Bangkok Reports

[QUOTE=KoperenKarel;1646910]Aren't we being a little paranoid here?

Immigration officials are not likely being bossed around by feminists. I suppose you imagine these women all being dressed in overalls and having short hair?

If you're afraid of having your phone checked for pictures (which is illegal under privacy laws) then transfer them to a memory stick or memory card.

Relax.

Ko.[/QUOTE]There can be a hint of paranoia of course, but there is also a large degree of truth. Most people think of feminists as nazi like women with a bad fashion sense and an even worse hair dresser. In reality, most feminists are your boss, your neighbor, you lobbyists, your congresswomen. Don't be fooled by appearances.

[QUOTE=KoperenKarel;1646968]I would not trust my pictures to the cloud. If your provider has even one server in the US then the US government has the right, using the infamous "Patriot Act", to snoop around on all its' servers, where ever they may be located around the world. [/QUOTE]You're absolutely right, clouds are not be any means snoop proof. But as long as they are not child porn related, you're ok from the Law [but not the Mrs :D].
The worst that can happen is the cloud service shuts down your account. Better than having your pc or device confiscated while they conduct a search.

YMMV

[QUOTE=Phordphan;1646921]
Oh, and checking for pictures, when entering the USA, is most definitely NOT illegal. There are court rulings upholding this. Don't make ignorant statements such as this before you know the facts. It may, or may not, be legal in Europe, but it is most certainly permitted when entering the USA.[/QUOTE]Well yes and no (to the best of my knowledge). If those pictures are on a laptop or digital camera it depends on which court circuit you live in. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering California, Oregon, and Washington among other states) recently ruled to search a digital device customs and immigration needed "reasonable suspicion" they would find something criminal. Previously, Custom and Immigration officers in the states covered by the Ninth Circuit had been one of the most aggressive in conducting arbitrary searches of digital devices without any justification. Certain other Circuits have ruled customs and immigration has unbridled discretion to search though a digital device. I'm unaware of any ruling from the Supreme Court on this so right now the law varies at different ports of entry (unless I am incorrect that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled recently on this issue).

Has anybody here actually had their computer or camera searched going through Thai, PI, Singapore, EU, UK, Canada or US Customs or are we just talking theoretically? In all my travels I have never experienced this invasion of my privacy. And since I do not have anything to do with under (umbrella) age girls I give off a natural not very concerned attitude when questioned by a customs official upon returning to my beloved country. I have done nothing wrong. The typical short conversation goes something like this: Agent- "Were did you go? Have you been on a farm or near any livestock" ME- "I went scuba diving and surfing in Thailand and the Philippines. I did not go to any farms" Agent- "Welcome back to the USA." ME- "Thanks, it is good to be home." End of story.

It wasn't always this way. Back in my wild younger days I spent a lot of time travelling around South America for long periods with long hair and a taste for certain illegal substances, yada yada yada, I liked the girls too, but they were not my main focus. Back then Miami customs officials used to give me a hard time. I fit a certain drug profile and they nearly always searched my suitcase. All that nonsense stopped after I reached a certain age, cut my hair short and started looking more "respectable." What a joke!

But yeah to be extra safe or to put your mind at ease, put your trip photos on the cloud or encrypt a portion of your hard drive. The odds of a custom official checking your data that deep is 1 in 10 million.

[QUOTE=NattyBumpo;1647394]Has anybody here actually had their computer or camera searched going through Thai, PI, Singapore, EU, British, Canada or US Customs or are we just talking theoretically? [/QUOTE]Yes, they once went through my video tapes of Bangkok and am sure they were disappointed when all they saw was the river and some temples. And they did this after seeing conference materials from a major professional conference showing that I had attended it for a few days. I also was carrying a lot of xrays showing I had sought medical care in Bangkok. And they looked through my hard copy pictures taken in Japan of some meetings I had (in suit and tie) with other businesspeople. So after seeing all this I was pretty much the last person you would expect them to scrutinize, along with my digital data, other than that I had been in Asia. But being male and returning from Asia was sufficient to trigger this invasion of privacy.

A friend of mine had his computer scanned in San Francisco and he told me they did this to every unaccompanied male with a computer or camera on his flight from Asia.

Laptop searches in particular became such a serious problem some business trade organizations lobbied Congress to stop this as it potentially exposed their trade secrets as well as attorney / client communications. As a result Mary Cantwell (a former CEO) and Russ Feingold introduced legislation in the Senate to require at least reasonable suspicion (the same standard the Ninth Circuit eventually adopted) before such a search could be conducted at the border. Their bill did not pass. Many companies forbade their employees from travelling overseas with laptops that had trade secrets stored on them owing to the practices at the US Border.

No, the problem was far from theoretical and I'm sure still exists to some extent at certain ports of entry. However, all the above examples occurred during the Bush administration. I suspect things may have eased a bit since then, but other than the Ninth Circuit decision I'm not sure about this.

One other thing. Customs and Immigration had computers with powerful forensic software on them to scan laptops with and likely still does. This often was done in a back room while the arriving traveler was asked to wait. So I'm not sure about the 1 in 10 million chance of them finding something.

