This.

I have never been arrested, never investigated. But recent events, have instigated in me a fear of those in power. The Megavideo seizure was a wake up call.

I wont even post comments like this under my normal HN account.

That's probably the idea :)

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but a quick glance through shows Article 11:

ARTICLE 11: INFORMATION RELATED TO INFRINGEMENT

Without prejudice to its law governing privilege, the protection of confidentiality of information sources, or the processing of personal data, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority, upon a justified request of the right holder, to order the infringer or, in the alternative, the alleged infringer, to provide to the right holder or to the judicial authorities, at least for the purpose of collecting evidence, relevant information as provided for in its applicable laws and regulations that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls. Such information may include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution.

It seems like this might cover a court ordering you to provide the password to determine infringement. However the first sentence might get you off the hook if you're a doctor or lawyer or other similarly privileged professional who has information about your clients on your laptop. I'll update this when I finish reading it tomorrow if I find anything more specific.

How about an IT worker? You'd hope a sysadmin has some kind of privilege. I expect not, though.

I don't think they do unless their work covers one of the traditionally privileged cases.

There's also that clause "upon a justified request of the right holder", which implies the rights holder has to provide some evidence to indicate there are infringing files.

"It has been connected to internet. Internet is only used for copyright infringement"

Would you like to actually contribute to the conversation? Or would you like to continue acting like a child?

Be aware that this is explicitly discouraged by EFF:

Although TrueCrypt hidden volumes may have some practical applications, we think they are unlikely to be useful in the border search context because they are most helpful when lying to someone about whether there is additional hidden data on a disk. Lying to border agents is not advisable, because it can be a serious crime. [PDF: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/EFF-border-...]

PD: Sorry to re-post it here, but I add it, for anyone reading this later. You can get in serious trouble.

And to make it worse: If you refuse to provide information or assistance upon request, the border agent may seize your device for further inspection or consider you uncooperative, which the agent may take into consideration when deciding whether to allow you to enter the United States.

Or use an online storage service (e.g. DropBox), and uninstall the client before going through customs. Kind of a hassle, but avoids the issues of have encrypted content on your system.

Is there something like this for Android? I have to travel to the US a few times for work assignments, and I guess I'd be screwed when someone finds 8GB of pirated music.

Allegedly pirated music. Which makes me wonder, how would they figure out whether something is pirated or not?

"It's pirated." That's how.

I don't mean to complain about the down votes (really, not at all).

But I'm curious, how else do you think that conversation is going to go?