Discussion on:

Encryption blurs admissible evidence in child porn case

Yup. It has next to no chance to reduce any type of crime. Unless the "agents" at these airports are 1337 H3>()rz in disguise.... but for 10.50/hour or so, I doubt it =/

Why is that reasonable? Why would they need to see it? If they want to swipe it for bomb materials that's fine. If they want to make sure it really works, okay. But there is nothing that they need to see on my laptop. Are we suspected of being "internet" terrorists? We can take down networks from anywhere, we don't need to cross any borders. It is another totally stupid thing from our government instead of working on real security.

discussing rights to protect yourself from unreasonable field interrogations.

Hard drive contents have netted many a terrorist because of hard drive contents.

But just the possession of "porno" like this is illegal almost/if not everywhere. If they can make you take your clothes off in an airport, I can see why they could look at digital information.

Crossing international boundries is a point of law I'm not familiar enough to judge by the constitutional litmus test.

Like car stops; you can resist the search but getting a judge order to complete the search is just a few moments in time for law enforcement.

Most security officers like these rely on voluntary disclosure; otherwise you can wait in a corner until the court order comes down.

Maybe its because my wife is Canadian, I dont really know, I have had my car checkedly only once, the laptop was there, but nothing was ever said about it. And we usually go up about twice a year and get pulled over because of my daughter..(making sure we are the "REAL" parents) by the documents they look at.

Maybe its because my wife is Canadian, I dont really know, I have had my car checked only once, the laptop was there, but nothing was ever said about it. And we usually go up about twice a year and get pulled over because of my daughter..(making sure we are the "REAL" parents) by the documents they look at.

I work in Mexico. When I travel to the US, I'd say about 50% of the times I've been asked to turn on the NB and PDA.
Going into Canada, every single time.
They never checked much in there, though, maybe just making sure it's actually a NB.

The person was in Canada. The laws are different in Canada. Correct me if I am wrong, I do not believe that Canada requires warrants in this situation and also in their courts you are guilty until proven innocent.

One other item to look at, the man is a Canadian citizen and therefore subject to Canadian Law as well as US law.

that make it easier for law enforcement on both sides of the border.

"also in their courts you are guilty until proven innocent" - not true

Canadian Law, like US law was built on the British common law. There are exceptions in Quebec with civil law, but thats not criminal law. Innocent until proven guilty IS and always has been the law in Canada. And I can tell you from experience that Canadian courts do hear precedents from US and British courts, if Canadian precedents do not exist.

We have a constitution, with privacy provisions.

Canada is probably more strict in the need for warrants than the US. We have electronic privacy laws far more strict than those in the US, especially since some of the laws passed post 9/11. There are currently great debate about Canadian information covered by our privacy laws sitting in US data centres (and able to be accessed by Homeland security).

Canadian laws are not enforced by the US and vice versa. Extradition is available by treaty between the two countries, but still requires a trial and has conditions. When I as a Canadian committ an offence in the US, it is up to the US to prosecute.

There is one exception made recently with regards to sex crimes and targeted at sexual tourists - if a Canadian has sex with someone considered underage by another country and that other country convicts him , he can be charged in Canada - this hasn't been tested yet in the courts to my knowledge.

James

You guys need to wake up and smell the coffee! Border agents ARE downloading entier contents of hard drives and cell phones AT WILL, and confiscating the devices, without making any charges at all. How private are your business records? Companies are requiring their travelers to wipe drives before hitting the airports ....

Source?

Is provide some type of link to back up your claim. Say an X border guard that provided testimony to the effect?

Otherwise, I think your full of chit.

Dan

but I find it believable. Not that there would necessarily be any further investigation of the data. *Some* of those customs guys do some pretty weird stuff. Like taking underwear. (?!)
I would definitely like to see some documentation on this one.

We all know, no matter how many checks and balances are put in place, someone will abuse their position. That does not make their actions either sanctioned or wide spread.

My take on his post was that it was both.

In either case, officially sanctioned or widespread abuse. Back it up with some evidence.

Thats where I was going with my statement.

Dan

Found partial answers in some of the links provided in Dij's, Dumphhrey's, and your posts.

I thought Long Sam should have backed up the particulars of his statement himself, though. I would also like to know roughly how prevalent the act of mirroring the contents of electronic devices is.

even if these inapproriatly named files are recipes for gum drop buttons, the authorities are in place to remove threats. I'd love to provide an "addage" to clarify the issue, but the OBVIOUS IS REASONABLE DOUBT.

I can see firing up the laptop to make sure it hasn't had it's innards swapped out with a bomb, but the files on that laptop are not something they would/could/should have access to at any point. (we are still talking about border crossings, right?)

that is a crime in any country to transport child-pornograpy across internationl borders?

you ARE in possession of said porn, why do they need to see files? It use to be illegal to make searches like that prior to the Patriot act, you needed probable cause (In America, I am woefully ignorant of Canadian law).

