Stockton mayor was briefly detained on return flight from China.

Stockton mayor was briefly detained on return flight from China, forces him to hand over his passwords

source

source

FTA:
Mayor Anthony R. Silva, who was elected in November 2012, had traveled to China for a mayor’s conference, he said in a statement. Upon his return home on Monday, Silva was briefly detained by Department of Homeland Security agents and had his belongings searched, he said.
“A few minutes later, DHS agents confiscated all my electronic devices including my personal cell phone. Unfortunately, they were not willing or able to produce a search warrant or any court documents suggesting they had a legal right to take my property. In addition, they were persistent about requiring my passwords for all devices,” Silva said.

Silva was also told he had “no right for a lawyer to be present” and that being a U.S. citizen did not “entitle me to rights that I probably thought.”

Silva was not allowed to leave the airport until he gave his passwords to the agents, which the mayor’s personal attorney, Mark Reichel, claimed is illegal.


DHS may have the right to confiscate your property but they can KMA if they want a password. Hack for it like the outstanding fellows in Utah would. I would have told them my password was "get my lawyer".
Only good thing that can be reflected off of this is that a .gov representative had to deal with the unconstitutal actions forced upon him by another .gov agency. The real war of terror is waged by the United States Government, against the citizens. It is a success, fear being the motivator for giving up rights, privacy, freedom.

Why hold a mayors conference in China?

a reply to: Stormdancer777

en.wikipedia.org...
www.globalmayorsforum.org...
GMF’s council is initiated by the International Mayors Communication Center (IMCC) in 2005. GMF’s council is composed of six big global top city sustainable development organizations, including United Nations World Urban Campaign (WUC), United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), Global Real Estate Investment and Development Expo (CITYSCAPE), International Downtown Association (IDA) and CITYNET with 4812 network members (not including Chinese cities). The Council constitution has authorized that IMCC to be sole permanent secretariat of the GMF and is responsible for daily affairs of GMF. GMF thus is under the brand of International Mayors Communication Center.

a reply to: staple



Makes me glad my computer hard drive is encrypted and requires a passcode to access it (i.e., to even boot the damned thing)...

And, my cell phone has any number of applications specifically secured as well. Text messages, banking application, photos, etc...passcode necessary to get into them. Let alone the fact that the minute the phone goes into screensaver mode or I turn the screen off, again...a passcode to get in. At times, it can be a wee bit annoying and I think why in the world did I do this? And then I hear about BS like this....

Whereas I did this primarily for the possibility of a police officer scanning my cell phone without cause or warrant, I'm glad to know that it will come in handy in such a situation with the TSA as well.


I SINCERELY wish I could go back in time and turn down the contract I accepted and completed to implement a rather sincere database and ERP application for the TSA......Same for the NSA...and a few other alphabet agencies as well.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Why hold a mayors conference in China?

Agenda 2030

a reply to: staple

Sucks when a politician is held to the same standards of it's citizens? I think not!

Don't care if it happened in China, the same thing happens to citizens in our own country on a daily basis, so should we be outraged a politician had to feel the same oppression as we do?

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: staple



Makes me glad my computer hard drive is encrypted and requires a passcode to access it (i.e., to even boot the damned thing)...

And, my cell phone has any number of applications specifically secured as well. Text messages, banking application, photos, etc...passcode necessary to get into them. Let alone the fact that the minute the phone goes into screensaver mode or I turn the screen off, again...a passcode to get in. At times, it can be a wee bit annoying and I think why in the world did I do this? And then I hear about BS like this....

Same procedure here. Although I am more prone to having my equipment stolen or lost so I implement higher security. Side benefit It would help in these situations. Adding a password to protect your phone is easy and everyone should do it. Laptops and tablets, no brainier.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: staple

Sucks when a politician is held to the same standards of it's citizens? I think not!

Don't care if it happened in China, the same thing happens to citizens in our own country on a daily basis, so should we be outraged a politician had to feel the same oppression as we do?

It didn't happen in China, it happened when he returned and was done by DHS. I suspect he had some contact in China that they were concerned about and he may or may not have even been aware about. However, the way it was handled is totally illegal.

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: staple

Sucks when a politician is held to the same standards of it's citizens? I think not!

