It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by thetruth777
Everything that has ever been on your PC is stored in a log. It can be accessed even if the files are deleted. That includes all websites visited (ATS, INFOWARS). To take care of that issue, try installing and using "System Cleaner 5".
Originally posted by chise61
Originally posted by jprophet420
Thats at the border. I would expect it to be reasonable that If I flew from lets say Denver to LA at LAX they might check my laptop for any number of malicious things, as we all well know can be on there. Kiddie porn, plans for any number illicit things or activities, etc etc. If I had a bulging duffle bag I would expect it be suspect to any number of plots until proven innocent.
Why would that be considered reasonable, does just the fact that a person is traveling make them suspect of being a criminal and give probable cause ?
I'm sorry, but that's where you're wrong, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
edited to correct mistake.
[edit on 13/7/08 by chise61]
Originally posted by thetruth777
I wonder: will encrypting certain files protect them from third-party eyes? Or can the DHS penetrate 128-bit encryption?
news.cnet.com
A federal judge in Vermont has ruled that prosecutors can't force a criminal defendant accused of having illegal images on his hard drive to divulge his PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) passphrase.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerome Niedermeier ruled that a man charged with transporting child pornography on his laptop across the Canadian border has a Fifth Amendment right not to turn over the passphrase to prosecutors. The Fifth Amendment protects the right to avoid self-incrimination.
Michael T. Arnold, flying into Los Angeles from the Philippines with his trusty laptop in hand. A customs officer decided to take a look-see at the files on his computer. Arnold wasn't a suspected terrorist. The laptop didn't set off alarms that it emitted the odor of plastic explosive. The customs officer was just checking, because he could.
The LA district court judge, Dean Pregerson, had it right.
“Electronic storage devices function as an extension of our own memory,” Judge Pregerson wrote, in explaining why the government should not be allowed to inspect them without cause. “They are capable of storing our thoughts, ranging from the most whimsical to the most profound.”
The Circuit, Liptak predicts, views it differently.
The three judges who heard the arguments in October in the appeal of his decision seemed persuaded that a computer is just a container and deserves no special protection from searches at the border. The same information in hard-copy form, their questions suggested, would doubtless be subject to search.
This simplistic assessment is yet another example of remembering the rubric while forgetting the rationale, a favorite endeavor of courts when trying to avoid any novel thought and hide behind the wall of precedent.
While border searches have long been a free for all, it developed that way for a reason. The rubric was that there was no expectation of privacy at the border, thus letting everyone crossing a border know that they were subject to search.
If there is no privacy as to the content of a computer hard drive, will the next logical step be for the government to download all hard drives at a person passes through customs for inspection at a more convenient time, thus letting the government maintain a complete record of the contents of every laptop that crosses a border? If it's encrypted (and you're not as stupid as Boucher by giving it away for free), can customs either command that you enter the password or refuse you entrance to the United States? Or can they simply impound your computer upon refusal?
The Circuit, Liptak predicts, views it differently.
The three judges who heard the arguments in October in the appeal of his decision seemed persuaded that a computer is just a container and deserves no special protection from searches at the border. The same information in hard-copy form, their questions suggested, would doubtless be subject to search.
This simplistic assessment is yet another example of remembering the rubric while forgetting the rationale, a favorite endeavor of courts when trying to avoid any novel thought and hide behind the wall of precedent.
Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by metamagic
[
Government, you can not have it both ways, that's a self-negating dictate.
Originally posted by jprophet420
This is where we are having the communications breakdown.
1. In the instance where it is on a border, the answer is simple. The laws of probable cause are not in effect.
2. In the domestic instance, when you purchase the ticket you agree to the airlines terms and conditions. They reserve the right to search you. "By clicking this button you agree to the terms of service blah blah blah". Caviat Emptor.
Originally posted by metamagic
Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by metamagic
Government, you can not have it both ways, that's a self-negating dictate.
I do agree that they cannot have it both ways, and many legal experts do not agree with this "laptop as suitcase" concept either. The problem is that technology has advanced faster than the law and everyone is scrambling to write the new rules. Until that is done, everyone will be arguing about which old ones best apply. Don't expect consensus.
Originally posted by Zenskeptical
PLEASE TELL ME
can i get in trouble at the border for having illegal music and movies??!!!!
i need to know!
U.S. of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security charged with regulating and facilitating international trade, collecting import duties, and enforcing U.S. trade laws.
Its other primary mission is preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. CBP is also responsible for apprehending individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, stemming the flow of illegal drugs and other contraband, protecting the United States agricultural and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases, and protecting American businesses from theft of their intellectual property.SOURCE
Originally posted by greeneyedleo
I have a question, and I'm not even sure if it can be answered here.
I just crossed the US/Canadian border TWO times in a 48 hr period, this weekend. As I'm leaving Alaska by vehicle and you have to cross into Canada, then back into the states.
I have THREE computers in my vehicle (and a butt load of other stuff). They never once looked at my computers.
Custom was VERY easy and it was a pleasant experience.
So, who are the people that are having their laptops looked at and seized? Because it wasn't me.
Ed. spelling
[edit on 14-7-2008 by greeneyedleo]