fight on a street, a shot through your head, exposure of your naughty photos, a fire in your building, someone trying to gain entrance to your property or anything else. If the threat is credible, you have to assume it's going to happen.
The kind of guys who torture your friends/family because you wouldn't co-operate are the exact kind of person who no amount of co-operation will appease and, in fact, even if you get on their good side somehow would just make your life worse as they'd come calling for every little favour under threat of more violence. That's how you end up being the drugs mule... do it or your brother dies... Once you're at that point, literally the only thing you're gaining is a quicker death, which might well be a blessing.
You are literally in a no-win situation at that point, you're being threatened with - effectively - murder by your murderer.
For that situation, you cannot with any certainty ever improve the situation by capitulating. However, when it comes to muggings, burglaries, dodgy photos, etc. with much less severe outcomes even possible, then you *certainly* can't improve the situation by capitulating, and actually improve your odds by not capitulating.
Larry Niven once wrote an excellent (non-SF, present day) short story about a guy who is hijacked by a knife-carrying hitch-hiker whom he picks up.
It's hard to explain without a big spoiler - suffice it to say that the hitch-hiker turns out to have brought a knife to a car fight.
Same with hostage negotiation (they've already kidnapped your daughter and threatened to kill her, how much trust can you put in them to release her even if you give all your money to them?) and a lot of other things.
Hold a gun to my head and maybe I'll do what you want, maybe I'll tell you to go fuck yourself. Hold a gun to my childrens heads and I'll literally do everything I can for you on the off chance you won't take from me the only thing of real value (hint: it isn't the money).
Rationality simply wouldn't come into it for me I'm afraid. It's not that I think your logic is wrong, it's just that outright complicity with their demands isn't going to reduce my childrens chances, but resistance just possibly might.
It's why I'm not so worried about the possible videos from China I mentioned earlier - there are far more effective ways to ensure my compliance than threatening to release a video of a 20 something me up to my nuts in some lass that was way out of my league. Plus, there's a reasonable chance I could claim it was my younger brother anyway :)
I remember reading a story about a Westerner, a long time ago (60's?) in Moscow, being hauled in by the KGB who showed him pictures of himself cavorting with a young Russian lady. The guy sorted the pictures into two piles, pointed to one of them and asked the KGB men if he could get extra prints to show to his mates back home. The KGB then concluded he couldn't be blackmailed into working for them.
Hmm, funny they didn't have a counter of saying some of the ladies were actually too young and they could make things very uncomfortable if word of them got to western authorities.
At that time, under age ladies were considered to be the problem of the country where it happened and outside of the jurisdiction of the home country of the "gentleman". This only changed within the last twenty years (long overdue, but that is another discussion). And that is even without the minor detail that photographic evidence by the KGB might be believed, but a statement about the young lady being underage most definitely not.
And I'm trying to figure out why Apple travel policy is not to take any devices with you, or make sure they're wiped before coming back through US customs.
Apple devices actually have a very handy feature for this: profiles, on both iOS and MacOS. Nuke the profile and everything associated with it vanishes (the trick is to leave some personal use on the machine so it doesn't look blank). We have rules for border crossing with at-risk countries (at present that means the US, China and Russia), and the main ones for travelling people are:
1 - do NOT store confidential information locally, not even encrypted. This information belongs on company servers behind a firewall and a cert protected VPN, and the relevant certs vanish with the profile. Yes, that means you can't work on it while travelling, and that's deliberate.
2 - delete the company profile/profiles at least 30 minutes before customs. In practice this means before flight descend - get it done. We have a process to re-establish that safely once you're at your hotel.
3 - any device that is handed to customs is classed as tainted and is barred from company use until reflashed.
The above also means that we consider device content as non critical - it must be possible to reflash a device at any time if we suspect tampering or other problems.
Personally I think it's sad we had to implement that for the US, but they've given us no reason to trust them, more the opposite. It's why we don't often go there now, we have some sales people there but that's it, also because it limits our legal exposure.
It turns out you should avoid Razer laptops, they suffer from the same flaw that Apple patched last October, but don't seem to be willing to accept the report from the researcher (reported on here today).
They are sent out with the motherboard still in manufacturing mode, which leaves the UEFI open to re-writing by the OS with no security.
"do NOT store confidential information locally, not even encrypted."
So what happens WHEN (not IF) the task at hand REQUIRES the transfer of large amounts (say terabytes) of confidential information: too much to transfer online without great monetary and/or time costs and too sensitive to not be done by a trusted courier, which will mean the courier MUST go through customs no matter what?
And I'm trying to figure out why Apple travel policy is not to take any devices with you, or make sure they're wiped before coming back through US customs.
I'm trying to get my employer to see the benefit of zero mileage equipment for work: I travel, the laptop and phone don't.
