Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Activist who supports soldier in WikiLeaks case sues U.S. over seizure of laptop

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 12:46 AM
Original message
Activist who supports soldier in WikiLeaks case sues U.S. over seizure of laptop
Source: The Washington Post

The co-founder of a group advocating for an Army private accused of leaking classified material to the antisecrecy Web site WikiLeaks is suing the U.S. government for unlawfully seizing his computer and copying its contents to aid a criminal investigation of the site.

Computer scientist David Houses laptop was taken in November at an international airport by two Department of Homeland Security agents without a hint that it contained evidence of wrongdoing, but rather because House was a vocal supporter of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the accused leaker, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged in a complaint to be filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston.

The case, the civil liberties advocates contend, is a troubling instance of how the governments more aggressive border search policies in the post-Sept. 11 era are being used not to enforce customs or immigration laws, but to advance government investigations of third parties and to collect information about peoples political activities.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/activist_who_sup...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Newsjock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. The president can choose to end this
He does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. This is my line in the sand as far as Obama is concerned....
It says all I need to know about his character.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. i think he should get involved in this case right after reading Orly Taitz's
appeals regarding his birth certificate. The President has better things to do than read meritless lawsuits.

What, if any, specific harm does Mr. House allege?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heywood J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Uh, sounds like the loss of a laptop. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. He got it back. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. the word privacy means nothing to you?
Edited on Fri May-13-11 06:25 AM by trud
How about unreasonable search and seizure?

I have all my financial records on my laptop, and personal email.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Privacy? If you go to an international border, your right is
limited.

Has been, since colonial times.

Would you be foolish enough to bring your personal info to an international border.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
go west young man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. So everyone who travels to another country should never travel
with their laptop? Or anything else with personal info on it? Who's
sounding foolish here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Um, Yes. It's sort of like sex toys. If you don't want Special Branch looking at your dildoes,
Edited on Fri May-13-11 08:08 AM by msanthrope
you don't travel with them.

If you don't want people looking at your personal records--then you don't travel with them. This does not mean you cannot have a laptop. This just means you might want to remove whatever child porn, offshore account information, drug mule schedules, and Al-Qaeda newsletters you've got on your hard drive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
72. You're talking about a national security state --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #72
100. No, I'm talking about normal, everyday Customs--
Travel internationally sometime. If you have sex toys in your luggage, woe to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rexcat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #19
68. It is not an issue if the hard drive is encrypted!
They can copy my hard drive but it is encrypted. They won't be able to read any files they copy. If you are using Win 7 business or ultimate edition you can use BitLocker or go to www.truecrypt.org and use their free open source encryption software. If the government deems you a menace or threat and you travel overseas, when you come back through US Customs they will copy the hard drive of any computers you have in your possession. They have been doing this for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heywood J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #68
77. That's a false sense of security. In the computing world,
the adage that locks only keep out honest people is even more true than in real life. Encryption is really not so hard to break. Special-purpose machines are constructed to break various forms of it. DES was brute-forced in 1998 in two days for $200,000. That was a non-profit group with limited funds doing so to make a point. Encryption may be stronger today, but the integrated circuits used to break it are also stronger and cheaper. Encryption is also only as good as the algorithm and math behind it - ask the HDCP creators. Do you really trust Microsoft to be infallible on security?

Any agency of the US government has access to significantly more funds and parts that may not be generally available. I would be very, very surprised if there was not some special-purpose machine that could crack your BitLockered or TrueCrypted drive in a matter of hours or a handful of days, while you may be made to wait around for it. Such a machine won't exist at every port of entry, but it won't need to. They would just send a copy of your encrypted data to it, while you're detained pending the outcome.

Mathematically, the only form of encryption that keeps out more than casual viewers is a one-time pad. Even then, it does so only under some circumstances (e.g. truly random numbers) and is very easy to screw up. Every other form is like a safe - rated in terms of how long it will take the safecracker to open it, not whether he will be able to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intaglio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-11 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #68
95. IIRC it's an offense to withold your encryption key
If the agents ask for it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. And that kind of thinking is as anti-freedom, anti-American as any I've heard.
Edited on Fri May-13-11 08:17 AM by loudsue
The freedoms that Americans founded this country on have been abused and squeezed until there is hardly a drop left.

....At least, there's not much left for average Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. Um, "Border Search Exception" doctrine was an act of the First Congress.** Way back in 1789.
It's as American as it gets.