Don't care if it happened in China, the same thing happens to citizens in our own country on a daily basis, so should we be outraged a politician had to feel the same oppression as we do?

It didn't happen in China, it happened when he returned and was done by DHS. I suspect he had some contact in China that they were concerned about and he may or may not have even been aware about. However, the way it was handled is totally illegal.

Star for correcting my mistake!

Will this make that mayor go back to Stockton and prevent his citizens from being offended by how the TSA and Police treats them?

I know he is a measly mayor, but isn't it funny how when someone of so called "importance" is offended it becomes a news worthy article when it happens to us serfs on a daily basis?

a reply to: staple

Silva was also told he had “no right for a lawyer to be present” and that being a U.S. citizen did not “entitle me to rights that I probably thought.”

Complete and utter BS. This is the TSA imposing it's will as a federal agency on a state VIP. The TSA are putting all on notice that they are in control and whatever they say goes be you common citizen or state official. Know your rights and give them nothing.

The other thing is the city of Stockton is in serious economic depression. So why is Mayor Silva spending tax money on a junket to China? If the conference was important he could of had the minutes sent to him here.

They might be "targeting" Silva because of political affiliations?

This guy is about as corrupt as they come. If you look up his history of prior issues they are all shady. One or two reports of behavior I could write off, but this guy has multiples. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....it is likely a duck.

a reply to: staple


Information for those who care -

Ports of entry do not fall into the same category as typical law enforcement and a 4th amendment requirement of a warrant / PC to search does not apply.

A "Border Search Exception" -

Border Searches.—“That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration.”87 Authorized by the First Congress,88 the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops.89 Moreover, while prolonged detention of travelers beyond the routine customs search and inspection must be justified by the Terry standard of reasonable suspicion having a particularized and objective basis,90 Terry protections as to the length and intrusiveness of the search do not apply.91

Inland stoppings and searches in areas away from the borders are a different matter altogether. Thus, in Almeida–Sanchez v.[p.1244]United States,92 the Court held that a warrantless stop and search of defendant’s automobile on a highway some 20 miles from the border by a roving patrol lacking probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal aliens violated the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the Court invalidated an automobile search at a fixed checkpoint well removed from the border; while agreeing that a fixed checkpoint probably gave motorists less cause for alarm than did roving patrols, the Court nonetheless held that the invasion of privacy entailed in a search was just as intrusive and must be justified by a showing of probable cause or consent.93 On the other hand, when motorists are briefly stopped, not for purposes of a search but in order that officers may inquire into their residence status, either by asking a few questions or by checking papers, different results are achieved, so long as the stops are not truly random. Roving patrols may stop vehicles for purposes of a brief inquiry, provided officers are “aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that an automobile contains illegal aliens; in such a case the interference with Fourth Amendment rights is “modest” and the law enforcement interests served are significant.94 Fixed checkpoints provide additional safeguards; here officers may halt all vehicles briefly in order to question occupants even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.95

The US 9th circuit ruled - (US v Cotterman - 2013)

that property, such as a laptop and other electronic storage devices, presented for inspection when entering the United States at the border may not be subject to forensic examination without a reason for suspicion.

The US 4th circuit ruled - (US v Ickes - 2005)

addressing a challenge to Customs' authority to search electronic files in United States v. Ickes, held that there is no First Amendment exception to the border search doctrine for expressive materials .[11] The Court based its finding in part on the demands of protecting the nation from terrorist threats that may cross the American border in expressive materials.[

The US 9th circuit also ruled - (US v Arnold - 2008)

that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not require government agents to have reasonable suspicion before searching laptops or other digital devices at the border, including international airports.

To date -

Although the Supreme Court has not addressed the standard of suspicion necessary for a warrantless border search of electronic materials, the only jurisprudence thus far, guided by Ickes and Arnold, suggests that customs officers may search any electronic materials (including laptops, CDs, MP3 players, cellular phones, and digital cameras) randomly, without any suspicion, and without any first amendment restrictions.

Ports of entry and searches revolve around protection of sovereignty.

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: staple



Makes me glad my computer hard drive is encrypted and requires a passcode to access it (i.e., to even boot the damned thing)...