It is also a crime to smuggle weapons grade radioactive maerial, but to the best of my knowledge, they do not geiger counter the tires of your car...

that they are using the patriot act to look for pedophiles?

pretty much anything. Border guards always have, it is just that their powers are more expansive now. Anything incriminating can be used, obviously, it's just that you may find certain normal rights stripped from you at the border, if someone decides such.

to look at the files. If he would have refused; and the officer thought it was worth it they could just set him aside until the court order came down, or eject him from entering in the first place.

Just like in car searches under such circumstances, if you think the judge erred, you can always appeal. There again there is no guarantee the judge will hop to on every case.

In every field search where the arrested refuses to cooperate, it is a coin toss just how the judiciary will act in that particular instance.

I suspect the judges that handle border cases are pretty hardcore since 911.

The Feds n'force their will, and in any/all encryption methods available, a "backdoor" password which is available ONLY to the Feds in a court order which can unlock said suspected computer/hard drive and have a look to determine what is contained on the hard drive. of course now, what happens when that ubersekret federal password is released on the internet, basically making all of the encryption software available -- USELESS!

I guess then if this country is headed in that kind of direction, then have a mandatory death sentence for anyone accused for releasing said information. Then lets take it one step further, death sentence for anyone even SUSPECTED of releasing that password. And of course child porn pervs included in that muckety muck.

OK, I went I went overboard. In this case, he cooperated, and in that process it was revealed that he was carrying (SICKO!) child porn over the boarder. In this case it is no different than getting pulled over by the cops and during that stop you agree to get your car searched. They find your stash, you are busted. Hash it out in court.

We can give the death sentence to anyone who releases the 'uber' password. And paradoxically, to anyone who 'forgets' or "doesn't want to" release the password for encrypted systems without this backdoor.

If he's in another country and did this electronically by hacking fed systems, we'll have to start a war and bomb or invade them if they won't co-operate. Of course they may have used TOR type onion routers to obfusticate their actual location. So we'll have to kill all the operators of onion router sites. (Since they have no way to trace the traffic).

Then we can invade any country that hosts onion routers in a data center.

We'll have pull records from local ISPs like a 'Death Squad' version of the RIAA record industry looking for stolen music. Except, being the feds with 'license to kill' they will be able to gun down anyone who looks at them wrong.

Next, as you mention we'll have to kill anyone SUSPECTED of releasing this info. For convenience, the Feds will add in anyone else they want to kill, who's to stop them? (WE MUST SAVE THE KIDS FROM SICKO PORN!)

Finally, we'll have to kill anyone THINKING of releasing the password. WOn't matter if they actually have access to the password to release it, tho we'll start with those people.

We'll hook up the new device that combines a brain scan with questioning. You record the brain activity associated with known questions, such as showing a picture of someone you know they have seen. Then you show a picture of the victim for example, and the brain pattern will register either recognition or not, instead of depending on un-reliable pulse rates, etc.

Then, since people in other countries will still be making encryption progs WITHOUT the backdoor (e.g. the jihadist website hosted in Miami has released strong encryption for terrorists to use), we'll have to take over all other countries that won't co-operate to stop this. This will allow an all-powerful 'WORLD-GOV' to 'FREE US FROM WORRY!'.

Finally to keep with this theme (and speed checkout at grocery stores, airport lines, and admission to sports stadiums) I'd suggest tatooing barcodes on everyone's foreheads. Occasional probs with this: If you recall that bank ad where a banker had grabbed the forehead of a custoemr and was trying to 'scan' their barcode, complaining "this one won't scan".

THis will all have to be run by a new federal beurocracy, the MINISTRY of RIGHT_THINK. They will happily monitor everyone's communications. Since if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to fear from wiretaps or camera's everywhere, everyone will submit to cameras in their residence and cars. Possibly also brain implants.

Thanks for starting this idea!

Except, being the feds with 'license to kill' they will be able to gun down anyone who looks at them wrong.

There is no RIGHT way for them to look at you. They should know to keep their head down. You should kill them for even raising their head. Now stop being such a softie and get out there and finish the job!

;o)

Dan

As a libertarian running under Republican, tho appears his chances have now gone.

'Abolish the fed' was one of my favs. WHo needs an agency that is basically doubletalk and charged with fixing a problem it created by the only tool it has available, the same one that created the problem, inflating the money supply.

And not evenly, not $100 to everyone, but instead to large bankers who are too stupid to know that house loan mills lied about alot of people's qualifications, and who don't have the vaguest idea that they are in risk from investments in derivatives, which even they don't understand.


However, if you vote for me, I'll promise:

One hell of a 'tea party' in washington.
Being of libertarian persuasion, it might even include some 'ahem..' tea.

Not even in his wildest dreams. Populist, maybe, but not libertarian.

as president on libertarian ticket a few years ago

not libertarian. My apologies, I was confused.

you have my vote!!!

i'll bring the....:::CLASSIFIED FROM FEDERAL SNOOPING:::... and YES I FORGOT MY ENCRYPTION PASSWORD!!

