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

491–500 of 617 posts

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

#491

Post by currymj »

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.

ironically, Hawaii has no death penalty and extremely restrictive gun laws. it's a big country!

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

#492

Post by jslove »

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.

And worse - no proper support for Metric!

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

#493

Post by themaninthedark »

angry_octet wrote: post #449
reactor4 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“lock screen with CP”

What's 'CP'? Is that supposed to be PC (Probable Cause)? I still don't get it.

They probably mean CP - child porn

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

#494

Post by murph-almighty »

bregma wrote: post #474
ip26 wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is…

While I agree with your point, I need to point out that the Declaration of Independence generally isn't used in case law.

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

#495

Post by DataWorker »

wonderwonder wrote: post #461
bluGill wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Most of the points in this post are not accurate. There are more guns in civilian hands here than there are people. "The Small Arms Survey stated that U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership "Most of them are in the hands of well trained people who are harmless" I am not sure what you base this on,…

You are making an innumerate argument. The odds of dying in a car vs getting shot are relevant. There’s no meaningful risk of getting shot and the US is one of the safest places in the world. Those are facts. You should try and get out more.

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

#496

Post by thomascgalvin »

bregma wrote: post #474
ip26 wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is…

> The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all.

I agree with you, but when those words were written, slavery was still one of the cornerstones of the American economy and women didn't have the right to vote.

Should the protections afforded by the constitution apply to all people? Of course. But legally, the US has a longstanding tradition of denying certain rights to certain people.

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

#497

Post by adambyrtek »

osullivj wrote: post #484
umvi wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver in the US than by a gun. Your chances of being killed by a gun are basically zero (unless you are travelling to the US specifically to commit suicide), so that's a somewhat bogus concern

I'm always amazed by how few shooting fatalities there are in the US. 330M population, 33K gun deaths per annum [1]. And two thirds of the gun deaths are suicides. So that's only 10K homicides per annum. That's 1 in 33K. In the UK we have 65M population, and 800 murders per annum. That's 1 in 81K. Given that the US is so heavily armed I'd expect the gun death rate to be much higher. IMHO that demonstrates that the av…

Something doesn't look right in your numbers. In fact the Wikipedia page you quoted includes a "Gun-related homicide and suicide rates in high-income OECD countries" chart that doesn't match your conclusion.

I checked the ONS statistics[1] for England and Wales (including Scotland and Northern Ireland shouldn't make a huge difference) and it says: "There were 29 homicide victims killed by shooting in the year ending March 2018, three fewer than the previous year. The number of homicides by shooting has fluctuated between 21 and 32 over the last six years."

Are you sure that you aren't comparing apples to oranges, so gun deaths in the US against all homicides in the UK regardless of the method? Another quote from the same paper suggests that might be the case: "There were 726 homicides in the year ending March 2018, 20 more (3% increase) than in the previous year."

[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand...

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

#498

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

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…

> Death penalty exists, but it is rare.

As an American, this attitude drives me nuts. "We don't kill that many people, and heck most of them are even guilty!"

Regarding "loaded guns exist, but they are not common." Again, this is the same attitude of "Even though we have a mass shooting every week, all in all it's not that much." Even if my chances of getting murdered in public are lower than, say, a car accident, the fact that we now teach preschoolers active shooter drills says something sad about our country.

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

#499

Post by CraneWorm »

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…

> Death penalty exists, but it is rare.

Oh, all right then carry on killing people.

> Loaded guns exist, [...] most of them [...]in the hands of well trained people

and teenagers shooting their colleagues

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

#500

Post by kiba »

umvi wrote: post #480
wonderwonder wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again what do you base this on? I got a concealed carry permit after a 2 hour training class. During this class I had to fire a total of 6 rounds at a target ~15 feet away. I was not given any training on how to use the weapon, only a primer on the laws about when I can shoot someone. At no time did I have to demonstrate that I could safely bring my weapon from concealment to ready without shooting myself in the leg…

> At no time did I have to demonstrate that I could safely bring my weapon from concealment to ready without shooting myself in the leg or a bystander. It's not hard. If you pull the trigger, a bullet comes out (if the safety is off and if there is one in the chamber). So, simply don't pull the trigger until you are ready to fire a bullet. Most (if not all) people that buy guns, you included, understand this basic co…

Pulling the trigger when you need to sounds like a simple problem in theory, but much more complicated in practice.
Post reply on HN