Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

High-Tech Gadgets Can Pose Problems At Mexican Border

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the which-jail-would-you-prefer dept.

Privacy 447

TechnologyResource writes "Going across the border will be a more 'interesting' experience since Customs and Border Protection will now be checking laptops, digital cameras, cell phones and any other electronics on your person or in your vehicle. It's not a new authority, according to Angelica De Cima, Office of Public Affairs Liaison 'They've always had the right to inspect your person, vehicle, baggage, anything on you. Nothing has changed from before,' De Cima said."

cancel ×

447 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

YRO??!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29534535)

This story has nothing to do with online rights..
In any case, your rights when attempting to cross a sovereign country's borders are pretty much whatever they say it is. Get over it.
This isn't a new or interesting development.

Re:YRO??!! (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534667)

It is both new and interesting.

For years, you fill in the form on the airplane, and walk thru customs after a perfunctory stamp stamp, here's your paper, no questions asked, no passport, no ID even looked at upon arrival at the Mexican Airport. Once in a while the "Red light" went off depending on how seedy you looked.

But by and large, getting into Mexico entailed less scrutiny than returning to the states, where questions were asked, documents were demanded, and bags were scanned and opened.

Times change. But Mexico has always been lax.

Re:YRO??!! (2, Informative)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534903)

That depends on which way you are crossing and if you are a citizen of the nation your are crossing into. If you are an American citizen then the laws about search and seizure do apply so there are some limits. That said I don't think that these would in all likelihood violate those limits.

Re:YRO??!! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29534925)

In any case, your rights when attempting to cross a sovereign country's borders are pretty much whatever they say it is. Get over it. This isn't a new or interesting development.

Which is exactly why I'm never transiting through the US again. Plain fucking worth to spend an extra 50 euros to fly from Amsterdam to Toronto instead.

Eh, whatever. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29534541)

Rob Malda better hope they don't decide to check in his pants or they'll discover his micro-penis.

information smuggling? (5, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534553)

"He said anyone coming across could be a terrorist, drug dealer or someone trying to carry or take information out of the country by hiding it in a smaller device."

Why not just FTP it. Or hide a microSD card inside a cake? It should bake okay, the chip inside gets put under higher temps than the inside of cupcake when they place them on a PCB. The plastic on a uSD might melt a little, but I suspect the information will still be there.

Re:information smuggling? (5, Insightful)

mmelson (441923) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534643)

Bake it IN the cake? That seems a bit extreme. Why not just bake the cake, let it cool, insert the microSD, then frost. If they start defrosting cakes while searching people, they deserve to find it.

Re:information smuggling? (5, Insightful)

baudbarf (451398) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534645)

Holy frijoles. You just conspired to commit a crime. See how easy that was?

Re:information smuggling? (2, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534743)

Hypotheticals aren't conspiracy.

Bad troll. No cookie (or cupcake)

--
BMO

Re:information smuggling? (4, Insightful)

Carthag (643047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534881)

Hypotheticals aren't conspiracy.

Yet

Re:information smuggling? (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534943)

Where in the post did he say it was hypothetical?

Re:information smuggling? (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535045)

Yeah, but if the other poster goes and bakes a cake, inserts a micro SD card containing sensitive information, frosts is, and gets caught at the border, good luck with convincing the feds you were just hypothesizing.

Re:information smuggling? (5, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534665)

The border patrol is just looking for stupid criminals and terrorists - like that old guy with the young boy and the camera with the incriminating evidence. It's also for "security theater".

On the other hand, the smart criminals and terrorists will get away with it and then there will be more infringements on our liberty to "keep us safe" - from the stupid criminals and terrorists. Then the cycle repeats.

Re:information smuggling? (0, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535015)

The whole thing is probably a front for Mexican drug gangs fencing "seized" digital cameras. "For two thousand pesos, senior, you go thees top of the line Dell Notebook. Buy quick, senior, someone ees coming to chop my head off."

Re:information smuggling? (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534683)

I've lived on border cities almost my entire life. Even my hispanic coworkers agree(and those poor bastards have to wait hours at the border crossing just to make an honest living) that it's all just security theater, another half-baked escalation to justify the creation of the wasteful, ham-handed gestapo called DHS. It goes without saying that I can still get cocaine or any other drug anytime I want stateside, and that won't change anytime soon.

So they scoop up a pic of child porn or an occasional drug bust and hype the hell out of it in the news, problem solved. A budget for next year, and no admission that the creation of the DHS was a colossal mistake. Of course, they'll have their work cut out for them when the United States becomes the next Nazi Germany and they're tasked with sealing the borders.

