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.
I'll add this here, so it can be read by someone reading your resume.
How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents
http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html
Excerpt:
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed."
(Ironically, the government lies to us all the time, but there are apparently no penalties for that.)
I would highly recommend reading it. Even if you don't think you're personally the target of an investigation, the way these things go, anyone that they can catch in the net is a potential target, so you should be nervous - it always looks better to indict N+1 people than N, and if you talk to the investigators at all without a lawyer present, you greatly increase your chances of being that +1, even if you truly and honestly haven't done anything wrong.
As suggested in the pdf, a wiser approach is cross the border with an immaculate system and download your data afterwards.
"Not to my knowledge." or "I'm sorry, but I cannot answer that question."? Which would then likely raise the alarm in the interrogator.
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.
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.
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.
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).
If you're that concerned, make sure it contains nothing but Free (libre) software. Then you will be able to prove your innocence.
My answer was just to help someone stay out of trouble. Trying to mislead border control is a bad idea.
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.
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.
Not if you aren't a US citizen.
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...
I thought that was the point of guantanemo? Because the US doesn't want the prisoners there to have any rights.