**43 Act of July 31, 1789, ch.5 23-24, 1 Stat. 29, 43 (current version at 19 U.S.C. 482, 1582).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #22
30. Unfortunately the poster is correct
There is no right to privacy etc at the international borders. It has always been that way. Digital data is considered just like hard copy and subject to copying and review. Been that way a very long time but people are only hearing about it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riftaxe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #30
106. And once you swear oath of service, you forego
Most of the rights, a civilian has.

While i don't agree with the necessity of that in it's entirety, that's just the way it is :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-11 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #106
112. Does this oath of service include a provision that you will cover up your government's war crimes?
I would think the "all enemies foreign and domestic" includes those who fail to do their own duty by claiming one policy to the public while pursuing another, or by violating international and domestic law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #22
49. welcome to NU-DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #49
102. Where we have no care for what the laws actually are or how they came about
Only in how we feel things should be.


NU-DU indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #22
52. yep, but no one cares. USA! USA! USA! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
39. Works both ways though ...
> Privacy? If you go to an international border, your right is limited.

If you're outbound from the USA across an international border,
your right to survive is limited as there is no acknowledgement
of "sovereign territory" from your not-so-tame gatekeepers ...

Lots of places in the world where the cruise missile will suddenly hit
and there isn't even going to be an apology afterwards for any kids
who were unfortunate enough to be within the "collateral damage" radius.

Woo-hoo! Team America F*ck Yeah!

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
73. These times include body cavity searches -- and who knows where we're going with that -- !!
Edited on Fri May-13-11 09:57 PM by defendandprotect
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #73
101. Well, Body cavity searches are legally considered 'non-routine'
so you actually do need a reason to perform those searches...

The federal law basically breaks down into routine and non-routine searches. The search of information is considered routine. The search of your body? Non-routine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #8
34. How about violation of the 4th Amendment?
Or do you reckon the cops can enter your home and rummage around all they like, without a warrant, just so long and there is no 'specific harm' done to the place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. Border Search Doctrine has been the law since 1789. It predates and is an exception to the 4th.
Seriously. You can look it up.

Border Search Exception Doctrine--

First Congress, 43 Act of July 31, 1789, ch.5 23-24, 1 Stat. 29, 43 (current version at 19 U.S.C. 482, 1582).

The Fourth wasn't passed 'til 1791. Border Search remained an exception.


No, I'm not saying that the police can come into my house, without a warrant. But I'm not so stupid as to think that the rules that apply to my home and curtilage apply to an international border.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riftaxe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #34
107. Military personnel have limited 4th amendmant rights
Even in a civilian court, arguing 4th would lead to an unpleasant verdict, in a court martial it will not even be raised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
63. [self-delete]
Edited on Fri May-13-11 02:52 PM by snot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
51. this and a few other things..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Hey, let spies run free, why not!
It's not a simple issue.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. It is a simple issue,
if you fancy the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Search at the border is constitutional Look it up. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
67. So this man was convicted of spying before his laptop was taken?
That's...interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #67
88. Convictions aren't required to gather evidence.
That's a horse/cart kind of thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #88
97. Fools behind keyboards who accuse Manning's supporters as being "spies" is all that's needed, though
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riftaxe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #67
108. He did it in theatre, while all communications
Edited on Mon May-16-11 02:23 AM by Riftaxe
are monitored, those in a combat theatre are doubly so. As far as the facts go, it is highly doubtful he is not guilty or that the guilt can not be proven to the merits required by a court martial.

My grandfather died in WW2, but we still have letters that are redacted from him. If you ever want to read about a true clusterfudge, read about the Leopoldville.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
70. Are you accusing House or Wikileaks of being spies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #70
89. There's reason to suspect they're trafficking in secrets, no?
By their own admissions, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. None whatsoever. Publication is not spying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riftaxe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #92
109. So if publicize your name, address, CC numbers and SS
it's not spying...good to know...Tom(just guesing, or am I...) :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. Yet another case of not distinguishing between personal privacy and official secrecy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-11 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #111
114. Actually, video of David House and Bradley Manning together was just released--
This was taken during the time Manning carried the Iraq War Logs to America, while on leave from Iraq.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/bradley-manni... /

Check out the timeline, here--

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/05/a-narrativ... /

Which probably gave rise to this--

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-23-11 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #114
115. So? You could have shot video of Ellsberg meeting with NY Times reporters...
or of Woodward and Bernstein with their "Deep Throats."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
74. Again -- it is American government doing the spying and wiretapping, bugging ....
when do we begin to take that into account?

