http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...oes-mad-border
Printable View
And what do they do if you have three partitions with three different OS's, all password protected and encrypted - tell you to get back on the plane, I suspect?
--
Mats
What if I don't tell them my password? Will they use a live CD to get into a system? Will they remove my hard disk so they can raw rip it?
No. Sorry. This can't be true. It just can't. Some late April's Fool?
Do I, a foreign citizen visiting USA, need to teach USA officials about their own constitution?
Read my lips... It's... ilegal! Want my HD contents? Make me a suspect, read my rights, book me and get a warrant. Otherwise get the f... of my way.
Or like me, I had two different hard-disks for my one laptop, one with Windows and one with Linux (because the IT staff insisted on having Windows encrypted with some proprietary software which meant hat having a second partition on the same drive would not work right with grub or lilo).Quote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
--
Mats
I agree, this doesn't make sense... I'm quite sure the government doesn't monitor all internet traffic in and out of the country... so what would be the point of checking computer data when any criminal could simply leave the bad stuff behind on a network and download it as soon as they get in the country? I mean if the terrorists threw all of their plans onto a bitmap called "picture_of_kids.bmp"... is there any chance the government would catch that?
Stupid, asinine policy, but upheld by the courts.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...-agents-c.html
That article has a link to the court's decision as a pdf.
Incredible. Up to this moment I thought the news was false. So much for that.
Shame. Shame. A country that ever since 2001 I feel less and less interested in visiting. The Land of freedom and democracy... As much as this may sound cruel, the truth is that visiting USA today feels much like visiting North Korea. I fear it. I fear the people, I fear the government those people elected, I fear the police, I fear the fact I may just look like someone in a mugshot and find my way into Guantanamo by accident,...
I'm know I'm not welcomed.
My only hope? The worst administration in American History (and history will prove it) is soon leaving office. Hopefully for good.
EDIT: And to stop, because this issue is really irritating me the more I think of it and my blood pressure is already on the red, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...s_Constitution. Ladies and Gentleman, on my little puny European country of freedom and democracy, we also have that. The difference is that over here... we respect it.
Nah, don't knock it until you've tried it Mario... it's absolutely nothing like that once you get past the borders... and in fact, on a visiting visa, odds are that you won't even have problem at the borders. Believe me when I say, you can go to neighborhoods in New York City and feel more at home than any other place in Europe (with the exception of your own country)... and I've been all over Europe, including Lisbon. Most major cities in the world have a little Italy and little China... we have a little EVERYTHING. There are city blocks where you can walk into any given store, knock on any given apartment door, and the person on the other side of the counter/door will reply in Portuguese.
The country is doing some seriously disturbing things, but don't even get the idea that the news isn't blowing it out of preportion. I have had friends and family come from outside of the country to NYC in the past few years on Visas and have had no problems... and they all want to come back.
This is just really stupid.
What happens when someone has a virus on their computer?
Also, they must have an insane sever to handle all the data.
From my experience most people dont even know how to see hidden files...
Dum dum dum dum dum.
I understand that Sly. But I feel strongly about my civil liberties and anyone tampering with them. Stories are terrifying, no matter the fact I know Americans have absolutely nothing to do with this administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
The fact is that we too conquered our freedom. And even though Portugal is one of the oldest countries in the world, democracy was only conquered in my lifetime. It's something we cherish and respect. And the memories of the integralist dictatorship that ruled this country from 33 to 74 are still deeply ingrained on this society and have transpired to those of my generation who were just kids when the revolt took place.
Why am I saying this? Because over here "civil liberties", "constitution", "freedom" , "sfaety" and "democracy" aren't just buzzwords empty of meaning after having been used and abused for everything, from electing a new leader, to start wars and torture prisoners, like in the USA. We still preserve those words and look down on anyone disrespecting them and anyone allowing it to happen.
I'm sorry I'm being rude, Sly. But you have to understand this is the 9/11 Legacy, no mater what one may think of those accusations. Not the horror of those two towers crumbling, not the suffering on those faces, not the courage of firefighters and policeman. The 9/11 legacy is instead one of the darker pages in USA history; torture in American prisons, violation of human rights, War, Lies. That's what people remember now and what they want to remember. It shouldn't have been this way, for crying out loud!
Last year, during the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the public television over here aired 1 documentary on the actual terrorist attack, 2 documentaries on the war on Iraq (one on that shameful prison i forget the name, and another about the never ending war), plus one documentary on Afghanistan and the puppet regime that was left running the country. Do you understand Sly?
Going back on-topic, I feel strongly when any of my rights are attacked. I honestly fear your country sly. Not the population, I agree. But I fear your government and your police. I'm sorry, my friend. But I do. And the question remains... what if they want to see my laptop? What will happen if I refuse? Who will... and pay attention to this question to understand the ridicule/seriousness of this... who will defend me against your government?
International airports arent US soil, sorry, but they just have to reply ' OK, well then you cant come in teh US, go back home'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
I'm not sure much would happen to a non-citizen other than potential deportation (should you have illegal contents on your laptop or refuse to show it). I don't want to sound cold, but I don't think the US Constitution applies to you... US visas grant non-resident aliens with many rights unique to that particular visa (many of which are parallel to the Bill of Rights) and I don't believe you fall under the full rights of the Constitution until you earn a citizenship. Even a permenant residency card doesn't grant you all the rights of a citizen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
To be honest, in your situation... I'd say it's pretty easy. Demand that the detainee show the content of their electronic device. If they refuse, then the visa is revoked and they go home. I sour deal, but not my big issue here... it's very different in the case mentioned in the Bill above. Michael Arnold was a citizen... he was protected by the Bill of Rights and the case, like so many not only in America, but any Democratic Republic (or similar form of government)... came to interpretation of the law. Unfortunately, in this case... I think it was interpreted terribly. The judges seemed to have forgotten the idea we initially allowed border protection to search luggage without reasonable suspicion and the fact that those reasons could never fall under electronic information. By the way, I should mention that almost every European country has adopted the same regulations to allow searching of luggage with no reasonable suspicion in the past seven years. Upon returning from a European country just a few months ago, I was pulled aside and had my bags rummaged through and they had zero suspicion to select me. I wouldn't be surprised if you find many countries adopting this in a short amount of time.