And, my cell phone has any number of applications specifically secured as well. Text messages, banking application, photos, etc...passcode necessary to get into them. Let alone the fact that the minute the phone goes into screensaver mode or I turn the screen off, again...a passcode to get in. At times, it can be a wee bit annoying and I think why in the world did I do this? And then I hear about BS like this....

Whereas I did this primarily for the possibility of a police officer scanning my cell phone without cause or warrant, I'm glad to know that it will come in handy in such a situation with the TSA as well.


I SINCERELY wish I could go back in time and turn down the contract I accepted and completed to implement a rather sincere database and ERP application for the TSA......Same for the NSA...and a few other alphabet agencies as well.

I think that if you read the article you will find that encryption is not going to make a difference. Homeland security appeared to be about to detain him indefinitely until he gave up the passwords. So your drive may be encrypted but that in their eyes is first of all suspicious and second appears to be cause itself for extra-judicial detention.

a reply to: staple

Not feeling bad. I think it's good when politicians have this stuff happen, kind of like getting bit by the beast that you helped to feed.

As far as passwords. I am very open about mine. 1r1shnuts1 ..no one ever believes me.

a reply to: metamagic

I happen to be fairly knowledgeable in such things as I've been in the IT field for 25 years.


Now, if anyone has a hard-on to get at your data...guess what....chances are, they'll get it.

Remember, I said I had this in place originally because of police searches. The local yocals are not the DHS.

And whether it is the local LEO, TSA, NSA, or DHS....whoever...countermeasures like I've taken allow for one thing.

Time.

Those in DHS are definitely power usurping douche bags. I have met a few and had this same thing happen going through the Canadian US border, but before the checkpoint, there was DHS searching cars and asking for phones and their passwords..

I laughed at these guys and told them to F off when asked for my passwords.. The words I gave them instead were very colorful and obscene and no matter what threats they made to me, I told them to F OFF in a very loud voice.
They finally just moved away from my car and motioned me onward.

They never got permission or cooperation from me. They kept threatening all kinds of things and I kept saying F you to them,,

I don't recommend anyone do that, but it is what I do.

I thought the Patriot Act gave them search ability without warrants and it applied to your house or anything. Also, there is the issue of being within 100 miles of a national border is a constitution free zone. Now, I have not heard of any cases going to Federal Court on the constitution free zone, but it is of concern as a large percentage of citizens live within 100 miles of a border. Here in Florida the entire state except for a sliver in the north central part is within 100 miles of a border. The gov has trashed the constitution for the most part and I am not surprised at their behavior. The also have the right at indefinite detention without due process and don't have to allow communication either. And they can kill you if they determine they want to. Now the last two are associated with terrorist activity and detention can be until all hostilities are ceased. That in itself is one reason the US gov will keep the terrorist threat and hostilities going from now on, so they don't lose that capability.

BS is an understatement of epic proportions.

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: metamagic

I happen to be fairly knowledgeable in such things as I've been in the IT field for 25 years.


Now, if anyone has a hard-on to get at your data...guess what....chances are, they'll get it.

Remember, I said I had this in place originally because of police searches. The local yocals are not the DHS.

And whether it is the local LEO, TSA, NSA, or DHS....whoever...countermeasures like I've taken allow for one thing.

Time.

Only 25 years? Just a kid. I actually have been working in IT for 40 years and have spent some time working with security and encryption. I do think that it actually is quite easy to make your data encrypted to the point where it cannot be cracked, or at least within my lifetime. I know because I encrypted some of mine and lost the key and lost that stuff forever. Lesson learned.

And I do see your point about local leos.. the ones I've worked with had a next to zero idea of how technology works. A number of them have made the assertion that only criminals use encryption since innocent people have nothing to hide from them. Then I have to do the long explanation that it is not them people are securing data from but rather hackers, cyber criminals and all the other bad guys out there. I saw one group launch a sexual predator investigation of one guy because he had a virtual machine on his laptop. As one LEO pointed out to me, sexual predators use virtual machines therefore anyone who uses a virtual machine is a sexual predator.

a reply to: spirit_horse

Nope

Searches without warrant can only occur at a border crossing. The 100 mile crap was shot down by the US Supreme Court where they stated interaction between Customs/border patrol fall under the same requirements as any other law enforcement officer - warrants to search, R/S to stop etc.