Airport security and searches upon entering the US.

[GostHacked]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/02/11/lapto...ches/index.html

Granted these things could even happen anywhere in the world.

New security measures may include laptop files searches. I know many people carry all sorts of electronic gadgets with them on flights. We are accustomed and expect our luggage and carryons to be inspected for the general safety of us all. Granted. I don't even have an issue with that. I could have a bomb or a gun, ect.

Are you comfortable with being stripped searched? At the moment, we walk through a metal detector and there are new technologies in place that can even see through your clothes. I am not sure I am comfortable with that. I do expect to be strip searched if I am suspect to something and I am properly detained with the warrants for the search.

What level of search are you comfortable with? They do not need a warrant to X-ray our luggage, so one can say that a laptop or any electronic device that can store data long term is fair game as well. However the laptop is like a breifcase. Important and confidential documents are carried around in these things. Now we have a laptop with electronic files. Many people fly for business and it is almost a glitch that a business traveler will not have a laptop on hand. The laptop for business travelers have important and confidential information that pertains only to that business. I don't think the company that issued the traveler the laptop would put up with that kind of search. Now comes the vacationer. I could visit the US and carry my laptop, digicam, cell, ipod, usb keys. Imagine having all your data searched upon arrival in the US. Essentialy this could be a data strip search. Just in the name of maybe catching and stopping a terror plot before it happens.

It may be just me, but if the Intelligence agencies are as good as they say they are, and should already know who they want and get the warrents in place before the search happens, like the arresting police officials should be all prepared, right? I find it really intrusive that anyones data can be searched without a warrant.

Besides with the Internet as it is these days, your PC can be searched right now and you would not even know it. Hackers are doing it, and so are the so called police who are looking for the hackers or terrorists.

So ......

Luggage checking. No problem.

Metal detector and a pat down. No problem.

Strip search? Better have a good freaking reason and a warrant.

Strip search your electronic devices? Again, not without the warrant.

I do understand the need for some security measures. But this can go to far in an instant.

Scenario 1 - Green PC user.

Joe Buck has this laptop. Had it for about 6 months now. Not very good with the PC, but is online often and enjoys it. Decides to hit the US for a vacation, crazy trip of Miami, New York, Dallas, L.A. or whathave you. His data is searched and a virus was on the PC that trafficked spam or possibly illegal and or copywrited material. Now some is on his PC, he can find himself into some problems. To me this comes with not knowing enough about a computer and how it can be compromised. The user should really get to know the electronic gadget in question. But anyways.

Joe Buck, through a standard search of his data can put himself into a situation he never thought could happen. It's happened to me before. I got a virus on my PC, a guy hits up my MSN to tell me so. I said, sure ok, then he told me he would close two windows on my PC... boom boom..... uhhhh , he got my attention very quick. Lucky for me this guy was just warning me, he could have done much worse and not even say anything. I unplugged and formatted and reinstalled windows.

Are you comfortable with random searches of your electronic devices? If so how far would you let it go? How much of a search are you willing to tolerate. Given the atmosFEAR that seems to surround us these days.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Are you comfortable with random searches of your electronic devices? If so how far would you let it go? How much of a search are you willing to tolerate. Given the atmosFEAR that seems to surround us these days.

How bad do you want to visit another country? If you don't like scans, strip searches, xrays, swipe sniffers, air puffers, drug dogs, video cameras, face recognition software, profiling, fingerprinting, credit checks, and police record checks, why are you worried about innocuous laptop considerations?

Stay home......especially if you have something to hide.

Edited February 12, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Borg]

I travel - way too much.

I hate it.

I know airport security has holes in it as big as a 747.

But security has run amuck.

And most pax figure they are safe. Smoke and mirrors. If only they truly knew.

Deal with it like we all do.

Sheep like attitude and do not growl at the handlers - or you get the real special treatment.

Nothing like a minimum wage kid telling you how dangerous that "stuff" is.

Just make them put on a new pair of gloves before they touch you or your kit.

You just never know what those hands have been in contact with.

If you want to take an aircraft down - just ship a box from point A to Point B - with whatever agent you want inside it for effect - more than 95% is never inspected. "Trusted shippers" rules in effect. No trusted "frequent fliers" though.

Yet I as a pilot need to be patted down in event I want to hijack my own aircraft. It used to be armed 100% of the time with 575 rounds of 20 mm and had only one seat - yet Toronto, Vancouver and so on - security insisted I be searched. I could have strafed the hell out of the city but they really got upset at me carrying a 9 mm and a couple of knives. Who was I going to hurt? Me?

Then it was an aircraft carrying more than 100 military pax. Imagine trying to hijack your airplane full of Spec Forces guys.

Go figure. It does NOT have to make sense.

It is government policy.

Always look for the line with good looking security gals.......

