Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #457 > unrolled thread

Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-06 13:31 -0400
    Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2011-04-06 13:04 -0500
      Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-06 14:39 -0400
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-06 16:13 -0400
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-06 16:37 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> - 2011-04-06 16:44 -0600
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-07 11:40 -0400
                Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> - 2011-04-07 14:57 -0600
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) - 2011-04-06 17:58 -0400
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2011-04-06 15:41 -0700
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) - 2011-04-07 08:40 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-07 08:55 -0400
                Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2011-04-07 08:38 -0700
                Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) - 2011-04-07 13:11 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-07 11:47 -0400
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-07 11:43 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border BreadWithSpam@fractious.net - 2011-04-07 13:04 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) - 2011-04-07 13:13 -0400
              [OT] Warrantless Computer Searches at Border John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2011-04-08 12:40 -0700
                Re: [OT] Warrantless Computer Searches at Border Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2011-04-08 14:52 -0500
                Re: [OT] Warrantless Computer Searches at Border JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-08 16:30 -0400
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border BreadWithSpam@fractious.net - 2011-04-06 18:57 -0400
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-07 11:52 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border BreadWithSpam@fractious.net - 2011-04-07 13:00 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2011-04-08 00:27 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-09 12:48 -0400
                Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-09 14:18 -0400
                  Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-09 15:04 -0400
                    Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-09 15:50 -0400
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2011-04-06 21:04 -0500
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-07 12:02 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2011-04-07 09:44 -0700
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-09 12:52 -0400
      Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2011-04-09 19:43 +0200
    Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-08 18:00 -0400
      Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2011-04-08 16:54 -0700
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2011-04-08 17:28 -0700
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2011-04-08 22:12 -0500
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-09 03:51 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-09 08:00 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2011-04-09 19:28 +0200
                Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-10 09:22 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border pf@porkain'tkosher.oink (Paul Fuchs) - 2011-04-10 13:45 -0700
                Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-10 18:01 -0400
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-09 07:50 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2011-04-09 22:49 -0500
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-10 02:49 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 08:13 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-10 08:45 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-10 09:32 -0400
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2011-04-09 16:34 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2011-04-09 22:58 -0500
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-09 07:45 -0400
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-09 13:27 -0400
      Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2011-04-09 19:11 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#546 — Re: [OT] Warrantless Computer Searches at Border

John McWilliams wrote:

> Recent studies have shown that Mac users are targeted for such scrutiny 
> 1.88% more than PC users.....


That is because Mac users are more likely to have interesting stuff on
their laptops than PC users since Mac users have a more interesting life.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#473

Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> writes:

> In article <903o9mFos0U1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11-04-06 12:31 PM, Fred Moore wrote:
>> > <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/border-search/>

>> And back to topic, 
>
> It's not off topic, Jeffrey, since Mac users have been known to enter 
> the US with their laptops, cell pphones, or iThingies, all of which are 
> subject to this search and/or seizure.

Without actually talking about Mac-specific issues, it WAS
off-topic.

Thanks, Jeff, for bringing it back on-topic.

>> OS X provides a mechanism to encrypt disk images. I 
>> do not know whether such searches would require you to decrypt those.
>
> I have had no personal experience with this, but from what I have read:  
> Yes, they can seize the device and never return it if you refuse to 
> provide access to anything encrypted. This has been done. They can also 

Which is reason to (a) encrypt and (b) back up.  Consider, for
example, keeping an encrypted disk-image (DiskUtil or perhaps
via TrueCrypt for cross-platform compatibility) in a DropBox
folder.

> Since Agile's 1Password is well respected, I'm sure Knox for Mac must be 
> a good product too.

I've been very happy with 1Password - I'd heard so many good things
and when it was included as part of a bundle (MacUpdate or somesuch),
I grabbed it and have been very pleased.

> However, even if you use an encrypted disk image or equivalent, the 
> unencrypted information will be written to your hard drive and be 
> recoverable if it is not securely overwritten either by the system or 
> another utility.

The encrypted disk image, with a good password, is your best
best.

> One way to limit access to sensitive information while traveling is to 
> keep it on a secure cloud server, such as DropBox, and only access it 
> over a secure connection. Thus, nothing resides on your local disk. 

DropBox, without the encrypted disk image, will do you no good.
DropBox (at least on a Mac, as opposed to an iPad or iPhone)
explicitly keeps a copy of everything locally.  DropBox copies
from your local copy up to the net.  It is not really useful
for keeping copies *only* on the net.  You could proably make
do with some WebDAV solution, but DropBox is not what you seem
to think it is.