Re:information smuggling? (1)

cellurl (906920) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535299)

I agree. They should peer review this "try-it" mentality. Thats the solution. PEER_REVIEW [ x ]....

Re:information smuggling? (5, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534767)

They can't stop drugs getting into prisons - why bother pretending you can stop it across thousands of miles of unguarded border? And as for information - well, perhaps some of the minimum wage pigs and grunts they hire to pose in their security theatre are stupid enough to believe "checking" a laptop is going to prevent information getting into Mexico and help them create a rival utopia, but it seems like a bit of a waste of time to me. Still, I'm sure it all makes sense to someone.

Re:information smuggling? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29535065)

They can't stop drugs getting into prisons - why bother pretending you can stop it across thousands of miles of unguarded border?

Because every time it fails badly enough, you can use it as an excuse to make the nation behind the unguarded border more like a prison, and thereby increase your budget.

Re:information smuggling? (4, Funny)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535027)

"He said anyone coming across could be a terrorist, drug dealer or someone trying to carry or take information out of the country by hiding it in a smaller device."

Why not just FTP it. Or hide a microSD card inside a cake? It should bake okay, the chip inside gets put under higher temps than the inside of cupcake when they place them on a PCB. The plastic on a uSD might melt a little, but I suspect the information will still be there.

There seems to be an absence of a certain ornithological piece. A headline regarding mass-awareness of a certain avian variety. [wikipedia.org]

Re:information smuggling? (1)

I cant believe its n (1103137) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535131)

Why not just FTP it?

No! Thats just what they'll be expecting!

Re:information smuggling? (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535135)

the chip inside gets put under higher temps than the inside of cupcake when they place them on a PCB

Not by much, and for a much shorter time with controlled ramp-up and cooling off intervals.

Encryption! (2, Funny)

AK Dave (1459433) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534557)

Cue the flamewar.

I predict... (4, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534577)

... that US customs agents will some of the first thugs against the wall when the revolution comes.

Re:I predict... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29534671)

I predict you'll die alone.

Re:I predict... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29535055)

Almost everyone dies alone, but *everyone* gets a turn with your mom & your sister.

Re:I predict... (2, Funny)

Cal27 (1610211) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534677)

... that you accidentally the whole verb.

Re:I predict... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29534717)

I still vote to do the lawyers 1st. The lawyers gave the customs agents the right to do this. (all lawyers, ACLU too)

Re:I predict... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535155)

As long as we're not including Phoenix Wright, I'm in.

Re:I predict... (4, Funny)

Tanman (90298) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534725)

I predict that you need a verb!

I mean, this isn't grammar nazi'ing. I'm genuinely interested -- what exactly were you trying to say?

will be?
will question?
will throw?
will hump?
will tazer?
will shoot?
will have a tea party?
will rave with?

will WHAAAAAT?!?!?!

Re:I predict... (1, Funny)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534997)

Be or push depending if you like freedome or a police state.

Pretend it's a madlib. :D

Re:I predict... (2, Insightful)

ZosX (517789) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534735)

No revolution is successful because it always ends up in evolution. Somethings change, somethings always stay the same. We don't need a revolution, we need to uphold our constitution. A lot of this stuff should really be unconstitutional and needs to be challenged more. Didn't the supreme court rule that customs cannot do roadside drug searches inside our borders, and yet they do it anyways because it really doesn't apply within 150 miles of the border? 150 miles is a lot of land and contains a very sizable portion of our population.

Re:I predict... (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534991)

Including the entire state of Florida.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/

Re:I predict... (2, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535101)

We don't need a revolution, we need to uphold our constitution.

You mean scale the federal government back only to those things explicitly authorized in Article I, Section 8 minus those things prohibited by the Bill of Rights? If wouldn't be revolutionary, I don't know what would be!

Re:I predict... (3, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535285)

The problem is that it's easier to find loopholes than it is to plug them. All it takes is one guy at DHS thinking in his cubical to come up with a semi-plausible legal rational for this kind of thing. To have the rational refuted takes someone willing to sacrafice years of their life and fight it all the way to the supreme court. It takes thousands of man hours, sometimes millions of dollars to refute even the simpliest of arguments. And what happens after? The DHS says 'oh well' and goes back to the way things were before. No one is held accountable, no one is punished, and there is nothing to prevent the same worthless peon from coming up with another rational a week later.

