Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 617 posts

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#451

Post by vertex-four »

jason_slack wrote: post #418
mlang23 wrote: post #399

Best thing is to just not have anything to do with the US of A. Death penalty, loaded guns everywhere, a general attitude of being the masters of the world which leads to things like suspicionless searches. No, thanks. I think the best would be if more people would actually stop dealing with the USA. Its becoming a trend. I once turned down an invitation to a conference in Hawai, and guess what, I was not alone.

But you realize that ordinary people don't have a large choice in this right? We can vote and vote and vote, but until the majority wins, and helps facilitate change, we are stuck with how people perceive our country as well as some of the harsh realities of living here. I feel like you insulted me for the actions of my country. Isn't this how racism and hate is spread? I'm now not worth knowing and should be shyed a…

If you turn up in another country, sure, I have no problem interacting with you (assuming that you don't support the policies of your state). If I travel to the US though, I'm just as powerless against the state as you are - in fact, even more so - and so I'll avoid doing so.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#452

Post by ineedasername »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #332
ineedasername wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But for the purpose of militia in this context and therefore that of the 2nd amendment, the power of Congress over the militia is deemed "unlimited" [0]. As such, regulating it's use of arms would be well within it's remit. [0] https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-mili...

... as long as such regulation does not infringe the right of the people to keep or bear arms for all the purposes envisioned by the constitutional framers. Wikipedia has an excellent reference on this. See the "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" section: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Unit...

The purposes of the framers appears to be a well regulated militia, and that militia subject to "unlimited" control by congress. I agree this would mean congress could not dismantle or subvert the purpose of the militia, but having tight controls over the weaponry at their disposal when not in a state of current or imminent battle would not seem to so undermine it. After all, even the professional military have much, much more tightly controlled access to & tracking of firearms than is imposed in civil society. It is hard to credit an argument that would say militia could not reasonably & constitutionally mirror those same controls.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#453

Post by ctingom »

bluGill wrote: post #434
mlang23 wrote: post #399

Best thing is to just not have anything to do with the US of A. Death penalty, loaded guns everywhere, a general attitude of being the masters of the world which leads to things like suspicionless searches. No, thanks. I think the best would be if more people would actually stop dealing with the USA. Its becoming a trend. I once turned down an invitation to a conference in Hawai, and guess what, I was not alone.

Death penalty exists, but it is rare. Loaded guns exist, but they are not common. Most of them are in the hands of well trained people who are harmless unless (in the unlikely event) that deadly force is the only way they can get out of the situations. The US has its problems, but you have been listening to propaganda by anti US forces (you might want to figure out who they are and what their agenda is!) if you think…

This should be the top reply.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#454

Post by ip26 »

Ensorceled wrote: post #427
ramblerman wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a european who is not always very fond of the US, this is ridiculous, and lazy thinking. The amount of generalization and black and white simplifications to come up with such a thing is impressive though.

And yet, in this very thread there are discussions, presumably by Americans, about whether human rights “afforded” to people only apply to citizens or all humans. They are literally arguing if “people” only means US citizens.

The Bill of Rights affords citizens protections from their government. They weren't written as inalienable human rights. So it has long been debated whether those protections are owed to non-citizens.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#455

Post by ineedasername »

lallysingh wrote: post #333
ineedasername wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your examples of searching cargo aren't comparable though. The closest analog version to phone or computer searches would probably be searching an individual's private papers, personal journal, and list of contacts.

The incomparability is the point.

Are you sure? The GP post seemed to be using the comparison to explain why these types of searches are in fact in line with historic border & import practices because those historic practices could include a search of cargo, luggage, etc. It certainly appeared that post was attempting a direct comparison.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#456

Post by ineedasername »

zaksoup wrote: post #370
hannasanarion wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's like everybody who's replying to you didn't read your last paragraph

No, I read that, but the author presented a viewpoint from the historic example of luggage, cargo, etc. searches and then simply stated the courts disagreed. Expanding on that to talk about why those things are in fact different and not comparable is a salient point, and not something that a reader of the GP comment would necessarily come away with otherwise.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#457

Post by dragonwriter »

leereeves wrote: post #429
dragonwriter wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't require public education, but it restricts discrimination if it is provided by the state, as all states do. So, yes, it is a Constitutional issue.

Which part of rhe Constitution forbids discrimination based on citizenship status?

No part of the Constitution entirely forbids discrimination on any basis, but the part that is held to limit state discrimination on that basis is—as limits state discrimination on every basis—the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#458

Post by Ensorceled »

ip26 wrote: post #454
Ensorceled wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, in this very thread there are discussions, presumably by Americans, about whether human rights “afforded” to people only apply to citizens or all humans. They are literally arguing if “people” only means US citizens.

The Bill of Rights affords citizens protections from their government. They weren't written as inalienable human rights. So it has long been debated whether those protections are owed to non-citizens.

Yes, those are exactly the types of disturbing discussions I was talking about.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#459

Post by ineedasername »

simonh wrote: post #380
undoware wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In the old days" is just Argument from Tradition. We also used to treat infectious disease as demonic possession. Next argument, please.

Looking at how a law has been implemented in the past is a basic legal principle. The reason for it is to provide context as to the intent and proper way to interpret a law, in order to ensure continuity and consistency in it's application. The idea is that, all other factors being equal, continuity and consistency are desirable.

Though it is also a basic legal principal to determine if the circumstances that gave rise to a law are still in effect, and if not the law may be rendered moot. So much so that laws that haven't been enforced for an extended period of time can be challenged & overturned on exactly that basis if someone suddenly finds themselves on the wrong side of such a law. I'm just making that distinction though; In this particular case, there is still a continued interest in controlling what enters & leaves the country. The specific issue with this court case revolves around whether personal electronics are truly comparable to items that have traditionally been subject to searches. The court says no, they are not comparable, which seems to make sense: Such devices are less like cargo or luggage and more like personal papers, journal, etc.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#460

Post by ineedasername »

swiley wrote: post #314
hannasanarion wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the old days it was also routine for people to own eachother so I’m not sure how much that really means.

Eh, I don't like these types of searches, but your argument from slavery doesn't really hold either. If it did, then any law that coexisted with slavery could be rendered equally invalid: "It was routine to imprison people for robbing banks... Yes, but it was also routine for people to own each other, so..." and so on.
Post reply on HN