-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#507

In article <yob4o6bvvi7.fsf@panix1.panix.com>,
 BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

> > One way to limit access to sensitive information while traveling is to 
> > keep it on a secure cloud server, such as DropBox, and only access it 
> > over a secure connection. Thus, nothing resides on your local disk. 
> 
> DropBox, without the encrypted disk image, will do you no good.
> DropBox (at least on a Mac, as opposed to an iPad or iPhone)
> explicitly keeps a copy of everything locally.  DropBox copies
> from your local copy up to the net.  It is not really useful
> for keeping copies *only* on the net.  You could proably make
> do with some WebDAV solution, but DropBox is not what you seem
> to think it is.

Sounds like you're talking about installing the entire Dropbox software 
package which does do this. I'm suggesting just uploading and 
downloading individual files/folders/disk images using a browser. That 
mechanism does NOT keep local copies unless you leave the original on 
your hard drive. As I suggested to Tom, installing the Dropbox software 
package may be asking for trouble.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510

Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> writes:
> In article <yob4o6bvvi7.fsf@panix1.panix.com>,
>  BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
>
>> > One way to limit access to sensitive information while traveling is to 
>> > keep it on a secure cloud server, such as DropBox, and only access it 
>> > over a secure connection. Thus, nothing resides on your local disk. 
>> 
>> DropBox, without the encrypted disk image, will do you no good.
>> DropBox (at least on a Mac, as opposed to an iPad or iPhone)
>> explicitly keeps a copy of everything locally.  DropBox copies

> Sounds like you're talking about installing the entire Dropbox software 
> package which does do this. I'm suggesting just uploading and 
> downloading individual files/folders/disk images using a browser. That 

Then you're wasting your time and using not the right tool.

If you're going to send something back and forth to the cloud
through your web browser and then try to scrub your local drive
to get rid of all traces of it after every use, you're just not
doing it right.

As I said, you can keep an encrypted filesystem on your local
drive and, if you're concerned about the bad guys stealing
your computer and losing it, have the container for that
encrypted filesystem synced to the net.  For example, keep an
encrypted sparse-bundle disk image in your Dropbox and use
Dropbox *as it was intended*.

Alternatively, keep your data on a remotely mounted WebDAV
server with an encrypted back end and secure connection.

> mechanism does NOT keep local copies unless you leave the original on 
> your hard drive. As I suggested to Tom, installing the Dropbox software 
> package may be asking for trouble.

Using Dropbox but not actually installing it means you're
not using it right and you're probably asking for trouble
in that your data will still leave traces on your local
drive unless you go out of your way to expunge it - and
you're likely to screw up synchronization anyway.

If you're talking about, say, using Dropbox normally at
home and simply not installing it on the laptop you take
with you for travel and only accessing a single file or
two from it once in a while, you may be making sense.  But
that's no way to really work, I think.

Seriously - what's wrong with an encrypted disk image?

If the government really wants my data so badly that they
are going to spend the resources to decrypt my encrypted
disk image, I'm almost certainly in a lot more trouble to
begin with than it's worth worrying about.

And if they aren't going to waste those resources but
simply confiscate my hardware, well, all that data is
synced securely and backed up in multiple places.

Meanwhile, even though Dropbox is leaving a local copy
on my laptop hard drive, that data is, in fact, encrypted.

What more are you looking for here?


-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529

Put your fileserver in your basement with dynamic DNS
and use automount to connect to it only when needed.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Third World Comes to the U.S.
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1505