And deal with it.

I believe strongly in profiling. Why pull over a granny in a wheel chair with her six year old grandkid along - when right behind her is the exact example of what caused this shitty uproar in the first place.

"Mrs. Granny, please come with me for a closer inspection."

Mohammed, the dick head who started this uproar, gets told to enjoy his flight.

I wonder on a ratio basis - how many Grannies compared to Mohammeds have caused a problem either real, perceived or fatal on an aircraft?

Just talking this subject gets me growly - no wonder folks hate airport security.

Borg

[marcinmoka]

Scenario 1 - Green PC user.

Great. Now every pedophile and scum can just play dumb. In fact, their probably ditching their anti-virus software as we speak.

[guyser]

Great. Now every pedophile and scum can just play dumb.

You may be more right than you think.

There is a case for this currently playing out (I read it weeks ago).

The scenario is that a Canuck was entering the US and had a laptop. Border security asked him to turn it on and show them the files. He did. They spotted something in a secure file he opened and thought he had child porn.

The file got closed , but then the BG wanted him to open it again. He refused and was arrested.

He was brought be fore a judge , and the judge ruled the Border Sec had no jurisdiction to order him to provide the access code .

Border security violated his rights according to this judge. Not sure if he has been freed or not. I will look for a link.

My take is they should find out if it works (laps, cells, mp3) but beyond that ....? Nada.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Border security violated his rights according to this judge. Not sure if he has been freed or not. I will look for a link.

My take is they should find out if it works (laps, cells, mp3) but beyond that ....? Nada.

Interesting case, but we would need more details. In general, evidence discovered during a lawful search or with the permission of the owner is admissable. Certainly a hidden file would not be considered to be in plain sight or necessary to see for BG's to protect their safety.

If there was probable cause to suspect possession of child porn, then all bets are off.

True story: Back in the late 90's, we had an employee request a larger hard drive for his desktop PC, as his present HD was nearly "full". "Full of what" wondered the Help Desk tech, who logged into the PC to see what the problem was. 20 Gigs of child porn later, he was out of a job and under arrest, claiming that his privacy rights had been violated.

[guyser]

Interesting case, but we would need more details. In general, evidence discovered during a lawful search or with the permission of the owner is admissable. Certainly a hidden file would not be considered to be in plain sight or necessary to see for BG's to protect their safety.

If there was probable cause to suspect possession of child porn, then all bets are off.

I will have to find it since it is really interesting.

The hang up was evidence they saw, they could not see again w/o his access code and he refused.

5th amendment

Edited February 12, 2008 by guyser

[guyser]

I will have to find it since it is really interesting.

Seems close as I recalled but not exactly. Anyhow here is the link.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=234246

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ivXyvda...DKNZEwD8ULMSJ00

[GostHacked]

Great. Now every pedophile and scum can just play dumb. In fact, their probably ditching their anti-virus software as we speak.

It's pretty easy to tell if the person deliberately has child porn on the computer as opposed to some virus that attracts it. I have repaired enough PCs to know that most people don't even know how to hide their legit porn very well. Or is it legit? Since it could be pirated off the net, since it is copywrited material. Most people are very green with the PCs and really do not understand how data is stored and what can happen to it. I am in no way defending pedophiles or criminals.

Ditching the AV won't help either. That will just accelerate the problem.

But in the same categorey as child porn, you can lump pirated movies and music and possibly simple text documents that might have hate speech on it. The range is pretty broad. Either way the questionable data is considered illegal. So granny who has lots o tunes on her MPplayer but does not own them legaly can fall victim to this new security measure.

Guyser. Interesting articles. One thing in that does not make sense.

Border guards looked through the PC. Found images of child porn on the PC.

After the arrest, they can no longer access the files without a password.

How did they view the files the first time without the password to access those files? If he put it in himself or told the password to the guards, then one of the guards might recall the password.

BushCheney

If there was probable cause to suspect possession of child porn, then all bets are off.

I agree here 100%.

[guyser]

Guyser. Interesting articles. One thing in that does not make sense.

Border guards looked through the PC. Found images of child porn on the PC.

After the arrest, they can no longer access the files without a password.

How did they view the files the first time without the password to access those files? If he put it in himself or told the password to the guards, then one of the guards might recall the password.

The articles I posted were not the originals I read so I cannot exactly recall. Anyhow....

I recall he entered the access code but the Guards did not pick up on it, and after they closed the file it could not be re-opened. They did say they could run a programme to pick the access, except it could take years to complete (which I think you have better knowledge of than me) .

IIRC he is still in jail even though a judge has upheld his rights under the 5th.

