backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 245 comment(s) - last by MisterModder.. on Jun 25 at 3:20 PM

Under the new ACTA deal, iPods and other electronic devices will be subject to searches. It will be at border agents' discretion what material is infringing. The searches can be conducted without lawyers present and those found in violation will be fined and have their devices destroyed.  (Source: Canada.com)
Under the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) at Canadian border crossings laptops, discs, and iPods will be subject to search, destruction, and fines if infringed copyright material is found

Wikileaks, known for stirring up controversy, leaked secret plans by the U.S. government to enter into a far-reaching new internet monitoring and regulation act known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) with Japan, the European Commission, and Switzerland.  The new act was known in some circles as a "Pirate Bay killer", referring to the Swedish torrent site The Pirate Bay, as the new act criminalized nonprofit "facilitation of copyright infringement".  However, the bill also included provisions which would make many commonly used privacy tools illegal and would demand that ISPs provide the government with complete user histories.

Amid public outcry in the U.S. and Europe, a new country is looking to get into the fray.  News site Canada.com reports on details of the act's effects on another partner nation, Canada. International Trade Minister David Emerson announced in October that Canada will participate in ACTA.  Canadian officials view the act as a new North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of sorts, this time focusing on copyright instead of trade.

Additional ramifications of the deal of interest to American and Canadian citizens are the new restrictions on travel.  The new act will make border agents essentially "copyright regulators".  They will be authorized under current provisions to search those crossing for illegal copyright materials.  Laptops, iPods and even cellular phones are among the devices that would be searched for illegal content. 

If they found infringed content such as ripped copies of DVDs or CDs they could detain the person.  The penalties are still being ironed out, but a fine for any materials found is planned.  It would be at the discretion of the border agents to determine what infringement is and what isn't.  Under the new act, even legally copied DVDs or CDs would be open to scrutiny.

David Fewer, staff counsel at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic is very alarmed at this development.  He states, "If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas what would they look like? This is pretty close.  The process on ACTA so far has been cloak and dagger. This certainly raises concerns."

The leaked ACTA documents indicate that the new agreement marks a dramatic departure from previous anti-infringement efforts in that it authorizes government action against suspected infringers without any request from the copyright holders.  In the past the copyright holders, or organizations that represented them such as the RIAA or IFPI took action again infringers.  The new act gives government officials "authority to take action against infringers", essentially making them a government RIAA of sorts.

For some users the new act may be "bye bye" to their iPod or laptop.  Under the new act the border agents could destroy any devices found to hold copyright content that is deemed infringed.

The new agreement states that it’s oriented towards increased "civil enforcement" measures.  And don't plan on having a lawyer present; the act includes "authority to order ex parte searches" (searches without a lawyer present) and "and other preliminary measures".

At Canada's borders, agents already search for child pornography.  The new act would expand the frequency of these searches and put iPods, computer discs, and laptops under the search auspices of the border patrol.

Fewer takes issue to the secrecy in the international community surrounding the act.  He states, "We knew this existed, we filed an Access to Information request for this but all it provided us with was the title. All the rest of it was blacked out.  Those negotiations can take place behind closed doors. At the end of the day we may be provided with something that has been negotiated which is a `fait accompli' in which civil society gets no opportunity to critique it."

The new act has also been criticized as it operates outside other international trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations.  Under the agreement a governing council consisting of representatives from member nations would be created and make policy decisions.

Michael Geist, Canada research chair of Internet and E-commerce law at the University of Ottawa and expert on Canadian copyright law says that the government's behind doors behavior is quite ominous.  He states, "That's what happens when you conduct all of this behind closed doors.  The lack of consultation, the secrecy behind it and the speculation that this will be concluded within a matter of months without any real public input is deeply troubling"

Fewer and Geist both agree though, that once the act is adopted it will be difficult to back out.  If Canada does not comply, it may face big financial penalties as well, similar to those imposed during the Softwood Lumber trade dispute. 