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588

In article <yoboc4iuhcq.fsf@panix1.panix.com>,
 BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> writes:
> > In article <yob4o6bvvi7.fsf@panix1.panix.com>,
> >  BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
> >
> >> > One way to limit access to sensitive information while traveling is to 
> >> > keep it on a secure cloud server, such as DropBox, and only access it 
> >> > over a secure connection. Thus, nothing resides on your local disk. 
> >> 
> >> DropBox, without the encrypted disk image, will do you no good.
> >> DropBox (at least on a Mac, as opposed to an iPad or iPhone)
> >> explicitly keeps a copy of everything locally.  DropBox copies
> 
> > Sounds like you're talking about installing the entire Dropbox software 
> > package which does do this. I'm suggesting just uploading and 
> > downloading individual files/folders/disk images using a browser. That 
> 
> Then you're wasting your time and using not the right tool.
> 
> If you're going to send something back and forth to the cloud
> through your web browser and then try to scrub your local drive
> to get rid of all traces of it after every use, you're just not
> doing it right.
> 
> As I said, you can keep an encrypted filesystem on your local
> drive and, if you're concerned about the bad guys stealing
> your computer and losing it, have the container for that
> encrypted filesystem synced to the net.  For example, keep an
> encrypted sparse-bundle disk image in your Dropbox and use
> Dropbox *as it was intended*.
> 
> Alternatively, keep your data on a remotely mounted WebDAV
> server with an encrypted back end and secure connection.
> 
> > mechanism does NOT keep local copies unless you leave the original on 
> > your hard drive. As I suggested to Tom, installing the Dropbox software 
> > package may be asking for trouble.
> 
> Using Dropbox but not actually installing it means you're
> not using it right and you're probably asking for trouble
> in that your data will still leave traces on your local
> drive unless you go out of your way to expunge it - and
> you're likely to screw up synchronization anyway.
> 
> If you're talking about, say, using Dropbox normally at
> home and simply not installing it on the laptop you take
> with you for travel and only accessing a single file or
> two from it once in a while, you may be making sense.  But
> that's no way to really work, I think.
> 
> Seriously - what's wrong with an encrypted disk image?
> 
> If the government really wants my data so badly that they
> are going to spend the resources to decrypt my encrypted
> disk image, I'm almost certainly in a lot more trouble to
> begin with than it's worth worrying about.
> 
> And if they aren't going to waste those resources but
> simply confiscate my hardware, well, all that data is
> synced securely and backed up in multiple places.
> 
> Meanwhile, even though Dropbox is leaving a local copy
> on my laptop hard drive, that data is, in fact, encrypted.
> 
> What more are you looking for here?

Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other here, BreadWithSpam. If the 
Feds inspect your laptop and find an encripted disk image, they can 
demand you decrypt it so they can read it. If you refuse, they can 
confiscate the device. Are they going to spend thousands of dollars 
trying to decrypt your disk image? Very unlikely, unless they think they 
have good reasons to be suspicious of you. They just throw it in a 
storage bin with all the others they have confiscated and wait for you 
to comply. In the meantime, you've lost a very expensive piece of useful 
equipment.

Any cloud service which decrypts directly from the cloud to your laptop 
hard drive without downloading the encrypted diskimage, is going to 
leave a clear text trail in your caches somewhere is it not? Easily 
discoverable with the right software. 

Also as I mentioned in another post to this thread, if the Feds see the 
Dropbox software, they might well demand you access your Dropbox account 
and show them anything and everything you have there. If you say,'Oh 
they can't possibly have that authority!', I'd respond 'Oh, Really? I 
wouldn't have thought they could demand to look at your device for no 
good reason other than idle curiosity. But they can and do!'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596

Fred Moore wrote:

> Also as I mentioned in another post to this thread, if the Feds see the 
> Dropbox software, they might well demand you access your Dropbox account 
> and show them anything and everything you have there.

This is actually a very iffy situation.

If the Cloud service is physically located in the USA, then the customs
agents would not have authority to search for something which is already
in the USA.  They could not prove whether a file on your cloud service
was loaded there from outside the USA or before you left the USA.


If the Cloud service is outside of the USA, then the USA customs agents
would not have authority to search it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597

In article <4da0a2e8$0$11230$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Fred Moore wrote:
> 
> > Also as I mentioned in another post to this thread, if the Feds see the 
> > Dropbox software, they might well demand you access your Dropbox account 
> > and show them anything and everything you have there.
> 
> This is actually a very iffy situation.
> 
> If the Cloud service is physically located in the USA, then the customs
> agents would not have authority to search for something which is already
> in the USA.  They could not prove whether a file on your cloud service
> was loaded there from outside the USA or before you left the USA.
> 
> 
> If the Cloud service is outside of the USA, then the USA customs agents
> would not have authority to search it.

I would disagree. If they were saying YOU had to tell them or they would 
confiscate the machine, I would say the important part is where the 
laptop is. If you are saying they want to serve a warrant on the cloud 
provider to get this info, then you might be right.

-- 
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
 ---PJ O'Rourke

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598

Kurt Ullman wrote:

> I would disagree. If they were saying YOU had to tell them or they would 
> confiscate the machine, I would say the important part is where the 
> laptop is. If you are saying they want to serve a warrant on the cloud 
> provider to get this info, then you might be right.


