Sorry, but is this really a Ask Slashdot-worthy story? Better placed to ask on any of a dozen different travel forums, or to raise it in mobile phone forums (of which I hear the kids these days have quite a few).

A quick LMGTFY link to help wrap up the conversation
 

To be fair, it's not exactly easy to find a legit free AV programme. Downloading my poinson of choice, AVG, for example, requires you to navigate through the website, locate the tiny "free version" link on a series of pages, and wind through and around a whole lot of annoying screens designed to baffle/frustrate/bully you into buy a pay version.

And worse, you then have to go through this whole process again every six months when they release a new version that isn't covered by the auto updater.

I definitely consider the behaviour of companies like AVG to be partially responsible for people getting confused, frustrated, and resorting to less legitimate means.

It's not a part of the contract of sale, which is an agreement between you and the retailer. It's a component of a separate contract which you enter into with Microsoft. That contract is governed by the terms of the SLA/EULA. That contract is accepted via act by using the product. If you don't want to accept the terms of the licence contract as listed by the SLA/EULA, you have to make a counter-offer in an appropriate manner (many SLA/EULA contain a "No Counter-Offers" clause, which is not uncommon or necessarily illegal).

As has been discussed EXHAUSTIVELY, you are not purchasing a good. You are purchasing a licence to use a good. Fundamental difference.

Don't like it? Change the law.

IAAL, but I am not your lawyer. None of this is proper legal advice. Cheers.

(I am a lawyer but I am not an immigration lawyer)

Immigration law "airside" is complex. You are right to say that you are not yet on USA soil. However, that doesn't mean that the agents are entitled to act without limit. Their actions can still be reviewed by a court, and they cannot act beyond the powers given to them. For example, they are undoubtedly empowered to detain a person where necessary to determine their immigration status (for example, they suspect a US passport may be forged). However, the power to detain is also going to have limits. For example, an agent who detained an individual because they were wearing a hat from a rival baseball team may well be exceeding their powers, and that decision could be found illegal on review.

So, as the above poster mentioned, if they had a "hunch" that the person was entering illegally, then they may well be allowed to detain them. But this hunch seems based on the idea that the person might be involved with a criminal activity. Are the Border Patrol entitled to decline entry/detain a US citizen suspected of crime? I don't know. And what empowered US Army representatives to speak to the man? Again, I'm unclear. If Border Patrol were done with him, and they detained him to enable Army reps to speak to him, they would, possibly be using their powers for a purpose not authorised by the empowering instruments.

I would be very interested to hear exactly what grounds the individual was detained under, and whether it was within the scope of the empowering instrument. I suspect that this may have been pushing the boundaries, but without knowing the laws I can't possibly say for sure.

I look forward to being corrected by anyone with more knowledge than me.

Exactly. A cool hack? Yes. Some impressive engineering nous for a kid? Sure. Invention? Nope.

To be clear, I'm not a criminal lawyer. Crime is far, far away from my specialism. I am also not your lawyer. This is not a researched opinion. Cheers.

This would absolutely (in my opinion) be a criminal offence in the jurisdiction.

Common assault - includes any non-consensual contact or the causing of non-consensual contact through another object. This could easily be analogised to the cases involving leaving a trap or poking with a stick.

Much more serious:

Sexual assault - SOA 2003 s(3) - AFAIK this includes touching through another object, so the offense would be available

Infliction of GBH with intent - GBH requires common assault (see above) and the rupturing of membranes, which lice do when they suck blood (this potentially hold a sentence of lifetime imprisonment, and is an extraordinarily serious offence in the UK)

The Crown Prosecution Service generally charges less than the most serious crime chargeable, but it is quite feasible to imagine an assault or sexual assault charge being made if this were used. Also, the site owners are doubtless on the hook for all sorts of conspiracy and assistance offences, but I know little to nothing about them. Also, this may well come under the remit of Operation Sapphire (the London police operation on rape and sexual offences. I know some of the outstanding officers involved, they're like dogs with a bone once they get a suspect in their sights.) or could be viewed as domestic violence, which elevates sentencing in the courts (and opens up the possibility of elevation to Crown Court sentencing).

All sorts of wonderful civil options even if the CPS didn't prosecute, with trespass against the person and negligence high on the list.

Here is the interesting hypothetical:

Assume this lie-detector is right 80% of the time, and that its success/failures are randomly distributed (e.g. not associated with socio-economic background).
Assume also that false conviction rates are at 21% (so only 79% of convictions are correct), and that there is substantial evidence that this is not evenly distributed (e.g. that false convictions are associated with low socio-economic status).

Would you be willing to entirely replace the system of jury trials with trial by lie detector?