Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Tor Developer Detained At US Border, Pressed On Wikileaks

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the number-you've-reached-has-been-changed dept.

Government 637

suraj.sun writes with this news from CNET: "A security researcher involved with the Wikileaks Web site — Jacob Appelbaum, a Seattle-based programmer for the online privacy protection project called Tor — was detained by US agents at the border for three hours and questioned about the controversial whistleblower project as he entered the country on Thursday to attend a hacker conference. He was also approached by two FBI agents at the Defcon conference after his presentation on Saturday afternoon about the Tor Project. Appelbaum, a US citizen, arrived at the Newark, New Jersey, airport from Holland Thursday morning, was taken into a room, frisked and his bag was searched. Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained. They asked questions about Wikileaks, asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is, but he declined to comment without a lawyer present, according to the sources. He was not permitted to make a phone call, they said." Appelbaum told me that he just spoke at length with The New York Times, and quipped that his Defcon talk about Tor was "just fine, until the FBI showed up"; this post will likely be updated with more details. Update: 08/02 03:59 GMT by T : Here's the NYT's coverage.

cancel ×

637 comments

of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102312)

figures...

It's not like they took him hout back and shot him (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102474)

Not that I'd care. He deserves to be strung up. Damn commie sympathizers.

Re:of course (1)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102564)

What did he expect? A Boy Scout merit badge?

Re:of course (5, Insightful)

WCguru42 (1268530) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102704)

What did he expect? A Boy Scout merit badge?

As a citizen of the United States? Probably that one phone call to his lawyer and the right from unlawful detainment, to name a few.

So what? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102318)

Everyone gets detained at the US border now and then. This sucks, but it's sad that we only hear about it when it happens to a Tor devoloper.

Re:So what? (5, Insightful)

etymxris (121288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102364)

Well it seems clear that there was nothing "random" about his detention. And it's bad enough that customs can seize anything going through the borders without warrant or cause. But it's even worse when border crossings get used as an excuse for warrantless interrogations.

Re:So what? (4, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102374)

Not everyone gets detained and asked about Wikileaks.

I've been randomly searched, but I've never been pulled aside and asked about something I've actually been working on. This guy has been flagged in the system.

Re:So what? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102420)

Is it good that we even have "a system"?

Opinions are a crime now? (5, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102322)

asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

That's more worrying than the detention etc. But then ground-level grunts never did know the law well.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102346)

asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

That's more worrying than the detention etc. But then ground-level grunts never did know the law well.

Do you think it will rain tomorrow? I don't really care what you think but I am trying to get a reaction that I can use against you.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102378)

But then ground-level grunts never did know the law well.

The ground level grunts simply propagate the attitudes and atmosphere of the upper echelon. Sort of like "corporate culture" in the business world. I think it speaks volumes about the attitudes (ie complete lack of respect for the rights of those you're _servicing_) in general of the entire organizations.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (-1, Troll)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102382)

Where does it mention anywhere that his opinions were a crime? It's called interrogation, they're trying to establish his mindset. Couldn't resist a chance to bash The Man though.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102454)

Who do you mean by 'The Man'?

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (5, Interesting)

sammyF70 (1154563) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102484)

first rule of engagement during an interrogation : don't talk to cops (or wannabe cops) [youtube.com] , let your lawyer do the work. There are no innocent questions to "establish your mindset" when everything you say can and will be used against you.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102584)

There are no innocent questions to "establish your mindset" when everything you say can and will be used against you.

When everything you say can and will be used against you there are some hilarious statements and questions that can be made. Love to see them try to use them in court with a straight face.

"Do you smell pork?"

"I fucked your mom last night."

"Officer did your parents have any children that were not mentally retarded or are you an only child?"

etc.,etc.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (2, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102658)

Hostile attitude, disrespect for law enforcement officers - helps color your character the wrong way.

Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?) keep your yapper shut and let your lawyer do the talking.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (4, Insightful)

fotbr (855184) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102738)

Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?) keep your yapper shut and let your lawyer do the talking.

There's no such thing as a friendly interrogation. Always, always, always keep your yap shut and let the lawyer talk. It's sad, but that's the USA of today.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102626)

Damn, you beat me to it - it has to be posted on every single discussion until people get it.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (2, Insightful)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102446)

Who said anything about it being a crime? What law says that law enforcement officers can't ask questions?