Fuck All Mexicans (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29534591)

As long as this keeps Mexicans out of America, I'm all for it.

Re:Fuck All Mexicans (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534877)

Yeah, and let's deport any non-native people and their descendants while we're at it. Those Europeans were infected with swine plague.

Re:Fuck All Mexicans (1, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535043)

Actually what I find kind of interesting is that bit by bit, generation by generation, Mexicans are in fact retaking a fair chunk of their country that the US stole from them through some trumped up wars (including a delightful little proxy war in Texas). I figure by 2100 in many areas of Texas, New Mexico and California, English will be taught as a second language.

Re:Fuck All Mexicans (4, Insightful)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535277)

I figure by 2100 in many areas of Texas, New Mexico and California, English will be taught as a second language.

Because our primary language will be Chinese.

Linux laptop (4, Interesting)

Darylium (1015809) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534611)

I wonder what they'll do when they search my 'unusable' Linux laptop.

Re:Linux laptop (3, Insightful)

tenton (181778) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534633)

I wonder what they'll do when they search my 'unusable' Linux laptop.

See you in 30 days.

FTFA: CBP is authorized to keep an item or person in question for up to 30 days, although generally this is only if the subject is put into custody.

Re:Linux laptop (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534777)

They're only _authorized_ to hold you for 30 days. In reality they'll occasionally hold people for _years_.

Good luck.

Re:Linux laptop (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535103)

I wonder what they'll do when they search my 'unusable' Linux laptop.

See you in 30 days.

FTFA: CBP is authorized to keep an item or person in question for up to 30 days, although generally this is only if the subject is put into custody.

You see it's that "generally" part that frightens me the most. Who were these other poor people?

Re:Linux laptop (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534773)

Years ago I left Adelaide on a domestic flight with a laptop loaded with mandrake in my luggage. The departure was delayed 30 minutes on an excuse (said they needed to change a wheel, but I could see the plane and that didn't happen). So I got to Melbourne, unpacked the laptop and the battery was dead flat. It must have been started after I packed it, and not stopped properly.

...and then a quick call... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29534615)

"Blue corvette with three gringos heading south route X should pass through your village in 20 minutes. They have laptops, top-notch cellphones, some GPS stuff and wallets full of cash. I'd say some $15k in various assets. Remember, 10% is mine."

Re:...and then a quick call... (5, Funny)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534765)

Blue corvette with three gringos heading south

Those are some very close friends.

Re:...and then a quick call... (2, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534989)

Never said is was a car [wikipedia.org] .

Re:...and then a quick call... (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535153)

Good luck catching a plane ese.

Re:...and then a quick call... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535189)

And it's passing through the village and instead of over it?

Security Theater at its finest (4, Insightful)

tenton (181778) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534619)

Searching the 9/11 hijackers wouldn't have stopped them. It's not like they had their plans saved on their computers. Why do we accept this kind of crap whenever anyone says the magic words "9/11"? We don't even need to change the policy at the airport...people are going to beat down hijackers now, on their own.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin.

Re:Security Theater at its finest (4, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534977)

Yep, I think security on air craft would be paid for and determined by the airlines.

That way the market can chose how secure to be.

Maybe a pass on security if you get on naked, eating a pork sausages and say 'There is no God'.

That would increase security immeasurably.

Re:Security Theater at its finest (4, Funny)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535111)

Bacon-loving nudist atheists fly for free on my airline!

Re:Security Theater at its finest (4, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535251)

Maybe a pass on security if you get on naked, eating a pork sausages and say 'There is no God'.

Ahhh, Sunday morning traditions at my house.

Re:Security Theater at its finest (0, Troll)

Ozlanthos (1172125) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535075)

I couldn't agree more. This nanny-state "we are doing this to PROTECT you" bullshit has gone on long enough. Frankly I am kind of sick of it. "We need to put GPS on your phone, and in your car, so we can be right there to help you if you crash, or need other assistance". "What? No no, the GPS chip in your phone isn't tracking your every movement. That's just crazy!" "Cash for clunkers....trade in your non-GPS enabled vehicle, for a new fully GPS-enabled hyper-computerized vehicle". Never mind the fact that we are "getting rid of" your old vehicle (not trying to recover some of the investment on the second-hand parts market...just "getting rid of"). Can't have people repairing non-GPS enabled vehicles for too long... Just remember that GPS is a two-way (more like seven-way, but you get the point) street. In order for them to tell you how to get to where you are going, they have to know where you are!

Sometimes good things can come from being lost.

