In further evidence of our rapidly eroding civil liberties, the Department of Homeland Security disclosed today that US Customs and Border Protection and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement have the right to confiscate and search a traveler's laptop or other electronic device
without any suspicion of wrongdoing. The rules -- which we
reported on in February -- allow for searches of hard drives, flash drives, cellphones, iPods, pagers, and video or audio tapes, and specify that the agencies can "detain" belongings for a "reasonable period of time," (i.e., as long as they please). Additionally, the DHS can share the data found with other government agencies or private entities for translation, decryption, or (astoundingly vague) "other reasons." The DHS says the policies apply to anyone entering the country -- including US citizens -- and claim the measures are necessary to prevent terrorism. In other news, Big Brother issued a statement today guaranteeing a bonus for turning over family members suspected of crimethink to the Thought Police.
[Via
Switched]
posted Aug 1st 2008 11:01AM
Welcome to the USSR !
In Soviet Russia, Car Drives You!
straight to the KGB
It's even worse.
In fascist America
Oreilly Pwns You!
HERE IS A SOLUTION
Buy an Eee PC and store all of your dirt in it (you'll probably need a 500GB travel drive).
#1 Never use it with your home wifi or the wifi of any place you frequently go to. Instead, find a place where wiwi is insecure and go there, use it and then dissapear into the night.
#2 This laptop is special. Its a throwaway. If you ever feel the feds are onto you, keep a bottle of gasoline nearby and a lighter. SET IT ON FIRE. Most feds come unprepared to put out a gas fire and you will ensure the machine is destroyed which means no evidence is recoverable.
You'll get hit with arson charges (rather than child porn or computer crimes) and you simply plead insanity and you get to go to a mental institution and be evaluated. You'll be out in a few months if you promise never to burn things again.
#3 You've got to hide it in unlikely spots. Get a cereal box for instance. A technology warrant allows police to take all the electric items from your house but dissalows non-related items. Even if they found it in a box of cereal it would be inadmissible in court.
Come on, folks.
Doing this at a state border is pretty commie. An international border is a whole different thing.
I fully expect a sovereign nation to do stuff like this, as annoying as it is, with anything crossing their borders.
Fred must have drank the Kool-aid.
Hopefully when you take that trip to a foreign country (inc. Canada or Mexico) that you won't experience this. Because I'm sure the first thing you will yell out when being questioned is, "I have rights! You can't do this to me." Meanwhile your fellow citizens will laugh inside while they rip apart your devices looking for something they know is not there but they detained you anyway because a "look" you gave or some other shallow reason because these folks get bored on the job. Good luck with that.
@Flashpoint : You are bonkers man.
"He who will sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin
"He who will sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin
I think that actually deserves a double post.
in Socialist America;
the Power of Christ Compels you
damn engadgets reply system is really fucked today
blizz,
don't forget the "essential".
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It's an important distinction.
However, this border law is horrible, and since it can be done without cause, is both baseless and overstepping, even more so to its own citizens, but also to others.
This is not news. No one, American citizen or not, has ever had any Fourth Amendment priviliges when entering and exiting the country at airports. There is a reason that can search your bags without suspecting any wrongdoing - that's because the Fourth Amendment just doesn't apply at borders or airports.
It's much ado about nothing, really. We all know that they can look through our bags, so you don't bring drugs on a plane. Same thing here, you know that they are going to be looking at your laptop, so don't bring your kiddie porn with you.
And before everyone shouts that I'm a commie or fascist (whichever is the term for right-wing people these days), I'll repeat - THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS NEVER APPLIED AT BORDER OR AIRPORTS. EVER. IN OUR ENTIRE HISTORY. SINCE IT WAS WRITTEN.
Thanks!
"Because I'm sure the first thing you will yell out when being questioned is, "I have rights! You can't do this to me." "
One of the first lessons I was told when taking a trip out of the U.S. is that the constitution does not travel with you.
Ignore that lesson at your own risk.
Bet you get arrested at the airport if you have this quote of Benjamin Franklin on your t-shirt. Who wants to try that?