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (1)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102500)

what law says they have the right to detain anyone without a resin? even with the patriot act they STILL need a resin!

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (5, Funny)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102544)

what law says they have the right to detain anyone without a resin? even with the patriot act they STILL need a resin!

Undoubtedly without a resin, nothing would stick.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (-1, Troll)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102612)

this is true but FISHING for a resin like they were doing ISN'T a resin

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102632)

what law says they have the right to detain anyone without a resin? even with the patriot act they STILL need a resin!

Undoubtedly without a resin, nothing would stick.

Excellent!

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102550)

Who said anything about it being a crime? What law says that law enforcement officers can't ask questions?

None. They can always ask questions, but you are not required to answer (see 5th).

But once the Customs & Border patrol determined that:

1. This guy is a genuine card-carrying American.
2. This guy is not carrying any illegal contraband on his person or in his belongings.
3. There is no warrant pending for his arrest.

He has therefore committed no crime, he has the right to enter the United States of America, and they have no right to detain him.

I hope he sues the fucks for a few million for violating his constitutional rights.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102552)

well lets start with The Fifth amendment slide by the Miranda regs and end up speaking about the rules of evidence
(i think that they are not "allowed" to use any info prior to the reading of the Miranda text but will anyway).
some Leos use the YOU ARE NOT UNDER ARREST ploy to try to skate by Miranda (its implied that it only applies when you are under arrest)

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (1, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102622)

As soon as you're not free to leave you're under arrest, that's something which isn't very well communicated. Just because they haven't frisked you and put you in handcuffs does not mean you're not arrested. Judicially, there's been quite a bit of slide in terms of miranda warnings lately, with the courts allowing a lot of stuff which really shouldn't be.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (5, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102488)

It's an obvious ploy to get him to start talking. More obvious is the line about "human rights being trampled". Once he starts talking the hope is he'll spill some information the FBI doesn't already know. Many people fall for this kind if thing as it appeals to their ego. Appelbaum is obviously smart enough to realize there's really nothing for him to gain by talking to the FBI, and only things to lose.

Re:Opinions are a crime now? (1)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102588)

America is at war. I think America pissed off a lot of countries, and it gives me the impression that it is scared and full of fear.
I am European, and went to a trip to Las Vegas last year to have some fun. When I landed in Chicago we (all EU citizens who landed there) had our fingerprints taken, and they took a picture of all passengers. I think it's crazy. What does your government want to accomplish doing so? If you come to the EU you just land, (sometimes you don't even) get you passport checked and you are done.

BTW, I really enjoyed my stay, Las Vegas is a great place to have fun, get drunk and play poker, an most American people there where really nice.

coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102326)

Snap!

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW HIPPIES? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102328)

SO MUCH ANONYMITY FAGGOT HIPPIES! [xkcd.com]

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like GAY CHRISTIAN MAGIC.

Re:WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW HIPPIES? (1)

FrankHS (835148) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102476)

Today they would just waterboard you and save the price of the wrench. (Re: the Xkcd cartoon in parent.)

I didn't know us hippies had a god.

Hello slashdot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102330)

I'm a chick with a dick

TRUE OR NOT THATS' DISTURBINGLY HOT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102422)

YOUR PRESENCE IS REQUIRED HERE [slashdot.org]

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like KATHLEEN FENTS COCK.

Welcome to Obama's America (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102332)

Hope you like it!

Re:Welcome to Obama's America (3, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102654)

Disclaimer: This is a mostly off-topic rant in reply to an off-topic troll.

It's just like Bush's America, but with a different figurehead. I'll wager $50 that the next guy, regardless of party affiliation, will be minimally different.

The President doesn't really matter. The orientation of Congress doesn't really matter. What matters is the overall opinion of the American population, and changing that takes a much longer time that 4, 8, or even 20 years. Look at the big picture as it's changed over the last few decades. There are a few things our representatives now realize:

  • They can't be overtly racist and get away with it.
  • They can't really expect support for any anti-gay legislation.
  • Anything supporting the oil industry has to also support more environmentally-friendly technology.
  • Anything that has the appearance of improving security, or at the very least improving our awareness, is expected to be done.