Just have some spare kit in each location so I can forward my phone to the local mobile and login to the laptop on arrival. Its the easiest way to avoid state tampering, for which ever state you're visiting (nation as opposed to united).
So, don't live within 100 miles of the coast, 100 miles from the Canadian or Mexican borders or 100 miles from an inland harbour or airport... What about foreign embassies? There are borders around them as well.
That pretty much means anybody living in a major city in America isn't covered by the constitution?
It doesn't cover airports or embassies, but "100 miles form the coast" still covers about half of California, and all of Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont etc. IIRC it's not that the constitution doesn't apply, but border patrol officers don't think it applies within 100 miles which amounts to exactly the same thing (if you've been locked in a cell with no means of communications, it doesn't matter if it's technically illegal or not, you're still locked in a cell).
I've never even been to the US and I knew about it, I assumed it was wider knowledge.
...or so CBP claim. I believe that claim will sooner or later be litigated.
You see, apparently, we all have constitutional rights when being questioned by everyone else *except* CBP. My house (located 27 miles from the Atlantic coast) is secure against unreasonable search and seizure, thanks to the 4th Amendment, unless the folks doing the search and/or seizure claim to be CBP.
This makes no sense. Someone will eventually get angry enough to involve ACLU and it will most likely go all the way to the Supreme Court, where, God willing, it will get CBP smacked down, hard. They will be told their "rights" to search within 100 miles of the border do not apply to citizens, and that they must have reasonable suspicion and articulate that suspicion to the person being searched.
If CBP enters your home without a warrant you have every right to defend yourself and your property as it is an illegal search and if they are not obeying the law there is no reason to assume they will follow any other laws.
The can enter private property without a warrant, but they can't enter the place you inhabit.
The Constitution still applies. They still need a reasonable suspicion to perform a search within that 100 miles. And the 100 miles hasn't been tested in court and will probably fail. They settle cases to keep them from going to trial so they don't lose their 100 mile distance. A reasonable distance would be 10 miles. If they ever threaten to arrest you tell them to go ahead, you always wanted to get a ruling on whether 100 miles is a reasonable distance, because everyone knows it's not.
Also, I think the rule is you have to be within 100 miles *and* have a nexus to the border -- that is, you have to have crossed or otherwise transacted business there.
This essentially started with immigration and drug enforcement on freeways. It was a lot easier for them to pull over suspicious vehicles and search them along the 5 than to try to make a quick decision at a crowded border checkpoint.
"This makes no sense. Someone will eventually get angry enough to involve ACLU and it will most likely go all the way to the Supreme Court, where, God willing, it will get CBP smacked down, hard. They will be told their "rights" to search within 100 miles of the border do not apply to citizens, and that they must have reasonable suspicion and articulate that suspicion to the person being searched the local courts, in order to obtain the same thing all other enforcement agencies require, a legal and valid search warrant."
FTFY
That is - not even slightly close to an accurate paraphrase of what your link says. The exemption is limited to the 4th amendment (meaning the whole of the rest of the constitution is not affected), and to "routine searches". And that's at the border. The '100 mile' limit only covers a significantly weaker dilution of the same right.
Note the wording of the 4th amendment, which prohibits only "unreasonable searches and seizures". Obviously it was always going to be up to the courts to determine what was and wasn't "reasonable", and the courts have taken the view that at a border crossing, some more intrusive than normal measures are "reasonable".
Which seems pretty logical to me, and probably not that far from what the founders intended.
I'd love to know how these TSA goofs can openly and wantonly violate the Fourth Amendment.
The issue with most border control environments is that they render operators unaccountable, and you end up with a situation that is a magnet for wannabe Hitlers. Let that stew for a few years and the good people will have all left. The US is not unique in this.
The only question I have is one of possibly warped statistics: do we know there is indeed a peak in investigations for people with an IT security background, or do we only get that impression because those are the only cases that are reported?
I can't be sure but I believe I read something like that.
Maybe this is the starting point. Just show the guns for now, and if too many people resist, next time, *use* them. Target people who donate to the Democratic party (as this guy says he did) and who knows, that may dry up funds for the opposition.
What is it with American law enforcement/border protection etc that whatever role they're fulfilling, it seems obligatory that they're armed and armoured? Intimidation, paranoia or sexual arousal?
Got some filing to do? Don't forget your 9mm.
So is the public --- If the border agencies start PISSING OFF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TOO MUCH (i.e. making us angry!) then I can assure you that some 12 gauge buck shot and .308 round WILL work WONDERS at changing their mind!
300+ million GUNS in America is NOTHING to laugh at! And the AMERICAN PUBLIC WILL USE THEM even against its own government if it starts becoming tyrannical! And in fact, it is the God Given RIGHT AND DUTY of Americans to THROW OFF the chains of ANY government that interferes excessively in their life's business!
