J
Jim Brown
Have a look at the respective laws and regulations....
Done that. List the law or regulation that allows them to do anything
more than refuse you entry when you have done nothing illegal.
You can't, it does not exist.
Have a look at the respective laws and regulations....
Done that. List the law or regulation that allows them to do anything
more than refuse you entry when you have done nothing illegal.
You can't, it does not exist.
Arno said:If you say so. I will continue to perform my risk analysis on
what they actually have done to people.
Arno said:You do nkow that they can just require you to give them the
passphrase and if you refuse send you back after a few
days of incarceration?
Unless you drop the win98 requirement, you as likely out of luck.
Well. There is nothing usable without installation for win98.
With XP it is difficult. What about using Linux, e.g. a
Knoppix USB-Stick install with encrypted partition (all
standard Knoppix fearures)? That does not require any installation,
just a reboot. And a reboot is a very good idea anyways to get
around spyware on computers not yours.
Arno
Arno are you still reading replies (or anyone else wish to address this
comment?):
You're partly wrong. Drivecrypt works under 98SE but only for containers
up to 4GB.
Under XP it will do partitions much larger. Also many cafes
disable usb boot so there goes your idea of using a linux usb stick.
Drivecrypt has a mode that does not require installation for access to
the encrypted volumes.
Drivecrypt has a mode that does not require installation for access to
the encrypted volumes.
I can't say I've heard of any examples. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't
have any direct links for what I write here - I heard about it when the
various laws were passed by Bush, which was a while ago. However...
If a non-citizen in the USA is suspected of terrorism, he can be
detained without charge indefinitely. The authorities (police, FBI,
DHS, etc.) do not have to inform anyone - that includes the person's
family and his country's embassy in the USA. He can be interrogated
using techniques that most people would consider torture (though some of
the most obvious torture methods, such as water boarding, are no longer
permitted.) He has no rights to a lawyer or to know what charges, if
any, and levelled against him. He can be detained indefinitely (at
Gitmo or anywhere else) without any charge, or he can be tried in a
closed military court with no civil lawyers involved. This court has
the power to hand down the death sentence - and they don't need to
inform the person's family until it's time to collect the body.
I have never heard of this happening, and I don't believe it could have
happened without the news leaking out.
But the law allows this total disregard of human rights, as long as
someone can be accused of "terrorism" in some way - with "terrorism"
being a very broad and vague term.
I have no doubt that if you arrive off a plane in the USA, and an
airport official suspects that the encrypted partition on your PC holds
something terrorist-related (and remember it's /their/ definition that
counts, not reality), then you will suffer a lot more than just being
sent home on the next flight. You won't disappear into some black hole
(unless you come from an "evil" country, of course), but you will not be
having a pleasant stay.
Of course, a more realistic scenario is that if the border guards see
you have an encrypted partition, they will confiscate your laptop and
demand your access keys. Legally (in the USA), it's like asking you to
unlock your suitcase for a search. They will take the device away to
search of evidence of the one crime that is worse than "terrorism" -
"piracy".
I can't say I've heard of any examples.
I'm not a lawyer,
and I don't have any direct links for what I write here - I heard about it when the various laws were passed by Bush,
which was a while ago.
However...
If a non-citizen in the USA is suspected of terrorism, he can be detained without charge indefinitely.
The authorities (police, FBI, DHS, etc.) do not have to inform anyone - that includes the person's family and his
country's embassy in the USA.
He can be interrogated using techniques that most people would consider torture
(though some of the most obvious torture methods, such as water boarding, are no longer permitted.)
He has no rights to a lawyer or to know what charges, if any, and levelled against him.
He can be detained indefinitely (at Gitmo or anywhere else) without any charge,
or he can be tried in a closed military court with no civil lawyers involved.
This court has the power to hand down the death sentence
and they don't need to inform the person's family until it's time to collect the body.
I have never heard of this happening,
and I don't believe it could have happened without the news leaking out.
But the law allows this total disregard of human rights, as long as someone can be accused of "terrorism" in some
way - with "terrorism" being a very broad and vague term.
