Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

Post by undoware » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:12 AM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #293

Finnucane wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Aside from all the arguments brought up so far, there's that word "unreasonable" which the courts have historically interpreted with an "expectation of privacy" standard. You have a high expectation of privacy when you're in your house, somewhat less when you're in a car, and much less when you're entering an airport or crossing a border. In the old days, it was routine for customs officers to search ships coming in…

Post by miguelmota » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:21 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #125

umvi wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: why is profiling bad in context of airplane security? If 100% of airplane terrorist attacks are carried out by people of X country (Xians), and 0% of airplane terrorist attacks are carried out by people from Y country (Yians), it seems like a pointless charade of political correctness to check Xians and Yians with equal frequency. I say profile the heck out of Xians. Stop and frisk 100% of Xians an…

It sounds like you don’t care about the damage done by searching innocent people. Of course, if you don’t care about that, then just search 100% of all people! Why profile at all?

Post by hanniabu » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:24 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #156

garg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opinion is unpopular because it makes no sense and does not improve security. The attacker will simply recruit a "Yian" because that's your blind spot now.

I would actually argue it does improve security since you're spending more time on the people who have a higher probability of being a terrorist versus those that don't. What doesn't improve security is just random screening where you're frisking 4-year olds and senior citizens and letting the adult males walk on by.

Post by maktouch » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:27 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #357

dboreham wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I travel across the US Canada land border from time to time (in the mountain west). My experience has been that Canadian officials are universally civil and respectful while US officials are universally not.

As a frequent traveler between the US and Canada, I’ve only ever got grief (including accusations of smuggling) from Canadian officials. Going to the Us side it’s usually a simple “have a nice day”. And I have Canadian citizenship.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:52 AM UTC

umvi wrote: post #190

wan23 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're proposing is that we should take the set of countries that have had an airplane terrorist and check 100% of people from those countries, and none of the others? So because once a British man tried to light his shoes on fire to blow up a plane we should specially check 100% of the 3.8 million British citizens traveling to the US per year, but we should check 0% of those traveling on North Korean passpor…

How about more like your country gets more strikes the more airplane terrorists you've had? So Britain has 1 strike, but Saudi Arabia has probably 20+ strikes. So you are 20x more likely to be searched if you are Saudi Arabian than British. And if you are from a country that has never had an airplane terrorist, like North Korea, why should you be screened? Maybe you should be profiled for other things, but not terror…