The final decision on the acts adoption is believed to be made at the upcoming G-8 international summit in July 2008.  The agreement marks the most dramatic piece of international law enforcement and copyright to date.  If adopted it will truly transform the electronics world and touch the lives of many citizens.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Are you kidding me?
By FITCamaro on 5/27/2008 10:02:23 AM , Rating: 5
They can look at your iPod, laptop, etc. to see if the content on it is legit or not? Thats BS.

And people say we here in the US are invading people's privacy.




RE: Are you kidding me?
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/27/2008 10:18:09 AM , Rating: 5
Ummm....the U.S. government wrote and is championing this agreement. Our trade representative planned/wrote a large portion of it. Unfortunately this is a multinational effort...lots of countries are aboard, which makes it scarier.

And they don't just get to look at it. They can destroy it, if they think there's copyrighted material on it.

Want a lawyer? To bad, you don't get one.

Welcome to the brave new world of ACTA and the joys of ex parte searches.

(ps this really reminds me of Harold And Kumar: Escape From Guatanemo Bay)


RE: Are you kidding me?
By spluurfg on 5/27/2008 10:31:22 AM , Rating: 5
I don't get it though... it would be practically un-enforceable. How would they determine whether my ipod music was illegally downloaded or imported from a CD I own but didn't bring with me (hence the point of an ipod)?


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Nihility on 5/27/2008 10:38:34 AM , Rating: 5
Well, if the burden of proof is on you, they can just destroy it and go on with their day. Destroy first, ask questions later.

What could you possibly do about it?


RE: Are you kidding me?
By spluurfg on 5/27/2008 11:27:07 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly: they do have this power, but its like assessing import duties on items -- often enough it's simply not exercised because it's impractical to enforce.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By othercents on 5/27/2008 12:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
Make sure to take a disposable MP3 player with you on trips.

Other


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Adonlude on 5/27/2008 4:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
What a total joke. There is no way to fairly enforce this law. As an electrical engineer you can be sure that my electronic devices will be "broken and in need of repairs" whenever I cross a border.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 6:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
That would cause suspicion, seizure, and destruction. Non-working electronics have always raised a red flag, but in the past it was more often considered a bomb threat.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By RjBass on 5/27/2008 11:57:42 PM , Rating: 5
So I think now is a good time for those little MicroSD meory cards.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By imperator3733 on 5/28/2008 11:33:57 AM , Rating: 2
lol


RE: Are you kidding me?
By fonzdaman on 5/30/2008 12:24:06 AM , Rating: 2
As Peter Griffin would say "Canada Sux"


RE: Are you kidding me?
By imperator3733 on 5/28/2008 11:34:08 AM , Rating: 1
Never go to Canada again. Let's see how they like the decrease in tourism.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By michael67 on 5/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Are you kidding me?
By imperator3733 on 6/2/2008 3:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
Since I live in the US, the only thing that I can do to protest a Canadian decision, like the border "guards", would be to not go there, and thereby not give the country and their economy my money. If enough people were to boycott Canada, they might realize that people do not like their judge-jury-executioner border guards and change their policy.

What I can do (and I have already done this) is send letters to my senators and my representative to express my extreme displeasure about ACTA, and tell them that if they vote for ACTA, they will not get my vote. (Yes, I said that, and I will do that.)

Hopefully, people in Canada will protest this border guard plan and get their representatives to stop it. Same with in Europe. I have done what I can already, so the only thing left for me to do is to not go to any of the countries that wish to enact ACTA and deny their economy of my money.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
Simply put: Sue the government and have this law overturned in court. It infringes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too far on the "No search and seizure without a warrant" clause in the Constitution of the United States.
This would not even get ONE USE before it was overturned and stricken from the law books.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By bigjaicher on 6/2/2008 1:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
But this isn't a law of the United States, it's a law of Canada regarding citizens of other countries voluntarily entering their land. And if its against their constitution, they'll just refer to how we treat 'enemy combatants.' and call us hypocrites. I don't like the power that is being given out, but assuming that the people are even somewhat ethical (not schadenfreude sociopaths), only obvious acts of piracy will be punished (i.e. an unlabeled CD filled with keygens and such)


RE: Are you kidding me?
By arazok on 5/27/2008 10:46:01 AM , Rating: 5
It's very enforceable, as customs is under no obligation to prove their claims. They are judge, jury, and executioner. If they even suspect content is illegal, they will just take your iPod. Done, have a nice day.