.
It's called the 2nd Amendment! USE IT !!!
If you start shooting at border officials, I'm pretty sure that will void your life insurance policy. The treatment you'll get from Homeland Security, the FBI and quite possibly even the US military at that stage would make the TSA seem like a happy memory. You would, literally, be lucky to survive it, and if you did, you'd be looking at 20+ years for terrorism.
The US government "started" becoming tyrannical a long time ago. The word was frequently used about Bush, about Obama (by different people), and it's been used upthread in this very discussion about Trump. (I imagine it was also used about Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter et al in their day, but I didn't get to read so many comments by disgruntled Americans in those days.) And yet this uprising you predict has yet to happen.
As for "God Given RIGHT AND DUTY" - good luck arguing that. For every Christian who agrees with you, there'll be at least two who don't, and even those who do will all want to draw their own lines for "tyranny" in a different place from yours. And atheists - and by extension, anyone who respects the US constitution - will, of course, have no truck with "God Given" anythings.
Just replace "God Given" with "Constitution Given" and all patriotic Americans will agree. It is however such a shame they always forget a couple of words from that Second Amendment ("well regulated militia", so not individual citizens).
And your government has missiles. And helicopter gunships, tanks, stealth bombers, nuclear (or should that be nukular?) weapons, satellite targeting, a professional, well equipped army, weaponised drones.....
But I'm sure 'some 12 gauge buck shot and .308 round' will soon have em running for the hills.
Oh, and about that god given right (sorry, God Given RIGHT AND DUTY). Is this the same god who, on the one hand said to obey your masters, while at the same time adding the caveat 'but if you can get your hands on a gun, blow them the fuck away, boys'?
asking for a friend
"And your government has missiles. And helicopter gunships, tanks, stealth bombers, nuclear (or should that be nukular?) weapons, satellite targeting, a professional, well equipped army, weaponised drones....."
Which did F-all in Vietnam and Somalia and has only had limited success in Afghanistan and Iraq. Defeating an adversary defending their home turf is a surprisingly difficult thing to do.
Defeating an adversary defending their home turf is a surprisingly difficult thing to do.
Don't forget.
It's also their home turf.
And they have the media.
And the media will tell your neighbours about how you're a nasty "unAmerican terrorist A-rab sympathiser".
And they won't bother to use their tanks, or missiles, or choppers. They'll sit back and let your neighbours play Hero. Some might even help you get a nice warm feeling... -->
But not ALL the media. All the other side has to do is get THEIR media to say some things about the other side (including squelching their side's First Amendment Freedom of the Press or by saying it's The Man that's harboring kiddie-screwing terrorist creeps ready to go MAD) and now you have a media vs. media war, making it a wash. After incidents like Waco, many Americans tend to have a soft spot for the little man versus The Man.
And in fact, it is the God Given RIGHT AND DUTY of Americans to THROW OFF the chains of ANY government that interferes excessively in their life's business!
Actually.. God said to pray for your government, for He put them in place to achieve His purposes. (Romans 13:1, also an interesting one in Jeremiah 29:7 that I'd not noticed before now)
([Looks at both the US and NZ gubbermints] Yes, sometimes I do question His Wisdom! :) )
Anyone who travels in and out of the USA regularly will be familiar with the arbitrary, unpleasant and often outright aggressive behaviour of US border control.
He was just being treated as a normal traveller, and, is peeved his first class ticket did not grant immunity.
Never mind regularly, I've been there four times in total (and one of those was just in transit UK to NZ), and I have thoroughly grim recollections of it from three of those visits.
Mind you, entering Blighty was also pretty grim, the one time I arrived driving a non-UK-registered car.
Though I really wouldn't hold "rich and privileged" against him. It takes resources to get noticed, and if he were able to drive some small change, the less-rich[1] and unprivileged could share the benefit.
[1] Not poor. They wouldn't be flying in the first place.
Why one would still travel to the USA if not forced at gun point is beyond me.
You raise another interesting question, but on the wrong side of the border. Once I get to the US, as a furriner I don't have the right/license to carry so I'm exposed to all the yahoos out there that shoot up schools and shopping malls for fun without any way of protecting myself.
There should be at least someone selling bulletproof vests at the airport.
(only half joking)
And if they detain you until you "remember", citing the claim you're not officially on American soil and thus not exactly subject to American jurisdiction? And forget about deniability partitions or duress codes; they're well aware of those techniques.
And how do you expect "being aware" of those to help them, when the whole point is deniability...? "Unlock the drive! Good, now unlock the secret drive we can't actually be sure you do have! Oh, you did? Sweet! Now unlock the secret drive on the secret drive! Shut up, we KNOW you must have one! That's it, now the secret drive on the secret drive on the secret drive! Oh, we can do this all day...!"
