Proof that the U.S. is dumb.Follow

You are correct. I mistook you for someone earlier who said it was a violation of the 4th amendment. In my defense, you did state that it was a "violation of rights", which I took to be agreement with the aforementioned statement.

You're correct that you didn't specifically state that it was a violation of the fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, so I guess I'll cut you some slack... ;)



Yup. And I wouldn't send even that across on a computer hard drive either.

If you have truly sensitive data, you do what's called a "tape out" in engineering circles. The name comes from the days when you'd put the design for the new widget you just made onto an actual magnetic tape. You'd then ship the tape to wherever you were sending it to.

More modern alternatives include say putting the encrypted data onto a DVD or CDrom. You can carry that with you, and the customs guys can look through your laptop all day long and you have no problems. They can ask to look at the contents of the DVD, at which point you can say it's encrypted data for work. If they really want to mess with you, they could attempt to get the information, get a warrant, hold the DVD, etc. But that's what civil courts are for.

Shipping data is the best way to go. Anything more sensitive then a presentation gets shipped. If the presentation has NDA stuff on it, you can encrypt it, or heavens, put it on your email and download it when you get where you're going. sFTp works just fine as well. There are a dozen ways to get data from where you are to where you're going without having it in open form on your laptop.




I'd define "low hanging fruit" in this case as the guy with a shortcut on his desktop labeled "kiddie ****" or "my terrorist buddy list", pointing to exactly that data...


What did you think that meant?

Why would you be "negotiating" without an NDA, but need sensitive company data?

You don't show up to the first meeting between two companies with the full IP of your company in your briefcase. At least no intelligent person/company does that. You're arguing a case that simply doesn't exist. Once agreements are reached *then* you start sharing sensitive information. Until that point, there is absolutely no reason to bring any, unless you want it to be stolen for some reason...




Based on the cited articles, that would seem to be exactly how they're defining it. Guy arrested for child pornography on his laptop would seem to fit pretty nicely. All the examples I've heard are of this sort. Custom's officer fires up the laptop, looks in a few directories, and finds something illegal. That's "low hanging fruit"


You're doing the typical liberal thing where you run around yelling that the sky is falling while going on about made up scenarios of "what might happen", while somehow ignoring all the actual examples. Funny that...

It's okay when Gbaji does it because he follows it up with "Sure, it's a slippery slope but I just said it so now it's a valid argument".

Sure. And in that case, you transport the data on some kind of data device (usb, cd, dvd, etc) in encrypted format. Or, you put it on your ftp site (encrypted again), and then grab it later. Or, you send it to your own email account (encrypted) and grab it later. Or, you have a trusted third party escrow your data for you and avoid the issue entirely.


I didn't say who you had to send the information to. Just that anyone who carries around sensitive company data in unencrypted format on their laptop and thinks that this is just fine and dandy is asking for bad things to happen, regardless of what any customs agent does or does not do.


I guess I'm not getting your problem. Before laptop computers and such, how exactly do you think people carried around sensitive documents? Custom's agents could look through their papers then too. And guess what? If they opened up your briefcase and a bunch of pictures of naked children posed in sexual positions spilled out, you'd get charged with possession of child pornography.

How exactly is this different? Oh yeah. It's not...

I'm on my side! Muahahahaha!!! :)

/e tosses e-data into the air
Fly and be free...



"keep" is relative though. This is electronic data. They can make copies. I imagine that unless they find something suspicious, no one's going to bother though. It's not like they're plugging every device into a huge data vacuum and copying everything every single person has on every phone, pda, or laptop. For one thing, it would be ridiculously expensive. For another, it would take 10 hours to get through the line.


It just looks like a bunch of hoopla over speculation of what customs agents "could do". Well, guess what? They already "can" detain you just because they don't like the way you look. They "can" make you miss your flight. They can force you to go through a strip search (and possible body cavity search). All without a warrant, and based on one of them thinking you might be hiding something.

This is how it's always been. I think the average person is far more bothered by their luggage being searched then their laptop computer.

I think the average person is far more bothered by their luggage being searched then their laptop computer.

Probably not. People have more of an expectation of privacy with their computers. Not a justified one, I agree this isn't a big deal, but certainly the expectation.

Unless the search has any reasonable chance of protecting the traveling public, there is no reason to extend the search in that direction. Ever.

It is abject cowardice to allow this to occur. I'm glad to see such near universal condemnation.

And to the cowards defending this type of egregious violations, please move. Free nations are no lands for the weak. If you are too scared of naughty bomb throwers, hide your sorry skin elsewhere.

From the get-go I've referred to 'encrypted' data.

This story doesn't say "If your data's encrypted, you're safe". So if I have a USB Stick, DVD, or HDD that's encrypted, and I'm allowed to tell US Customs "Mind your own business", it's a different story. If they're allowed to require me to decrypt, it's outrageous.

Hence my question about what constitutes "Low hanging fruit".

Why don't you just post a photo of your "I'm a fUcking ******" badge?

They're not allowed to require you to decrypt. Not without a warrant. See. Because in the US, we have this thing called the 5th amendment...

EDIT: Correction. Technically, not even *with* a warrant can they compel you to provide a combination or decryption key.




Yup. Which means folks with unencrypted child pornography on their laptop computer. You know... Like the guy used as the example in the article itself...


Or are you confused by the metaphor itself? Thought it was pretty obvious...

Edited, May 7th 2008 1:42pm by gbaji

He's failed to answer that from my 1st response.

We may need a sledge-hammer for him to understand the question.

If the ruling says they have the right to access my data, I want to know 'what' data. Unless it's specified in the ruling about the encrypted status, I assume the worst.

That's what I've been saying for the last 5 posts...



Edited, May 7th 2008 4:02pm by gbaji

It's the principle of the matter.