I have no doubt that if you arrive off a plane in the USA, and an airport official suspects that the encrypted
partition on your PC holds something terrorist-related (and remember it's /their/ definition that counts, not
reality),
then you will suffer a lot more than just being sent home on the next flight.
You won't disappear into some black hole (unless you come from an "evil" country, of course),
but you will not be having a pleasant stay.
Of course, a more realistic scenario is that if the border guards see
you have an encrypted partition, they will confiscate your laptop and
demand your access keys. Legally (in the USA), it's like asking you
to unlock your suitcase for a search.
They will take the device away to search of evidence of the one crime that is worse than "terrorism" - "piracy".
Well, I think that may be the law,
but is rather unlikely to happen,
at least to anymbody from a country that would genuinely care.
Also, while thay want you to belive you have to hand over
the encryption keys, the current state of affairs seems to
be that they tried that (including putting the suspect in jail),
but it ultimately failed as some high cpur rouled
that telling them the keys was self-incrimination.
The case I remember where they tried to force the keys out
of someboy involved a case of double-stupiditu: The person in
question was crossing the broder while having child-pornography
displayed on his laptop display and the customs officer saf that.
They then confiscated the laptop, but forgot that laptop batteries
has a limited charge and, sicne the drive was encrypted, could
not get in anymore. Then they tried to force the keys out of
the person (who has by now activated his last remaining
brain-cell and got a lawyer) with a number of nice threats,
that were derviced from the Bush laws you quote.
AFAIK the person was originally also ordered by a court
to hand over the keys, but that got reversed on appeal.
Side note: Laws, like in the UK, that allows
them to demand the keys or else imprison you,
are completely stupid. What if I do not have the key or
genuinely forgot (after being roughened up, for example)?
There is no way to prove you do _not_ know something
and in all modern legal systems innocent until proven guilty
is a very fundamental principle, that protects, among other
things, against a police-state.
Back to border-crossing: There are people that have had their
laptops confiscated and not returned for months (or ever) and
denying you entry can mean that you spend a week or more in
a cell at immigration while they organize your deportation.
It can also mean that you will be forbidden to ever enter the US again.
The last one is the real kicker.
Nope.
So again, best not carry anything encrypted when
crossing the US border and make sure that is obvious.
As I said, it's not going to happen - but I don't like the fact that the law allows it.
Incidentally, I am not sure that US citizens have that much more protection from their own authorities as long as
someone claims there is terrorism in the air.
So your choice is between handing over the keys, or going to jail?
Nope.
Marvellous.
The USA is not alone in this - in the UK you can be jailed for
refusing to hand over encryption keys to the authorities.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for people with child porn - nor with
someone this stupid. My concern is for people with perfectly innocent
reasons for not wanting their laptops (phones, cameras, whatever) searched.
And again, I don't consider being jailed until an appeal case as a very good alternative.
I agree entirely.
It might not be Gitmo,
but it is certainly going to put a damper on your holiday.
No wonder they call it the war on tourism!
Also note that "encrypted" is, like everything else, in the eye of the beholder.
If the border guards don't know what Linux is, and think "Ubuntu" sounds like it might be Arabic, then you are guilty
until proven innocent.
If you are lucky, you can explain it to a supervisor in a few hours (after you've missed your connecting flights). If
your unlucky, your attempted explanations are considered patronising and probably communist and un-American.
No you can't. List the law. You can't, it doesnt exist.
Enough if this nonsense. Just one reference to show you have your head in the sand:
UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), Part 2, Section 49:
They can send you to prison for 2 years if you refuse to hand over crypto keys
and 5 years in terrorist cases.
And it is being used:
Result of 5 minutes Googeling.
Obviously you do not want to know what is going on.
That is fine by me if you want to deceive yourself,
but stop spreading your untruths here.
Incidentally, I now expect you to say, "ok, the UK
does it, but you have given no evidence the US
does it, I am right after all for the US".
As the point was only to show that you have no clue, and I have done
that now by proving one of the items you claim was definitely unture,
I do not need to give any further evidence.
I can't say I've heard of any examples. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't
have any direct links for what I write here - I heard about it when the
various laws were passed by Bush, which was a while ago. However...