"And how do you expect "being aware" of those to help them, when the whole point is deniability...?"
Because they can just deny the denial, and you're up against a State. There is NO such thing as Plausible Deniability in such a scenario. If they don't believe you, you lose, full stop.
You could try telling them that it would require a 2fa device that was travelling separately
You're assuming that they will know what that is, though. I'm not so sure. The second problem is that (I think) they can confiscate the device you cannot unlock until you show up with the 2FA access key.
As I said elsewhere, a lot of power and an absence of accountability creates its own problems.
Security rescreening of international transfer passengers can be done without going through customs, all major and most minor airports outside of the USA have that possibility. However, that same security rescreening wouldn't have caught those 9/11 hijackers either as box cutters were allowed through by US security as well.
This post has been deleted by its author
"It's never too late to become an ExPat."
With the current taxation of Americans abroad, it makes a lot more sense to just renounce the American citizenship. As an additional benefit (next to greatly reduced tax filing), you will deny that corrupt regime some money.
A friend of mine has been trying to renounce his US citizenship for years and it is painfully slow and difficult at least for him. From his POV, the US seem mostly obsessed with TAX. He has lived in the UK all of his life since a baby.
At least it's not as bad as when Bush was in power - I recall the American embassy in Bern having a backlog of several months. Now they have the temerity to charge you money for it as well.
As for the US obsession with tax - if the big corporations and high end people don't pay it, it has to come from somewhere else. Which is you.
"A friend of mine has been trying to renounce his US citizenship for years and it is painfully slow and difficult at least for him. From his POV, the US seem mostly obsessed with TAX. He has lived in the UK all of his life since a baby."
Because they don't want rich people taking their money away from the country, the US tends to pile on some serious Exit Taxes on those who do. It was mentioned here a number of years back when a .com rich kid wanted to renounce citizenship and move out but had to face the Exit Tax bill first.
What's wrong with the version numbering? Or specifically with Firefox's?
The ridiculous practice of releasing "major" versions every 6 weeks or so is commonplace after the Googs decided it was a good idea with chrome.
Now version numbers are meaningless on most things. Major numbers = Major breaking changes. Minor = changes which should be backwards compatible if not forwards, anything after that should be tiny bug fixes which don't matter when working between versions.
Unfortunately, that could lead to confiscation of the offending device.
And yes, that sounds as if you're walking into a third world country. Given the current approach to law and order and governing there is indeed less of a difference then there used to be, sadly.
east of San Andreas will slide into the Atlantic
And generate a huge tsunami that'll wipe out pretty much all the western seacoast of Europe. Bye, bye Portugal, Ireland, Brittany, Cornwall and Wales.
(I remember reading a sci-fi short many, many years ago dealing with a clever scientist that realised that continental US would sink and, once the San Andreas fault started playing up, fled to California.)
I once did a rail crossing from Canada to the US. We stopped in the middle of nowhere for a few hours to do the “border formalities”. Three of us had to get of the train: me, because I’m foreign; a US woman who had lost her passport, and a Canadian guy whose name was Muhammad.
In my case justifiably so. On the return journey of my first trip to the US, I had a border cop pull a gun on me, after he asked me to lift up my jumper, and he didn't like the random pattern of colours that he saw on my T-Shirt. Seriously, he stepped back and went hands on gun, pulled it out then relaxed and said "Oh, it's just a pattern". I've no idea what he saw, maybe he'd had too much coffee, or maybe the US border guards are so paranoid since 9-11 that they literally seeing things.
I've never been back because of this.
I'm sure that very few Reg commentards dislike the USA, as such, very much (although if we have any first nations readers, they might rightfully have somewhat different opinions), but more some of the actions of its government and governmental bodies. It's a country with many beautiful areas and many friendly and welcoming people (although neither are, of course, universal).
Sadly, some of us live in certain other countries where we don't have an awful lot to be pleased about regarding our own governments, either.
"Keep in mind we're still running the v0.1 beta of Western democracy".
That turns out not to be the case.
Firstly, the beta was run in Athens between about 500 BC and 400 BC. It was quite a thoroughgoing democracy, too.
Unfortunately the citizens, although ever since admired as the cream of the crop to date, acted like utter imbeciles. They were forever attacking other places in search of power and loot. (Sound familiar at all?) Every second time they got a major bloody nose.
Eventually they decided to attack Syracuse - probably the best fortified city in the Greek world at the time - and coincidentally the only other major democracy. They got absolutely crushed and wound up under a Spartan governor.