The plain and simple fact is that every time the government does something just to "appease the general public", that means they're doing (mostly) what the general public wants. If they're wrong, and are trying to implement something that's proven impossible (like, for example, mandating DRM), then that means that the American public at large probably don't understand why it's not possible. If you oppose a pending bill and it gets passed, that means you didn't do a good enough job of convincing people of your viewpoint. Activists, as annoying as they are sometimes, play a vital role in making the general public aware of the issues at hand.

On topic, I understand why there are interrogations and detainments. Less than a decade ago, America was dealt a serious blow by an enemy that was living right among us. It wasn't so much the number of people that died that was so concerning. It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Sure, there were reports of something being expected to happen, but thery were no more definite or detailed than the hundreds of similar reports that passed through the White House in the months before. September 11th of 2001 was the day we realized how little we knew about the rest of the world. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.

It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out. There are myriad groups out there keeping an eye on any civil rights violations, and I for one commend their work. There is a balance we must strike between absolute security and absolute liberty, and we will not reach that point within the span of one presidential term. I doubt we'll reach it within ten terms. America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years. We are cocky and immature, and so is our intelligence system. Give it time to grow, but make sure it's kept in check by the public activists and watchdogs. We'll grow up just fine.

Well, good (-1, Troll)

Etcetera (14711) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102336)

The posting of the classified info via Wikileaks was a crime. A large number of Afghan informants had their names exposed and will probably be killed (and/or have family or friends killed or used for extortion) before we can safely (and expensively) extricate them.

Quit whining and start taking responsibility for your actions. And understand that when your associates do illegal things, you're going to get questioned about it on re-entry into the US.

Re:Well, good (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102424)

Why is this post marked as "troll"? Most of what the post says is true. Is it because the opinion expressed differs from yours? Weak!

Re:Well, good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102450)

Why is this post marked as "troll"? Most of what the post says is true. Is it because the opinion expressed differs from yours? Weak!

OH HAI THERE SAMMY MCSAMEFAG!!!!1

Re:Well, good (1)

brasselv (1471265) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102524)

While I largely disagree with the two posts above, they don't fit my definition of trolling.

Starting a moderation fight based on different opinions, does not bring anyone much further with the debate. Nor with anything else.

POV (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102468)

That's just your point of view, and the point of view of the invaders to that nation. To a lot of people there, those are traitors, quislings...and that is even if these wikileak documents aren't disinformation, another of their bogus false flag ops.

And in my opinion, anyone who believes the government whackjob nutcase conspiracy theory about 9-11 is a drool. Why anyone would believe a source like the US government, which routinely lies about most everything, especially very important things, is beyond me.

Re:Well, good (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102696)

No names were revealed, they were blanked out. Unlike what some "journalist" might have said. Link: http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/20070146579

UFFSA (5, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102340)

Welcome to the United Federal Fascist State of America. Please enjoy your stay...

This kinda stuff is totally unacceptable. What law did he break? What was he accused of? Why was he detained? What right do they have to ask such questions? On what planet is a 3 hour detention reasonable?

Re:UFFSA (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102366)

Pretty much every country on earth will allow someone to be detained for 3 hours. Days would be unreasonable, hours is not.

Idiot.

Re:UFFSA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102416)

[...] Days would be unreasonable, hours is not.

Idiot.

And soon it will be "weeks would be unreasonable, days are not.", then that would be reasonable, etc.

Idiot.

Re:UFFSA (3, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102452)

Hey "Anonymous Coward", you call me an "idiot" because I think being detained for three hours is unreasonable? Well, perhaps my time is more valuable than yours.

Re:UFFSA (4, Interesting)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102472)

But how many countries *routinely* detain people for that amount of time for no reason at all? I have traveled to something like 50 or 60 countries, including some of the last remaining communist ones and I never experienced anything like what I have experienced trying to enter or leave my own country: The People's Republic of North America.

Re:UFFSA (0, Troll)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102554)

They had a reason, possible treason. It wasn't a random detention.

Re:UFFSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102574)

But how many countries *routinely* detain people for that amount of time for no reason at all?

I have no idea, but how is that relevant? He was detained for questioning in connection with a crime (the leak of classified information.) He was released when it was determined he was not responsible.

Every country *routinely* detains people for a few hours in connection with crimes, except for the ones that simply arrest immediately and hold indefinitely.