Hope I'm posting this question in the right place.

I have an overnight layover in Bangkok in December, staying at a hotel in Lat Krabang near the Paseo Mall. Any action there (lady bar with possibility of take-out or massage w / extras) or is it necessary to go into the city?

Any advice from experienced Bangkok mongers would be most appreciated.

[QUOTE=EthanHunt123;1647188]Really. Then I must be mistaken in tuning that Whiteheads and Neo-Nazis are a Islamic phenomenon No one is debating that treating women like property is prevalent in a lot of Middle Eastern countries. But then you have similar stuff playing out in a lot of western countries as well in the garb of trafficking etc It's unfair to paint a whole race / religion in one color.

And BTW I am not from a Middle East country and nor I am Muslim. In case you were wondering.[/QUOTE]Um, well neo-nazis are not endorsed by the gov. No are there Neo-Nazi Republics as there are Islamic Republics where the oppression of women is law.

Similar stuff? Again, trafficking is illegal. Unfair? Not at all. It is their doctrine. When people are free to leave the religion as they please and women are allowed to dress as they want then your argument will have some merit.

[QUOTE=Moris54;1647187]Extending such "courtesies" to people of all races is by no means a colonial mentality, but expecting reciprocation and judging them for non reciprocation is. That is what I was referring to. I wasn't bought up in the Western construct and there was no influence of the western acceptance mentality in my childhood but it was always embedded in me that we should extend such traits to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, etc. If this is a Western construct then it may have grown from the mass immigration from third world to first world countries. The practice of tolerance, but is tolerance really acceptance? A lot of first world countries face very grueling social and race issues. I guess that's for another day, another time.

BTW, I am with you on the Islam thing. There is no way anyone, even muslim women can convince me that they actually like being covered head to toe with a metal plate to cover their face.[/QUOTE]Actually not. Most of it has its root in European philosophy of the 18th century. Folks like Rousseau. Yes, Western nations face race issues, but discrimination in Western nations is illegal. Take Malaysia, discrimination is not only tolerated, it is law.

Tolerance is not acceptance. Not in any sense. And in fact, it should not be. I would never preach acceptance.

[QUOTE=LAGuy5;1647384]Well yes and no (to the best of my knowledge). If those pictures are on a laptop or digital camera it depends on which court circuit you live in. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering California, Oregon, and Washington among other states) recently ruled to search a digital device customs and immigration needed "reasonable suspicion" they would find something criminal. Previously, Custom and Immigration officers in the states covered by the Ninth Circuit had been one of the most aggressive in conducting arbitrary searches of digital devices without any justification. Certain other Circuits have ruled customs and immigration has unbridled discretion to search though a digital device. I'm unaware of any ruling from the Supreme Court on this so right now the law varies at different ports of entry (unless I am incorrect that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled recently on this issue).[/QUOTE]Yes, the Supremes ruled on this in January and again in March. To be exact, they denied the appeal, letting stand the 9th Circus' ruling. They sort of carved out this doctrine of "reasonable suspicion. " Basically CBP can do as the please once they have "reasonable suspicion. " Of course, much like "probable cause," I suspect "reasonable suspicion" can be manufactured at will.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cotterman[/URL]

The above is a good summary of the rulings in question. It now appears that this how the law is to be applied at all ports of entry.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;1647466]Actually not. Most of it has its root in European philosophy of the 18th century. Folks like Rousseau. Yes, Western nations face race issues, but discrimination in Western nations is illegal. Take Malaysia, discrimination is not only tolerated, it is law.

Tolerance is not acceptance. Not in any sense. And in fact, it should not be. I would never preach acceptance.[/QUOTE]Well considering this is not really the forum for debate on discrimination. I will stop after this post. Is there discrimination in Middle East / Asia. Hell yes. I come from a country where we have had one of the worst examples of this in the form of Caste system. Are things changing? Yes. Can people criticise it? Yes. Can you make sweeping generalizations for people from those countries. NO. You talk about Malaysia. Is there legalised discrimination? - it's not a straightforward answer. You have to understand the history and culture of the place to give a nuanced answer. You talk about Women in Muslim Countries. Do some of them have institutionalised suppression of women rights? - Yes. Are there some of Muslim countries where women are equal and intact have reached positions like Head of State? - Yes. On the other hand how many women / non Christian men have even fought for US presidency?

You say West has no legalised discrimination. What are your views on Laws against Roma people in some countries? What about a key women's right issue like Abortion? What about growing laws targeted against Islam. Banning Hijab etc? Can the same countries even think of passing a law against traditional Jewish attire?

In a shell. There are issues everywhere. But it's not right to turn around a paint a whole religion / state / culture as uncivilized etc.

[QUOTE=NattyBumpo;1647394]Has anybody here actually had the.ir computer or camera searched going through Thai, PI, Singapore, EU, UK, Canada or US Customs or are we just talking theoretically? In all my travels I have never experienced this invasion of my privacy.

. . . .

