

Security researcher: I keep getting detained by feds - mcantelon
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20023341-245.html?tag=mncol;title

======
raganwald
It appears that Mr. Appelbaum's cell phone _named names_.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist>

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that
accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due
process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be
driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our
doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men...

"We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever
it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by
deserting it at home."

\--Edward R. Murrow, _See It Now_ , commenting on the McCarthy Witchhunts

~~~
tptacek
I'm not convinced it's fair to compare the McCarthy black lists to the ongoing
investigation of a spectacular crime.

I respect people's opinions regarding the _ethics_ of Wikileaks, but any US
citizen who abetted the disclosure of classified military documents is _prima
facie_ involved in a serious criminal incident. I don't think the ethics
behind the documents leaked justify that crime. Others do. That's fine. But
it's probably not reasonable to suggest that the government shouldn't
investigate that crime aggressively.

I'm not in love with the doctrine that says you give up the 4th Amendment at
the US Border (I buy the motivation behind it, but we appear to overtly abuse
that motivation to conduct searches that have nothing to do with securing our
borders or stopping contraband). So I wouldn't want to suggest that Moxie has
no reason to be upset. Sure, he does. I feel bad for him.

But the abuse of the border search doctrine is not some new encroachment of
the US shadow secret police. It's been a fact of life for many decades. Drive
to Canada and back sometime to see how bad it gets just for normal people.

~~~
binarybits
Notice the part where the TSA randomly pulls him off a plane to give him an
extra pat-down. Even if the government believes Marlinspike is somehow
involved in the Wikileaks controversy, and even if you think the government is
fully justified in aggressively pursuing the Wikileakers, that doesn't justify
the kind of petty harassment you see here. There's absolutely no reason to
think Marlinspike or anyone else allegedly affiliated with Wikileaks would try
to hijack or blow up an airplane. This is simply the government abusing its
discretion to harass someone it doesn't like. And it's not limited to border
security. American citizens on domestic flights are subject to the same sort
of harassment, with no meaningful process to determine why you're being
harassed or contest the basis for the harassment. It might not be as bad as
McCarthyism, but it's flatly inconsistent with the Constitution.

~~~
tptacek
This is a kaleidoscope of arguments, some of which I agree with and some of
which I don't. Should TSA be singling Moxie out? Of course not. TSA also
shouldn't be handing people to the police for drug offenses. TSA is a debacle.

Should the country be abusing border integrity for domestic law enforcement?
No, I don't think so, but, as a pragmatist, I recognize that this ship has
_thoroughly_ sailed, it is long past the horizon, and the very fastest
cigarette boat of an argument I can devise has no hope of catching up to it.

Is it "unconstitutional" for someone with a demonstrable connection to someone
else who is the focus of a major criminal investigation to be questioned? I
can't see how anyone could defend that argument. I feel bad for Moxie, and I
wish it took a warrant to search people at the border, but I simply don't
think this is harassment.

~~~
raganwald
Your last paragraph has a nice focused point to discuss. The problem (as I see
it from the comfort of my armchair) is not whether Moxie should be searched or
questioned, it's _how_. For example, if the police appear at his home and
bring him in for questioning, there are a nice series of legal rights and
procedures in place to ensure that the investigation is performed properly.

Likewise, if the police wish to search his laptop or phone, there are again a
nice series of procedures in place that Americans have already agreed are in
society's best interests to enforce.

I would never suggest that the police do not do their job according to the
rules in place. I am suggesting that using the border search rules to perform
an investigation of an associate of a suspect gives the _appearance_ that the
police are avoiding the proper procedures because they don't have the evidence
and cause to question him or search his laptop and phone.

This, I argue, undermines the credibility of the investigation, which is of
great harm to society as a whole.

~~~
tptacek
I don't like what happened to Moxie.

But: there is a pair of subtexts in the gestalt of the discussion about his
border drama that I have a hard time accepting.

The first subtext is the notion that the US government is now harassing
security researchers. That notion attaches itself to the headlines being
written: "security researcher stopped at border". No. "Security researcher"
wasn't stopped. "Affiliate of Wikileaks volunteer" was stopped.

The second subtext is that questioning an affiliate of a Wikileaks volunteer
would constitute harassment. Words mean things. Harassment describes
government interventions whose sole purpose is to cause discomfort to targets.
But an actual crime took place. It wasn't a small crime; it was a criminal
event of fairly epic proportions. It may well be mitigated by the ethics of
whistleblowing (I don't think so, but respect people who do, and count many of
them as friends). Aggressive investigation of epic criminal events is not
harassment; it's a central part of the government's charter.

(Did you make any of these claims? I don't care to find out. My issue is with
the subtexts, not with any particular person's argument.)

The rest of this discussion, about the justice/injustice of border searches
and whatnot... I have less strong opinions about. I've been searched
aggressively at US borders. I didn't like it. I thought it was wrong. I
researched it, read a bunch of court opinions on it, and came to the
conclusion that much like the interpretation of our Second Amendment that guns
should be minimally regulated, this is a settled bit of American law that I'm
going to have to learn to dislike passively.

~~~
raganwald
I agree with disputing both subtexts. The OP does not suggest that security
researches are being targeted for searches. I certainly don't disagree with
the notion of investigating a suspect's associates under certain
circumstances.

Given your feelings about the subtexts, I think I understand your comments.

------
percept
"There is someone somewhere who wants access to something on my laptop or my
phone and they can't just come and ask me for it. And they can't get a warrant
without suspicion. So, they wait for me to travel internationally because at
the border they can do anything they want."

------
joshes
The United States is quickly becoming a police state. It's downright shameful
and it's propelled by a combination of over-zealous, vote-seeking politicians
and, most frighteningly, citizen apathy.

~~~
pig
Hasn't it always been that way?

(for some values of always)

~~~
burgerbrain
No. That's just what they want you to believe. If "it's always been this way"
then there's no point fighting it.

------
moondowner
I really feel sad for him. He must've worked hard to become a specialist in
his area and to be able to pay his trips and meet potential business clients
abroad in person (no, businesses are not run by sitting home, even if you are
a programmer, meeting in person has a great role).

The US are pissed off by WikiLeaks, they treat it like a terrorist
organization, so they have their right to act like they do, but not all people
have to be damaged. As I see it this guy is pinned down because of something
the other guy has done, maybe he doesn't even know what that is...

------
Roedou
This seems like an awesome reason to use a Dropbox-esque cloud service. Pull
down encrypted files when you need them; don't keep anything on the machines
you travel with, and then reimage the drive after the MiB have played with it.

Or would putting your files on a secured server somewhere actually leave them
more open to snooping?

------
SageRaven
"His laptop is encrypted and the text messages and call history on his phones
are encrypted. He declined to provide his password when agents asked him for
it."

Crypto for the win! I wish we'd hear about more cases of this happening.

------
Mithrandir
Some smart-ass made the comment on the article: "I feel bad for that animal on
his head."

EDIT: Marlinspike's web-page ( <http://www.thoughtcrime.org/> ), for those
interested in making non-smart-ass comments. :)