I would say that this Bill is worthy of more appeals and I would love to see it abolished as soon as possible because it's just silly. I couldn't say, however, that even though I go in and out of my countries borders multiple times each year... that I'm too concerned about being searched or what they would find if they did search my electronic content. Maybe I'm just too laid back about the whole thing, though...
We've got a competing story. According to legal beagles, America can't force travellers to divulge passphrases or cracking information to customs or any authority. So if you encrypt it first you have a legal leg to stand on.
Of course, your laptop might be confiscated, but you backed up, right?Quote:
Translation: Giving a defendant limited immunity in terms of forcing them to turn over the passphrase can lead to a conviction. That's because the fellow technically isn't being convicted based on his passphrase; he's being convicted for what it unlocks. Isn't the law grand?
Let them copy over bits of noise in my opinion. :) This sort of institutionalized madness will be challenged eventually. It's just so impractical.
And what about trade-secrets that I may have on my machine - for example not-yet released source code, material under NDA (or other strict licensing) - are they supposed to look at that too?
Reading the original article in The Mirror's web-site [the UK's Most Reliable News Source - Not!], it seems like they are looking for photographs [of what?] amongst other things - so if I have my 6500 JPG files that I have taken with my 24MP Canon EOS 1DsMk3 [no, I personally haven't got one of those] on my machine, taking up some considerable space - how do they deal with that?
But reading between the lines, it seems like "It's legal for customs officers to search your laptop", but I don't equal that with "they will ALWAYS SEARCH EVERYONES laptop" - I believe that is typical Tabloid scare "don't tell all the details, let the reader add the missing parts and make it bigger".
--
Mats
Agreed, but it's not so much a matter of "Search EVERYONES laptop" as it is a matter that everyone is a potential victim of this. If you've been in an airport recently (in almost any modern country), you know that you may - at random - be pulled aside, questioned, and have you bag searched. I've had it happen to me twice since 2001 and nothing has come of it other than some wrinkled clothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by matsp
As for the "Trade-Secrets"... that goes along the same lines of having perhaps nude photos of yourself or partner on your computer... you're supposed to accept that they will only be looking at your data objectively and not subjectively... they shouldn't be taking your ideas, they shouldn't be oggling pictures of your girlfriend, they shouldn't be doing anything of that sort... couldn't say that they wouldn't do this. However if they did, you would certainly have a case against them. I know there are some doctors out there that have touched my girlfriend's body in ways that I normally wouldn't approve, however, I'm not about to break into their offices and sock them for it... it's because I trust that they're being professional about it. So maybe the real issue here is how qualified and mature our border officials can be.
While you are standing in Customs you are not technically within the United States, and as a non-citizen you don't have any "rights" anyway -- convenient huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Yes. Abachler also mentioned this and it's correct. Something I was forgetting about.Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
However, careful with the "I have no rights" just because I'm not an American citizen. This is not correct. International Law and my own country laws can force USA representatives onto courts. Make no mistake, I have rights. What I don't have is the ability to demand the same rights as a USA citizen. Which is perfectly acceptable. However, quite frankly, I wouldn't even dream of that. My country laws are currently more respectful of civil liberties and my right to privacy.
Truth the matter is that I, a foreign citizen can't do a thing about it. I either accept it, or not travel there, or take the next flight home, or don't travel with a cellphone or a laptop. According to general international agreements, this only means sooner or later other countries will enforce similar rulings in the name of equality of treatment (there's an actual name for this which I can't remember). Curiously enough many countries constitutions specifically prohibit this. It will be interesting to see American citizens being the ones who will suffer the most about it, on their own borders and other international borders.
But... probably, as citizen (our citizen) mentioned, this will probably soon be revoked, stupid as it is. So it may no longer become a problem.
I haven't had a problem, yet... and I've lived here my whole life. Sure, I've had situations where perhaps my privacy was unjustifiably invaded... however, it's never amounted to anything more than a hassle to me. If you had nothing to hide and you have no problem accepting that they are peeking into your privacy with only an objective mindset... then it never should be anything more than a hassle.
Secondly, I don't know the situation with Portugal... I was only there once when I was very little and don't remember much except a few landmarks... however, I have certainly had the same privacy invasions in England, Italy, Romania, Greece... none of which have amounted to anything more than a hassle for the same reasons that I stated above. This isn't an American concept and there is nothing non-democratic about the people and government being able to make interpretations about laws that were defined well before the issues of today could even be comprehended. People don't seem to remember that the founding fathers of my country were more hot-headed and blood-thirsty than most of the modern public... I don't know how we can take their laws to heart so exactly when we don't even really know how they would feel if they were around today.
The international court doesnt have jurisdiction over the U.S., we opted out of that. One of the few things Dubya did that I agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
But I am working on code that the source code is restricted even within the company I'm working in - so I can't just grab any of my collegues and get him/her to look at some code that I'm working on, but rather that I need to ensure that the person has "right" to see the code. I am, however, allowed to take my laptop on a trip, should I need to.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
And I beat you on the "random search" thingy. I've been to the US about 5 times since 2001 when they introduced the stricter random search - and I have been let out again ONCE without being searched. It may be because I'm a citizen of Sweden, but I live in the UK, so that triggers some "must be suspect" switch in the system. On one trip I got searched BOTH when I left Austin and Houston on the same trip back to the UK...