Actually, Child Porn is a special crime. One of the few crimes
recognised internationally. Police can arrest an american in New York
City if they have proof he had sex with underage person in Bangkok.

So, if they find that your Thai based Cloud account holds child porn
while you pass through the border between Canada and USA, the USA can
arrest you, despite the child porn being physically in another country.

However, for normal banned stuff, this may not apply. Remember while
your llaptop may have some link to a cloud account in thailand, there is
no proof that you have intentions to bring those files into the USA
during your visit.

Say the USA were to ban all porn.  You have a huge porn collection in
your canadian home. When you cross the border, they can't arrest you for
your porn collection since you are not bringing it into the USA.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#481

On 11-04-06 1:39 PM, Fred Moore wrote:
> In article<903o9mFos0U1@mid.individual.net>,
>   Jeffrey Goldberg<nobody@goldmark.org>  wrote:

>> OS X provides a mechanism to encrypt disk images. I
>> do not know whether such searches would require you to decrypt those.
>
> I have had no personal experience with this, but from what I have read:
> Yes, they can seize the device and never return it if you refuse to
> provide access to anything encrypted. This has been done. They can also
> detain you if they choose, though I have not heard of anyone being held
> longer than 24 hours. News to the contrary is solicited.

I suspect you are right, but I don't know with any certainty.

>> The company I work for, Agile Web Solutions, distributes one such tool:
>> Knox for Mac.
>
> Since Agile's 1Password is well respected, I'm sure Knox for Mac must be
> a good product too.

Thanks! We acquired Knox a while back and haven't yet brought it fully 
to the ease of use that we have with 1Password. But that is a goal we 
are actively working toward.

> However, even if you use an encrypted disk image or equivalent, the
> unencrypted information will be written to your hard drive and be
> recoverable if it is not securely overwritten either by the system or
> another utility.

This is certainly true if you copy something from an unencrypted volume 
to an encrypted one. In that case you do need to securely remove the old 
information (Secure Empty Trash or srm.)

But it sounds like you are saying something more, which I don't fully 
understand.

> One way to limit access to sensitive information while traveling is to
> keep it on a secure cloud server, such as DropBox, and only access it
> over a secure connection.

Dropbox may not be the best choice here as it involves keeping a local 
copies of the files as well, but something of that nature is possible.

>> (So I not only got to bring this back to topic, but I got in a shameless
>> plug as well.)
>
> Plugs for good products are always appreciated. Usenet Rule: 3.14159265,
> Section 2.71828183, Subsection 47.0, Paragraph 1.

Ah well then that would be for TeX and METAFONT, currently at versions 
3.1415926 and 2.718281 respectively.

Cheers,

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#508

In article <904ke4FtbbU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> On 11-04-06 1:39 PM, Fred Moore wrote:
...
> > However, even if you use an encrypted disk image or equivalent, the
> > unencrypted information will be written to your hard drive and be
> > recoverable if it is not securely overwritten either by the system or
> > another utility.
> 
> This is certainly true if you copy something from an unencrypted volume 
> to an encrypted one. In that case you do need to securely remove the old 
> information (Secure Empty Trash or srm.)
> 
> But it sounds like you are saying something more, which I don't fully 
> understand.
> 
> > One way to limit access to sensitive information while traveling is to
> > keep it on a secure cloud server, such as DropBox, and only access it
> > over a secure connection.
> 
> Dropbox may not be the best choice here as it involves keeping a local 
> copies of the files as well, but something of that nature is possible.

See my response to Tom. I'm recommending using Dropbox in its simplest 
form--just as a dropbox with no software or automatic anything. So, no 
local copies except what you allow to remain unzapped (zapped=securely 
purged).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509

Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> I'm recommending using Dropbox in its simplest 
> form--just as a dropbox with no software or automatic anything. So, no
> local copies except what you allow to remain unzapped (zapped=securely
> purged).

I suppose that might be simplest by some definition in that it involves
no software installation, but it sounds more complicated to use - not
simpler.

If you go to the dropbox web site, first thing you see is an button to
download the software. I just now rechecked to refresh my memory. Maybe
you can paw through the menu items at the bottom of the screen to find
how to set up an account differently, but that's more complicated right
there from the start in having to look around to figure out what to do
instead of just hitting the big button in the middle of the screen.

