Security researcher: I keep getting detained by feds

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20023341-245.html?tag=mncol;title

by mcantelon • 16 years ago

100 38 16 years ago

news.cnet.com

raganwald4• 16 years ago

It appears that Mr. Appelbaum's cell phone named names.

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

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

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

--Edward R. Murrow, See It Now, commenting on the McCarthy Witchhunts

tptacek11• 16 years ago

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

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

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

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

ig12• 16 years ago

I'm pretty sure passing information to Russia and Witchcraft were serious criminal incidents at the time. Guilt by association has never been valid.

binarybits2• 16 years ago

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

raganwald4• 16 years ago

The comparison I am drawing is between the hollywood blacklists and the arbitrary searches of associates of a suspect. The Morrow quote seems fitting whether you think wikileakers are like persons accused of communism or not. We are talking about two things:

1. Investigating associates of a suspect for no reason other than that they are associates, and 2. Performing searches whenever you can without warrants or any kind of direction. These appear to be fishing expeditions, quite possibly the authorities are hoping to catch an associate with evidence of some other crime that they can use to blackmail them into cooperation.

Does this appear to be wild conspiracy mutterings? Too bad the authorities aren't following any kind of process where such accusations can be aired and refuted. Perhaps there's more to it than mere association. If a warrant had been obtained for a search, we could have some confidence that the police explained the justification in a credible manner. Without a warrant, the credibility of the investigation is undermined.

The seriousness of the crime is a red herring. If it's really serious, then there ought to be even greater motivation to ensure that justice is done publicly and fairly. The argument that serious crimes justify skipping all the annoying business of rights and liberties is broken, and I call on you to clarify that you are not arguing that there are some investigations where the ends justify the means.

Finally, the fact that there have been abuses of the border search doctrine for decades is either irrelevant or even greater motivation to fix the problem. By 1969, police agression against people of colour had been a fact of life for at least a century. Was that any argument to shrug our shoulders at the assassination of Fred Hampton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton

spot• 16 years ago

This is not a criminal investigation. That's done with warrants and subpoenas. This is harassment and intimidation.

Retric• 16 years ago

It is extremely unlikely but possible for no US laws to be broken when a classified military document get’s disclosed. This is why it’s often easier to convict people on perjury for trying to cover up how such a discloser happened than it is to find the person who actually broke the law.

If Wikileaks got an truly anonymous donation of classified military documents copy write law might be the strongest limitation on what they can do with it. That is not to say you can simply publish any classified document. However, it comes down to a question of actual harm. Keeping the F-22’s top speed a secret has value, but the top speed of an F-86 Sabre is “687 mph at sea level at 14,212 lb (6,447 kg) combat weight” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-86_Sabre

PS: I am not a lawyer, but plenty of US newspapers have published classified documents.

Confusion• 16 years ago

  the ongoing investigation of a spectacular crime

They're really desperately clutching at straws if they are detaining people that are no more related to Wikileaks than being quoted in a speech on Wikileaks. That kind of behaviour is unworthy of the verb 'investigation'.

fauigerzigerk• 16 years ago

The problem is that there is a pattern. Whenever something is even remotely related to "national security", constitutional rights, international law and due process are deliberately circumvented or cunningly broken. It's the Guantanamo spirit that is at work here. This spirit has done great damage to the US. The loss of international reputation is a threat to national security and even to economic success.

But what hasn't been discussed as throughly as international relations is that countries in which the law is regarded cynically as an instrument of the rulers are mostly very poor. I think the reason is that enforcing the law against that kind of broad based cynicism is incredibly expensive and ineffective. It's a disincentive to investment and risk taking.

percept• 16 years ago

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

joshes• 16 years ago

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

pig• 16 years ago

Hasn't it always been that way?

(for some values of always)

burgerbrain• 16 years ago

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

moondowner• 16 years ago

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

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

Roedou• 16 years ago

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

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

Mithrandir• 16 years ago

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

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

SageRaven• 16 years ago

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

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

Security researcher: I keep getting detained by feds

Related Stories