And how much body privacy do we even how left when a woman arrested for

a speeding ticket can be subjected to a body cavity search -- evidently on

the whim of an arresting officer -- or the police station?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
28. Border Search Doctrine has been the law of the land since 1789.
Why, pray tell, should President Obama end that?

First Congress, 43 Act of July 31, 1789, ch.5 23-24, 1 Stat. 29, 43 (current version at 19 U.S.C. 482, 1582).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
75. Another reason why the rw Drug War should be called off --
if not, no telling where that could take us --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
84. No he can't. His bosses won't let him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riftaxe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
105. There is no political advantage for doing that
remember politicians have hearts colder then ice, and will only move for profit.

Besides, what goes unsaid is that he is "More" then likely guilty of the charges proffered against him, and no one bets on a losing horse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. self delete.
Edited on Fri May-13-11 12:51 AM by Tarheel_Dem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. Good, they need to be reigned in. They had no reason to
take that computer. And now we find out that Bin Laden was able to send emails for years and the US could not detect them, so they spy on all of us anyhow.

It's our fault in the end, because we tolerate it. I do admire those like House, who refuse to be bullied by them and who stand up to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. Customs doesn't need a reason to perform searches.
Electronic data falls into the routine search category.

You may not like the law, but routine searches need no reason or cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downwinder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. Repeal the emergency laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Good one.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Border search exception in the US is in its 3rd century.
Edited on Fri May-13-11 07:00 AM by msanthrope
I don't think it's going away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. The constitutional issue is not as simple as you suggest.
The government cannot use the border search exception as an excuse for examining information about people's political activities and associations, or even to get around the warrant requirement in a criminal investigation. Whether seizing and searching that laptop was constitutional depends on why it was seized and what information was collected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #25
33. There is no First Amendment exception to Border Search Doctrine. You might want to read the
Edited on Fri May-13-11 09:23 AM by msanthrope
cases that cover that particular issue.***

In both cases, the idea of a First Amendment exception to the Border Search Doctrine was rejected, soundly. Mr. House will not get a circuit split out of the 1st--I think it unlikely that 1st will even consider classifying this type of search as 'non-routine,' much less find that there's a 1st amendment exception.

***United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005)
United States v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008)

I suspect that a sister case, Abidor v. Napolitano, filed in the 2nd is soon going to be dismissed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #33
53. I recognize that the legal precedents on border searches
have thus far (and wrongly in my opinion) favored the government rather than civil liberties. But no one doubts that there are constitutional limits to the government's right to search at the border. (Some limits are even recognized in the cases you mention.) Hypothetically, if the government were to target specific individuals for border searches for the purpose of discovering someone's political associations, I can't imagine that any court would say that the First Amendment hadn't been breached. Of course, that's merely a hypothetical, and I confess that I don't know enough about the particfulars of the actual case at hand to say whether Fourth Amendment or First Amendment constitutional limits have been breached, or whether the court is apt to rule that such limits have been breached. I do hope that eventually more limits to the border search doctrine are recognized by the courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. I think if you read the 9th's decision, they answer your question about
the 1st Amendment, and targeting individuals.

Yes. It is permissible to target potential terrorists (child pornographers, too) at the border. There's no First Amendment rights at the border.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. yes, but not potential members of legitimate political organizations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #57
66. House is not a potential anything, other than friend of Manning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #66
76. And -- just coincidentally -- a "friend" of Bradley Manning's was selected at random ... hmmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-11 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #66
113. Actually, no---House is a material witness in Bradley Manning's case and a potential suspect in the
VA grand jury matter---

House was definitely a potential suspect and/or material witness to the handing over of classified material.

Bradley apparently hand-carried the Iraq War Logs to America in Jan/Feb 2010--visiting 'friends in Boston.' He visited David House during that time.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/05/a-narrativ... /

Mr. House, IMHO, is being actively investigated.......I think friends of his got the subpoena
http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/?story=/opinion/gre...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #25
64. Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
31. Border search is not under the emergency laws.............nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downwinder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #31
40. Combining Customs and Immigration with Law Enforcement IS part of emergency laws.
Edited on Fri May-13-11 09:46 AM by Downwinder
Remember the Fadderland.

If you look around you might find that your local Code enforcement now comes under law enforcement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. The First Congress, in 1789, made Customs a law enforcement agency.

As of 2003, it makes sense to have the same agency looking at people and things coming into the country. Or would you prefer that one agency does people, and one other, things?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downwinder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. In 2003 Customs was moved from the Department of the Treasury.
to Homeland Security.