And once installed, I can't imagine any way in which one could call
using the web interface simpler than its "normal" mode. The simplicity
of use of Dropbox is one of its biggest advantages; you just drag a file
to the Dropbox and then it is there on all your systems. I could train
my 80+-year-old mother-in-law to do that. (She's a great mother-in-law
and person in general, but she's not really computer people). Anything
that required a login and pasword would be too much for her. Without
that feature, it doesn't stand out from any other random site where you
could log in and store things.

I certainly acknowledge the security benefits of not having local copies
of any sensitive files when doing border crossing (or travelling at
all). I repeat that I agree with you on that. I just can't agree with
the description of that as the "simplest form" of using Dropbox.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589

In article <1jzckmy.x1ecq412rgx70N%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
> 
> > I'm recommending using Dropbox in its simplest 
> > form--just as a dropbox with no software or automatic anything. So, no
> > local copies except what you allow to remain unzapped (zapped=securely
> > purged).
> 
> I suppose that might be simplest by some definition in that it involves
> no software installation, but it sounds more complicated to use - not
> simpler.
> 
> If you go to the dropbox web site, first thing you see is an button to
> download the software. I just now rechecked to refresh my memory. Maybe
> you can paw through the menu items at the bottom of the screen to find
> how to set up an account differently, but that's more complicated right
> there from the start in having to look around to figure out what to do
> instead of just hitting the big button in the middle of the screen.
> 
> And once installed, I can't imagine any way in which one could call
> using the web interface simpler than its "normal" mode. The simplicity
> of use of Dropbox is one of its biggest advantages; you just drag a file
> to the Dropbox and then it is there on all your systems. I could train
> my 80+-year-old mother-in-law to do that. (She's a great mother-in-law
> and person in general, but she's not really computer people). Anything
> that required a login and pasword would be too much for her. Without
> that feature, it doesn't stand out from any other random site where you
> could log in and store things.
> 
> I certainly acknowledge the security benefits of not having local copies
> of any sensitive files when doing border crossing (or travelling at
> all). I repeat that I agree with you on that. I just can't agree with
> the description of that as the "simplest form" of using Dropbox.

Thanks for your post Richard. Please see my post to BreadWithSpam. I 
have concerns that there would be recoverable info in your computer or 
browsers caches using installed Dropbox software. Further, that the Feds 
would see the Dropbox software and demand access to your cloud account.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594

In article <903o9mFos0U1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> On 11-04-06 12:31 PM, Fred Moore wrote:
> > <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/border-search/>
> 
> And back to topic, OS X provides a mechanism to encrypt disk images. I 
> do not know whether such searches would require you to decrypt those.
> 
> If you don't want to use Disk Utility or hdiutil directly to manage your 
> encrypted volumes there are tools that will help in that process.
> 
> The company I work for, Agile Web Solutions, distributes one such tool: 
> Knox for Mac.
> 
> (So I not only got to bring this back to topic, but I got in a shameless 
> plug as well.)
> 

I have no problem with a shameless plug, but the UK has the power to 
enforce disclosure of encryption keys.

<http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/RIP_Act_Part_III>

"Part 3 of RIP Act gives the police powers to order the disclosure of 
encryption keys, or force suspects to decrypt encrypted data. Anyone who 
refuses to hand over a key to the police would face up to two years' 
imprisonment. Under current anti-terrorism legislation, terrorist 
suspects now face up to five years for withholding keys."

On that subject I couldn't get into my online banking today because 
although I have the password and one time pad in certain places, I have 
put the bit of paper with another part of the login details "somewhere 
safe" (I've tried the back of the sofa, but it isn't there).

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553

On 2011-04-06 1:31 PM, Fred Moore wrote:
> <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/border-search/>

Borders are special places where the certainty that you are under 
protective clauses (of, eg, the US Constitution) is vague at best.



-- 
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#562

Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2011-04-06 1:31 PM, Fred Moore wrote:
>> <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/border-search/>
> 
> Borders are special places where the certainty that you are under 
> protective clauses (of, eg, the US Constitution) is vague at best.

Either the border is in the US or it is not.  If it is, then the 
Constitution applies.  If it is not, then where do the searchers get 
their power to search from?

Paul Magnussen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#565

Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
> > On 2011-04-06 1:31 PM, Fred Moore wrote:
> >> <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/border-search/>
> > 
> > Borders are special places where the certainty that you are under 
> > protective clauses (of, eg, the US Constitution) is vague at best.
> 
> Either the border is in the US or it is not.  If it is, then the 
> Constitution applies.  If it is not, then where do the searchers get 
> their power to search from?