--
Mats
Hmm... I'm pretty sure you weren't asked to turn your laptop on and its contents were inspected. This is not the same as looking in your suitcase, Sly. I don't know how exactly to explain it. But it just isn't the same.
I don't want my family pictures, my vacation in Mongolia pictures, my emails, my work files, my porn, my personal notes, my game habits, my computer usage habits, etc. etc. inspected without some real reason behind it. My right to privacy is not a crime. I have the right to privacy.
Even if I don't have anything to hide, I have the right to not give away my personal life details. The fact my laptop or my cellphone can be searched or confiscated without an explanation or reason behind is an attack on my rights. And it can quickly degenerate into an attack at my company rights, or the rights of anyone in one of the emails, pictures or notes in my laptop, or on my cellphone.
EDIT:
>> The international court doesnt have jurisdiction over the U.S., we opted out of that. One of the few things Dubya did that I agree with.
I said laws. Not court. International laws and trade agreements and other similar agreements that may put this ruling in the limelight if trade secrets and other business relationships are put at risk.
As for the international court, I'm not going to even discuss what I think of what you think of it. We would get into an argument. Forget it.
Well the simple answer is to encrypt your data and keep the key seperate. Its unlikely they even look at 1% of what the copy.
As for yrou rights Mario, I sympathize, but the fact is when requesting entry into a foreign country, you either have to play ball or go home. Sure, you can refuse to submit to the search, but they can just refuse to let you in. And most of the time even under international law, you do not have the rigth to refuse a search in an airport. When travellign by air, you do NOT have the reasonable expectation of privacy.
Thousands of laptops and other devices are carried across the border every day without being searched. This will not affect 99% of the population (I made up that number). As the wired.com blog stated, the ruling is just an extension of the existing ruling that your vehicle can be searched without cause when you enter the country. There isn't a whole lot of new worries here.
I might be paraphrasing somebody, but you really only have those rights you are willing to kill for. Otherwise they will walk all over you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
But if that is the way to circumvent the rules, why don't the criminals/terrorists use this method anyways?Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
I know that refusing to give your name (and provide some form of verification) to the police here in the UK, even if you are legitimately going about your business [although they do have to suspect you are doing something illegal in some way - e.g driving without insurance for example], will make them take you to jail until they can verify your identity. This is, supposedly, so that criminals can't just say "Won't tell you" when the police asks who they are when they suspect they are someone they should arrest (e.g. wanted for a crime).
--
Mats
Like I said... you just have to understand that they're looking at it objectively, not subjectively. I can understand your immediate embarrassment if an airport official were to glaze over your hard drive and see what adult sites you've been to... maybe you feel as though some a very perverse... but honestly, does it mean anything in the long run? Do you think you have anything on your laptop that they haven't seen hundreds of times? Do you think there is any difference between your family pictures and the family pictures of the guy in line behind you? Are you the only one on the airplane that has a heavy interest in video games? Hell... I bet there isn't a personal note on your laptop that isn't being written or thought of by someone right this moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
The fact is... like all of us, you are probably more average than you realize... and the person who inspects your computer is not going to remember a thing s/he saw on it a half hour after you board the airplane or step foot in the country. I don't know... maybe any initial embarrassment lingers around for a longer time in you than it does in me... but if there is one thing I've realize on this earth, it's that even though no innocent person is absolutely safe from incorrect accusation from the law, as long as I know I've done nothing wrong, there are certainly too many higher risk things out there that I would rather spend my time worrying about.
That said, I have no respect for this law because it does nothing to add security to me, as a citizen, and it will surely cost me tax dollars when they realize they need better staffing and equipment to run this procedure. This is so unbelievably easy to circumvent, that it's absurd to me to think that a bunch of grown men, no matter how computer illiterate they are, sat in a room and decided that this would help keep people safe.
I always get pulled over at airports, usually because I'm going shooting and customs get very uptight about that. For example, my last trip -- we'd already checked in our luggage and had 8 hours to kill in the airport (don't ask why :)). So we walked round with our little cammo day bag, at every customs gate we were frisked and swobbed for explosives (only the person who was wearing the cammo backpack, we changed a few times).
Don't ask what this has to do with anything :)
My funniest moment was in Toronto some 6 years ago. My luggage had been lost and had already filled the report. Was walking the green line when someone asked me to move to the red. My backapck was inspected and it had a pair of shoes, some dirty socks in a bag, a packet of chips and my sandshoes.
They never asked one question. Would just walk away, someone looking at me from around the corner, coming around, looking at the contents, talking between themselves, looking at my passport, moving out again... after around 30 minutes of awkwardness someone finally points out "is this all you bring into Canada?".... bemused, I shown them my lost luggage slip.
Because using encryption is a PITA, and human nature is to believe you wont get caught (if you thougth you would get caught you wouldnt do it unless you were also insane). Imagine having to decrypt your files use ti then encrypt it again every time you wanted to add somethign to your list. Thats why they had to make the STU-III block voice data while it sync'd, because even though people were trained to know not to discuss classified material in that time period, they still did.Quote:
Originally Posted by matsp
PGP-disks or other "encrypt the whole system" is very easy to use. All our laptop users have PGP-disks on their machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
--
Mats
Even in the Soviet Union our privacy was protected better (sorry for this traditional comparision, but it pretty well shows how mad this crap is). USA is turning into a jail.
Weird. In Estonia, non-citizens have rights too. As in Free Land it is meant that you're free from any rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
Yep... it's like a jail. I feel so imprisoned, right now... please help me!Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
The US grants as many rights to non-citizens as I'm sure Estonia does, if not much more... it's the fact that your rights don't fall under the US constitution that was being questioned. The United States, like any other country, grant specific rights (and laws) to non-residents upon arrival to the country. They are not always exactly the same rights that citizens have. It's a simple concept and it works.
Honestly, I feel as though this post is getting very close to being another example for Godwin's law.