If a non-citizen in the USA is suspected of terrorism, he can be
detained without charge indefinitely. The authorities (police, FBI,
DHS, etc.) do not have to inform anyone - that includes the person's
family and his country's embassy in the USA. He can be interrogated
using techniques that most people would consider torture (though some of
the most obvious torture methods, such as water boarding, are no longer
permitted.) He has no rights to a lawyer or to know what charges, if
any, and levelled against him. He can be detained indefinitely (at
Gitmo or anywhere else) without any charge, or he can be tried in a
closed military court with no civil lawyers involved. This court has
the power to hand down the death sentence - and they don't need to
inform the person's family until it's time to collect the body.
I have never heard of this happening, and I don't believe it could have
happened without the news leaking out.
But the law allows this total disregard of human rights, as long as
someone can be accused of "terrorism" in some way - with "terrorism"
being a very broad and vague term.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for people with child porn - nor with
someone this stupid. My concern is for people with perfectly innocent
reasons for not wanting their laptops (phones, cameras, whatever) searched.
David Brown
How about for people just suspected of child porn, even if they don't
have any?
How about when the customers officer just didn't like your attitude
so they threw a "suspect child porn" label on you just for giggles?
DevilsPGD said:In message <[email protected]> David Brown
Just ask Maher Arar who was detained for weeks without a lawyer, then
deported to a country other than his origin or destination despite
being welcome to proceed to his destination (where he held
citizenship), all for the crime of having a connecting flight in the
US while Arab.
There's no such requirement to claim terrorism, it's just a convenient
way to reframe the issue. You simply have no rights until you're
assigned rights by border services.
That wasnt his crime.
In message <[email protected]> "Jim Brown"
He didn't commit any crime,
nor was he even accused of one.
Actually, if you look at what I /actually/ said, I made a side point
that in the UK you can be jailed for refusing to hand over encryption
keys to the relevant authorities.
I didn't say it was referring to customs and immigration
(though in fact it also applies there
- and no, I don't know of any cases when it has been applied there).
I also didn't say whether it applied to laptop or to communications.
I am aware this is a slight sidetrack from earlier posts,
but that's how Usenet conversations work.
If you arrive in the UK with a laptop, you will not be searched or asked to show its contents unless the border police
have good cause for suspicion.
But if they do search it, and find encrypted data, and they have suspicion that it is hiding a serious crime
(typically
terrorism or child porn), then they /will/ take both you and the
laptop into custody until they have found out what's on the disk.
They will arrest you first, and let the lawyers argue about the letter of the law afterwards.
Perhaps you will be released, or perhaps the scope of the law will be expanded
- it depends on the case.
And if you think I am exaggerating,
here's a couple of links.
These are all UK cases, not USA - simply because I am more familiar with them. I am not aware that the situation in
the USA is significantly different in principle
(though the details of the law varies),
and I'm sure that lots of other countries have the same or worse failings.
Note that in general I think the police in the UK (and presumably the
USA) do an excellent job under often very difficult circumstances. The situations described here are caused by
fear-mongering from a
political level leading to wide-ranging and abusive laws, and
paranoid public and police. And this is something that the UK
definitely acquired from the USA.
Arrested for suspiciously carrying a rucksack:
<http://www.globalissues.org/article/565/suspicious-behaviour-on-the-tube-london-underground>
Arrested for taking photos:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest>
Arrested for refusing to hand over a decryption key:
<http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/crime-refusal-to-de-crypt/>
Oh, I have plenty of sympathy for people wrongly accused of having
child porn. I also think a fair number of cases where people have
been charged with child porn are unreasonable (a fifteen year old
sending a nude picture of himself or herself to a boyfriend or
girlfriend is stupid, but not hardly a paedophile - even though it is
technically child porn).
I also believe there is good reason for saying that certain types of child porn can be of a help for paedophiles
- but that's for the psychiatrists to determine on an individual basis.
The current anti-porn laws in the UK are an appalling breach of the rights of adults - Queen Victoria would have
considered them draconian.
But in this case, the guy had a drive full of child porn pictures.
I may be misjudging him, having not followed the case - maybe there was a good reason.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.