Secondly, the USA has never been a democracy, or intended to be one. The founders insisted that it was a republic, not a democracy - and that was not just hair-splitting. Most of them believed that only citizens with substantial property (i.e. landowners) should get any power or even the vote.
Universal suffrage was not permitted until after they had fixed the party mechanism so that no one unsuitable could even become a candidate for election. So the suckers got to march to the polls and choose which of two candidates - both equally acceptable to the owners of the nation - they wanted to be ruled by for the next four years.
One reason why so many of the political establishment hate Trump is that he completely short-circuited that mechanism (almost certainly it will never happen again).
Correct. And the Roman Republic was the beta. Some time later there were also the republics of Genua (gamma) and Venice (version 1.0) and the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (version 1.0 for federations), which lasted until that Corsican Cut-throat showed up and made his brother king voor a short while.
Most of us didn't want him.
I'll admit he lost the popular vote and the only real alternative on the final ballot wasn't much better, even though she won the popular vote. But he should never even have made it to the primaries (and neither should the only real alternative on the final ballot), leave alone the final ballot.
But somehow they managed to elect Donald Trump as president
Only a minority voted for the Orange Agent. Their voting system is deeply flawed and undemocratic but nationalistic views and lack of knowledge of other countries make them believe the opposite...
The pattern on the shirt makes it look like you have something under it to a tired border patrol agent, like an explosive device. I would recommend not wearing that shirt near an airport, or really anywhere with lots of armed police.
On the plus side, the agent probably had to go change his shorts after that.
With the behaviour of every US government including and since Bush, why are you surprised at the level of anti US sentiment?
The fear, paranoia and xenophobia just get ratcheted up year after year. One shining example was the Australian kids' books author who was verbally abused at US customs. Her "crime" was allegedly travelling on the "wrong" visa.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-25/mem-fox-detained-at-los-angeles-airport-by-us-officials/8303366
Just one example of many.
This post has been deleted by its author
That's nice for you.
However, I've been through the US a few times and security are always a problem.
I cannot in good faith say that I would want to take even my personal laptop or other devices to the US. For a holiday, it's just not worth the effort/risk of being detained for no good reason. I'd leave the devices at home but, more likely, I'll find a cheaper destination (it is just a holiday after all) that doesn't have such issues.
The US isn't alone in such things - there are countries where you can't disparage the king, women can't show their hair, can't access the Internet unfiltered, etc. etc. I include all of them in my holiday blacklist. Not because I think anything will happen, but because it's just uncivilised to have such things happening. Some things like that wouldn't affect a holiday, say, but might affect business. Australia's "no outside food" rule - perfectly sensible, enforced quite strictly, but wouldn't affect a holiday.
But the US believe they can demand things like social media accounts and so on, too. Even if you don't have them.
Sorry, I work in IT. I'm bound by EU data protection laws. When my employer or lawyer tells you that you can have that information, I'll provide it. But if we have to get that far, for what is someone carrying a laptop through an airport which happens a million times a day, I can't see why I'd risk it. Especially not for a holiday.
It's not anti-American sentiment. It's anti-stupidity. That the two overlap... draw your own conclusions.
I've been to a country, where you can't disparage the king, many times. That mostly wasn't a problem as the king wasn't only revered as a living deity, but had a (deserved) saintly reputation as well. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about his successor. Despite that "minor inconvenience", it still is an excellent holiday destination.
Australia's "no outside food" rule
A lot of Island nations[1] have that rule - I know that the UK strictly controls (for biosecurity reasons) what comes in. Currently anyway. Once we become a vassal state of the US, who knows?
[1] Yes, yes, I know Oz is a continent. But it's also a BIG island..
Don't travel...
Anyone who is within 100 miles of a US border is open to unwarranted seaches by ICE. That covers all of Florida, Hawaii, and almost half of some border states. The searches are supposed to be limited to incidents where an immigration violation is suspected, but agents have been known to overstep their authority and try to impose police-like authority. They use intimidation and citizens ignorance of the written laws to force compliance.
About 10 years ago, as a lowly bank bod I had to visit a client in the States to review their business and collect some data.
There was a real fear that our proprietary pricing and quotes would be given to our competitors, especially as we lost a contract shortly after a recent incident where a colleagues laptop was searched at the airport on a previous visit so the next time we were given a 80gb Ipod and a credit card and told to go and buy the same model of laptop from BestBuy or similar when we arrived. We were given the model number etc and our IT department had checked availability.
The Ipod had a file that we loaded on to the computer and when run we would burn a boot CD-rom and install our employer's system on the new laptop, including their build of Windows, VPN details etc.
We could then download the data we needed over a VPN.
When finished we saved our files to the bank via VPN and destroyed the laptop with the HD getting physically shredded by us, with a circular saw and a workmate bench.