Re:UFFSA (2, Informative)

fatalwall (873645) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102668)

Yes they can detain you for questioning but no they can not withhold your right to have your lawyer present for said questioning.

This is not every country we are talking about here. This is the United States. The country that raves about its treatment of citizens and how glorious Democracy is. Every time they pull things like this they show the truth that no government is any better then any other because people are all the same and will do what they want when in power no matter what rules exist.

Re:UFFSA (1)

ImNotAtWork (1375933) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102714)

Israel. Airport security in the U.S. is a joke compared to what they have going on there. Remember when they were confiscating whatever the new apple product was. There security is armed to the teeth. I understand they are trying to keep their country safe and am not making a judgment; just pointing out that the U.S. isn't the only one detaining people at airports for questioning.

On another note.. would you let some one you know hacking your companies website go ahead and sit in the break room with administrative assistants without at least talking to him? The U.S.Government is trying to protect security and information leaks. This was an opportunity to grab for some low hanging fruit, hoping they would get lucky.

By being well informed of his own rights the target was able to stop any communication with out a lawyer present.

Re:UFFSA (4, Interesting)

canadian_right (410687) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102478)

3 minutes isn't reasonable if there is no evidence of a crime. And what the hell is "detained"? If they don't arrest you should be able to go your own way.

You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your rights from them; you give them permission rule, only so long as they follow the rules: laws and constitution.

And name calling never made an argument more persuasive.

Re:UFFSA (4, Informative)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102510)

The general idea as far as I know is that if you suspect someone has performed a crime, but you do not yet have evidence, then you can detain them for a short while as you gather your evidence preventing him from for instance running as you start to search his backpack.

Police seem to like exploiting their right to detain for frivolous reasons though.

Re:UFFSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102698)

Exactly, now that the us is on even ground with the rest of the world there is now LESS of a reason to live here and contribute.
The US was never the 'chosen one' of countries, it was just more free.
It isn't anymore, you can get harassed elsewhere and pay less taxes, or get real health care.
Or you can stay in the US and be a citizen of the belligerent nation and carry that reputation when you leave the US
It might be worse elsewhere, but it is for sure CHEAPER and EASIER TO COMPLY with the laws of other nations.

USSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102392)

I actually prefer USSA (United Soviet States of America)

Re:UFFSA (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102428)

This kinda stuff is totally unacceptable. What law did he break? What was he accused of? Why was he detained? What right do they have to ask such questions? On what planet is a 3 hour detention reasonable?
His business partner posted classified documents to the web. They asked about that. according to the summary he was told he was being detained, but not arrested. They have the right to ask those questions because a close associate committed a crime.
Tell me, if your robbed and your stuff is traced back to a house with two occupants; one who the police are pretty sure did it, and the other who they don't think did it, but don't know. According to your logic they shouldn't be able to talk tot he second one. Are you really sure that's the argument you want to make?

Re:UFFSA (3, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102502)

Thanks for the info. I did not know any of that from the either the summary or the article. It sounded like he was just being harassed about the Tor project or security testing. I probably would not have posted knowing what I know now.

Re:UFFSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102430)

What planet do you live on? Classified government docs were leaked. Of course the government is going to try to find out who leaked them and how. And 3 hours is not unreasonable and as far as decrying the government, you are more than welcome to move to a country where he would have disappeared and you would never have read about it.

Re:UFFSA (1)

Reginald2 (1859758) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102434)

Breaking the law would mean he was a citizen.

Once you fall into the wrong hands you are no longer a citizen or an enemy. You are completely outside of any law available to mankind.

Re:UFFSA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102538)

Breaking the law would mean he was a citizen.

Heh.
Appelbaum, a US citizen

More like dual citizen of the US and Israel. [veteranstoday.com]

Whenever the US gets stabbed in the back, look for the Jew!

WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102708)

Once you fall into the wrong hands you are no longer a citizen or an enemy. You are completely outside of any law available to mankind.

Even those arrested in connection with 9/11 got trials! (Admittedly, the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc did not)

What the hell is worse than being an enemy?

Re:UFFSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102436)

For starters he's a known associate of a known felon.

Re:UFFSA (1)

BradMajors (995624) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102440)

The crime? Possible involvement in esponiage. Possible treason for supplying classified information to foreign enemies.