It's just a few more months before this administration changes. Even if John McCain wins - which became a real possibility, after the democrats having spent the whole primaries making a fool of themselves - you won't have this nonsense.
There's too much at a stake; USA credibility and the image it projects to the world was seriously tarnished. Only American citizens not watching international channels can't see it happening. For the past 7 years, anti-americanism has risen to new unheard levels. Even usually influential and moderate opinion-makers and analysts in Europe and other parts of the world get lost in attacks on USA foreign and domestic policies. A little across the world people that first supported American war efforts now are some of their main critics; world leaders were forced to publicly apologize their citizens after Iraq, or agree their were lied to.
What scares me most however is that american citizens seem to be accepting small decrements on their civil liberties. Some 10 years ago, the uproar in America streets if something like this had been attempted would reach the other side of the globe. And yet, I've witnessed even here on this forums such things as "this won't affect everyone", or "It's like searching a suitcase". Coming from American citizens.
I understand no one here defended this ruling. But what I find scary is the apparent numbness about it. I don't want to draw unnecessary comparisons so I hope you understand the point, but the Jews persecution in Europe was only possible exactly because people were numb and didn't react when small signs started to show throughout the years. By the time the Jewish people were being sent to gas chambers, everyone was already seeing that as perfectly normal.
The ruling is clearly against the constitution of the United States of America. It is clearly an attack on the privacy of its citizens and anyone visiting. It won't solve anything because any terrorist capable of causing serious harm will not be carrying their plans on a laptop, and terrorists know of encryption too. Any child molester or organized crime member will know how to protect themselves. Instead, it's your personal feeling of privacy and your freedom that is put at stake, regardless of how objective the person searching my laptop is. I don't care how objective they are. I, an individual, me, a self-conscious person, am being stripped of my right to my privacy. And to this, we are saying ok.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
I love a good glass of Hyperbole in the morning. I would think Maxorator, who has probably witnessed first hand heavy policing of the populus would not make such overreaching comparisons.
Even if the soviet union protected citizens' privacy, they'd probably imprison you if they publicly spoke about how they really felt about communism.
If you understand that nobody has been in agreement with this particular ruling then why do you keep explaining why you disagree with it as you do in your last paragraph? The argument is almost ad nauseam at this point.
Now, from a law stand-point... references to the fourth amendment barely apply in this case as it falls under the accordance of the border search exception which places "reasonable suspicion" on the discretion of the individual. If you're got a complaint about anything, you could be complaining about that doctrine as it's been in place for quite a long time. (And in fact, the USA is not the only civil country to have adopted such a doctrine)
For many of us on this forum, a good part of our lives are on our computers... but if you start going around and asking people that don't use computers for too many things, I'm sure you might find that this ruling means very little to them. To your average person, there isn't much difference between the contents of their hard drive and the contents of their purse. In fact, for many, the contents of a purse can be significantly more private. So really, wouldn't you say that your belief that a hard drive is more personal than a suitcase is just a little self-regarding?
Pretty Good Privacy, which means NSA can crack it with minimal effort. And most people keep their keys with them, which makes it even more trivial.Quote:
Originally Posted by matsp
I'm all about the Cesar Cipher.
Anyone trying to decode it gets a knife in the back
Because you keep insisting it's not that of a big deal... ad nauseam. I had hoped we wouldn't come to this type of bickering, Sly. It's been a nice discussion so far. Besides my last paragraph wraps up the previous reasoning. Something you didn't address.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
I too am tired of reading about suitcases, cars and now purses. It's absolutely incredible the lenience on this issue and the weak comparisons that are being drawn. If this doesn't affect some, the fact is it can strongly affect others for no good reason other than a ruling that states one can inspect your privacy without reason. That is the issue.
I can agree to disagree however and its clear we will not change each other minds about this. I'm done.
The reason why I mentioned this is because you people think Soviet Union's regulations were something far away, something that can never have anything in common with any democratic place on the earth. But frankly, it is not so. Comparing these things is to show which way we are moving. Yeah, you can probably never create a monster like that again, but it doesn't give you the reason to say something like "There's still room to make it worse without making it THAT bad, so let's do it!".Quote:
Originally Posted by indigo0086
IMO, comparing these things is an easy way to see if something is very badly out of order. It gives you the scale, where SU or Nazis are the bottom of the scale. In these scales, I would assume people always want to climb up, instead of going lower and lower and saying "No worries! It's not on that bottom level yet."
I didn't compare them generally, I compared the aspect of privacy, and privacy ONLY. The fact that everything else was frighteningly evil in SU isn't related to my comparision.
Actually, I think this is one of the best paragraphs in this whole topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Why is it a bigger deal than searching a suitcase or purse? Honestly, no matter which country you come from, you can walk around a street and ask people "If you were to let a cop search the contents of your laptop harddrive or your purse/suitcase, which would you prefer they search?" I'm sure you would find more people would let them search their computer. I've already asked several people at home and in my office this question and I've yet to find a person that said they would prefer that they search their purse/suitcase. The fact is, unless you live a very digital lifestyle, a computer is no more personal to people than their luggage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Let me give you an example... the last time I was searched in an airport, in my bag there was a novel and a sketch pad... the officer flipped through the pages of both of these books (presumably to see if I was hiding a weapon)... the sketch pad had things that are significantly more personal to me (and some embarrassing) than anything on my laptop. However, do you think I could go in front of a court and argue that the sketch pad is an extension of my mind or my home?