We left the saw and workbench in the hotel room and used some polythene sheets to protect the furniture, walls, beds, etc.
The bits of the laptop were left in a petrol (gas) station waste bin found on the way back to the airport. There was nothing bigger than a thimble and most of it was much smaller.
I recall the laptop cost about USD500 and I wondered about the cost effectiveness of it, but it was insignificant really to the cost of lost or compromised data or even fighting a legal case to get the equipment back.
I do wonder what the hotel staff thought when they found the workbench and power saw in the hotel room and was amazed when no one knocked on our door whilst the cutting was going on!
"There was a real fear that our proprietary pricing and quotes would be given to our competitors"
One company I work for, has actual evidence of US border control collecting laptop data specifially for spying corporate secrets by planting false data and seeing how competitor in US was using that data within a month.
Open and shut case, which resulted very fast to "No laptops or phones to US, ever".
which resulted very fast to "No laptops or phones to US, ever".
Not very smart, just make sure you always give them false data and let them waste money chasing false trails. Even better would be to get some European "friendly" competitors to co-operate. And don't forget to notify the relevant European authorities.
my disapproval of the Trump administration and my history of significant campaign contributions to Democratic candidates
Ummm, need I remind folks, the previous administration was doing this too.
Of laptops and US border searches
I think the issue here, is the same problem as BLM. You get a "man with a gun" high school jock who "thinks" they are "amazing". One rouge TSA agent can loop in other TSA agents one time or another.
It's a complete red herring to drag party politics into such issues. There has never been any discernible difference between the Republicrats and the Demoblicans when it comes to abusing or ignoring the law, illegal spying and surveillance, or of course extreme and lethal violence.
In case anyone hasn't yet seen Gore Vidal's definitive statement, here it is again:
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party… and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt – until recently… and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties".
Julius Nyerere had a witty variant on the theme:
"The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them".
This post has been deleted by its author
"Irked by Gal's refusal, it is claimed, the border agents told him he had no constitutional nor any legal protections..."
Which goes to show, if there were any lingering doubt, that rough angry men with guns and tasers beat a constitution hands down when it comes to an argument. Laws are pretty wimpy too, in a fight.
Laws and constitutions have no power whatsoever - except the power given to them by human beings who believe in them and think it right to obey them.
Throw the best constitution in the world, written on the highest-quality parchment, into a cage full of violent apes and it will not discernibly improve their behaviour.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other".
- John Adams
Downvote for not providing a clickable link.
"My past work on encryption and online privacy is well documented[1], and so is my disapproval of the Trump administration[2] and my history of significant campaign contributions to Democratic candidates[3]," Gal noted. "I wonder whether these CBP [Customs and Border Patrol] programs led to me being targeted."
Number [1] is what got him.
Numbers [2] and [3] are pure BS based on his political biases. This sort of thing has been documented as going on pre-Trump.
I tend to use Veracrypt to create an encrypted volume within a file - this can be named anything so usually I call it a movie file of some sort (kidsholiday or such so they don't accuse you of having pirated movies). All my confidential documents go into that. I don't think the everyday border agent has the skills to work that one out. The passwords are held in keypass so I honestly don't know them other than that they are very long and complex.
My main problem is that if they ask me for my social media accounts, I'm not sure they will believe me when I say I don't have any accounts (beyond linkedin)! (I'm a privacy guy).
When I was working for a multinational defence outfit, we got new guidance after the CEO was 'detained' at the border for a few hours.
Ordinary work laptops not to be taken; a restricted laptop will be issued at the US office you are visiting.
Erase your emails from your phone before you leave for the USA and likewise prior to leaving the USA (instructions given) and erase your phone history as well (these did not have browsers installed). The email server access was also locked by IT until your physical presence in a secure building was established so a login was impossible at the border.
If TSA tells you to unlock the devices, comply and let company legal know as soon as possible; do not use your phone (remove the battery if possible) until it has been sanitised by company IT.
Way to go at building trust.
There is surprisingly little formal programme data transferred across the internet due to ITAR and EAR (USA) and the Export Control Act (UK).
The UK legislation is more permissive (the data flow is sometimes known as the transatlantic diode). What is really being protected are internal discussions within those programmes and things like road maps and technology assessments, which are highly confidential.
I'm no fan of Trump, but if you turn back the time-machine a bit, you'll remember just how hard the Obama administration worked to allow searches of electronic equipment, and FOUGHT FOR the installation of backdoors for law enforcement / FBI. There are plenty of electronic 4th amendment cases from 2009 to 2016 involving the Obama government.
Since Trump has been in office, the electronic 4th amendment cases have gone way down; perhaps because Trump himself is a victim of the government using illegal spying on his own electronic equipment.
