Decius wrote:
Is this really necessary to protect children, or is it a political system running amuck with an emotionally charged issue?

You really need to ask? I'm as anti-child-porn as anyone, but the "War On _____" mentality is absurd. As you say, the specter of a mandatory (and long) jail term because i got some kind of malware or accidentally clicked something is bullshit. I'm not even saying it's happening, or will happen, but the fear of that is gonna make me not want to travel. I call that a chilling effect, and I think it's dangerous.

Practically speaking, if i refuse the search, do i just get kicked off a flight, or do i go directly to jail (at which point they do the search anyway)?

Also, I notice the cnet article has a quick little sentence that says "Here are some tips on using encryption to protect your privacy." and links out to a politech discussion. I didn't find a lot of that helpful. If you've got a bunch of encrypted areas, are they gonna just pass it or force you to unlock that shit? I have FileVault enabled at present on my mac, which i suppose is pretty secure... does that give me a pass too? Doubt it very much.

Real solutions? Maybe a Red Pill (discussed previously) to a hidden, encrypted iteration of the OS? Also, I recall reading about a software package, forgot now what it's called, for linux, that hid mutiple layers of encrypted file systems under your current one. From each level, only the one "below" it could be opened. The theory was that the po-po could tell that you had this, and therefore probably some encrypted shit, but there was no way to tell how many levels deep it goes. So you could have perfectly innocent data (credit card numbers, passwords) at level one and indisputably claim that's all you got even if there are 6 more levels below it.

I'm not an expert so I don't know how well it worked or even if it's theoretically sound, but I suspect the market for plausibly deniable encryption is about to go up. Not to mention ultra-paranoid system configurations.

I've had a large archive drive subjected to forensics (thanks to abaddon, heh :) ) and even though I'm 100% clean, i was paranoid. it sucks and if this is the what i can look forward to, my laptop's staying home next time i travel, which is just a huge imposition.

fuck the police state.

I'm also completely against mandatory minimum sentences, but that's another topic for another time.

k wrote:
Practically speaking, if i refuse the search, do i just get kicked off a flight, or do i go directly to jail (at which point they do the search anyway)?

I don't think you can refuse a customs search. Best case you have to return to the country of origin. That was one of the issues at trial here. As the defendent hadn't actually gotten in to Canada their lawyers argued that U.S. customs couldn't search him because he technically hadn't left. That arguement was rejected by the court. He was in no man's land. Even if you aren't in that situation, you can't stay forever in your country of origin on a tourist visa, and its likely that U.S. customs would inform the origin country of your refusal. They might decide not to let you back in, and as you aren't a citizen, you can't force them to.

If you've got a bunch of encrypted areas, are they gonna just pass it or force you to unlock that shit?

I don't think it has ever come up. Ultimately, how could they compell you to disclose the password absent a law which allows them to penalize you for failing to do so?

Real solutions? Maybe a Red Pill (discussed previously) to a hidden, encrypted iteration of the OS? Also, I recall reading about a software package, forgot now what it's called, for linux, that hid mutiple layers of encrypted file systems under your current one.

IMHO if our policies force innocent people to run such things because they are afraid of the government our policies have failed.

fuck the police state.

Here, Here.

Decius wrote:

I don't think it has ever come up. Ultimately, how could they compell you to disclose the password absent a law which allows them to penalize you for failing to do so?

Well, I'd like to accept that, but I can imagine some sort of generic "non-cooperation" catchall in the existing laws. At least they might have some detention capacity, like not letting you leave for X hours (days?) or seizure of the laptop and a citation or something. As you implied, I don't trust that the application of laws in this arena is likely to fair or rational and the result is that i don't want to fly internationally, at least not with my computer.

Also, I'm concerned that it's only a matter of time before this authority expands and pretty soon the TSA monkeys are doing it for domestic flights too. can you imagine the disruption? will people see it as a violation of constitutionally protected rights, or will they roll over? I'm not confident.

Blah. Makes me unhappy.

p.s. a bit of grammar nazism, you meant to say "hear-hear!" or "hear! hear!". The phrase decends from the English parliament, where it was originally "Hear him!" to express assent or support. According to my Oxford, sometime in the 18th century it became "Hear! Hear!" as we currently say it.

k wrote:
As you implied, I don't trust that the application of laws in this arena is likely to fair or rational and the result is that i don't want to fly internationally, at least not with my computer.

Well, its worth noting that worse things can happen to you without a warrant at a U.S. Border stop, such as a body cavity search. This is the first case I've heard of where a computer was searched. However, I can imagine in the future that limited computer searches could be performed in a short period of time with the right proceedures, and that would lead to more of them.

Also, I'm concerned that it's only a matter of time before this authority expands and pretty soon the TSA monkeys are doing it for domestic flights too.

That can't happen without a Constitutional amendment. The only reason TSA is able to search things is to protect flight security. Hard drive contents obviously don't impact flight security.

p.s. a bit of grammar nazism, you meant to say "hear-hear!" or "hear! hear!".

For some reason when I wrote this I thought I recalled writing "hear hear" on this site and having grammar nazis tell me it's "here, here." Apparently I had mis-recalled the conversation.