Obama, like Bush, will search your laptop/cell phone/camera without any suspicion

Slippery slope's a b****.

People will have to fight for this one.

 

to clarify, this is at the airport right?

At any rate, agree with Invisible Fan

 

what is the logic of searching someone's computer when they cross a border

 

There are some technologies, encryption being the best example, that are illegal to export from the US. Now, I don't believe it would be possible for some TSA worker to find such material if it is sufficiently buried (put it in the \windows\fonts folder, rename it to something with a TTF extension, and see if they could locate it), but if someone is suspected of taking such material overseas, we would need to be able to search the files on their laptop in order to prove such activity.

Phones and cameras these days carry the same risks. I can carry 32 GB on my phone, more than enough for encryption technology, state or industry secrets, or (as is the case with me) heaps and scads of music. Cameras these days regularly come with huge flash drives that could be carrying any data.

 

Folks could be bringing in pirated DVDs and software on their hard drive, but again, without a thorough inspection it could be made very difficult to find.

 

no problems here. all i have is phone numbers in my phone and p*rn on my computer.

 

change is awesome.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

by Declan McCullagh

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."

 

I hope he's not a Spurs or Mavs fan. This site will be doomed.

 

This is another way to stop information from reaching the public. We need the internet too. Obama has been frothing at the mouth to shut us down. If it is like declairing a Pandemic when 200 people die, he will shut it down any time he wants without any way to stop him.

We need to stop this in it’s tracks. Especially since it comes from a “Rockefeller”. This guy is out to do us harm. If they start something, we will be left in the dark and not be unable to protect ourselve. I do not trust this government and only want THEM shut down. The only domestic terrorist are in the White House and Congress.

It looks like the goverment wants to seize all lines of comunication between people. The peformance tax could hurt raido badlly by shuting down stations and limiting choice. Now the new bill to provide control over the internet if they decided there was an “emergency” . And phone communication they allready have a hold on.

We need to push back soon or we could end up sending messages by carrier pigeons.

For infomation on the perfomance tax go to: http://noperformancetax.org

 

Quoted for amazingness...

Otherwise, I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your main points.

I cannot figure why Obama hasn't gone clean on this issue. The only thing I can figure is that, once you sit in that chair and get the security briefings, you say OMFG, we need every tool possible...

And then, he figures he can get away with this politically -- for whatever reason, having access to an unsustainable 3rd MRI test for your wife's fibromyalgia, @ $16,000 a pop, is more important than freedom of information or privacy.

 

That wouldn't be a gooda argument. You could send those technologies through FTP or something. A search at the border would do nothing to stop the dissemination of this (or any other) information.

I think they want to have that power so they can check to see if you happen to be planning some terrorist plot and they figure they can probably also catch some pedophiles and maybe mobsters by accident. I don't see how this practice could legitmately pass court scrutiny. I'm disappointed they'd even try.

I'm less worried, in principle, about the government having emergency powers over the internet. There's probably some particulars in there I don't like, but the basic premise the White House should have some special powers in some sort of cyber-emergency makes sense to me. I'd like it, though, if these emergency powers would be as politically dangerous to exercise as, say, martial law.

 

Now THAT is a great sci-fi movie...

 

Completely not surprised. Obama has utterly failed on every pledge for civil rights he made during his campaign. Completely and totally failed.

 

Some court case back in the day ruled that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply at the border, and if it's ever given a chance, government will trample liberty.

That being said, that is the least evil trampling of due process from the Obama administration that I've heard of this week. This one is the worst:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w7qGWb0FLmo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w7qGWb0FLmo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

Or you could just use email. Smuggling vital data via hard drives doesn't make much sense to me.

 

I'm giving him until the end of the year before I give out report cards, but I agree that he has been a major disappointment on civil rights and liberties so far.

 

Programs to encrypt messages in music or pictures has been out since the AOL days. Our governments' fanaticism to store and disseminate their own people's information is pretty disturbing. I'm skeptical that the initial intent is panning out for the amount and scope they gather.