This person, being an employee of Apple would know this well... if this is who they say. Plus, I'm always a little skeptical, when someone spouts out things and brings Trump into the picture. Seems every time some 'victim' wants injects politics into the mix the story turns out false.
I'm a USA citizen, and have traveled to and from many countries in the past 15 years--including China, Pakistan, Taiwan and Ukraine (even the dangerous UK, France and The Netherlands--where I lived for 4 years). As a pen tester and InfoSec consultant, I usually travel with at least 2 laptops, a cellphone, and sometimes an iPad; along with various equipment for forensic investigation.
While going through customs, I've been stopped many times and questioned about my equipment while USA custom officials are going through my baggage.
NEVER have I been asked to unlock or provide credentials to my phone or computers. REPEAT------NEVER have I been asked to unlock or provide credentials to my phone or computers.
Don't believe every victim story until there is an independent investigation.
There have already been quite a few 'fake victims' -- people claiming to have been treated poorly by USA custom officials, and it turns out to be a bunch of BS.
Especially when they happen to bring up "Trump".
"NEVER have I been asked to unlock or provide credentials to my phone or computers. REPEAT------NEVER have I been asked to unlock or provide credentials to my phone or computers"
And I have never died of cancer, so all those other people whinging about how bad cancer is for them must be lying....
"Don't believe every victim story until there is an independent investigation."
Which will never happen, for obvious reasons.
So your statement boils down to 'never believe a victim story'.
That's exactly what Gestapo or Stasi would say. Or any US TLA, not much difference.
...and has been happening since my family moved to the states in the early 90s. Definitely not a new practice. There are *all* manner of people-of-interest lists which border systems automatically check and in-turn flag passengers if they happen to be on one of them. Every time we return back from our native land, my dad is detained for 4-6 hours while they question him about his friends and family (many of which, at one time or another, have crossed into the US illegally, been arrested on various felony charges, etc.). Giant pain in the ass, but there you go. All of us are regularly (90-95% of the time) put through "extra-screening" each time we fly national *or* international. Thanks Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, <whichever power-hungry nutbag is next in line>.
I travel inter-continental too frequently for my liking.
I have a travel kit with all my mobile technology neutered. The only thing on my equipment are a couple of old movies and some Goon Show recordings.
Upon arrival I buy a SIM for the cell handset, charge the battery (no SIM frustrated the border goons like crazy). For the laptop I recall my VPN log-ins, then use my company server for work.
I never cross an international border with anything of value loaded in equipment.
P.S. I treat most Western countries as police states - as I do China and Russia.
"I never cross an international border with anything of value loaded in equipment."
But what if you HAVE TO as part of your job (because it's too much to transfer over Internet or is an actual physical object), and it's too sensitive to transport by any method other than by courier?
A few years ago my wife (then girlfriend) joined me in Turkey while I was working there for three months. She's from Kazakhstan and entered into Turkey on a tourist visa, which lasts for three months. As it happened, my work ran a little late, so when it was time to leave she was three days over her allowed stay. They told her that she would have to come with them and answer some questions. She immediately burst into floods of tears and the immigration officials were horrified. They took her to a nearby office, allowed me to accompany her, brought her tea, biscuits and cakes and said very apologetically that it was just procedure and she would have to pay a small fine and she'd be out of there. We paid the fine, chatted, complimented them on their lovely country and people, and we were on our way. As compensation, they did not mark her passport as having overstayed, so as not to complicate future visits.
Nice guys.
Turkey is not a place I trust
I stopped on motorbike to take photo on cellphone of huge earthworks near Istanbul.
Some site manager fit drives up and tells me in broken English to delete said photos or else.
I didn't doubt the "or else". On finding out that earthworks were part of sone airport work, and some stories about the rediculous "security theatre" around it, I was glad it wasn't anything further...
"As a matter of policy, CBP can’t comment on pending litigation", A cheap cop-out if I ever heard one.
Here's the bigger picture issue: if this had been an ITAR, SECRET, or TOP SECRET classed device, they would in essence be breaking US law. Never mind the fact that they refused to allow him to legally get the permission to avoid being sued by Apple. I think it's very telling when we see that the request for lawyers got the issue resolved... clearly not a legally sanctioned behavior.
"Here's the bigger picture issue: if this had been an ITAR, SECRET, or TOP SECRET classed device, they would in essence be breaking US law."
And IIRC the holder of said device would be breaking US law by not making arrangements ahead of time to get the device cleared by the government, as the aforesaid have export controls. Anyone in legal possession of such materials would almost certainly also be in possession of some elevated security clearance with the US government which can be verified upon entry. Customs folks worldwide may be jerks, but the last thing they want is to draw the ire of someone over their heads or trigger a response from a more-prestigious part of the same government.