Before it was rolled into form part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Customs Service had three major missions: collecting tariff revenue, protecting the U.S. economy from smuggling and illegal goods, and processing people and goods at ports of entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Customs_Serv...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. Right, my post acknowledged that. They've always been a LEA, however.
That border protection has been streamlined into one agency doesn't change that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downwinder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. Prior to 2003 their mission was revenue.
The Homeland Security Act changed the mission to security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. Right. Before that, drug mules, illegal aliens, and child pornographers
just waltzed right in with their goods?

Whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #50
78. All MODERN issues -- the Drug War, exploitation of labor, -- and with rise of the right ...
renewed exploitation of women and children -- though somehow those engaged in the

sex slavery trade manage to move their "assets" across borders and into US -- !!

We might also recall the corruption of the Customs services for the benefit of

moving harmful chemicals from US into hands of dictators.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. Quite true, but it has nothing to do with the authority and scope of border insepections of computer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
11. Glen Greenwald recently reported that subpeonas from the VA grand jury went out
a few weeks ago. They went to a person living in Cambridge.

If it's not House himself, then it's probably someone he knows.

Which means that House's stupidity helps the grand jury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
18. Remove the hard drive / SSD
And ship it to yourself. Then the laptop is useless for any type prying by any authority. No drive, no data, no snooping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. You'd think an MIT researcher would know this...
I think it's all about face-saving, myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #21
65. You would think so, wouldn't you?
And he's a Computer scientist to boot. I missed that the first time. He knows better. There is no excuse for a professional not taking better care he wasn't snooped. He had to know he was a target. Shit, if nothing else, he could have imaged his drive into an online storage company, and then wiped the drive. He was sloppy and got screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #65
91. Or, if he was an attention seeker....
He'd do everything possible to seem shady/shifty, in order to get searched, and then try a lawsuit, with attendant publicity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. True, true, but that never occurred to me...
My mind just doesn't work that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. I'm pretty sure Rosa Parks knew the rules of the bus.
Sometimes the best action is to break the rules, and then draw maximum amounts of attention to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-14-11 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #94
96. Agreed n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. or make sure your drive is encrypted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #24
32. You can be requried to give up the passcode
Either at the border or due to a search warrant.

Doesn't mean I like it or support it, but that is the current law
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. damn what was that passcode again?
1800blowme? gofrackurself?

I slipped and hit my head the other day and can't remember the passcode now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #36
41. Been tried...many judges think jail time for contempt improves the memory
There are a few stories when the targets of broad search warrants have claimed that the police took a memory stick with the key so they can not provide it. Short of something like that, you will be forced to give it up.

Better approaches include off site network storage. Most cop shops do not have the capability to detect that ahead of time. Presuming you or an associate is free after the search, that allows it to be downloaded from another location. Media drives with and FTP server are a good choice for that, simple to setup, easy to recover physically and hide later.

I have pointed out here before how easy it is to have unrecoverable email and otherwise make computer forensics recovery damn near impossible. Its not hard, but it can be a PITA in ones daily life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #24
80. Guess we need some lessons in encrypting hard drives, computers ...
and removing hard drives from laptops!!???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #18
79. How do you remove the hard drive from a laptop? Where is it?
Edited on Fri May-13-11 10:20 PM by defendandprotect
Well -- wait, you could just mail the laptop to yourself, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #79
85. Every laptop is different, you have to check the manual
Edited on Fri May-13-11 10:47 PM by MicaelS
You'll need a screwdriver. But with laptop drives being so small, (they're 2.5", or even 1.8" for an SSD, as opposed to 3.5" of desktops) they can easily fit in small box. That will ship much cheaper, and safer (less of a target of theft by employees of shipping companies) than the whole notebook. If you lose the drive it can be replaced for under $50. That a lot better than a paying $500 to replace the notebook.

Here's some videos as an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U23F8JuKKE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg_EhfPcZX4&feature=rela...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. Wow -- interesting -- thanks!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pmorlan1 Donating Member (763 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
23. Incredible
It's really quite disturbing to see how some people try to rationalize away an attack on our freedoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. Dude. It's been the law of the land since 1789. "Border Search Doctrine." Look it up.
This thread is turning into a sad example of why Civics needs to be a required High School course.


*43 Act of July 31, 1789, ch.5 23-24, 1 Stat. 29, 43 (current version at 19 U.S.C. 482, 1582).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #27
35. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #27
54. More like an example of how there is no governmental abuse
that someone won't try to rationalize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. Citing the law from 1789, isn't a rationalization. It's called a fact.
Facts are things that attorneys argue, when they go to court.

