[nekojima]

If you are asked if you have "pirated" material on your laptop or various external media devices, and you do, how to respond?

"Not to my knowledge." or "I'm sorry, but I cannot answer that question."? Which would then likely raise the alarm in the interrogator.

[mrdingle]

Say, "I'm sorry, I don't feel comfortable answering that question."

And when they ask why say, "Because I believe that it is my right not to."

But nothing more. Just be short, to the point, and courteous. You're not guilty of anything for saying that, and they will understand that you understand your rights.

They may make your life a tiny bit harder because of it, but if your courteous and patient you can maintain your dignity and your privacy.

[driverdan]

IANAL

Two points here. First, don't answer specific questions about anything. This means refusing to answer questions about piracy, terrorism, etc.

Second, unless there is evidence you're breaking criminal distribution laws they're not going to care about the MP3s your friend gave you or the copy of Doom you downloaded from a BBS 15 years ago.

[Natsu]

It's best to be able to say "no" and be truthful about it. Just don't take pirated media across the border to begin with.

[nekojima]

Considering I spend most of the year travelling around or living in East Asia, my best choice is just to avoid the US completely, including transit flights (as we now have our passports checked).

I know the chances of being asked anything, including, "have you bought pirated movies or software while in Asia?" Is pretty hard to refute if you've lived or traveled there for the last decade.

[nate_meurer]

This is not useful advice. Can you prove that you have a license for all the media and software on your machine?

Remember, in this case the burden of proof is on you. Somewhat similar to the way the BSA does audits (or the IRS for that matter).

[Natsu]

I don't think the agents are all that sophisticated, but if they notice you doing any funny business, you will get the third degree. So don't try anything.

If you're that concerned, make sure it contains nothing but Free (libre) software. Then you will be able to prove your innocence.

[nate_meurer]

Let me say this a different way: having any media on your machine whatsoever is now "funny business". If you have movies ripped to your laptop for your kids to watch, as I do, then you can legally be held under suspicion of piracy, and your property can accordingly be confiscated. The burden is on you to satisfy whatever requirements the government may have for the media.

[Natsu]

I certainly don't like it either. I think reforms are needed.

My answer was just to help someone stay out of trouble. Trying to mislead border control is a bad idea.

[orofino]

IANAL. You have 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. You don't have to answer. How do you word that? No idea, but that would be the route to take I think.

[nekojima]

"You have 5th amendment rights against self incrimination."

My concern is while that is often stated, those people aren't sitting in the detention centre with you for hours while your digital devices and the material on them is being searched and you are being 'threatened' with further detention, likely bogus charges and pressured to admit guilt for using your laptop as a normal user does.

[mrdingle]

These are standard interrogation tactics that people need to be prepared for. If you really feel threatened, speak to a qualified layer before you make any decisions, say anything, or agree to anything you don't want to.

Standing up for your rights and privacy isn't always going to be easy. But sitting in detention for a little while is really a small price to pay for your liberty. Plus, you'll waste a lot of public money in the process.

[nl]

You have 5th amendment rights against self incrimination.

Not if you aren't a US citizen.

[tikhonj]

As far as I know, constitutional rights apply equally to both citizens and non-citizens. Of course, if citizens aren't protected in this case, neither will non-citizens, but I think the distinction should not matter in constitutional matters.

[nl]

I believe that current rulings indicate US Constitutional rights do not apply to non-citizens outside US borders.

Quote:

Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments,

(Note "within the territory of the United States")

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrig...

[tikhonj]

But do these rights even apply to citizens outside of the US? I don't actually know.

[Volpe]

If you are at the border (i.e not in the US) Do those rights still hold?

I thought that was the point of guantanemo? Because the US doesn't want the prisoners there to have any rights.