There are many cases of people caught carrying $10,000+ in cash across the border, which by law must be declared. If you are caught by customs, they just take your money, even if there is no evidence of criminal intent.

Reverse onus - it should be unconstitutional.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By mmntech on 5/27/2008 11:00:47 AM , Rating: 5
It is unconstitutional according to several recent supreme court rulings, notably the changes in adult sentencing of youth. I really don't know if this would stand up in the supreme court if you brought it up as unreasonable search and seizure.

Customs officers are just glorified tax collectors in this country. I'm curious how they would know whether it was illegal or not. Would they cross reference your song list with iTunes? This is just ridiculous and a huge waste of tax payers' dollars. Under this agreement, everyone is a pirate. It just shows how out of control copyright law has gotten. We're slowly loosing the rights we had back in the analogue age. There must be a lot of big bucks passing between Hollywood and national governments. At one point in time that was called corruption but now it's business as usual. More worrying is that the opposition does not seem concerned about these kinds of undemocratic backroom deals. I encourage every Canadian here to write to your MP about this. We should be outraged.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 6:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you're seeing the forrest for the trees. The whole point is it legitimizes it as a reasonable search and seizure where it wouldn't necessarily be otherwise.

They'd probably determine whether the content was legal based upon whether you had any proof of use rights or *ownership*, keeping in mind that according to the music industry you don't necessarily even have a right to rip your legally purchased music collection from CD to a portable player.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By djkrypplephite on 5/28/2008 12:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
Proof of ownership . . . I think we'll soon be getting stopped and asked for our papers. Best not to be seen with headphones around these parts.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 11:40:11 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
There are many cases of people caught carrying $10,000+ in cash across the border, which by law must be declared. If you are caught by customs, they just take your money, even if there is no evidence of criminal intent.
Theres a diffence though, this is a clear cut rule, either you have under or over 10k, there is no in between. Anything over 9999.99$ is illegal, theres your proof. With MP3's there is no possible way of setting a rule in stone, as they can't prove with 100% certainty that your content is illegal. Sure 90% of the time the signatures probably don't lie, but that 10% is enough to make this law unconstitutional in my mind.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Strunf on 5/27/2008 12:59:28 PM , Rating: 5
If you have 10000$ and you get caught but in the same moment you eat up one of the bills would it still be illegal ? :D


RE: Are you kidding me?
By lennylim on 5/27/2008 6:44:28 PM , Rating: 4
Destruction of currency notes is illegal.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By arazok on 5/27/2008 1:38:30 PM , Rating: 3
Correct, but the point is the same. Customs enforces the rules, rightly or wrongly, at it's discretion. Your money, or your iPod may be taken, not if they can prove it contains illegal content, but if you can't prove it's legal. Hell, even if you CAN prove it, some zealous agent could still seize it, and then force you to jump through hoops to try and get it back.

You may not even get charged with anything. They just take your stuff and send you on your way.

What's to stop some agent from jerking you around because you looked at him funny? He'll just pull you over, take all your electronics, and laugh at you knowing that it will take you years of navigating through the bureaucracy trying to get it back.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 1:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
And my point is the same, custom agents only enforce rules that are deemed as laws. They can not just make up rules as they please and enforce them, they follow the rules set in place by the government. As for agents, I have a friend who works at the border, and its no laughing matter, if they are caught stealing from someone not only will they lose their job, but they WILL be charged. Whether or not people stand up for themselves is a different matter, but you are on Video 24/7 when going through such crossings, and believe it or not most of your conversations are monitored too..

Sure if you are a suspected terrorist you may have a hard time with your rights, but copyright infringement? I just don't see agents putting themselves out a limb just to screw a few people over to make a few extra bucks.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 6:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, presently and formerly you wouldn't have had to worry about a hassle over potential copyright infringement, THAT is the whole point of it all, to legitimize action.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By afkrotch on 5/29/2008 11:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
You're assuming all border are like this for every country. This simply isn't the case. Mexico has a lot of corrupt border patrol. The EU hardly even has border crossings. You can hop from country to country without even seeing a single police officer.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By PrinceGaz on 5/27/2008 3:26:27 PM , Rating: 3
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? It's up to law-enforcement officials to prove you are guilty, not the other way around.