Re:UFFSA (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102516)

The crime? Possible involvement in esponiage. Possible treason for supplying classified information to foreign enemies.

....Then you gather evidence then prosecute/arrest the "suspect", . Abusing the border interrogation system in order to obtain pressured information from an American citizen is way messed up. If there is a crime, arrest. Otherwise screw off.

Re:UFFSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102710)

Without any kind of evidence you are just as guilty of the same thing.

Re:UFFSA (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102520)

They thought he might be related to a crime (releasing classified documents. Whether you think that should be a crime or not is a different subject). In nearly any country, if the police think you are involved in some crime, they have the power to detain you and ask questions. There is no problem with this: it's what we want our police to be doing, solving crimes. And they do catch real criminals (murderers, etc) at the border. Really, being questioned or detained at a border doesn't make a country fascist.

The biggest news here is that the government is serious about finding who leaked those documents. For some reason that really annoyed someone high up.

The biggest problem with what happened is something that wasn't even mentioned in the summary: they kept three of his cell phones for no apparent reason. The article only presents one side of the story, but assuming it is accurate, this is unjust. They shouldn't keep objects without a reason.

Re:UFFSA (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102540)

One where you expect to travel between sovereign states after doing something that might put one of them at risk. In perspective, 3 hours is 1/8th of one day. That's 1/2920 of a year. Or one part out of 233,600 in an 80-year lifespan. In exchange for that bit of time, the government agencies (FBI, CIA, DHS) can get a bit more insight into Tor and how it actually affects American security.

Does Tor see many clients from Afghanistan?

What countries have exit nodes that are government-run, and probably likely to be monitored?

In a general sense, is this even something we should be worried about?

Personally, I think such a trade is acceptable. If I were to make a magic system that did something the government saw as a threat, I'd rather spend a few hours talking to the government and explaining things than make life harder for the folks I trust with the safety of myself and my neighbors.

Re:UFFSA (2, Interesting)

Splab (574204) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102578)

Wait.. WHAT??

If they want answers to such trivial things they can start by giving him a call or write an e-mail (or try google...) - detaining someone against their will for 3 hours to "learn" is by no means acceptable.

Re:UFFSA (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102734)

How likely is it that an email would actually be answered in a timely fashion, or provide nearly enough information? In an interview, you can tell when someone's lying. There's facial cues, hesitation, tone of voice, etc. which are all lost in a written response. A phone call wouldn't be as bad, but that means having to track down the guy's personal phone number, which is not really affordable on a wide scale.

Then there's the issue of identity. Even if a phone call or email could be established, how can anyone be sure that the answers are actually coming from the person they intended to contact? It's cheaper and easier to simply meet the person at the border, have a conversation, and be done with it. With the amount of complaints about government spending, I'm still glad they'll take the cheap route.

Re:UFFSA (4, Informative)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102598)

Tor was originally developed and funded by the U.S. Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network) [wikipedia.org]

Re:UFFSA (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102670)

And since then, how much input has the military had, especially in regards to the current operating network?

Re:UFFSA (1)

unixan (800014) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102562)

What law did he break? What was he accused of? Why was he detained? What right do they have to ask such questions?

Welcome to law enforcement procedures. Of course you're allowed to have an opinion. But, say, your legally allowable opinion on your neighbor's yard maintenance might be a motive for why your neighbor is dead, for example. And 12 hour interviews are completely allowed. You just need to know your rights and how to use them; for instance, explicitly saying you invoke your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

Now, is it reasonable for the FBI to suspect Jacob Appelbaum is involved in the wikileak and put him in the box for 3 hours? THAT's another question...

Hardball? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102566)

Nah, nothing more yet than few poor guys rattling the cage to scare others.

Re:UFFSA (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102570)

Welcome to the United Federal Fascist State of America. Please enjoy your stay...

This kinda stuff is totally unacceptable. What law did he break? What was he accused of? Why was he detained? What right do they have to ask such questions? On what planet is a 3 hour detention reasonable?

"Embarrassing the Government" is an unwritten crime in most countries, though it's also a hard one to commit because you usually need to demonstrate publicly in several respected - preferably international - media channels that the government has made an almighty ballsup of something.