-Oz

Re:Security Theater at its finest (3, Informative)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535213)

Just to clarify an oft-misunderstood point: GPS is a receiver thing. Your GPS unit need only receive signals from the satellites to identify your location. Your GPS unit does not ever have to transmit anything at all. A road-map-path-finding GPS navigation unit could conceivably contain all the map data and a processor powerful enough to do the path finding, and you could use it with every assurance that you were disclosing your location to no one. I have no idea whether or not GPS nav units on the market are so self contained, but nothing inherent about GPS involves the ability of anyone to track you.

Re:Security Theater at its finest (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535297)

I have no idea whether or not GPS nav units on the market are so self contained, but nothing inherent about GPS involves the ability of anyone to track you.

Pretty much most of them are self contained and contain no mechanism for sending out that data real time. And if you are paranoid enough that you believe it is collecting data and clandestinely sends it out when you plug it into your PC at home when you do a major route plan or update, you can always not do that.

I've not plugged my GPS unit into anything but my cigarette lighter for years.

Re:Security Theater at its finest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29535239)

Uh, you realize the GPS devices don't have to broadcast where they are, right? They only need to receive signals from the satellites. Using stored knowledge of the satellites and the coded signals from them, the GPS unit can place itself. Anyway, if it were sending out a signal, then your location could be found simply by triangulating the signal, which is admittedly less precise than GPS. You are right that anyone that carries a cell phone and leaves it on all the time (like most people I know, including myself) can be tracked.

Re:Security Theater at its finest (1)

joeyblades (785896) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535115)

We lost the war on terrorism on 9/12 - right after we changed our behaviors and started giving up our own freedoms...

ICE has nearly unlimited search power... (5, Insightful)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534627)

...which is rather scary. Used to work for US Customs many years ago (before it was ICE), and we were legally permitted to basically search *anything* entering the country (including personal mail, something that is a federal crime in most other instances) other than diplomatic mail and pouches. Nothing was off-limits: If it comes from overseas, ICE has the constitutional right (backed by many years of case law) to search it.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, but every international traveler should be aware of this. Whining about your constitutional rights being violated while standing in the "red" line at your port of entry will simply prolong the agony.

Re:ICE has nearly unlimited search power... (1)

baudbarf (451398) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534679)

Does this include network traffic entering the country? Yikes.

Re:ICE has nearly unlimited search power... (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534789)

I don't need no stinking constitution to have rights.

How about stuff leaving the country? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535223)

I know the country you are going to can search you, but can the US feds search you going out? Are there any limits, other than on diplomatic items?

Re:ICE has nearly unlimited search power... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535227)

Where in the Constitution does it say that ICE has that authority?

I'm pretty fucking sure that shit is contraindicated.

"Case law"?
I think you mean:
"Some asshat judge incorrectly decided in our favor at the one point in time, so we all refer to it and pretend it's authoritative. Suck it."

Re:ICE has nearly unlimited search power... (2, Interesting)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535275)

ICE has the constitutional right

Since you seem to know, and I'm too lazy to hunt it down, where, precisely (article and section), in the US constitution is this "right" (I presume you really mean "power") given to the executive branch of the federal government?

open these disks first mofo (4, Funny)

Howserx (955320) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534659)

I think I've finally found a use for those virus infected disks I kept from years ago.

Re:open these disks first mofo (2, Funny)

otterpopjunkie (1558913) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535121)

"What is the password to this suspicious disc?"

"autonuke"

Have the right != shoul do so (4, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534669)

I think from a Constitutional perspective they are correct that they have the right to do such inspections. However, doing them on a large scale is a really bad idea. However, stupidity is not unconstitutional.

Re:Have the right != shoul do so (1, Troll)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534909)

I forgot where the inspection clause is in the US Constitution. Could you remind me which article it's in?

Re:Have the right != shoul do so (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535235)

There isn't one. But that's not the point. What is reasonable is a matter of precedent. The precedent has been for a very long time that the bar for what is reasonable is much lower when dealing with goods over borders. It is possible to argue that this is or is not a good thing. But the Constitutional issue at a broad level is pretty clearly decided.

Pulp Friction (5, Funny)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534687)

Captain Koons: The way your dad looked at it, this iPod was your birthright. He'd be damned if any US Border agents gonna put their greasy hands on his boy's birthright, so he hid it, in the one place he knew he could hide something: his ass. Five long years, he wore this iPod up his ass. Then when he died of dysentery, he gave me the iPod. I hid this uncomfortable piece of metal up my ass for two years. Then, after seven years, I was sent home to my family. And now, little man, I give the iPod to you.