Anyone with a laptop would be wise to keep anything potentially seen as infringing in an encrypted area, or better still on a memory-stick you keep hidden away from them.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By DM0407 on 6/2/2008 3:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
So some 20 year old kid can take my electronics at his discretion? What are they going to do with all these Ipod's that will be "stealing"?

I bet some young Canadian women are 'aboot' to get a nice gift for Boxing Day!

Its only a matter of time before they employ Miss Cleo to start reading peoples minds to see if they retain any memories from watching Metallica play live in 1989.... Who am I kidding, those people have already been punished enough.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 11:46:14 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
How would they determine whether my ipod music was illegally downloaded or imported from a CD I own but didn't bring with me (hence the point of an ipod)?
Its pretty much well known that the RIAA has a list of blacklisted content. All they have to do is compare the digital signature of the offending mp3 from their list to your copy. If you legally ripped it from your computer, it should not match, if it does, you've been busted. How do you think the RIAA probes colleges and other p2p networks? Randomly download songs from their shares, and compare it to a known illegal copy. If they are close, log the IP, sue.. and repeat..


RE: Are you kidding me?
By KernD on 5/27/2008 12:53:55 PM , Rating: 3
A specific MP3 encoder will always give the same result if you give it the same input, ei same song from a CD with full duration, and the same compression options. So a pirate and an honest owner of a disk could very well produce identical MP3.
Unless the MP3 format has been altered and a GUID as been added.

All the ITune music could probably be identified as such, but not home made MP3.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Hive on 5/27/2008 1:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you compare the actual audio data (which is not usually done), even minimal differences in ID3 tagging would show a completely different hash value.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 1:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
Also what are the chances that the mp3 was encoded using the same settings. As VBR (or ABR) is the standard these days, the chances that you used the exact same settings as the file downloaded off limewire are very small.. Not saying it can not happen, but scene rips are usually encoded with custom settings, not out of the box lame settings that come with common MP3 tools like EAC (exact audio copy). If every single one of your mp3s is encoded in 192/128CBR then this might be a different story, but these days, that is just not the case with most pirated media.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By icrf on 5/27/2008 1:49:10 PM , Rating: 3
We're not talking about fingerprints or DNA. There are only so many mp3 encoders and so many settings. Of those, there are some that are much easier to use, which will be more popular, and some settings that give much better balance between size and quality, which will also be more popular. Combine that with the tags automatically grabbed from CDDB, and it's far from trivial odds that a pirate might upload songs with the same settings you used to rip from your CD.

Then again, if ripping from CD is deemed illegal, all this might be a moot argument. Everyone is guilty.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 2:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are only so many mp3 encoders and so many settings.
.. Let me explain something to you, most of these 'illegal' tracks on the blacklists are actually scene rips, not your sister ripping the song from a CD with Itunes.

When I say scene rips, I mean a mp3 group that releases CD's release to some sort of topsite, and it gets filtered down to torrents, limewire etc.. Usually each group or even each ripper uses their own settings when encoding mp3s. There are countless amounts of settings that can be changed, including max bitrate, average bitrate and minimum.

If even one of those numbers are changed by 1 byte, the outcome will produce two different mp3s, as during the encoding process, the encoder tries to stay close to the average, but can dip down or go up depending on if there is say whitespace (low bitrate) or sounds from every frequency at the same time (high bitrate).

Get where I am going with this? 'max, min, avg Bitrates' are only a few of the settings that encoders like lame employ. Its much harder to make an identical MP3 unless you are using the 3 presets that come with the program you used to rip, and thats assuming every ripping program employs the same presets, and use the same encoder. I have friends who still are in the business, and they will not give their settings out to anyone.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Adonlude on 5/27/2008 5:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
So then all a person with illegal songs would have to do to foil this identification method is to run their mp3's through some sort of re-encoding process? Seems like some programmer could easily create some program to scan all your mp3 files and make some arbitrary innocuous changes to the files so that they are different from the known.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 5:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So then all a person with illegal songs would have to do to foil this identification method is to run their mp3's through some sort of re-encoding process?
In short, yes .. but will most people do this? Probably not..


