Let's say that 'they' want to check content of your USB drive...
Mar 16, 2015, 9:33 am
#16
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
So, what possible motivation would an "innocent" passenger have for possessing a USB drive whose sole purpose is to destroy other computers? I don't think it's an unreasonable jump to claim that possession of such an item conveys some sort of intent to use it.
The idea is not without precedent. Witness, for example, the number of municipalities that make it illegal to simply possess a radar detector in a vehicle --- even if the driver claims that they have no intent to commit other civil violations like speeding.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
The idea is not without precedent. Witness, for example, the number of municipalities that make it illegal to simply possess a radar detector in a vehicle --- even if the driver claims that they have no intent to commit other civil violations like speeding.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Federal law specificaly protects the ownership and possession of radar detectors in all states.
With certain limitations (primarily for commercial vehicles), USE of a radar detector is legal in all but one state, one federal district, and military installations.
Mar 16, 2015, 10:04 am
#17
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 729
So, what possible motivation would an "innocent" passenger have for possessing a USB drive whose sole purpose is to destroy other computers? I don't think it's an unreasonable jump to claim that possession of such an item conveys some sort of intent to use it.
The idea is not without precedent. Witness, for example, the number of municipalities that make it illegal to simply possess a radar detector in a vehicle --- even if the driver claims that they have no intent to commit other civil violations like speeding.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
The idea is not without precedent. Witness, for example, the number of municipalities that make it illegal to simply possess a radar detector in a vehicle --- even if the driver claims that they have no intent to commit other civil violations like speeding.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Same goes for guns.
Mar 16, 2015, 12:42 pm
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
It is good you included the disclaimer because what you stated (bolded) is almost entirely incorrect.
Federal law specificaly protects the ownership and possession of radar detectors in all states.
With certain limitations (primarily for commercial vehicles), USE of a radar detector is legal in all but one state, one federal district, and military installations.
Federal law specificaly protects the ownership and possession of radar detectors in all states.
With certain limitations (primarily for commercial vehicles), USE of a radar detector is legal in all but one state, one federal district, and military installations.
Mar 18, 2015, 11:28 am
#19
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NW London and NW Sydney
Programs: BA Diamond, Hilton Bronze, A3 Diamond, IHG *G
Posts: 6,344
Why have a USB that causes the computer to explode immediately? Would be more evil to carry one that has something like REAMDE on it with delayed activation
Mar 18, 2015, 12:25 pm
#20
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 472
What should you do if they want to search your phone or laptop?
The main concern I have is that I don't want them to damage my laptop or phone or destroy files in them. I also don't really want them to copy them. However, if they glance at the photos and see that none of them is porn, it is less disturbing.
How should one approach a request to exam a computer?
Is it considered disruptive if I say "I don't want you to ruin the machine...I don't want you to click or push buttons but if you tell me which one to click or button to push, I will do it in front of you"?
I once did that with a digital camera and they were agreeable to have me push the buttons to show it to them.
How should one approach a request to exam a computer?
Is it considered disruptive if I say "I don't want you to ruin the machine...I don't want you to click or push buttons but if you tell me which one to click or button to push, I will do it in front of you"?
I once did that with a digital camera and they were agreeable to have me push the buttons to show it to them.
Mar 18, 2015, 3:01 pm
#21
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Spire Ambassador, Radisson Gold, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 3,622
The main concern I have is that I don't want them to damage my laptop or phone or destroy files in them. I also don't really want them to copy them. However, if they glance at the photos and see that none of them is porn, it is less disturbing.
How should one approach a request to exam a computer?
Is it considered disruptive if I say "I don't want you to ruin the machine...I don't want you to click or push buttons but if you tell me which one to click or button to push, I will do it in front of you"?
I once did that with a digital camera and they were agreeable to have me push the buttons to show it to them.
How should one approach a request to exam a computer?
Is it considered disruptive if I say "I don't want you to ruin the machine...I don't want you to click or push buttons but if you tell me which one to click or button to push, I will do it in front of you"?
I once did that with a digital camera and they were agreeable to have me push the buttons to show it to them.
At that point, they can only search the computer if they seize it for a forensic search to have their eggheads crack the password. That requires them to have reasonable suspicion that evidence of criminal activity is on the device. They probably won't have that.
They don't need any justification or reason to turn on your devices and screw around with them on the spot. They need reasonable suspicion the seize a device for a forensic examination.
Mar 19, 2015, 5:39 pm
#22
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
What you should do is have a password lock on your computer and if they ask you for the password, say "No."
At that point, they can only search the computer if they seize it for a forensic search to have their eggheads crack the password. That requires them to have reasonable suspicion that evidence of criminal activity is on the device. They probably won't have that.
They don't need any justification or reason to turn on your devices and screw around with them on the spot. They need reasonable suspicion the seize a device for a forensic examination.
At that point, they can only search the computer if they seize it for a forensic search to have their eggheads crack the password. That requires them to have reasonable suspicion that evidence of criminal activity is on the device. They probably won't have that.
They don't need any justification or reason to turn on your devices and screw around with them on the spot. They need reasonable suspicion the seize a device for a forensic examination.
So if you are not properly prepared then either you waive your rights (to keep your device) or lose the device for some undetermined amount of time. Either way, they still win.
Mar 28, 2015, 4:03 pm
#25
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
If you gave a poisoned device to someone with the intent that they use it, that's plausibly intentional violation of the CFAA IMO.
But merely possessing one, with it being taken from you and used against your wishes? I doubt it.
Plus, they'd have to be pretty damn stupid to plug in some random USB stick into a non-hardened device. This is what forensics machines are for.
Mar 28, 2015, 4:06 pm
#26
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Prosecution would have to prove you knew it was there (or put it there), which can be difficult.
Mar 28, 2015, 4:12 pm
#27
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Great! Anyone one here a computer security researcher?
[crickets chirping]
Yeah, I thought so.
How about possessing one, hoping that someone takes it from you and plugs it into their own machine without asking you first? There, I think things get more murky.
Yes, you have to prove "intent" ... but there's plenty of schadenfreude on this thread that wouldn't be hard to dig up and use at trial ...
Pretty damn stupid?
(Oh, I just can't do it ... somebody else please take that set-up line and do some justice with it ...)
[crickets chirping]
Yeah, I thought so.
Yes, you have to prove "intent" ... but there's plenty of schadenfreude on this thread that wouldn't be hard to dig up and use at trial ...
(Oh, I just can't do it ... somebody else please take that set-up line and do some justice with it ...)
Mar 28, 2015, 4:28 pm
#28
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Actually: yes, I am.
That's sorta like possessing a gun, "hoping" someone takes it from you and shoots themselves with it, and being prosecuted for murder. It doesn't really work that way.
How about possessing one, hoping that someone takes it from you and plugs it into their own machine without asking you first?
Mar 28, 2015, 4:32 pm
#29
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
There are multiple, non-lethal uses for a firearm. There's only one use for the device we've been considering.
Mar 28, 2015, 4:37 pm
#30
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Sure. You could use it as a shovel, or a table leg prop, or …
Oh, did you mean the part where you use it to shoot bullets at stuff? I guess you could use that for… perforating sheetrock? I dunno.
Come on, have a bit of imagination. 
And yes, it can be used for whitehat research — e.g. on one's own devices to see how different things react.
Oh, did you mean the part where you use it to shoot bullets at stuff? I guess you could use that for… perforating sheetrock? I dunno.
There's only one use for the device we've been considering.
And yes, it can be used for whitehat research — e.g. on one's own devices to see how different things react.