Penalties vary from country to country. In some countries, the penalty is simply harassment of a legal - yet annoying - nature for an unspecified period of time. In others, the penalty is death by suicide.

We are at war (0, Troll)

voss (52565) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102648)

1) The united states is at war in Afghanistan
2) Wikileaks leaked secret documents about the war in afghanistan in a reckless manner that possibly endangered lives of our allies
and soldiers on the battlefield.
3) A 3 hour border detention is less than someone would be detained for unpaid parking tickets. They did not arrest him. They could have
easily arrested him as a material witness.
4) Given that he was allowed to go on to his conference and he was not questioned further without his lawyer present...I just dont see the story here
other than its geek-celebrity news.
5) He was allowed to leave the country after his conference, not exactly what police states do.

Mr. Applebaum doesn't act like an innocent victim of human rights abuses. He acts like an uncooperative witness who flees at the first sign of oppurtunity.

It sounds like the FBI agents were genuinely trying to hear his side of the story about his rights being trampled
  having been at the conference for other reasons.

Desperate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102342)

The DHS is offering people large amounts of money to 'infiltrate' Wikileaks. Now''s your chance to cash in.

Re:Desperate... (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102606)

That's actually the modus operandi of all the 3-letter agencies and military intelligence overseas:

Instead of doing any real detective work, just throw tons of money at snitches.

Think about that when you're unemployed and feeding your family ramen noodles while lying crooks and scumbags get fifty grand a year [counterpunch.org] to spin tall tales and bogus claims about cases that go nowhere. From link:

The FBI pounced on this disclosure, and soon Khan was on the Bureau's payroll at $50,000 a year as an undercover informer, charged with returning to Lodi and probing the terror ring. To date the Bureau has paid him $250,000.

Ask for a lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102358)

Good man. He refused to talk to the authorities without a lawyer.

I will never talk to the police without immunity.

The horror (5, Interesting)

Reginald2 (1859758) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102386)

Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.

Some of the most horrific words the war on terror has produced.

...asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...

*shudders*

Re:The horror (1)

Reginald2 (1859758) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102498)

How is this flamebait?

Re:The horror (3, Insightful)

FrankHS (835148) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102558)

And if he had said. "I think the United states should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.", what happens then?

Yet as far as I know it is still legal to hold the belief that we should get out of there.

arrested/detained? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102444)

Curious. Is it just me, or is the whole "you're not arrested, you're detained" just yet another attempt to avoid getting around the limits that the law, constitution etc. set by making up a new word?

Kinda like "enemy combatant" (no Geneva convention for you, Afghanis!), perhaps.

Put another way: if he was not under arrest, was he free to go? If he was not free to go, how was he not under arrest?

Re:arrested/detained? (-1, Troll)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102490)

You do know your beloved FDR's administration originally came up with the "Enemy Combatant" designation for German saboteurs and spies in the US during World War II and it's not some newfangled Bushism, right? No, you probably didn't. Not that makes it right or anything, but its not like they pulled this out of their ass for the current adventurist pursuit.

Re:arrested/detained? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102542)

"Enemy Combatant" is much much older then that, the only thing that's changed from 1000 years ago is the name. But every convention on the rule of war has had something covering people who attack others, or aren't part of a marked standing army.

Re:arrested/detained? (4, Interesting)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102620)

They're both wrong, so we should abolish it. FDR used it in a case against 8 men (Ex parte Quirin). Bush used it against some 775 detainees at Guantanamo and unknown others. So, we can say that Bush is approximately 100-fold more in the wrong than FDR was.

Also, Bush expanded the meaning and use of the term (to automatically include anyone in the Taliban or al Qaida, regardless of actions) in his November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism".

So again: We should abolish it. As has been indicated under the Obama administration in a statement by Attorney General Eric Holder on March 13, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant [wikipedia.org]

Re:arrested/detained? (4, Informative)

volkerdi (9854) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102548)

The rules are different at the border. Until you pass the border, they can detain you without arresting you, and they can do so on a mere hunch. You aren't "in the United States" yet, and you do not have your constitutional rights until you are.

Says who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102666)

Says who?

In a US-based airport, one is firmly within the US border and on US soil.