RE: Are you kidding me?
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 6:44:07 PM , Rating: 3
... and yet, many people will use the encoder presets, that's why they're there.

We can't actually assume scene releases are the entirety of the blacklisted content, now more than ever with the large movement to P2P, there is a lot of user *generated* content.

Further, what about someone who owns a CD and has the option of either spending the time ripping and encoding from that CD, or opting to just download it via bittorrent? They now have a potentially blacklisted file but the distinction between it and one they ripped themselves is lost, they merely acquired it from a different data stream on their computer.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:23:14 PM , Rating: 1
Well, according to the MPAA and RIAA, you are not supposed to do that. You are not supposed to download a song for a CD that you have off the internet using Bittorrent, you are supposed to use your CD ripper to do that, and considering that it takes a grand total of 5 minutes for most CD ripping software to do that, even on an external drive..... there isn't any justification for that.

Oh, god, I feel so dirty posting this.... I have actually AGREED with the MPAA/RIAA on something.... someone shoot me, I must be going insane!


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Oregonian2 on 5/27/2008 2:15:51 PM , Rating: 3
Thought lines at airports were slow and long before? We're talking about it taking 20 minutes per person rather than two or three.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and this is EXACTLY why they don't bother searching people's computers for child pornography anymore unless there is a pre-requisite reason there.
That is coming straight from a relative of mine who did these searches for the United States Customs for awhile before he became an FBI agent.
The ONLY time they did those searches was when someone's name was red-flagged in their database.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 3:48:07 PM , Rating: 5
I have 1 word : Insane !

I feel more and more treated like a criminal.

From all cd's i have( and i have bought them legal in a store, still even have the ticket.), i have made MP3 copies for myself to put on my ipod. Would this mean that i am illegal too ? That is just insane. I bought and therefore i own the music.

I am also getting more and more tired of not been able to skip antipiracy BS on the dvd's i legally bought.

I am also getting even more tired when i buy a game i have to download 5 GB to be able to play it. The entire game was already on the dvd, but had to be decrypted first.

More and more i feel customers have no rights anymore.

More and more i feel the urge to just copy DVD's, CD's and games because when i purchase this content legally i am treated as a criminal anyway. If i am treated like a criminal i guess i have to start behave like one too.

These companies are getting more insane ideas by the day.

Sooner or later i buy a new shirt and i can not give it away to my brother as a present cause that is not allowed according to the eula.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am also getting even more tired when i buy a game i have to download 5 GB to be able to play it. The entire game was already on the dvd, but had to be decrypted first.


What freaking game did you have to do that with? Heck, even games on Steam that I have downloaded, they don't have to download 5GB's to play the game after the actual download of the game..... you are probably thinking of a game that has game UPDATES and fixes.... that is a much more likely situation that you are describing, and I will be honest: that sometimes twerks me off as well!


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Oregonian2 on 5/27/2008 2:18:21 PM , Rating: 3
What makes you think they won't trash your iPod even if you ripped it from a CD you owned? Remember the RIAA wrote it (for sure) and their opinion is that you need to repurchase music repeatedly for each device you might play it on in order to be legal. I'm surprised one is allowed to move a CD between CD Players.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By FITCamaro on 5/27/2008 10:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry I guess I read it wrong. The title mentions Canada and I saw the list of countries.

So this isn't law yet though. If it becomes it, I just won't ever take a laptop out of the country unless its a business laptop. I don't own an iPod. I wonder if they consider the PSP a device they need to search.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By wordsworm on 5/27/2008 10:48:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sorry I guess I read it wrong. The title mentions Canada and I saw the list of countries.