Re:Pulp Friction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29534753)

Don't you mean ergonomic, comfortable piece of anodized aluminum?

Re:Pulp Friction (1)

MortimerGraves (828374) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534811)

Would rather depend. Shuttle or Nano... maybe. Classic... not so much. :)

Re:Pulp Friction (3, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534985)

It was the Touch.

When will device makers respond? (1)

bzzfzz (1542813) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534693)

How long will it be until freedom-loving, consumer-supporting manufacturers start making devices that are resistant to searches like these? With today's technology there's no reason I shouldn't be able to have strong encryption of any nonvolatile storage and a means of locking down the device so that nothing is left in RAM or cache and the key is sequestered or destroyed (presumably pending manual reentry after the checkpoint is cleared). Fine, the law says they can conduct a forensic search, but there's no reason I have to make it easy for them.

Re:When will device makers respond? (3, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535071)

Fine, the law says they can conduct a forensic search, but there's no reason I have to make it easy for them.

If you take this approach, it may be some time before you get your device back, if at all. If they find that they *can't* get into it, they will assume there is a reason they *should* get into it, and they will not give it back until they crack it. If they can't, you mey not see it again. So exect to lose youe strongly encrypted device. Hope it didn't cost too much...

apparently (4, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534709)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

Apparently this is one of those times where the feds take advantage of that massive loo-pole in the fourth amendment effectively allowing them to disregard it in the case of "reasonable" searches and seizures...

Re:apparently (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535013)

...massive loo-pole...

I didn't know there was a toilet pole [apartmenttherapy.com] in the Constitution.

Get A Clue please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29535031)

It's not a loophole, it's called the border search exception. Its an established doctrine that's been established by the Supreme Court. Google it sometime before you spout your mouth, boy.

Now that I've utterly destroyed your nonsensical post with real facts, please, moderators, mod this -1 Clueless.

Re:Get A Clue please (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535289)

Seems to me the Supreme Court has no authority to establish anything.
Its only job is to hear cases and judge them based on the law.
Since almost all cases heard by the Supreme Court involve a claim of something being unconstitutional, and since the US Constitution is the highest law of the land (no, it's not treaties), the job of the Supreme Court is almost invariably:

Hear a case
Refer to the Constitution
???
Judge

All too often, ??? = "Fuck up", "Screw the people", "Fuck your freedoms", etc.

If you want to get really personal (4, Funny)

thewils (463314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534737)

Heck checking your laptop is nothing, they can probe up your ass if they really want to!

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29534741)

We have always been at war with Eurasia

Eastasia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29534781)

We've always been at war with Eastasia. Nothing has changed from before.

FTFA, It's for the Children, of Course (0, Troll)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534787)

CBP: "Pasa"
US Citiznen: [drives by]
CBP: "Pasa"
US Citiznen: [drives by]
CBP: "Pasa"
US Citiznen: [drives by]
CBP: "Alto! Que bueno Camera, este Cannon?"
US Citiznen: "Yes, officer. It's a new Cannon 14 Mega Pixel Camera, with 15 to 1500 lens. Still in the box. Never used it, I plan to take some pictures SCUBA Diving at Kennedy's Cove."
CBP: "Si, un momento. I'm sorry but we have to have an indepth search of what you took pictures of. Please pull over there."
US Citizen: "Uh? look, it's still in the box, it's never been opened?!"
CBP: "If you do not pull over there, I will arrest you as a For-ing Nation-nal Spy".
US Citizen: "What! I'm going back home!"
CBP: [pulls gun a puts it to the side of the US Citizen's Head] "Maybe you do not understand me. That camera is now confiscated, and I bet it is just filled with child pronography."
US Citizen: "Look, I'm sorry, all I've got is $20.00, would that help the CBP?"
CBP:[smiling and holding out his hand] "Thank you, and have a nice day in Mexico, Pasa"
US Citizen: [drives by]
CBP: "Pasa"
US Citizen: [drives by]
CBP: "Pasa"
US Citizen: [drives by]

Re:FTFA, It's for the Children, of Course (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29534965)

lol mexicans are corrupt!!1

FTFA, CBP is a US agency (1)

raluxs (961449) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535119)

The searches TFA is talking about are made on the US side

Re:FTFA, CBP is a US agency (2, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535149)

and probably up to 100 miles inland from the actual border, too.
https://www.checkpointusa.org/ [checkpointusa.org]

Re:FTFA, It's for the Children, of Course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29535133)

CBP is when you are coming back into the US. However, that doesn't change your post much. They would just say, "Thank you, and have a nice day in the USA, bye".

