Forums | MacLife

This will be corrected by legislation.
This is a freedom issue with a constituency that politicians listen to, well healed business travelers.
You just wait and see.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

This is also a good reason for companies not to do business in or to have their personnel avoid vacationing in the US. Planning on taking pictures of your family on that trip to Disneyland? Sorry, but all of your digital media that your digital camera uses and your laptop that you were planning to store the pictures on may be confiscated at the border with no legal recourse AND--as has happened in some cases--never to be returned (at least, not in the 1.5 years since they were taken in this case--scroll down to read Maria Udy's situation).

Or they just do what my dad's company does and have all proprietary applications and confidential data stored on company servers, and the laptop uses a VPN to access it all.

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

This will be corrected by legislation.
This is a freedom issue with a constituency that politicians listen to, well healed business travelers.
You just wait and see.

Politicians travel a lot, and probably have stuff on their laptops they'd rather not be outed for - so yeah, I suspect it will change.

Do you really think it is only the "guilty" who would object to this sort of search and seizure?
You sure come off as a submissive little lapdog.

resedit wrote:

I never said it was only the "guilty" who would object.

You need to read up on some terms.
Implied and inferred. Any dictionary should do.

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

I never said it was only the "guilty" who would object.

You need to read up on some terms.
Implied and inferred. Any dictionary should do.

You made an assumption. I didn't imply anything.

Whether politicians choose to take action on an issue varies quite a bit - hence the reason why we have two parties that often like to do two very different things on just about any issue of consequence.

However, one thing that most politicians have in common, they don't want to be caught with anything that can even resemble immoral behavior that they often engage in.

It's the same thing with the televangelists and mega church evangelists that have a major following - it gives them a sense of power and entitlement to do what they know is wrong. One of mans major flaws, and the reason for the statement "power corrupts".

user wrote:

Politicians don't go through the grab-your-ankles customs lines.

Sometimes they do. Hence the one that couldn't board the plane because he was on the infamous list.

Chickenhawk wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

This is also a good reason for companies not to do business in or to have their personnel avoid vacationing in the US. Planning on taking pictures of your family on that trip to Disneyland? Sorry, but all of your digital media that your digital camera uses and your laptop that you were planning to store the pictures on may be confiscated at the border with no legal recourse AND--as has happened in some cases--never to be returned (at least, not in the 1.5 years since they were taken in this case--scroll down to read Maria Udy's situation).

Or they just do what my dad's company does and have all proprietary applications and confidential data stored on company servers, and the laptop uses a VPN to access it all.

Hardly a help when the equipment is yet to be returned years after being confiscated.

ScifiterX wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

Sometimes they do. Hence the one that couldn't board the plane because he was on the infamous list.

Uh, that was Ted Kennedy, and I believe he was boarding a domestic flight in that case.

And it hasn't happened since then.

To Ted Kennedy (D-MA)? Perhaps not, but heaven help you if your name is "Robert Johnson" which is one of many common names on the no-fly list.

To get around this, some have suggested getting your name legally changed to "Bobby Johnson" so your name won't be flagged by the TSA.

Gr@sshopper wrote:

I thought I had read a story about people being detained b/c they wouldn't reveal their encryption key? Don't have time to look it up.

As far as I know, no one has been detained although their equipment has been.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Gr@sshopper wrote:

I thought I had read a story about people being detained b/c they wouldn't reveal their encryption key? Don't have time to look it up.

As far as I know, no one has been detained although their equipment has been.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Looks to me like this is illegal. Data on a laptop has no bearing on weather the plane will or will not land.

The lawsuits mentioned in the article did not provide many details, though.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Uh, that was Ted Kennedy, and I believe he was boarding a domestic flight in that case.

And it hasn't happened since then.

To Ted Kennedy (D-MA)? Perhaps not, but heaven help you if your name is "Robert Johnson" which is one of many common names on the no-fly list.

To get around this, some have suggested getting your name legally changed to "Bobby Johnson" so your name won't be flagged by the TSA.

Then your name will be flagged because you recently changed it. 

"So why did you change your name, Bobby?  Or should I still call you Mohammed?"

Hell - private information about you is stolen from insecure servers all the time - they only report the large intrusions on the news, and even then sometimes they don't.

resedit wrote:

Hell - private information about you is stolen from insecure servers all the time - they only report the large intrusions on the news, and even then sometimes they don't.

of course you know that line of reasoning is self defeating.