Chretien would have laughed at the bill and used it for toilet paper. Harper, on the other hand, is just a puppet. Let's hope the Reds give us someone worth voting for. In the meantime, the Marijuana Party gets my vote.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By rogard on 5/27/2008 10:27:45 AM , Rating: 5
So what happens if the suspected copyright infringer had been clever enough to encrypt all hard disk data? Public whipping until they are willing to share their password? Or do the customs dudes just calculate the size of all the hard disks etc. instead, let's say 200GB, that would be.....space for 40.000 mp3 files...hmm...1000 CAD per song...That's a quadrillion Canadian dollars, payable instantly. Nice!
What's next? Drilling a hole into everyone's skull and have a look inside the brains? There might be a recall of a copyrighted movie once watched, or a book once read. You never know....there's a lot of money coming their way.
Although it's almost the end of May, please tell me that all this is a belated April Fool's joke.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By AlvinCool on 5/27/2008 10:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think thats gonna be the catch. Actually it isn't going to be who is clever enough to encrypt their entire drive, it's going to be who is clever enough to encrypt a container on part of their drive. They may be able, under this new law, to take your laptop if you can't let them in.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Dark Legion on 5/27/2008 11:39:20 AM , Rating: 2
Or you can remove the hard drive with all the content that they may deem illegal, hide it somewhere else, and replace it with a clean hard drive. I know its a bit much to do, but isn't it better than possibly getting your laptop taken away? And are they really going to check everything you bring just for something like this? Of course this law isn't completely enforceable; there are too many laptops and ipods for them to get them all. And who expects border security to be tech savvy enough to find your illegal music and movies anyway, especially on an encrypted drive? And as many people already wrote, how are they supposed to differentiate between the music and movies you downloaded and what was bought legally? All this law will accomplish is better computer security, more encryptions, and longer waits whenever you enter or leave any country.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By spluurfg on 5/27/2008 12:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I'll just mail my ipod to the hotel I'm staying at if I go to Canada.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By omnicronx on 5/27/2008 12:16:23 PM , Rating: 5
Or just don't declare it and hide it in your seat?

Custom agent: Do you have an ipod?
Me: No
C/A: I don't believe you.
Me: I swear..
C/A: Ok please pull over, we are going to have to search your car and please procede to the bathroom over there for a full body cavity search!
Me: ahh crap..

All that this is going to do is slow down already long lines, and probably let people in who should actually be stopped from entering, without trouble of course because the agents are too busy searching for illegal movies and songs


RE: Are you kidding me?
By spluurfg on 5/27/2008 12:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they'll stop fire trucks crossing the border to respond to emergencies to see if they are carrying pirated material.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By William Gaatjes on 5/27/2008 3:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
BAH,

That's disgusting.

I would never be in that situation tho :)

I have an ipod classic with a speck protection case that looks like a monster truck tire.

It is huge.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By 16nm on 5/27/2008 11:09:52 AM , Rating: 5
Create a hidden volume using TrueCrypt (http://www.truecrypt.org/). If asked then give the password for the encrypted volume where you can keep your resume and a few other documents. The hidden volume they'll never know about. Keep all your incriminating data in the hidden volume. I have a hard time seeing how this could be circumvented.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By gramboh on 5/27/2008 12:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
It couldn't, at least not by the boarder guards that are paid what, $15 an hour and have ZERO technical knowledge? This is not practically enforcable. Maybe the industry is going to pony up a few billion for training up boarder inspection people?

What a joke.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By allometry on 5/27/2008 12:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
I hadn't heard about TrueCrypt until you posted the link. This looks like it's a really great piece of software.

Furthermore, TrueCrypt's data storage mechanism gives you plausible deniability, so in cases where you're put up on blocks by <em> the man </em> , you can thwart them with this application without breaking a sweat.

Just wanted to say thanks!


RE: Are you kidding me?
By Hive on 5/27/2008 12:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad it won't work for an iPod though...


RE: Are you kidding me?
By herrdoktor330 on 5/27/2008 10:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
Good show, man! Good show! +1 ro you.

Here's my thought: If you had Linux PC and your "illicit data" was on a non-mounted partition, how would they go about finding it if you didn't provide information that it was there. Especially if you didn't have a n00b friendly disk management app to make revealing that information easy... and if you removed any way to get to a CLI from your "main user account". ;)

Unless they're going to pay the premium to give every border partol agent a CS degree with a dual major in PC forensics, there's not much they can do. I think the whole process is counter productive and would force additional government overhead just to service one business sector.