Originally I read this will on a gun website that I like to surf in. A whole host of scenarios were put forth , what if a kid was missing and this computer held the clue to save the kid, what if it had info on a terrorist attack, what if what if.......and the majority of posters said too bad, one cannot be expected to offer up self incriminating material. Unintended consequences , good or bad, are no reason to change the constitution in the US. If there is one thing I love about American gun owners, they sure do know their rights, and stick to them for the most part.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I recall he entered the access code but the Guards did not pick up on it, and after they closed the file it could not be re-opened. They did say they could run a programme to pick the access, except it could take years to complete (which I think you have better knowledge of than me) ....

Yes, that would work, but depending on the file system (e.g FAT vs. NTFS or MAC HFS...maybe Linux) and any purposeful encryption, the files could have been readily recovered with a sector scan utility. Just sieze the hard drive and let the nerds do their thing. I just recovered my teenage kid's "gaming" PC 15 minutes ago by fixing the master boot record....he has been downloading all kinds of legal and illegal crap and finally got burned. Broadband speeds only accelerate the appetite for forbidden fruit.

Technically, ISPs have a record of activity for law enforcement to access, but they need a warrant to make it legal like.

[guyser]

Just sieze the hard drive and let the nerds do their thing.

According to the computer experts (and it aint me) it would/could take years to break the access code the security is that good on his programme.

[GostHacked]

According to the computer experts (and it aint me) it would/could take years to break the access code the security is that good on his programme.

I doubt it will take years, but it will take some time. The cops and FBI should have the better programs to crack the codes to get to the files. It is all 1's and 0's so it is all crackable.

[guyser]

I doubt it will take years, but it will take some time. The cops and FBI should have the better programs to crack the codes to get to the files. It is all 1's and 0's so it is all crackable.

From the article...."Niedermeier said a Secret Service computer expert testified that the only way to access Boucher's computer without knowing the password would be to use an automated system that guesses passwords, but that process could take years."

Apparently, Pretty Good Privacy , the name of the encryption company or programme, is very good and hard to crack.

[AngusThermopyle]

I doubt it will take years, but it will take some time. The cops and FBI should have the better programs to crack the codes to get to the files. It is all 1's and 0's so it is all crackable.

Actually if he was using 256 kilobit Blowfish encryption it could take quite a while, if he used the newer Twofish algorithm it could take even longer. there is no known cryptanalisis method that can be used on Blowfish or Twofish encryption so one is left with a brute force attack as the only option. Thats where the extensive time that is required enters the picture.

Here's a list of other encryption algorythms that show in Wiki of all places.

Other algorithms: 3-Way | Akelarre | Anubis | ARIA | BaseKing | C2 | Camellia | CAST-128 | CAST-256 | CIKS-1 | CIPHERUNICORN-A | CIPHERUNICORN-E | CMEA | Cobra | COCONUT98 | Crab | CRYPTON | CS-Cipher | DEAL | DES-X | DFC | E2 | FEAL | FROG | G-DES | GOST | Grand Cru | Hasty Pudding Cipher | Hierocrypt | ICE | IDEA | IDEA NXT | Iraqi | Intel Cascade Cipher | KASUMI | KHAZAD | Khufu and Khafre | KN-Cipher | Ladder-DES | Libelle | LOKI89/91 | LOKI97 | Lucifer | M6 | MacGuffin | Madryga | MAGENTA | MARS | Mercy | MESH | MISTY1 | MMB | MULTI2 | NewDES | NOEKEON | NUSH | Q | RC2 | RC5 | RC6 | REDOC | Red Pike | S-1 | SAFER | SC2000 | SEED | SHACAL | SHARK | Skipjack | SMS4 | Square | TEA | Treyfer | Triple DES | UES | Xenon | xmx | XTEA | XXTEA | Zodiac

I know about a few of them but am unfamiliar with most.

Edited February 14, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[August1991]

What level of search are you comfortable with?

Here's a suggestion. We should give a cheque/refund of, say, $50 for each person pulled out of line for a thorough search. This money would compensate the searched person for the inconvenience of being searched. Inspectors could also then focus on specific people free in the knowledge that those (innocent) people are being compensated for the search.

It has always struck me as absurd that, out of some peculiar idea of fairness, security looks into the bags of people who are obviously not terrorists.

----

Peering into Sebastien Boucher's laptop computer, a U.S. border agent scrolled over a list of file names that suggested depictions of horrific abuse involving children as young as two years old.

When the agent asked if the laptop contained child pornography, Mr. Boucher's hands shook and the carotid artery in his neck throbbed, according to an court affidavit. He said he didn't know.

A subsequent inspection of Mr. Boucher's computer by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security allegedly uncovered videos showing pre-teen girls engaged in sex acts. He was charged with transporting child pornography.

But today, the U.S. Department of Justice's case against Mr. Boucher is mired in a dispute over the scope of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment and its power to protect suspects against self-incrimination in the information age.

National Post Edited February 14, 2008 by August1991