291–300 of 617 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t work. The TSA is horrendously ineffective and is the definition of security theatre. This just hurts people needlessly. Much like the no fly list which is a huge violation of due process.
Israel is known for having effective airport security, as well as for making use of profiling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is your argument here? The fact that human rights are not respected in all countries doesn't mean that humans don't have rights.
It means that we can't agree on the list to begin with, and it's not always cut and dry.
But are travelers (foreigners) part of "the people"?
If you're on US soil you're subject to US law, including all provisions of the Constitution. And the Constitution makes a distinction between 'citizens' and 'people' (i.e., everybody, including noncitizens)
In the old days, it was routine for customs officers to search ships coming in to harbor, including the effects of their passengers, to enforce importation laws. If customs couldn't do this, then importation laws would have no teeth, which is clearly not the intention of the constitution, which gives Congress the explicit power to enact and enforce them.
CBP argues that their smartphone and laptop searches were just an extension of that old custom, the court disagreed, ruling that a smartphone or laptop is fundamentally different from a ship's log or traveler's trunk, such that a higher expectation of privacy exists.
I support this ruling very strongly, and am super-glad it went the way it did. But at the same time, if it were as obvious as just quoting the constituion, it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. The SC decides cases that are difficult, not cases that are easy. Again, I believe this is the right decision, but it was no layup.
Your argument is poorly formed this was an extremely obvious case of reading the plain language of the law as already quoted. Which court it arrived in isn't proof positive of the complexity of the law. Its proof of how irrational and diseased our system of government is. Perhaps you would like to advance an actual argument insofar as abusing access to portable computing devices to virtually riffle through an individ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of the law is that even if law enforcement finds evidence of guilt via illegal search, they cannot use that evidence in court. This is a crucial protection for citizens. The point of the ruling isn't that it prevents the search, it prevents the result of that search from being used against you. If law enforcement wishes to establish the guilt of a suspect in court, it has to use only evidence it obtained th…
That's certainly a crucial protection but if law enforcement conducts an embarrassing or destructive search (such as when police recently blew up a man's home), they can still essentially end you. But yes, it's good that you can't be simultaneously nailed in court with illegally collected evidence. * https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last time I so much as questioned an american customs agent about something they asked me to do, I was interrogated for 2 hours about my life, job, friends, family, phone searched, car flipped through, etc. They even had 2 canine units circle my car and jump in and out of it at least 10 times each. Talk about a heavy handed approach.
Some people get off on power, and this job is as close to having power over people as some can get. As long as you know you're not actually carrying contraband or is a terrorist, just smile, comply when reasonable, and then say politely that you'd like to see their manager to file a complaint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are cases of doing this to U.S. Citizens, in some cases, quite disturbingly, to journalists .
It's no more or less disturbing for journalists to be subjected to this. They're not some special class of protected people.
But they have a very special position and role that makes them specially vulnerable when dealing with powerful institutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d like to learn more about your interpretation of what “the press” is referring to; it strikes me as interesting that “operating a printing press” would be the explicitly enumerated right in such a (mostly) broad text, but then I am aware of the cultural differences over that many years means it’s not out of the realm of possibility. Do you have any articles or books I could read about this?
The point is the government can't arbitrarily take away your medium of communication you legally own and use. Barring random specific issues (such as noise ordinances), if you own a megaphone (metaphorical or not) you can use it to spread your speech. If people could only exercise free speech by whispering quietly to themselves then it may as well not exist. You could start by reading wikipedia about freedom of the p…
Yeah, too bad the border control agents basically do what they want and this case means nothing. They'll do the same thing, and someone will say "But what about Alasaad v. McAleenan?" and in the small windowless holding room the agent will say "What about it? You want to leave, unlock your phone."
I've been seeing this fallacy a lot lately in these times. If you're ever in this situation: the longer you're held without a lawyer, the higher the liability on your captor becomes. Period. This is where million dollar lawsuits by the ACLU and jail time for corruption begins. The US was founded on habeas corpus, and it doesn't matter what laws have been written since, or what national threats have been used as an ex…
Asylum seekers are granted refugee status by the United Nations if they meet two broad requirements. The US accepts a limited number each year (notably more than any other country since WW2, however).
OK, so what stops the TSA/DHS from saying "We suspect you are a terrorist; please unlock your phone"? Their actions have effectively said that for almost 20 years.