Back when I was a GS-2210 for the U.S. Gov and traveling a *lot* overseas for the wars, going through customs in the U.S. was cake.
"Sir, what's the nature of your trip?"
[show blue passport]
"Government work."
"What kind of government work?"
[show military ID]
"The kind you aren't cleared to know about."
"OK then."
You show a military ID or brown government passport and TSA tends to STFU and let you go on about your way.
I remember the really old days when we traveled with TWO blue passports - one for Israel and one for the Arab states so they wouldn't know you've been to Israel via transfer in Frankfurt.
Man, talk about racking up the frequent-flyer miles!
if you're doing Information technology Management GS 2210 starting at $60K to $95K US a year, then you're doing all right, and if you're Denver/Aurora/Boulder in Colorado area, which I suspect you are (were?), then you probably were Air Force related IT so yeah the TSA would NOT want to get on THEIR bad side!
And since you went to Israel a lot, I suspect you ALSO worked on those giant underground SigInt centres buried deep in the lower Negev desert!
.
"interested in his time at Firefox-maker Mozilla, and of his recent trip to Canada. "
"past work on encryption and online privacy"
It's not reported how this knowledge came about - knowledge of Mozilla and encryption
Perhaps it was something like:~ Who do you work for ? [oh I work for APPLE and worked for Mozilla before that.]
Gal says he was interrogated for three hours by America's border cops after arriving at San Francisco airport – because he refused to unlock his work laptop and phone.
It could be that the flagging occurred because he was returning from Canada - perhaps they were trying to bust a kiddie-porn ring or something,
and had a heads up on travelers that week.
Most employees have company confidential information, sometimes information belonging to OTHER companies. For example, it could be financial, technical, security, personnel, etc. related. So AAPL will not only be concerned about the border cops access to AAPL information but also be very concerned if someone else's information is compromised.
I wonder how lawyers handle this; they carry information covered by attorney-client privilege. Are there cases of the border cops attacking lawyers?
Since lawyers tend to be jurisdiction-bound (they can only practice where their license was issued, and these tend to be by state), client information probably doesn't travel with them.
But now that you mention it, what about doctors, whose medical data may be pertinent across international lines BUT can be bound by HIPAA (or similar doctor/patient confidentiality)? Also, the volume of data could be significant enough that an Internet transfer may not be practical.
Arrived in Miami and had agent walking around arrivals air side approaching people and looking at his belt. As he walked towards me the device he had started beeping in that well known Gaussian distribution. He asked if I had had a medical procedure recently and I told him about the bone scan I had had three weeks ago and he seemed happy and wander off. Pointing out my wife and three kids helped.
This post has been deleted by its author
Yeah, it's part of the "Patriot Act" and it's not new! There have been a handful of senators and congress people fighting to be rid of it, but each time it's been due to "sunset" (end), the vast majority of office holders inevitably vote to maintain their unconstitutional powers and re-instate it. There just aren't enough Americans paying attention to their loss of rights, and too many prefer to focus their political attention only on fashionable issues which make them feel better about themselves.
I have never visited the good ol' boys of the USA and, after reading this malarkey, I have absolutely no intention of setting foot in the country. This all sounds a retaliatory set-up - probably engineered by Trump and/or his cronies to get back at this guy's perfectly legitimate criticisms. Disgusting treatment. Good luck with the complaint. Some compensation (change that.......SUBSTANTIAL compensation) should be the order of the day, unless any presiding judge is in Trump's pocket.
As I was coming back from New Zealand, I was stopped, unlawfully searched and was told they found marijuana in my bag. I know for a fact I wasn't carrying anything, and they wouldn't let me see the tests, call a lawyer, call my friend to let her know I wasn't coming on the next flight etc. They made it clear that I had absolutely no rights, and there was no due process. I couldn't see a judge.... anyone. They confirmed that I would stay there until I coughed up $5000.
I held out for a little over 4 hours, before I was told I could pay $500 to leave if I "admitted guilt". I signed a form (that I wasn't allowed to take a photo of or consult my lawyer about). And I was set free after a $500 tab.
I followed up with US border and customs agents the day after and requested a copy of the form I signed, to no avail. I attempted to follow up, again, with no avail.
And i'm now perpetually flagged by US border and customs. Anytime I come back in the country I go through extra security. Thanks San Fran.
Recent article form NBC San Diego reported leaked CBP documents that showed them keeping a list of Lawyers, Journalists, and immigrants advocates with pictures and their information. These are people who often crossed the border and were being stopped when coming back into the US and held for additional questions.
So, hearing this is happening to those in IT Privacy is not surprising. Know your rights.
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Source-Leaked-Documents-Show-the-US-Government-Tracking-Journalists-and-Advocates-Through-a-Secret-Database-506783231.html