Customs' Hamfisted Attempts To Intimidate Wikileaks Volunteers
from the witch-hunts dept
Computer security expert (and US citizen) Jacob Appelbaum, who is well known for his work on Tor, had been having some issues lately concerning his involvement as a volunteer with Wikileaks. He was among those who had their info requested by the Feds via Twitter. And he's been having issues traveling to and from the US lately. Last July, he was detained upon flying into the country and it looks like something similar has happened again, where he was detained, searched and questioned after flying into Seattle from a vacation in Icleand.He was careful to travel with no computers or gadgets whatsoever, other than some USB keys with encrypted versions of the Bill of Rights. He noted that the initial customs agent, to whom he handed over the declaration form was friendly until she pulled up his account, and from there things went sour. He asked to speak to a lawyer, which was denied on the grounds that he wasn't being arrested.
Apparently he was told initially that he was pulled aside as part of a "random" search, which leads Appelbaum to joke about the actual randomness -- which was also shown to be false when one of the agents mentioned his pre-flight Twitter activity.. He also pointed out that those detaining him were disappointed that he wasn't traveling with computers or mobile phones, and that Iceland had plenty of computers, such that he didn't need to bring his own.
In the end, after about half an hour's detention and search, they did let him go. Some might consider that to not be that big of a deal, but it clearly has something of a chilling effect. He notes that the mental stress of being in such a situation is not at all enjoyable. This is unfortunate. If he's done something wrong, arrest him. If he has not, harassing him every time he crosses the border is just obnoxious.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: customs, detained, jacob applebaum, searches
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spelling.
Spelling mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spelling.
No offense to "The eejit" either, but if you want spelling mistakes check out that comment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Spelling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spelling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Spelling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do I have to make flight arrangements? Figure I could just go on Craig's List and find someone that can give me a Freedom Fondle and bypass the whole travel/airport thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not under arrest? Bye!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The word 'arrest' when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension or restraint of a person, or the deprivation of a person's liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement. When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected with criminal offenses, an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, to be held or detained to answer a criminal charge or to prevent the commission of a criminal or further offense. The essential elements to constitute an arrest in the above sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law, which is so understood by the person arrested. (Para 46 of Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan (1994)3 SCC 440)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Under the law, a detainment is not necessarily an arrest. They can detain you legally long enough to determine that a crime has not been committed, and then must let you go. The question is how long can they legally detain you, and the Supreme Court has said that it can only be as long as necessary to determine whether or not a crime has occurred, and no longer.
You cannot leave when you are being detained, just as you can not leave if you are being arrested, but with a detainment, the clock starts automatically, and if they detain you for a period longer than what is reasonable to determine whether a crime has been committed or not, then you have a case for a violation of your 4th Amendment Rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But apparently no right to a lawyer to help you make that case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, and don't let my statement make you believe that I am making excuses for what is happening here. I do not like what is happening here, and I've said so before and since. But this is the way the law works, and if Jacob Appelbaum's rights are being violated (which I believe is occurring because he is being unjustly persecuted for supporting a site which isn't violating any current laws,) then the law allows for him to sue the government for grievances.
In this case, however, detainment is not arrest, and until he is arrested, his right to have a lawyer present has been found to be unnecessary by the courts. I suspect this is because they are worried that by allowing lawyers to be present during entry to a country (or during a traffic stop) would be an unnecessary distraction and would cause more stress than it solves. I guess that they figure that afterwards, if a person's rights have been violated, they can contact a lawyer and go through the courts to become whole again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suspect they are worried that having a lawyer present would make it more difficult to violate someone's rights.
I guess that they figure that afterwards, if a person's rights have been violated, they can contact a lawyer and go through the courts to become whole again.