Maybe if they'd attack the root of the piracy issue, a stagnant global economy where consumer free-spending money is nonexistant, then maybe piracy would subside?


RE: Are you kidding me?
By MatthiasF on 5/27/2008 2:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
If customs can look in your luggage or car, I don't see how this act is any different than what is in-place now.

Products like iPods, laptops, flash drives, external hard drives, are just another form of container.


RE: Are you kidding me?
By mindless1 on 5/27/2008 6:52:24 PM , Rating: 1
Yes they can look in your luggage or car, and see an MP3 player perhaps. Did they previously then demand to search it for identification of the data thereon, with potential seizure, destruction, and a fine? no


RE: Are you kidding me?
By rudolphna on 5/28/2008 9:56:47 AM , Rating: 1
This is total BS. I dont want to go into canada to go to Montreal, and have my ipod destroyed because i have stuff downloaded from youtube on it. Or be detained because many of my CDs were bought from itunes, and burned to CD. Totally F'ing ridiculous. They arent laying their hands on my $2000 laptop, they try, and ill be sueing their ass. will try at any rate. I also, despise the idea of my ISP giving my entire web history over to the Government. That is totally unconstitutional, a total breach of privacy. This bill needs to be stopped. Now.


What is the West Coming to?
By jhb116 on 5/27/2008 10:22:22 AM , Rating: 2
What is going on here? The Patriot Act is evil but this is ok? If this kind of effort was used against the terrorists, the war on terror would be over....




RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Gul Westfale on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 10:41:37 AM , Rating: 5
I would really like you to back up your assertion that the US has stolen oil during the war on terror. In fact, I would LOVE to see some prove on that. With the rising oil prices, with fault due to speculators, there is no stealing oil going on. If anything, we're lowering our demand, and pay more for it.

You really are an extremely far left @$$wipe.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Gul Westfale on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 10:53:51 AM , Rating: 4
You're "certain people" comment directly implies the United States.

Besides that, your argument is an extreme false assertion. The US Goverment, along with many other countries out there, sell weapons to allies for trade & alliances. No one is stealing any oil - in the fact, I believe the price speculators and OPEC are the thieves right now.

And "overcharging for support services"? Let's see, what exactly do YOU think the pay should be for private firm employees to risk their lives doing various tasks on a battlefield? Minimum wage? Or perhaps, the national average of about $35k/yr? Please.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, do you not KNOW that Bush is an oil man, and that the companies he has stock in are raking in MEGA-bucks right now because off all this price-gouging BS?


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/2008 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 1
You don't call invading a country, setting up a government favorable to your own, and then having that company award lucrative contracts to drill and refine oil to your own country's companies a form of theft? They may not be stealing oil itself, but they're definitely stealing a lot of profit relating to oil production that once belonged to Iraq (since oil was becoming a nationalized resource at the time).

I suppose you also don't consider the the forced relocation and slaughter of Native Americans in the name of American expansion a form of theft either (if not a form of genocide in the very least).

Just because you're not stealing the commodity itself doesn't mean some form of theft isn't happening.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By spluurfg on 5/28/2008 7:40:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
LOGCAP, a contract the US Army signed with KBR in 2001 included orders to repair oil facilities in Iraq. This was almost TWO YEARS prior to the invasion. This contract was signed way before the decision to invade Iraq was final, before an invasion strategy was even laid out. This was even before Powell got up before the UN and started preaching about WMD in Iraq.


The contract itself (as in, the Pentagon's requirement for a contractor) had been in existance on and off since 1988. The contract involves not just oil facilities, but a significant amount of military logistics.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/logcap.h...

I think the issue is more of a conflict of interest between Halliburton's contract win and the Vice President's former position as CEO.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Hive on 5/27/2008 12:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously so naive to think that your government went to war out of the goodness of their hearts to protect the poor Iraqi people and spread the joyous gift of democracy and freedom???