@BloodyGerman
What if I carried a $100 bill with his face on it? The irony...
I wonder what will happen when they check someone's computer and some information gets leaked out! According to this article http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=515&doc_id=139841&f_src=flffour - and all of us know - the US government isn't very fond of taking responsibility for poor security.
america, homeland of the free!
thats slowly becoming free-ish
quasi-free?
Yes, free to look at anything you have whether you like it or not.
i'm sorry i'm from Argentina and don't know all of your expressions, what does "thats slowly becoming free-ish" mean?
bye guys
@neim
He means freedom has gone from free to free-ish. In other words, less free..
He who will sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety - Ben Franklin
The diet coke of free.....
haha
free*
Free of privacy?
SHT! this is what they call "FREE COUNTRY" ??? HAHAHAHAHA NAZi Germany in high tech sucks people. Free country, home of the free, and the brave, hahahahahahahaha. This is a nation of sheep!!!!
For you to compare the United States to Nazi Germany, even jokingly, just displays the true level of ignorance you possess. People can say all they want about the US's occasional mistreatment of citizens (Japanese-Americans in WWII, etc), but for you to compare the US to a regime that purposely attempted to exterminate a group of people based on their religion, that is asinine and you should be ashamed.
"but for you to compare the US to a regime that purposely attempted to exterminate a group of people based on their religion, that is asinine and you should be ashamed."
Native Americans.... yep.
Blacks were slaves..... yep.
legalize it.....nope.
Not to mention a little group called "Islam"...
How many innocent Iraqis do we have to kill, how many Afghani wedding parties do we have to bomb, how many random muslims do we need to detain and torture before people realize we *are* in the process of trying to indiscriminantly exterminate a religion?
We kill that which we do not understand. That is what Hitler did.
Can't help but think of the frog in a saucepan.
Germany did not just become a fascist regime over night, it was a long drawn out process.
What is happening in the USA and other parts of the Western world show scarly similarities between what happened in early 20th century Germany and now.
Jeff, you act like we actively go into people's houses and execute them by firing squad...
The US is not perfect by any means, but seriously look at every other country in the world and then start to bitch some more, okay?
What country do you originate from? What is your literacy rate?
I love America, and what we stand for, but that doesn't mean we aren't there yet.
Religious discrimination:
Laws prohibiting Atheists from holding office? Yep. In some states.
Laws prohibiting Wiccan's rights in school and the Army? Yep. It happens.
Laws against sexual orientation? Yep. In many states.
Unlawful Search and Seizure:
(Which should not be allowed by the Fourth Amendment)
Unchecked ability to wiretap and use the telephone companies to spy? Yep. Just passed.
Ability to confiscate laptops at the border without cause? Yep. Looks like it.
I suppose all these civil rights are expendable "in the short term" for security? Well, that's what many people in the government say.
I wouldn't say the US is Nazi Germany or sheep. Take a look at a lot of the governments such as China's as well as their civil rights. That doesn't mean we don't have some improving to do.
Ryan, I think you put it best...I mean compare us to every other country right now - we aren't perfect but we are still pretty much better off than everywhere else.
@Zack
How do you think they got here as slaves? Maybe, I dunno, the settlers from Europe who brought them here to use as free labor in the New World?
@Jeff
Hitler didn't kill what he didn't understand; he found a weak group that would be easy to attack and rallied his people against this brand new enemy in a time that the country was limping along after a lost war, which ultimately unified them.
If people have such a problem with America, then leave, or do something about it instead of griping on an internet forum. Like, I don't know... Go to school and learn something.
Dave, have you never wondered what are all those FEMA CAMPS for ????
Exterminate Christians, Protesters, truth activist, yep We are real close to a martial law. Not even an election you might have, Bush executive orders national emergency. You guys don't even know, but Bush already declared National Emergency see : http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=71714 , it is now what he wants it to be. http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TNCBJT4DODABQP0EF Yo ae right, its not like that yet but I see it in a couple months
Well done, thanks to your reference to the Nazis, you have automatically been disqualified from this thread. For more information, see Godwin's Law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law ).