Once your rights have been violated, they can't be un-violated. That would be like trying to un-rape someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe, but since it is judges and not TSA behind this case law, I find it difficult to see them (who were once lawyers themselves) being part of some grand conspiracy. I suspect if TSA keeps doing what they're doing, eventually the Supreme Court is going to take this away from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Arrests only happen when you have been charged. Otherwise, you are detained. In customs, there is only one way to go if you don't want to go through the process, which is back where you came from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except TSA doesn't generally let you do that, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(Me)Bye! (Them)Stop right there.
I keep walking. (Them)Places hands on me to "detain" me.
(Me)Am I under arrest or are you assaulting me for which I will legally take steps to defend myself including the use of physical force?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll try to simplify it for you.
Your words:
The search is the detainment, moron, (Name calling? What are you upset about? Can't someone disagree/have different opinion with you?)
My words:
I and my belongings have been thoroughly searched and nothing illegal or incriminating has been found. I have gone through your "detainment" process.
Where did I say "bye" before the thorough search?
Why are you needlessly detaining me further? Harassment?
Need more time for what? Time to plant something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and again you didn't answer the question. He's not under arrest, he's being detained while being searched before they allow him into the country. At what point in that is "I'm not under arrest? Bye!" an option?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
His other option is to turn around and sit on a bench in the waiting area until the shift change or he decides to get a ticket... wasn't that the plot of the Terminal (with Tom Hanks)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Terminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plenty of computers
Duh ... "I don't cary no stinking computer" ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, unfortunately you are wrong, and neither of you understand the definition of arrest as it relates to legal detainment. A law enforcement officer can legally detain you without arresting you, such as during a traffic stop, with nothing more than reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. However, they must determine probable cause of you committing a crime before they can arrest you. If they can't, in a reasonable amount of time, they have to let you go. When entering a country, they may detain you long enough to determine whether you haven't committed a crime, and whether or not you're authorized to enter the country, and then they have to let you go.
So, they under the definition of arrest fine, and so long as he was not held longer than reasonable to determine if a crime was committed, no rights were violated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That he is stupid enough to tweet about it while in customs only shows that he doesn't take any of this seriously. It also proves that he doesn't understand the difference between "detained" and "arrested". Failure on the basic stuff makes me wonder what else wikileaks screws up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He is right. But only about the difference between detainment/arrest.
Wikileaks has not, and I'd argue that they will never be found to have, committed a crime. Being part of the organization should not be grounds for additional scrutiny. And what I believe is happening here is absolutely wrong. However, an arrest is always a detainment, but detainment is not always an arrest under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, he is being investigated. However, he is being investigated by a completely different authority. Since they have been unable (so far) to find something he has done to be illegal, they have decided to place him on a list of people that is to be detained and extensively searched every time they enter the country despite not even being ACCUSED of ever illegally transporting anything out of or into the country.
That seems like the same thing as having the police stop his car every time they see it and give him a sobriety test. Either charge him with a crime, or leave him alone. A country that harasses citizens that it cannot legally jail is not the land of freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wikileaks is known to have possession of documents of this type, and it is a very good conclusion that members of the organization are likely to have similar documents on their person, on their laptops, or in their luggage. How hard is that to understand?
If he doesn't like it, he can move to sweden or wherever full time and stop trying to get into the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving to Sweden?
Perhaps he should leave Fascist America for places that place a much higher value on individual human rights - like Sweden and Iceland for instance...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moving to Sweden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This country is out of control and watching it degenerate into the likes of stupid high school argurments and he said shoot em argumets is both funny as Fuck and terrifying. Its plain to see the people in office have never not gotten their ways.
To quote another techdirt poster..."the sooner were hit by a extinction event metor the better"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, if you are referring to Wikileaks, newsflash: No document was stolen. They are still available. In fact, now you have even more copies (free backups!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Documents obtained illegally, secret documents obtained by someone illegally making copies of them. Contraband.
if that is your entire argument, you already lost the discussion. You know Applebaum is part of an organization that is part of potential act of treason, and that it is very likely that any member of the group may be carrying additional documents or copies of documents with them that would be illegal. Wikileaks is under investigation, and everyone member of that organization that presents itself to enter the US should expect to get themselves and all of their luggage and carry on belongings checked very, very closely.
