In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Holdrege wr
ites:
>> >
>>I'm not sure what "sounds a bit overmuch" to you. Have a look at
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F150000/150465.stm
>
>How is this different than looking in your bags for porn magazines or
>videotapes? How is looking at your stored email different than looking at
>your paper correspondence?
Leaving out their technical limitations and assumptions (the whole
world doesn't run Windows), the problem is that you don't know what
they're really doing. Indeed, the Customs officers may not -- can you
tell from the wrapper what an arbitrary piece of software does? A
magazine is fairly obviously just that -- but there's a lot of very
sensitive data on many people's laptops. Perhaps the British
government can be trusted -- but I can name a number of others,
including nominal democracies, that I wouldn't trust.
>
>As I stated in my previous post "unless provoked". Customs in many
>countries can be provoked to look at those things. What makes a computer
>special? Why single out the U.K. government when many others do essentially
>the same thing.
Apart from the question of what it takes to "provoke" a Customs officer
-- skin color? -- the issue with the UK in particular is the lack of
any checks on the powers of the House of Commons. Usually, they show
restraint and common sense -- but not always. (As an aside, one of the
Customs officials I encountered in Australia, after hearing why I was
there, opined that the Internet was really a tool of the Devil, and
that it was somehow related to the Mark of the Beast. I decided not to
argue, not even to point out that my religion knows nothing of Beasts
nor marks thereof.)
--Steve Bellovin