The only reason I've been so relaxed about this whole issue of my rights being violated in this case is because I don't feel that they're any more violated than they were when I was pulled aside and had my bags searched. That's my feeling about it... your feeling appears to be that your laptop is more private, and I could show you a dozen people around me that feel their bags are more private... so all opinions aside on what is private and what is not... why don't we talk about the real issue here? There is nothing serious to gain out of searching people's computers and it will never amount to anything more than a hassle for the innocent. The criminals will get around it so easily that it's not worth any amount of the time or money that it will eventually cost me. That's it... don't ask me to care more about the embarrassed person having all his porn sites viewed in front of him than I care about the person who has her sex toy turned on in front of them because it was sitting in their bag.
The US makes a legal distinction between "human rights" and "Constitutional rights." The protection against search and seizure is a Constitutional right, so it only applies on U.S. soil and only to U.S. citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
Brewbuck, I have a feeling that you're not right about this. Even in Estonian constitution the same privacy rights are for both citizens and non-citizens. There are quite few things that apply only to citizens here: like the right for retirement pension, right to work in governmental institutions, may not be sent away from the country, rights to receive some kinds of information, right to be in parties. This is pretty much the whole list and I think in USA non-citizens have most of the constitutional rights too, as SlyMaelstrom said.Quote:
Originally Posted by brewbuck
I'm not good at interpreting the Constitution. I'm just describing what is happening in practice. It could be that all persons, citizens or not, have the right to a speedy trial (6th Amendement), but that certainly does not mesh with what's happening in Guantanamo right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
Whether there is an official distinction or not, there is a distinction in practice. And no, I don't support any of this garbage.
Well, that's part of the irony. You see, if we could put privacy issues aside, I would find this a very good ruling. No matter the cost/benefit ratio. Let me explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
Because the ruling doesn't impose limitations on who, why or what, you can correctly argue this serves little purpose and imposes a cost that won't justify what little gains one can get. Who is going to get caught? Any criminal falling in the idiot, dumb, or distracted categories. But what is important here is that, It is left to the officer the decision of who they will search, why they will search and what they will search. Ultimately, and despite believing they will be developing their own internal rules around this, this is an effective measure. The traditional random search cannot apply here since this is a lengthy process; my laptop takes 3 minutes to fully start and be ready. My hard drive is slow and it won't operate without being connected to an AC socket (of which I don't have an adapter for the US system). But what can apply is a "nose search" (the name exists here. Don't know what you call it over there).
As such, I cannot see this happening in a mass scale. They will be selective and only through tipping or reasonable suspicion will indeed most of the people get searched, bettering that cost/benefit ration somewhat (at least lower the cost).
You mean just like they don't search EVERYONE's suitcase, purse, handbag, rucksack or whatever when you are about to board the plane. Instead, they pick a criteria/profile of who to search (single travellers, travelling to/from country different from their citizen-ship, wearing sandals, beardy, long hair, young, or whatever the formula states, and perhaps also select someone "looking suspicious" on random).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
--
Mats
Even more selective than that perhaps. Since searching a purse takes the better of 2 minutes. A laptop will take maybe 15.
Sure, I didn't mean that the frequency would be the same, but along the same principles (not necessarily the SAME criteria either).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
--
Mats
Don't misunderstand... most of the Constitutional rights granted to non-citizens are consider human rights. As brewbuck said, you have to distinguish the difference between Constitutional and Human. That is to say, just because it's in the constitution, doesn't mean it's everyone's right. Much of the reasoning behind our consitituional rights stem from the fact that we pay taxes to be here. If you're not paying taxes, then do you really think you deserve the same rights? Do you really think you deserve the full protection of our law enforcement and government? The fact is, that any non-US citizen posting in this thread really doesn't have the right to tell us what is good for us. To you it's just a lose of liberty... but to us it's also a gain in security. In this particular law, it is not... that's why I'm ........ed off... but if you're going to ask me, after I've explained how I feel about having my bags searched, if I would want them to stop searching people's bag... I would tell you absolutely not. Yes, it's a loss of liberty to me, but if it makes it even just a little harder for people to harm me in my own country, then it's worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
...and for the record, I know what Ben Franklin had to say about this subject and as wise as the man was, he always liked to sum up his proverbs with far too simplistic of examples. There is not just liberty and security, there are varying degrees of both... and if I can sacrifice a little of this one for a lot of the other, then you better believe I'll do it.
I made a point of trying not to tell you are any other American citizen what's good for you. I however took the liberty on commenting on a rule that invariably affects me. I also took the liberty on freely comment on the fact I don't think security should come at the cost of privacy.
The (possible) words of Benjamin Franklin (an American tax payer and one of your Founding Fathers) were: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
At some point one has to make the distinction between liberty and security. You say its on the eye of the beholder. Very well, fair enough. But that then is a serious problem to which you concede there is no solution, because at the light of that any decision becomes a good decision. And it's perfectly acceptable to sacrifice liberty for the sake of security... killing the idea that liberty should be preserved. That my friend, is exactly what fascist did in Europe and, I must remind you, their main argument when Mussolini, Hitler, Franco and Salazar subjugated their populations.
For completeness I thought I would post the amendment
and a relevant excerpt about scope.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
In other words, only since 1967 by Supreme Court ruling has the American citizen been fully protected under this amendment during any type of administrative search. In my opinion, Mario is correct when he says that this recent court opinion conflicts with the current interpretation of the law, at least for a citizen such as myself leaving the country.Quote:
Certain early cases held that the Fourth Amendment was applicable only when a search was undertaken for criminal investigatory purposes, 66 and the Supreme Court until recently employed a reasonableness test for such searches without requiring either a warrant or probable cause in the absence of a warrant. 67 But in 1967, the Court held in two cases that administrative inspections to detect building code violations must be undertaken pursuant to warrant if the occupant objects. 68 ''We may agree that a routine inspection of the physical condition of private property is a less hostile intrusion than the typical policeman's search for the fruits and instrumentalities of crime. . . . But we cannot agree that the Fourth Amendment interests at stake in these inspection cases are merely 'peripheral.' It is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.'' 69 Certain administrative inspections utilized to enforce regulatory schemes with regard to such items as alcohol and firearms are, however, exempt from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and may be authorized simply by statute. 70
I've been subject to pat downs even during domestic flights and other types of clever searching as well. I wouldn't say it's fair to balance copying everyone's laptop with the possibility that you might kill someone with the data. I think we're back to the point mats made about this article coming from a tabloid paper. The Inquirer is not the Times.