Last time I checked, the constitution mentioned nothing at all about
suddenly becoming inapplicable just because a person happened to be
outside of the US.

Being in another country certainly means that you are potentially
subject to their laws, which don't necessarily have much to do with our
constitution. But our government operates under the constitution (um,
well, it is supposed to :-().

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568

On 11-04-08 6:54 PM, Paul Magnussen wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:

>> Borders are special places where the certainty that you are under
>> protective clauses (of, eg, the US Constitution) is vague at best.

> Either the border is in the US or it is not. If it is, then the
> Constitution applies. If it is not, then where do the searchers get
> their power to search from?

I believe that provisions in the Constitution that allow the federal 
government to regulate trade are the basis for court decisions that have 
supported searches of people entering the country.

We may all have opinions about how the courts treated that balance, but 
it is almost always a mistake to treat one clause of the Constitution as 
trumping all others. TSA searches for domestic or outbound flights, 
however, can not be justified based on regulation of trade.

Also there are very few cases where the Constitution would distinguish 
between US soil or foreign soil. It is possible to clear US customs and 
immigration in various Canadian airports. Presumably the US customs 
officials there have no more rights to search people entering the US 
there than in US airports.

Oh, and I am talking out of my ass here. I don't have any particular 
expertise, so just because I express these views with some air of 
confidence shouldn't mean much.

Cheers,

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

> Also there are very few cases where the Constitution would distinguish 
> between US soil or foreign soil. It is possible to clear US customs and 
> immigration in various Canadian airports. Presumably the US customs 
> officials there have no more rights to search people entering the US 
> there than in US airports.

Actually, the US customs/immigration agents working at Canadian airports
have fewer powers because, while working on a "theoretical" US soil,
they are still on Canadian soil and must abide by our constitution. And
they do not have the power to arrest people, they must call the airport
police/RCMP to detain someone who is then put through canadian law
process outside fo USA jurisdiction. And there are also cases where the
person may have done something which is illegal in the USA but legal in
Canada, at which point, canadian police would not arrest the person.

So the USA agents are more likely to just let the person through, and
ensure there is police at the gate when the plane lands in the USA. At
that point, the person is fuylly under USA jurisdiction and can be
arrested according to USA law. This issue became quite noticeable since
the Bush Jr regime and its Patriot Act where so many were taken to
prison without charge.

For instance, Maher Arar, a canadian, was transiting through JFK to get
back to Canada. They allowed him into the USA and once done immediatly
detained him without charge and transported him to Syria where he was
tortured.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580

On 2011-04-09 3:51 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>
>> Also there are very few cases where the Constitution would distinguish
>> between US soil or foreign soil. It is possible to clear US customs and
>> immigration in various Canadian airports. Presumably the US customs
>> officials there have no more rights to search people entering the US
>> there than in US airports.
>
> Actually, the US customs/immigration agents working at Canadian airports
> have fewer powers because, while working on a "theoretical" US soil,
> they are still on Canadian soil and must abide by our constitution. And
> they do not have the power to arrest people, they must call the airport
> police/RCMP to detain someone who is then put through canadian law
> process outside fo USA jurisdiction. And there are also cases where the
> person may have done something which is illegal in the USA but legal in
> Canada, at which point, canadian police would not arrest the person.
>
> So the USA agents are more likely to just let the person through, and
> ensure there is police at the gate when the plane lands in the USA.

No.  Part of the agreement to have US customs at Canadian airports is 
that they must turn people over to the Canadian police.

That said for ordinary criminals, I do wonder if they might play the 
game you outline for a wanted terrorist.

> At
> that point, the person is fuylly under USA jurisdiction and can be
> arrested according to USA law. This issue became quite noticeable since
> the Bush Jr regime and its Patriot Act where so many were taken to
> prison without charge.
>
> For instance, Maher Arar, a canadian, was transiting through JFK to get
> back to Canada. They allowed him into the USA and once done immediatly
> detained him without charge and transported him to Syria where he was
> tortured.

That's not the same as entering the US from Canada.

That's entering the US for the purpose of changing planes to Canada. 
The US is odd in that way, mostly due to the terminals at airports like 
JFK.  You can't enter JFK for transit to another country without going 
through customs.

You can land at Amsterdam from North America and change flights to 
Africa or the Middle East (for example) without going through Dutch 
customs.  Same for Frankfurt.

-- 
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web