(The plane is probably at least 100-200 miles inside the border when it lands)

Re:arrested/detained? (2, Interesting)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102672)

So which constitutional rights do you have? Which laws apply? It was said he came from Holland, do Dutch laws apply?

It seems weird that having just landed, you do not benefit from any protection, and they are free to do as they will. How come that US law applies to a plane that flies around the planet, having departed the US, until it hits the ground in another country, but the other way around doesn't work?

So effectively, until the plane lands in the US, it is still under Dutch law, but not yet under US law? Where is the coherence in this?

Would someone who is enlightened enough please explain?

PS: I'm a security consultant, and have been quizzed quite a few times by US border, but also in the Ukraine, Australia, and where not. It never went very far, usually just being asked if I had any hardware that needed to be declared, and people asking information about the smart cards they were using.

Re:arrested/detained? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102688)

I thought constitutional rights are conferred upon american citizens not location based?

Re:arrested/detained? (0)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102692)

Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained

ICE is allowed to detain aliens without arresting them, since there's no point arresting someone if you're just going to deport them. The Army is allowed to detain enemy combatants.

The police are free to detain someone until they determine whether an arrest is necessary. An example would be if you are pulled over and the police suspect drunken driving. You can ask "Am I under arrest or am I free to go?" and you'll get either "I'm still trying to figure that out, how about doing a mandatory drunk test for me" or if you push it "If you want one or the other it's going to be an arrest and we're taking a blood sample." You're not in one of two mutually exclusive states (arrested or free).

Until a determination is made, and the timeframe does not exceed what is allowed for either party to make such a determination, I see no problem. The intent of the law is to be able to hold the bad guys long enough to figure out what they're up to, while releasing the good guys within a reasonable time.

I do see a problem with a US citizen returning from Holland (not known for its terrorism) and being subjected to a search which was obviously targeted. As soon as the person is found to be a citizen, ICE should be out of the picture, unless there is something suspicious that would trigger the Customs part instead of the Immigration part. In this case, I'm betting the Army told ICE the guy was suspicious.

You can have a problem with the laws if you want, but your post is close to fear-mongering. This is not an attempt to avoid getting around the limits of a law - ICE alone would have the authority to detain someone if something were suspect, either an alien or a customs problem. Why he was detained is the problem, not the semantics.

He was not under arrest, and he was not free to go, he was being detained to determine if there was a problem.

"Detained" (4, Interesting)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102462)

Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.

He is an American citizen, so there isn't an Immigration issue here. So the only thing left for "detaining" is Customs while they go through his stuff. Well, they can do that.

The article actually does say the "detaining" was him waiting for customs to search his bags, laptop, and cell phones (one of which they "seized").

What does not seem normal is the Army being there. He is not a combatent. He is a US Citizen. I do not see how the Army can tell him he is "detained."

Re:"Detained" (5, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102514)

Stop quoting laws to us. We carry swords.
-- Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus

Re:"Detained" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102530)

It was probably CID.

They were just checking for proxies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102480)

Apparently they had to check inside his body cavity to make sure nobody else was hiding in there.

Goes with the job (3, Interesting)

DaMP12000 (710387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102486)

A security researcher involved with a website that leaks confidential documents on his way to a hacking conference was questioned for 3 hours at a border... So what? Isn't that expected for this type of work? Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of heavy government snooping but he kind of had it coming... If I was him, I would surely expect this to happen once in a while. Nothing to see here, move along...

THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME TO (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102518)

TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS

as long as the blood in question isn't mine I don't actually have a problem with that

Boycott US Conferences (2, Insightful)

mutherhacker (638199) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102568)

Allow me to declare my intent to boycott ALL academic conferences held in my field in the United States. I'm sorry but this kind of thing is beyond preposterous.

Re:Boycott US Conferences (2, Insightful)

vcgodinich (1172985) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102624)

What other countries will you boycott as well?

Re:Boycott US Conferences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102706)

I betting he'll say Israel.

Re:Boycott US Conferences (2, Insightful)

Mr. Foogle (253554) | more than 3 years ago | (#33102690)

Please come back and play Mr. Self Righteous after your own government stops violating human rights at the drop of a hat, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Greece [wikipedia.org]

I can not wait! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33102636)

I can not wait to hear what the idiots at Slashtard err Slashdot think about this! Wait, yes I can.

Get a life you inbred idiots.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...