@ All of you brainwashed by the media. The main stream media is owned by 4 corporations and Murdoch. *Almost all you see ae propaganda. It was proved white house call Jornalist to give tem "talkng points" That's exactly what hittle did. using radio ad media to promote his agenda. = http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/30/olbermann-white-house-sent-me-talking-points-too-i-still-have-them/
*He build concenration camps, in America its called FEMA CAMPS!!! http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1062
* I'm from Brazil but first i am a citizen of EARTH, and I worr about America because the ar they fight influence the whole earth with its stuppid wepons uranium etc...
SAVE THE US CONSTITUTION AND RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!!!
@Dave: Islam is a religion.
@Dave
Comparing the United States to non-democratic/republic countries is like comparing apples and oranges. Try comparing the US to other longstanding, stable democracies and see where we line up.
health care : 37
financial deficit: last (out of 188 countries not just democracies)
well-being of children (according to UNICEF): 20 out of 21 (just above the UK)
literacy : tied for 18th (just above Tonga)
infant mortality rate : 79 out of 222
It may seem like I'm just "America Bashing" but ignoring serious problems, and blindly stating that "there's no better place to live" will lead to our decline.
@ OneLove ; As you an see, most of the time wen people talk, specially negativity about others, thy are actually talking about them selfs. Dave just called me ignorant of a high level, and yet can't address even what Islam is less like he would know what is happening to the US Constitution. or his freedom. :)
"He who will sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin
@OneLove
When did the US start a war on Islam? Unless you are talking about people who are terrorists and happen to perverse the religion of Islam...
@Operation Northwood
I don't even understand what you are trying to say. There is nothing wrong with Islam and unfortunately because there have been terrorists that happen to use Islam as a driving force behind their attacks, and there has been proof of mosques in the United States funding terrorism through the exploitation of non-profits, that there is an increased scrutiny against Muslim-Americans and those who are foreign nationals living in the US with a Muslim background.
@Leandro...
FEMA camps were voluntary camps (trailer parks) created for those who couldn't leave because they did not have enough money to pack up their things and go. No one is REQUIRED TO STAY THERE, you idiot. Maybe you should talk about the rampant poverty in Brazil before you decide to start bashing the United States...
At the chosen extreme poverty line, Brazil has a poverty headcount ratio (poverty rate) of 22.6%. This means 34.9 million Brazilians live in households with a per capita income below the poverty line. Using the higher poverty line of R$132, the poverty rate would be 45.3% equivalent to 69.9 million Brazilians.
The United States has a poverty rate currently of 15.4%...
Right so if hitler hadn't killed the jews so massively he might have been the US presidential nominee, no matter what else he did in the area of fascism, I get it now.
@ "How do you think they got here as slaves? Maybe, I dunno, the settlers from Europe who brought them here to use as free labor in the New World?"
Which would be somewhat of a _tiny_ point if the newly established country, the U.S.A., had freed all forced-labor slaves after winning its war of independence. That didn't exactly happen, though... did it?
Way to avoid my argument about the genocide of the native peoples, too. Good stuff.
Jeff said, "Not to mention a little group called "Islam".."
@Dave: Sorry, it was Jeff I was trying to correct. (The engadget comment system put your name in there)
same thing is happening in Italy: the right wing government in power at the moment is slowly turning into a dictatorship.
First, they passed a law that protects the head of state and prime minister from being arrested/trialled while theyre in power, than a law implementing army troops to the police patrolling cities.
And new laws kicking unwanted foreingers out of the country (just like in the US, lower cast jobs, like working the land, construction work or cleaning houses and such, is done by mostly illegal immigrants).
Yes, as Leandro said, a government can easly turn into a dictatorship without most of the people realizing it.
I thought republicans were all about anti-government. What the hell happened?!
Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave.
What? Republicans have created bigger government and monumental deficits.
Ronald Regan ran up the deficit with his 600-ship Navy hoping that Congress would repeal all the entitlement programs like Midicare.
Daddy Bush, Senior was the one who instituted the assult rifle ban back in 1989/90.
Look at what W has done to the deficit and personal liberties.