But yeah to be extra safe or to put your mind at ease, put your trip photos on the cloud or encrypt a portion of your hard drive. The odds of a custom official checking your data that deep is 1 in 10 million.[/QUOTE]In October 30 last year Cubadave, a frequent mongerer in the Dominican Republic, was searched by the US Customs officials at Miami International Airport. They told him to line up with six other people and hand over his electronics. He had to surrender a laptop computer, two cell phones, and two digital cameras.

I cannot find the link now but it has been commented at the Dominican Republic forum of this site.

BTW, anyone who knows how safe encryption of the harddisk is if you should be searched by customs? The commercial encryption programs has some flaws.

[QUOTE=Phordphan;1647493]Yes, the Supremes ruled on this in January and again in March. To be exact, they denied the appeal, letting stand the 9th Circus' ruling. They sort of carved out this doctrine of "reasonable suspicion. " Basically CBP can do as the please once they have "reasonable suspicion. " Of course, much like "probable cause," I suspect "reasonable suspicion" can be manufactured at will.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cotterman[/URL]

The above is a good summary of the rulings in question. It now appears that this how the law is to be applied at all ports of entry.[/QUOTE]I don't think so. In denying the petition for cert. The Supreme Court basically left the ruling [I]as it affects the Ninth Circuit only[/I] in place without ruling on the merits. In other words they essentially decided the case was not one of the very few they wished to consider at this time. Accordingly the Ninth Circuit ruling remains intact [I]for the Ninth Circuit[/I] at least until such time as the Supremes take a case on this issue. Customs and Immigration is still free in other jurisdictions to search laptops and digital media (such as memory cards for cameras) without any need to justify the search unless a court in another jurisdiction rules otherwise [I]for that jurisdiction[/I]. At least that is my reading of the situation unless there are further relevant cases I haven't seen or I have forgotten something important I learned in law school (which I suppose is possible).

Edit: It occurs to me though the reason the Supreme Court refused to hear the case might have been not so much that the issue of whether the government needs reasonable suspicion to search a digital device is an unimportant one, but rather the facts of the case were not conducive to deciding that issue. The Court of Appeals affirmed both that the government needs reasonable suspicion [I]and[/I] that in this case there was reasonable suspicion. Therefore if the Supreme Court took the case it would not matter to the defendant whether it ruled reasonable suspicion was required, or instead that no reasonable suspicion was needed, because in both instances the defendant would still be considered guilty and subject to incarceration. The only way the Supreme Court ruling would be consequential to the defendant would be if the Supreme Court looked at the facts and concluded there was no reasonable suspicion on the facts of the case but reasonable suspicion would be required to allow the search. But the Supreme Court rarely makes these sorts of factual determinations. So bottom line is unless the government decides as a matter of policy to only search digital media at the border based on reasonable suspicion, and nothing less, there still is the distinct possibility the Supreme Court may in the future issue a definitive ruling in a suitable case that would bind all U.S. ports of entry. Hope this is reasonably clear to those who care.

[QUOTE=Bellpepper;1647514]BTW, anyone who knows how safe encryption of the harddisk is if you should be searched by customs? The commercial encryption programs has some flaws.[/QUOTE]I wouldn't trust it too much. I work for a company that had a forensic accountancy department and you'd be surprised how easy it was for them to recover deleted files and unscramble encrypted hard disks.

[QUOTE=NattyBumpo;1647394]Has anybody here actually had their computer or camera searched going through Thai, PI, Singapore, EU, UK, Canada or US Customs or are we just talking theoretically? [/QUOTE]I enter the US about 5-6 times per year and my passport is full of entry stamps. I was selected for secondary inspection once, at Newark Airport, New Jersey, flying in from Europe. Four armed agents went through my luggage in some detail, and looked at all the pics in my digital camera.

So this is not just a theoretical thing.

[QUOTE=Phordphan;1647493]Yes, the Supremes ruled on this in January and again in March. To be exact, they denied the appeal, letting stand the 9th Circus' ruling. They sort of carved out this doctrine of "reasonable suspicion. " Basically CBP can do as the please once they have "reasonable suspicion. " Of course, much like "probable cause," I suspect "reasonable suspicion" can be manufactured at will.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cotterman[/URL]

The above is a good summary of the rulings in question. It now appears that this how the law is to be applied at all ports of entry.[/QUOTE]Although "reasonable suspicion" is a rather low standard, lower than "probable cause," it is still significant that such a standard now exists in the Ninth Circuit. Consider instances (and there are some) where Customs and Immigration decides to search the digital devices of virtually every single male on a plane from Asia. Unless Customs and Immigration has some reasonable suspicion that this group of single males engaged in some criminal act (for example, "we have information they all belong to the United Automatic Editor will not allow this word Association") these kinds of en masse searches would be considered violations of the United States Constitution. While in individual cases it might not be so hard for Customs and Immigration to manufacture reasonable suspicion, the standard does get in the way of them routinely searching the digital media of large numbers of returning people because logically only a limited number could really be considered "reasonably suspicious."

So even in those jurisdictions that have a reasonable suspicion standard, persons returning to the United States must consider there still is a possibility of a search of your digital media, but the reasonable suspicion standard does lower that probability, probably significantly.