Regardless, reading the history and scope of the amendment might be of interest to some.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment04/
We have to rethink a lot of rights in the digital age. I would just like to issue that warning to everyone, since making sure that people can travel safely and making sure that Mr Badman can't take his deadly plans off the plane is becoming harder to do. For too long America was blind to organised crime or terrorist attacks taking advantage of it's limited searching at airports and other places. The technology itself is blurring legal distinctions I think. Will America come up with the best answers to the challenge? Maybe, but I think the law needs to answer.
I remember when 9/11 first happened, the outpour of foriegn symmpathy and aid was tremendous. Bonds that had aged were renewed. It's simply unfortunate that our government took advantage of the situation and launched a war, which has only resulted in severed ties, hawking and intense criticism of our foriegn policy. People who were against the war from the start in my opinion were very wise to protest at the time.
Expectation that your laptop, or your person, will not be searched when enterign or leaving an ariport fails the reasonable test. Searching your person and belongings when you are attemptign to board a plane or enter a country, including copying the data on your laptop (unless you would like to hang around while they search through every byte) is perfectly reasonable. Performing the same actions in your house or vehicle are not reasonable. It may violate your privacy, but you do not have the 'reasonable expectation' of privacy in an airport, this is nothing new and it does not do so illegally.
So stop crying because you cant transport your kiddy 'movies' across the border.
So much reasonable that is completely illegal in almost every country in the world and until recently illegal in the USA. That's how "reasonable" it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
Clearly, or perhaps the person being searched could object to unlock his data, and then the government would need to issue a subpoena, and everyone misses the flight. Unless the TSA is incompetent enough to let said people board.Quote:
Searching your person and belongings when you are attemptign to board a plane or enter a country, including copying the data on your laptop (unless you would like to hang around while they search through every byte) is perfectly reasonable.
Impromptu copying gigabytes of data is not a reasonable prevention method of any sort of crime. Even if the airlines considered that they could hold your laptop (or mp3 player or USB key or portable device X) the time and materials required is tremendous. If you're simply acting as a courier in some respects it's a bit of a pain in the ass that you wouldn't be prepared until weeks after the TSA has finished poking around and returned your luggage to you.
As mentioned, it is also easily circumventable. I could download my data later, so what purpose does this serve and who does it protect? Nothing and no one.
We are simply not prepared and that is the point.
Well how reasonable is a cavity search? In comparison the idea of customs going through my HD content seems very appealing. At the end of the day its unlikely that it will ever happen to anyone anyway. As long as they dont think you look like a terrorist or a pedophile.Quote:
So much reasonable that is completely illegal in almost every country in the world and until recently illegal in the USA. That's how "reasonable" it is.
Cavity searches take place after a warrant has been signed. The other thing is impromptu.Quote:
Well how reasonable is a cavity search?
Still I think it would be unlikely that many people will have their hardisk searched, and if they do it will probably be for a reason. Its simply not a practical proposal.
Perhaps it would be salient to prohibit wireless internet devices. It would prevent spontaneous communication, and if the TSA is that prepared to put the hammer down on somebody they can handle it after the flight. Of course, this means you can't carry a sophisticated phone onto the plane. But I don't find that a humongous sacrifice, and it's a sane way to protect and prevent a crime.
I'm not even a lawyer, and I have better ideas on how to protect people in the new age while protecting rights. The old people in government seriously need to update the hardware in their brains. The computer revolution started in the 30's, then you had the personal computer change the world in the 70's and 80's. How long is the government going to take to figure this crap out?
There is no doubt that the government is a mess when it comes to the digital age. The unfortunate fact is, most people haven't adopted it as much as we'd like to believe. The average person in the digital age wants things to work right out of the box exactly as described on the box and in the commercials. Anything more complicated than that is too complicated... knowing this, it's no surpirse that this is what you see in the judicial system. The truth is, the three branches of government in the US (and the goverments in every other country, for that matter) have to start getting more digitally competent. This is why people predict this digital dark age... so few people know or even care how their electronics work and it's affecting us negatively.
Sometimes terribly. There's a recent study over here that claims over 75% of the students that last year benefited from an Education Ministry program that gave free laptops with broadband access to students between the 8th and 12th grade, used the computers mainly for Messenger chat and movie downloads.
Pardon the expletives, I'm quoting
There is no financial incentive anymore for people to learn complex tasks. A kid that can program a computer still has to work at McDonalds, if McDonalds is hiring that is. When I was a kid engineers and scientists were paid enormous sums of money, today its football stars and any slut that can carry a tune. Its no wonder they don't focus on math and science. Hell, Im a senior engineer and I cant even afford a house, i have to rent, its rediculous. So whats my motivation if I barely live better than someone working at McDonalds only with more stress and responsibility? Kids see whats going on, they hear about it and read it on the internet, whats their motivation to spend their childhood locked in a room learnign to program only to end up in a dead end economy?Quote:
People don't wanna know that ........, they're keepin' it real. Real dumb.
Abachler, if there was going to be a moment I had to applaud you, this is it.
We are deviating from the theme, but this is GD anyways. You are painfully correct. Recently I was "accused" of belong to the Generation X. An early comer to it, but it's really not my fault I was born a soon of the baby boomers. However it reminded me of the generational problem and how it is nothing but a reflection of the society as described by the the mass broadcasters, not as we actually are. We are mold into it. So much in fact, that both "Baby Boomer" and "Generation X" are terms that were applied even before the fact, not as the result of an historical appreciation of a past generation. Much like we already have names for our sons (Generation Now, iGeneration, Generation Z...).
