"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.