Hopefully things will change on Jan 20, 2009 unless W starts a war with Iran first.
Republicans... Democrats... these days they're the same party. Only the Democrats have generally more charisma. This is why I switched to the Libertarian party. I still may not agree with all their ideals, but the truth is that they represent the best yesteryear ideals of both the Democratic AND Republican parties better than those parties do themselves. It's sad.
You make it seem like banning the assualt riffle was a bad thing. This may just be because I'm Canadian, but who the hell needs an assualt rifle anyway.
Terpy... I agree with you. But apparently the Supremes thought differently (well, 5 of them anyway).
Terpy, please define "assault rifle" for me once again.
I know what "fully automatic" means, and that's in the definition of "machine gun" which was banned in the 60's and still is.
But what's an "assault rifle" again?
Mikey, you're a bigger idiot than Terpy.
If you're going to talk about the law, you should at least hit up google.
The SCOTUS ruled that you have a right to keep a gun in your home for self defense assuming that you pass any reasonable background checks, test, and registrations.
What does that have to do with "assault weapons" again? And what are "assault weapons" again?
@Rick
Bill Clinton passed the assault rifle ban, and little bush had it expire, get your facts straight.
W Bush, if you haven't noticed by now has been disowned by the Republicans. But if you think spending will go down with Democrats in the majority good luck. All that's going to happen is the money spent on defending the US will be diverted to social programs that are even more wasteful.
@andy
I was just hitting up my constitutional law notes and my law license.
Jackass
Skant,
Republicans are SUPPOSED to stand for smaller govn't (or at least that's what they say).
That's why they're having trouble with true conservatives right now, like the other fellow above pointed out. They're spending like drunken sailors and increasing regulation instead of reducing spending and enforcing existing laws. Hard to get the conservatives to show up for you when you're doing the opposite of what you said you would.
I'm a true conservative; no one represents my interests. No one has the balls. I don't need someone to "trim" the federal budget. I want someone who says up front that they're going to use a chainsaw approach instead of an exacto knife. The only budget items I want to see are infrastructure, law enforcement (but you only get one agency), and military.
Mikey,
I was just preparing a brief.
Keep studying. You're going to need it apparently.
Yes, the Reps have swiped the mantle of bloated infrastructure and deficit spending. They abandoned me. And now I have abandoned them. (Having trouble finding a party I can respect, though... at least one that has any power in the US.)
Mikey,
I'll be nice and lay it out so that even you can comprehend.
The "assault weapons" ban had a sunset provision built into it. If it was not renewed by Congress and the president, then it went away on its own. It went away on its own. So now, I can buy the factory 12 round clips for my handgun instead of the cheapo 10 round aftermarket clips I have now. Whoopty dooo. I'll give you 10 bonus points if you can name any other substantive provision of the "assault weapons" ban. (Hint: it has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons; still banned by yet another gun ban.)
In the Heller case, SCOTUS declared an individual right to keep and bear arms in your own home for self defense subject to reasonable restrictions (background checks, no felons, registration, any tests and permits, etc.).
yeah itchy, I would go libertarian along with every other disheartened repub but they have no chance, so once again its like every election where I'm picking the lesser of two evils - Old man vs no experience / flip-flopper
"I was just preparing a brief.
Keep studying. You're going to need it apparently."
I said law LICENSE... Wow, you're drafting a brief... oh wait, all lawyers draft briefs. That doesn't make you special.
I was commenting and giving my opinion, and you insulted me. That makes you a jackass. Jackass
Stupid comment system... this post was meant for here:
@andy
"In the Heller case, SCOTUS declared an individual right to keep and bear arms in your own home for self defense subject to reasonable restrictions"
And I was saying I (as in me personally, MIKEY) disagree with the Supreme Court. I'm sure you'll agree that the Supreme Court is often wrong (everyone agrees with that, we just disagree as to which cases they got wrong). I personally don't think the "right to bear arms" even exists in the constitution as a personal right. If anything, its a militia right.
Mikey,
I insulted you because you said that SCOTUS struck down the "assault weapons" ban.