RFID dust.

kind of like a gang tatoo - say your a member,
in this case of the '666 gang'.

(all praise the leader)

But I would prefer it on my forearm or something.

for that post!

I noted that many of the posters focused on whether or not the government can/should be able to force you to divulge a password; and more so, do they have the right to examine the contents of your computer. What many seem to forget is that our ability to keep aspects of our personal lives, or business efforts confidential are slowly being eroded. Just this weekend, I read about a defendant who was tracked by his cell phone. The police somehow obtained his cell number, and served a court order on his service provider to require the service provider to track the cell user's location and provide that information in real time. The fourth amendment provides for the requirement of a warrant to search our homes and businesses and personal papers. Police agencies and prosecutors can and sometimes abuse their investigational authority. I feel that there needs to be an addition to the fourth amendment making the right to privacy more firmly defined.

Probable cause, they had a court order. That is NOT an invasion of privacy.

That is totally justifiable.

Dan

device waiting to happen. Even with out a GPS buitin, your location can be triagulated...

But, as you yourself said, they received a court order to track his phone. Seems legal and above board to me.

Having your stuff searched or having to give up a password are all about privacy.

As to the defendant, the police have every right to track him down by available means, and they did get a court order. Perhaps if you expand on this, we may understand why you think that the order was in bad faith or simply "rubber stamped" without due consideration.

Let's think about this for a moment. Is it possible for some guy at the border to have that much computer knowledge? If so, why is he guarding?
I suspect the DA had something on his desktop that made it obvious.
I have power cycled my laptop on several occasions to see if it would explode at the airport, all they ever saw or wanted to see was the login banner.

1.) Criminals are stupid
2.) Computers can be as deadly as a gun. They may be used to introduce a virus into a hospital system or a 911 system a bunch of ways.
3.) Crossing the border. There are many places to cross back and forth into Canada and Mexico without even seeing a Border Guard.
4.) You should expect your computer to be searched. Do not carry data. Back it up on line. (Toronto Star article about)
5.) Yeah, this is Security Theatre
6.) Just take the mirror image to the University of Vermont or Burlington and make it a college project. I know lots of profs and students that would love the challenge. Why force the guy to incriminate himself? A supercomputer would only take hours. Gov't would rather force the guy...
7.) Great Discussion but the Patriot Act and Ron Paul have little to do with this man's stupidity. Or the Government's.

The real question in both of these cases: the child porn case and the border guard case : is the right to privacy. I believe as a US citizen I have the right to encrypt my documents. Those who have toured Mt Vernon know that George Washington encrypted his documents. I believe that giving up my right to privacy will not make me safer. I find makers and consumers of child porn to be disgusting and pariahs. "Those that give up liberty for security will end up with neither and deserve neither." -Ben Franklin.

While the first person to test existing law has an unsavory rationale, I have to ask- would you care more if the files under fire were private business documents? Would you feel differently if they were personal documents between you and your SO? Would you feel differently if they were personal documents between you and your "cell"?

Because of my feelings, I can understand that cops on the scene might make different calls, but once this gets to the courts, I don't think the lines are fuzzy at all. Whether it's terrorism, child porn or industrial espionage, if a file name provides "reasonable suspicion," confiscate the device. Whether or not the owner of the device has the legal right to withhold the password likewise seems a straightforward application of the Fifth Amendment. I don't understand Orin Kerr's reasoning, so I'm going to go read the Globe and Mail article. ... That didn't help; I still don't understand what his reasoning could possibly be, and TiggerTwo already included [I should have expected it!] all the pertinent information.

Orin Kerr, a law professor and computer crime expert at George Washington University, said the distinction that favours the government in Boucher???s case is that he initially co-operated and let the agent look at some of the laptop???s contents.

"The government can???t make you give up your encryption password in most cases. But if you tell them you have a password and that it unlocks that computer, then at that point you no longer have the privilege," he said.

It looks clearly like Boucher chose to voluntarily provide some of his "papers, and effects" when he had the option not to [Fourth Amendment]. How Kerr deduces that he is now legally obligated to waive his Fifth Amendment right to not be a witness against himself, is a true mystery.

They should confiscate the computer, and hope they can crack the encryption before the statute of limitations expires. The same would hold for reasonable suspicion of terrorism or of a commercial crime, I hope.

If I go to the trouble of encrypting files it's because I want privacy. We all agree that child porn is a bad thing but I'm more worried about a government using encryption than someone concealling child porn. Ask yourself this question: How many innocent people has child porn killed?

as no longer innocent, not many.

Did you really mean to say that ?

It sort of comes out, well bad.

"Ask yourself this question: How many innocent people has child porn killed?"

It doesn't matter how many people have been killed, it's still a crime. How many minor children has it mentally, emotionally and socially affected for the rest of their lives?

We all agree that child porn is a bad thing...

Yes, we do; some of us believe it is a conversation-stopper, and trumps everybody else's rights. I don't.