What distinguishes this generation however is not only the fact they were born already sons of the WWW, but also the fact they are educated by the mass media into the notion of success as a direct consequence of their ability to become famous. How exactly can I tell my daughter that studying is the key to success when she sees exactly the opposite. When post graduates work as you say at McDonalds and serving on coffee shops, while every halfbrain with a cute face goes to become successful, famous, and announced as a wonderful person in every public channel, because they happen to know how to sing, act or juggle a ball?
I once read that the level of deterioration of a society was directly proportional to that society ability to provide mass entertainment. I wonder...
I didn't know they had baby-boomers in Portugal. :) Pardon my ignorance, but Portugal's influence in WW2 doesn't really make it into the US history books. I'm sure you played a part, but I couldn't name a single WW2 event that mentions your country. In fact, given my limited knowledge on the subject... unless you are from USA, Canada, England, France, Belgium, Poland, Germany, Italy, or Japan... I think I could say the same for any other country.
I should pick up a history book sometime. :)
EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, I suppose we did learn about Salazar in Portugal and Franco in Spain... but really I don't know much beyond the fact that they were there and did bad things... eventually they went away... somehow...
I dunno, but I am trying to think of what would constitute the baby-boom in Portugal or a similar country like Spain or Italy... I'm sure you had people fighting, but the history books out here tend to focus more on the citizens than the soldiers of your nations. I guess I never really though about a baby-boom out there.
>> There is no financial incentive anymore for people to learn complex tasks.
That's not what I see.
I'm a senior programmer who can't afford a house and has to rent, and I have family/friends who work at McDonalds (or the equivalent). There is a huge difference between the two.
And the kids I know have the same attitude now as they did twenty years ago. Some want to be lazy and do what comes easiest, others want to work hard and have a good life, some are ambitious and want a great life, others have issues and just want to get by.
And entertainers and athletes are a tiny portion of society, just as the people who think fifteen minutes of fame define them are a tiny portion of society. I don't doubt that that portion is larger than it was in the past, but is it really so high that it defines the generation? Of course not.
It's part of the reason the estate tax would be nice. You don't need millions upon millions of dollars stuck in particular families, no matter what they do. Wealth in my opinion has always been a function of the reach in your influence opposed to the responsibility you need to demonstrate for your purchases and financial decisions.
I can't wait for Paris to inherit the Hilton fortune so that we can all watch it evaporate with mirth. She'll spend it all on the most stupid things.
They aren't getting the fortune, he's donating 98% of his wealth to charity in his will... you didn't know about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by citizen
As for the hotels and other assets... I think it's supposed to go to a series of management and the heiresses are only supposed to get a small percentage of ownership. I wouldn't quote myself on that second part, though.
Nope, but it affirms my belief in money.
Because we had none. We were under a near-fascist dictatorship since 33. However Salazar decided to remain neutral while secretly providing support to the allies. Our presence in the war was limited to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
Nevertheless, regardless of their activity, most countries in Europe experienced their own small or big baby booms (pdf) after WWII, which is only understandable since it affected every single country in Europe on way or another. Naturally, it didn't have the same impact on every country. However, the baby boom generation is better described not as the consequence of a real event, but more importantly, as an attitude and mindset. Something that was shared across the western countries and transpired even to the few remaining dictatorships. Salazar was a strong ally of USA and was particularly pleased with the family values that were a big part of what the Baby Boom generation was identified as in US and a big part of the values he and his main ally, the church, defended.
Yep, most countries in europe experienced baby booms after WW2, thast why Europeans look surprisingly American (ducks).
It's thankfully greatly slowing down. The influence of the American culture in Europe was never so strong as it was during the 70s, 80s and 90s. 30 years of assimilation of the good... and the bad. In my opinion, because Europe was lacking a cultural and social identity and because American culture was certainly very appealing and it was actively exporting it.
The social movements and the civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s in the US had a strong echo in Europe. If not matched with similar attitudes, they certainly meet the sympathy of the young generation that was, much like in America, probably influenced by these. The events of May 68 (although initially politically motivated, and only later social in nature) in Paris were almost certainly an echo of the prior unrest in US.
During the next 3 decades, US actively and successfully exported their culture, whereas many European nations now being ran by the swinging sixties generation actively assimilated it. It doesn't go without saying that it was a very culturally rich period in US history if my opinion matters, which certainly helped. Pop culture, the modernization of the movies industry, Disco, Underground, Alternative, all movements that started around this period and that affected all forms of art and expression and that were readily assimilated.
The 60s had a strong impact in European society. During this decade and the decade prior to that, Europe saw its African colonies gain their independence. For countries like UK, France, Spain and Portugal, this was a mental blow regardless of the pro-independence movements in the country. Some sort of identity crisis took place that facilitated the later assimilation.
However during the late 80s and 90s, some of the American culture started to rear its ugly head. Political and social events in Europe also started to contribute for Europeans to look inside. The end of the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, the birth of the European Union, and with it a renewed sense of identity couple with the success of European business and industry, all contributed to a detachment and sometimes even critic approach to the American culture.
Today, Europe and USA are still very tightly connected. But there is a clear perception of what is "European" from what is not. US is loosing its political, cultural and economic dominance, that characterized the Post-War and Cold War periods. The society in general, political decisions and even culture, get increasingly criticized by European opinion-makers and the media in general. There's also an offspring feeling of "we are better than them" as the extreme poverty in US cities is shown, or the crime rates are constantly compared, or school shootings and teen behavior is exposed.
All in all this is bullocks. But its no different than the kind of education that most Americans enjoyed during the 60s throughout the 90s. "The Greatest Country in the World", "God Bless America" and other self-identifying mantras.