And given your anti-gun bias, you're either intentionally lying, or misinformed, but either way, you shouldn't be talking about what they did or didn't do until you remedy your deficiency.
ugg the two of you, enough already. gun control is not a worthy point of contention. Please stop trying to measure your virtual penis sizes - they're virtual.
as for old man vs. inexperienced / flipflopper, i think this election turned when McCain moved right of center to appease elements of the party. This country is yearning for balance and for some more moderate central ideals, but instead we get polarization to the extremes that don't work.
At least it isn't Kerry vs. Bush
@ andy, I said nothing of the kind. Where in my post does it say that the Supreme Court struck down the assault riffle ban.
Terpy asked "who the hell needs an assualt rifle anyway [?]" I said, I agreed and apparently the Supremes did as well (because Heller struck down a gun control law, and thus could be argued to extend to assault riffle bans).... that is not the same thing as saying the Supreme Court struck down the assualt riffle ban.
You misread my post and then called me an idiot. So I stand by my original statement. Jackass.
haha andy is a dumb lawyer
@ andy
Sorry I missed most of this debate, but I actually have work to do. If you do not know what an assault rifle is, here is a helpful link. Furthermore, just because some one holds a different viewpoint than you does not mean they are wrong. I simply asked a question: who the hell needs an assault rifle anyway? I have yet to here an answer.
Oops, heres the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
"An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle"
@ Terpy: You linked to the definition of "Assault rifle" as defined by wikipedia, not "assault weapon" as defined by U.S. law (they are two completely different concepts).
An "Assault Rifle" is a selective-fire weapon which fires an intermediate power rifle cartridge.
An "Assault Weapon" is any rifle which:
Accepts external magazines
Has a folding or telescoping stock
Has a pistol grip
Has a threaded barrel or flash suppressor
Has a rifle grenade mount
or any pistol which:
has a magazine which attaches outside the pistol grip
has a threaded barrel
has a barrel shroud (heat shield)
weighs more than 1.4 Kg (unloaded)
or any semi-automatic shotgun which:
accepts external magazines
has a Folding or telescoping stock
has a Pistol grip
has a Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
The term "assault weapons" SPECIFICALLY refers to semi-automatic (single shot per trigger pull) weapons, not fully automatic weapons.
And don't think for a minute that the similarity between these two terms is an accident.
If you want a better overview of the particulars of the law, follow the CORRECT wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban
"But apparently the Supremes thought differently (well, 5 of them anyway)."
So that would have been Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Betty McGlown, Barbara Martin, and Diana Ross?
@Terpy - you see there are assault rifles and there are 'assault rifles' A real assault rifle is a light, select fire machine gun. An 'assault rifle', is a purely legal term coined by gun control advocates to scare the ignorant public and is any SEMI-automatic rifle with 2 or more 'scary', yet 100% cosmetic features. Rifles that are typically classified as 'assault rifles', such as the AR-15, are very common and just so happen to be the most popular competitive shooting semi-automatic rifles out there. They are popular because they are light, low powered (every time I hear 'high powered assault rifle' I laugh because that's an oximoron), easy to operate, and fire relatively inexpensive ammunition. They are also popular for varmint (little critters/pests) hunting because the small caliber round is ideal for small game. Congratulations though, you have fallen into the 'ignorant public' trap; hopefully this info will help pull you out.
@rock99rock - no, andy is not a dumb lawyer. Andy obviously the read DC v Heller decision, whereas Mikey either hasn't or is just extremely disingenuous. The only lawyers out there that actually buy the whole 'militia right' argument are the Brady Bunch supporters; ie those with a blatant pro-gun control bias and whose opinion hold no legal merit. Heck, even the dissenting justices in DC v Heller dismissed the 'militia right' argument. The point is if you don't like the fact there is an amendment protecting the RKBA, you need to amend the constitution. All this stretching the truth and revisionist history crap is only going whittle away at our other constitutionally protected rights.
IT accountant and limaxray,
There's no point. We're apparently in liberal land where facts and details (although exactly on point) are irrelevant to the rant at hand.
They said the "selective fire" comment after I pionted out that full autos of any kind are still banned.