Whoever did your brainwashing... they're good.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Hive on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/2008 4:23:36 PM , Rating: 1
It's ok, it's representative of the attitude in this country. I presented solid facts about how oil was previously governed, and how it's being governed now, and they can't handle it. They'd rather ignore those facts than address them directly. It shows a severe lack of understanding of the whole situation on their part, and the inability to coherently argue.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mindless1 on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Hive on 5/28/2008 12:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
True rating = (rating - 2)^2

;)


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Hive on 5/28/2008 12:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, correction:

True_rating = (rating - 2)^2 + number_of_rating_changes


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By rudolphna on 5/28/2008 10:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
No, they did it because Saddam and Al Quaeda represented a tanginble national security threat. Remember 9/11? Do you know how many simaliar plots have been stopped by this? I think its time to get out, but i support the anti-terrorism stuff.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Hive on 5/28/08, Rating: -1
By plinkplonk on 6/2/2008 6:34:17 AM , Rating: 2
i have no idea how you got rated down for that but you're exactly right...just because the government says something it does not mean it is true, remember those in government are all human and it seems to be human nature to skew things to get a more beneficial situation for yourself.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By Denigrate on 5/27/2008 1:30:41 PM , Rating: 3
You mean like the French, German, and Russian governments were doing before Saddam and his child rapist kids got the boot? Not saying that I agree with the Iraq invasion, but they are much better off now than they were under Saddam.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 2:33:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
That remains to be seen. There is no conclusiveness among Iraqis whether or not they are better off- which I think is shown by the daily occurrences of violence.

You do realize, dont you, that the majoriy of people being killed and caught in the fight against Al-Sadr and the Shiites and Al-Quaeda are not even Iraqi citizens?!?! They are from Jordan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon. The violence is hardly carried out voluntarily by the Iraqi people, but rather people from other countries forcing them at gunpoint to do it.
quote:
Stability is one area where Iraq benefited under Saddam.

Stability? Are you insane. The only reason that country did not erupt on its own were becuase there were two types of people: 1 - those who benefitted from Sadam's regime and were able to make money for themselves and family by voluntarily doing his bidding and killing for him, and 2- those who feared Sadam and his henchmen, and were forced to do his bidding or die. But then again, I'm sure you dont want to think about what the mass graves are, and why those people are there do you? And Stability - what about gassing the Kurds?
quote:
There is very little confidence in the leadership or the forces that put them into place. And who knows how many human rights violations have occurred under the CPA? Saddam and his child rapist kids may be gone, but this only made way for atrocities by American/Coalition forces.

Of course theres not, especially when other countries like Iran and funneling money into the country to get the people of Iraq to lash out against the government.


RE: What is the West Coming to?
By RogueLegend on 5/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: What is the West Coming to?
By mdogs444 on 5/27/2008 3:20:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
So you mean to tell me that every Iraqi is happy with the US invasion and occupation, and all these "terrorists" are coming from other countries to force Iraqi's to commit violence?

As a majority - yes, the average Iraqi is happy now that Sadam is out and they are going to start over with their own (hopefully peaceful) government. There are still a decent sized group rebelling against this (Al-Sadr for example), because they prospered under Sadam's regime of corrupt killings, and now have nothing to fall back on.
quote:
you ignore the fact that 30 years of American involvement in Iraq produced Saddam AND the current situation. You also ignore that George H.W., Cheney and Rumsfield supported Saddam and his actions in the 80's.

I didn't ignore it, I didnt think it was pertinent when talking about whether the ongoing solution is a viable one, and if its beneficial. However, the decision to back Sadam at that time was considered the lesser of two Evils. Now, we still have Iran to deal with, but imagine how much more dangerous they would have been had they taken over Iraq. Now, with Iran publicly backing the militants inside of Iraq, when the Iraqi government and own military police get stablized, who do you think is going to want to help us take out Iran (starring special guest Israel). Ahh yes, and not to mention another ally for Israel - potentially.
quote:
can you acknowledge that Cheney and George W. don't have Iraq's interests at heart?

I dont expect them to have Iraqs best interests at heart. I expect them to have OUR best interests at heart. That means another ally to protect us from Iran and Al-queda, and help protect Israel and keep Pakistan on its toes. I see it as a win win situation - although certain decisions made as part of the strategic goal I see as quite questionable.