Naturally, recent events since 9/11 furthered this willingness to dissociate from US. It is becoming politically correct to criticize the US foreign policies and to actively promote an European view of the world. Stay tuned.
EDIT: The whole post is mostly my own opinion, and nothing more than that, based on readings, observations and my own thoughts on the issue feed by the media in general, the politics in particular and talks with friends.
There is no room for cultural dominence in today's society... at least as far as trends are concerned. Since the growth of the World Wide Web, American pop culture, Asian pop culture, and pop European culture have become one and the same. If some new trend spawns in LA, a guy in Albania will have heard about it the same day I have. Perhaps sooner if I'm asleep and the LA resident posted their trend late at night. It's just the way it works... the internet has influenced a global economy and a global culture. Whether or not that's for the better is you own to decide.
You may not have noticed what is going on in other countries. Traditions are extremely important in countries, which have some cultural values. I simply can't believe anyone can be that ignorant to say there's no room for culture or that globalization has simply wiped away cultural values. In Estonia, culture dominates. Globalization is considered a sickness here that threatens to make people care less about culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
For example, in Estonia, we have national Song Festivals held since 1869, once in every five years. Last time it was held was in 2004, and 34 000 singers and dancers (1% of Estonian population) performed there, wearing national clothes and singing national songs, and the audience consisted of 200 000 people (15% of Estonian population) and hundreds of thousands of people watched it from the television. If you still think there is no room for cultural domination, then... I don't know what to say. And I am quite sure every country, except USA, has traditions like this one.
yes, the interweb, the great uniter of man, ein reich, ein volk, ein furör. (no i didnt mean der Führer)
We have festivals. You might argue about cultural significance of course, but we have festivals. Chinese New Year, cherry blossom festivals (there's one in Washington DC every year). I'd say probably that food festivals are what defines American culture. We are passionate about the food we eat. Just about everything has a festival somewhere. Around where I live there is a pretty big cherry festival, because Michigan is the largest producer of that fruit in this country.Quote:
And I am quite sure every country, except USA, has traditions like this one.
We also have customs, though Christian ones tend to dominate now. That's not how it was in the beginning.
But then America is a country that built itself around being open to and absorbing culture, so it really depends who you are and what you came here for. I won't deny that culture fascinates me, but I'm happy that it doesn't dominate here. That in my opinion encourages astounding prejudice.
The web is not that influential in behavior and culture as sometimes we may be lead to think... or told.
For one, the web is a medium and not an active player. It surely helps "to spread the word", but that's it. Necessarily there are cultures that are born inside this medium. But these cultures aren't that influential, or haven't been so far, because contrary to TV, the web design doesn't broadcast. The person has to actively search for this information and link to it. It's like a TV station with one channel per website.
The other problem is that the internet use and penetration isn't that high yet. Only 1/5 of the world population uses or has used at least once the internet. Of those, we have to take out anyone not interested in the internet as a social or cultural event, those too old and too young to use be influenced by it, those too poor or too oppressed to be able respond positively to any influence.
Finally, it will still take some good years before anything can be said about internet social or cultural influence in the world in an objective, factual way. And I'll risk that for the past 20 decades it was close to nil.
You need to consider the economic influence of the segments of those societies that it is penetrating as well. In the U.S. it was initially primarily among the afluent and educated, which set the tone for tis development. If it penetrates different parts of society initially in other regions it may set a different tone for its use in those regions, although it is large enough now that the global internet culture will more or less force or at least encourage a more centrist/mainstream view. The very nature of the internet at least encourages some minimal thought, as for the most part it is interactive and the subject must make at least a knee jerk decision, btu still ad ecision at some level, as oposed to the boob tube where the interaction is limited to flipping between a few dozen/hundred channels. There is no effective way to generate yoru own content, so its more or less passive.
You must not have read beyond the tenth word, because your response is almost unrelated to what you're responding to. My whole post was related to the effect the internet has had on pop-culture, which was a response to the half of Mario's post regarding the pop-culture influence of the USA in the 60, 70, and 80s. Your post was about tradition... and the only truly ignorant statement I've seen in the past few posts was your statement about the USA not having traditions. It's very hypocritical of you to tell me that I don't know what is going on in other countries when you respond the way you do. I've spent two of my twenty-one years on this earth in your continent, where-as I'm not even sure you've even had the opportunity to leave your own country, yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
To respond to Mario... I suppose it's just what we've experienced, but from my own, I can still see plenty of US influence in Europe well past the 80s. Let's not forget that my own memory pretty much starts in the 90s and I'd have to say... in my life time, US television, fashion, architecture, even political and economical theories have had a strong influence on Europe. Hell, I was with a girl for a year and a half who was born and grew up in Eastern Europe. I've been to her country with her a few times and I can see the influence with my own eyes in the brands that people wear and the words they use.
However, this goes both ways... since the popularization of the WWW and even cable television, the US has been significantly more influenced by European culture, fashion, politics, and economics (especially Western Europe). The point I'm trying to make is that they've grown so similar in some ways, that it's difficult to tell where a trend even originated these days. I know the penetration isn't a high percentage... 1/5th seems about right to me, but you can't deny that this is significantly higher than it was 20 years ago, and clearly it has an effect. You don't need every person to see a trend on the internet for it to catch on, you only need one cool person. They wear it and it spreads like wildfire. One-fifth is all the penetration you need.
Anyway, I accept your opinions fully because I'm sure they come from your own experiences, however... we almost come from different eras, so it's sensible to say that my experiences are different than your own.
I agree. There is still obvious influences of US culture in Europe. Particularly in Eastern and Southern Europe. And this will remain like so. What however I witness is less of a desire to assimilate as it used to be... or better yet, a more critic approach.
And yes, we do share different experiences and for the most part I honestly have an hard time understanding the current times. I would take your word for it more than I would take my own.