And for the record, full auto means that the weapon fires more than one cartridge per trigger pull. Therefore, a 3 round burst fire, even if selective, is a full auto weapon under the law.
And limaxray:
All 157 pages of the slip opinion including those dreadfully poorly reasoned dissents.
@andy
you are correct...this is the only time I have ever been low ranked for actually publishing a fact - That Bill Clinton signed into law the Assault Weapons ban in 1994 and Bush let it expire.
Ok, I am man enough to admit when I am wrong. I was merely replying to Rick's comment:
"Daddy Bush, Senior was the one who instituted the assault rifle ban back in 1989/90."
Andy, I'm sorry if my ignorance of American law and the classification of firearms caused you undue grief. So please un-bunch your panties.
repbulicans, democrats, all corrupt, one caters to the rich, the other poor both give the shaft to the middle class.
@dave
"money spent on defending the US will be diverted to social programs that are even more wasteful. "
"defending the US? Who are you kidding, ignoramus? The taxpayers money goes straight into the hands of large defense contracts, it has almost NOTHING to do with national defense. (See Iraq War). Social programs on the other hand, are services FOR THE CITIZENS WHO ARE PAYING THE BILL. Where do you get this idea that they are inherently wasteful? Certain social programs are wasteful, but only because of poor policies, poor management, and other institutional problems that could be greatly improved with better technology and oversight.
Seriously, imagine if that $500 BILLION that went into the Iraq disaster was actually invested into AMERICA. We could have doubled teachers salaries, guaranteed every citizen free tuition to go to college at a state school, provided reduced cost non-profit healthcare to everyone, invested huge into renewable energy infrastructure, invested into large public transportation projects, etc.
Between the democrats with no spine, and the much worse republicans who are selling out our country to foreign countries, spending more money than democrats could dream of on stupid shit like war, pushing America into a 1984 totalitarian dystopia, and trying to implement a theocracy based on ignorance and stupidity, I've about had it with this fucking country.
Terpy, I respect your ability to admit a mistake. It's a rare characteristic this day in age.
I take my rights seriously, and mischaracterizing their status does get my panties in a bunch. Particuarly, mis-attributing their destruction or support really gets under my skin.
@ Andy This answer your question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968 ???????? Or is it the Brady Handgun Act
That sounds strangely like search and siezure without probably cause.
Do whatever you like with non-citizens, but for citizens??? Way over the line.
B-b-but what if I have a special laptop case!!?
you mean no more hidden weed in my fake usb drive?
I was thinking more of an iPot?
The USA is one big cluster-$%&. If only I could vote.
sic semper tyrannis
Are you from Virginia?
I hate Bush and his Department of Homeland Security.
I think its time to buy that island I've always wanted. (Maybe johnny dep has room for me?)
How a comment as constructive(/s) as "I hate bush" received a high rank is beyond me.
"I hate fat people" would be considered trolling, but when it has to do with anything republican its smart and hip.
Honestly i don't give a shit, but if you want to hate go somewhere else.
@Miles:
Quote: "How a comment as constructive(/s) as "I hate bush" received a high rank is beyond me"
You living under a rock?
Well put, OneLove, well put.
If U.S.A. keeps this up, they're going to be labeled as terrorists... and yea, I'm sure they'll treat everyone equally. Remember, from now on if you're middle eastern, leave your laptops at home.
Anyone know what movie the picture is from? I believe its also the same commerical spoofed by Apple against IBM's strict practices back in the day if im not mistaken...
On the article - I hate this BS. For as long as they please? So if I miss an internal business meeting (theoretically) that deals with a huge merger or a groundbreaking presentation that could make / break my company, they are not in the wrong then? I guess its always good then to keep your data on servers, not the notebook, as does the Health Plan company does with redirected MyDocs and secure AES. But still, very dumb that could still MISS that meeting beause of this. And that are they gonna find, pron? America has real problems, and living in it has its ups and downs, but scare tactics and stict policies only make us Americans more and more irratated.
Whew...
Nineteen-eighty-four, based on a George Orwell novel
It's from the movie adaptation of George Orwell's 1984