He should considering himself lucky that he didn't get the rubber glove treatment.
You know it, you are just being a moron and playing word semantic games. That is a losing position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Umm..ok. Why are you here commenting on this article then?
You know Applebaum is part of an organization that is part of potential act of treason...
Well actually, I don't know that at all. If you are talking about Manning, who presumably took the info in the first place (not sure, no trial yet) well then maybe.
Wikileaks is under investigation, and everyone member of that organization that presents itself to enter the US should expect to get themselves and all of their luggage and carry on belongings checked very, very closely.
He should considering himself lucky that he didn't get the rubber glove treatment.
I don't dispute either of the statements. But realizing that they are true doesn't change my opinion that they morally wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or are you just arrogant enough to think your country encompasses the entire world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where does it say he tweeted about his trip while in customs?
The fact that the customs officers pointed his tweet out, proved that the detainment wasn't random.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WikiLeaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe some public comment is needed---
If the public says nothing, then government thinks no one cares when a few individuals are mistreated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, what ever happened to that wikileaks Bank of America leak? Has Bank of America plugged that leak with some dollar bills? Did they pay Wikileaks off not to leak it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There, fixed that for you.
Don't forget, people still walk on to planes with loaded guns in their carry-on, and we still have 2 very large buildings in New York missing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Israel and the US and Airport Security
Seems to me like American airport security is all about show and politics - and cost-cutting - and not about real security (not to mention the trampling of rights of all forms).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Israel and the US and Airport Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really you don't need computers or even a USB device to transport data that could be highly sensitive. There are many ways to "hide" data on your person, assuming that you have to go this route. Encrypted emails would be a more efficient route since it would bypass Customs ability to intercept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the bright side...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next time he should bring a computer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next time he should bring a computer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next time he should bring a computer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Customs is disappointed
Unfortunately, an actual citizen of the USA, they eventually have to either charge him or allow him back in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Customs is disappointed
There Fixed that for ya ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Customs is disappointed
> There Fixed that for ya ;)
FOrtunate for him; but, unfortunate for the customs officials, they did not have any valid reason to hold him longer, deny him entry, and otherwise throw their weight around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Encrypted bill of rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Things nobody has mentioned yet:
Secondly, there is no right to a lawyer except when being interrogated by the police (or authorities). Thus, if he is having a "nice" discussion around the water cooler, there is no right to an attorney.
Lastly, he was just back from a "vacation to Iceland." Has no one noticed that one of the three Wikileaks volunteers in the news of late (along with Applebaum) is an Icelandic citizen? No one mentioned this, that's for sure. I venture to say it did not go unnoticed by the American "authorities."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Things nobody has mentioned yet:
You are truly terrifying.
Actions taken inside the geographic area of the United States, performed by agents of the United States government inside a building built on the soil of the United States, against a citizen of the United States who was lawfully traveling home to the United States from a country which we are not at war with or having any standing terror alert against..
These actions can be declared to be "outside of American jurisdiction" by a simple wrinkle of law?
Fun.
And being held, against your will, for an indeterminate period, with no right to leave is not being "arrested" because this same United Stated Government organization, which has proclaimed that it does not operate under US jurisdiction, also claims that a Citizen has no rights while being so detained.
You can say all that and still say that it is the victim who was being foolish? that he should expect such treatment for being thought to be connected to a group who has not been charged with any crime?
scary.
And thus liberty dies, with the applause of the confined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Things nobody has mentioned yet:
According to the Supreme Court, the answer is YES.
In fact, thanks to a neocon-packed Supreme Court, the bill of rights doesn't even apply within 100 miles of the border. That's really terrifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No big deal?
You know, if I were to just grab someone off the streets and detain and search them, even for half an hour, I'd probably be committing a FELONY punishable by some serious prison time.
No big deal? Hardly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]