Going or coming? (2, Interesting)

supe (163410) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534803)

What's the search pattern for *leaving* the US?
Are the boarder countries as paranoid as the US?

Re:Going or coming? (2, Informative)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#29534975)

Come to Canada. They don't even ask you where you're from half the time.

Re:Going or coming? (1)

Howserx (955320) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535001)

No. Don't. Please.

Re:Going or coming? (2, Informative)

Titoxd (1116095) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535063)

Not sure about Canada, but when driving to Mexico, they have what is essentially a glorified traffic light. If you get a green light, you are not searched and you are free to go. If you get a red light, you have to be pulled over to get your car search (usually just a cursory inspection). They care more about you not bringing stuff in without paying duties than about you being a spy, though. This approach is also reflected in waiting times: In the Douglas, AZ crossing, you would rarely wait more than a minute to go to Agua Prieta, Son., but you would need to wait a couple of hours while driving from Agua Prieta back into the US.

Re:Going or coming? (1)

akpoff (683177) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535129)

Are the boarder countries as paranoid as the US?

No. As long as you leave a credit card on file or pay in advance they're all pretty accommodating. Most will turn down the covers at night, leave chocolate on the pillows and bring clean towels in the morning. The Canadians sighed a bit more than usual in the '60s when a bunch of unwashed draft dodgers showed up but even then they didn't ask many questions.

This one scares me on so many levels... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29534911)

First - this is fishing. You aren't actually accused of anything... we are going to search you till we find something. What was the famous quote - something like: "give me 6 lines from the hand of an innocent man and I'll find something to convict him".

Second - the fact that they found something. After trampling over the rights of 221 million passengers, they found a paedophile. Is that worth the cost? How many rights are you willing to give up to find that paedophile? Having rights and freedoms means that sometimes bad guys get away. To catch all bad guys requires us to live in a panopticon.

Third - the tone that if you object to this program, you obviously support the paedophile.

Fourth - I'm from outside the US, but I travel there frequently for business. The entry requirements have risen from a form to being fingerprinted and photographed and carrying biometric data at all times. Is there an upper level to this? What would happen if they require DNA swabs to enter? Is that a step too far? Right now in Chicago, they take a nude photo of you using a new scanner to be able to fly. That is so screwed up.

Re:This one scares me on so many levels... (1)

torkus (1133985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535273)

Ok, i was totally with you until the nude photography.

It's nothing more than an over-glorified x-ray scanner which displays an image and moves on without saving anything. Sure, you can play conspiracy theory and say someone, somewhere, somehow is saving the pictures. There might also be a peeping tom outside your bedroom window.

What's funny is most countries don't do anything even remotely near what the US does yet they get by just fine.

The great news (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29535009)

They have extended the thickness of the border by 100 miles as well, so that now 80% of the population can be summarily stopped and searched at anytime.

Isn't it great?

New authority, old laws (2, Insightful)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535029)

It's not a new authority, according to Angelica De Cima, Office of Public Affairs Liaison 'They've always had the right to inspect your person, vehicle, baggage, anything on you. Nothing has changed from before,' De Cima said."

This is always how it is done. Pass laws that are extreme enough so that people say "no one will ever use them"...wait for a while... then use them when there is no chance to roll those laws back.

This is why Thomas Jefferson said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

abc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29535069)

xyz

They've always had the right.... (3, Insightful)

oldmeddler (1614805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535127)

'They've always had the right to inspect your person, vehicle, baggage, anything on you.'

No, they do not have the "right" to search. They have the power. Big difference.

Story title is wrong (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535259)

It's not "High-Tech Gadgets Can Pose Problems At Mexican Border", it's "High-Tech Gadgets Can Pose Problems At United States Border".

Search without cause? (1, Interesting)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#29535315)

This seems like a violation of individual rights with little point behind it. TFA pretty much indicates they may search someone just for the way they look. What exactly are they hoping to find on these devices? The file labeled super_secret_spy_plan.txt? A file can be disguised as anything else. hell, you could take a picture of your 'plan' through a colored lens and save it as a jpeg and call it dinner.jpg and unless someone went through the hundreds of thousands of files on a PC, or a software did, what would they find?

Hell, you could drop a file and just erase it from the directory tables. File is still there, just not overwritten.

This seems to me to be nothing more than a lame attempt to either frighten, or catch really stupid people.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>