Thus, it is a good idea to have facts in hand when one wishes to overturn a law one does not like.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Waving a law around like a bloody shirt is not an argument.
It's not even reasoning.

The fact is House was targeted because of an association as his interrogation demonstrated and political targeting is unconstitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #54
81. +1000% --- exactly -- !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
29. I see lots of people in this thread that never went through U.S. Customs.
You cannot just waltz on through, you never could.

If you take your laptop through customs, they can and will search its contents.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #29
37. I used to "waltz on through" all of the time,
Many of the Canadian and Mexican border inspections were cursory at best, at least if you were a white guy. Not so much anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #29
55. David House was targeted because of his association with
the Bradley Manning support network. That's illegal, just as it was illegal for Amy Goodman to be targeted on her way to Canada because of what she might be planning to say about the Olympics. You can't be targeted by the government because of legal associations or because of your opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #29
69. I see a lot of people on this thread who are pretending that US Customs made the decision...
to single out House and copy his hard drive.

Customs did not mark him for this special treatment. Other authorities put him on a list, took advantage of his being at a border to grab his data.

I also see a lot of people on this thread happy to approve authoritarian abuses by the state, as long as they can be presented as strictly legal.

A great many wrong things are not illegal. They're still wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #29
82. Question is, did they RANDOMLY come upon this "friend" of Bradley Manning ...
Edited on Fri May-13-11 10:31 PM by defendandprotect
We've all been thru Customs -- even in much saner times --

and it is the fake Drug War and fake "terrarism" which is permitting

this insanity in this national security state --

The follow up question is when are Americans going to stop cooperating with this

fascism --

It is our government which is wiretapping, eavesdropping and torturing -- not us!

And we need to keep that clearly in mind --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountainlion55 Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
44. DHS
Why don't they drop the D and H and add a S. As in SS. Get it!!! :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greiner3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
48. Damn it;;
Use TrueCrypt.

IT CANNOT BE HACKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
56. Here's an ACLU link to some information on the case
http://aclum.org/house

And Greg Mitchell has some information up on his WK blog @ his 12:30 entry:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/160651/wikileaks-news-vie...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #56
83. Thanks -- Imagine ACLU knows border/Customs laws ...
ACLU link --

The lawsuit charges that the government targeted Mr. House solely on the basis of his lawful association with the Bradley Manning Support Network when it seized Mr. House's laptop, USB drive and camera, and proceeded to copy and possibly disseminate their contents.

On November 3, 2010, Department of Homeland Security agents at O'Hare International Airport detained Mr. House for questioning upon his return from a trip to Mexico. While detaining Mr. House, agents asked him about his involvement with the Support Network, and confiscated his property. The detention and search of these electronic devices were not authorized by law and violated the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.



Greg Mitchell link --

"The government does not have the authority to demand information about whom you spend time with or what you talk about. We need safeguards to ensure that targeting of people based on their political associations does not continue."

In November 2010, DHS agents stopped House at O'Hare International Airport as he returned from a vacation in Mexico and questioned him about his political activities and beliefs.



PLUS all of this we also know that our government hasn't quit harassing anti-war groups --

one of the most dangerous issues --

Wiretapping, eavesdropping -- and Torture -- just what is our government getting ready for?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #83
103. The ACLU gets it wrong all the time.
I appreciate the work they do but they lose as often if not more than they win and there is a reason for that.

Al-queda could be called a political organization if the ACLU is trying to suggest you cant question people about their connections at the boarder to Al-queda or hell the Russian SS for that matter or any number of other political adversaries they are going to lose this one as well, as they should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
59. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, alp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
62. K&R'd.
Edited on Fri May-13-11 02:48 PM by snot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maryf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
71. Stop the FBI raids!! k&r
Edited on Fri May-13-11 09:46 PM by maryf
another example of the feds witch hunts...


http://www.stopfbi.net/about/timeline

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
87. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-11 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
90. K & R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Jefferson Donating Member (141 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
98. Aren't computers typically seized in criminal investigations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. Not when the person whose computer is seized isn't under criminal investigation to begin with n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #99
104. Cause they always tell everyone when they are under criminal investigation right?
point I am trying to make here is we dont have a clue here on DU what is going on in this case other than whatever the article of the day wants to try to feed us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-11 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
110. ^
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov 18th 2017, 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC