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

501–510 of 617 posts

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

#501

Post by zackmorris »

tropdrop wrote: post #334
devicetray0 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This itself is actually the fallacy. Take a look at this: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038... > Watson was corre…

This is astounding. It seems that there is actually an incentive to keep a person claiming to be a citizen imprisoned, since if they keep them imprisoned long enough, then any financial debt owed for the injustice will magically disappear thanks to statute of limitation. "Flessner, Watson's lawyer, says the ruling "turns false imprisonment statute of limitation claims kind of on their head." It means a person in cust…

Thank you devicetray0, I hadn't heard of that case, I agree with tropdrop that that is _astounding_.

A few thoughts comes to mind:

* Corrupt public officials are hacking our legal system through thin cracks like differences between citizen and non-citizen rights and the statute of limitations to commit injustice.

* This case needs to be appealed and go all the way to the Supreme Court, because it's pretty self-evidently an infringement of Davino Watson's rights.

* The Supreme Court as it stands now would likely make an unjust decision in that case, because it has been packed with judges that lean more towards libertarianism/corporatism than justice. Mitch McConnell blocked Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, which opened the door to Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/mitch-mcconnell-supr...

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

#502

Post by shkkmo »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #498
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…

> 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, th…

Mass shootings are an incredibly small source of gun deaths. ~2/3rd are suicide and ~1/3rd are murder.

While the US does have pretty high gun related homicide rates, it is largely because proportionally more of our homicides involve guns. Our overall homicide rate is a fair bit higher than most european countries but nowhere near the top world-wide (about #90.)

However, much of this is concentrated into particular locations as the US does have many of the top 50 cities in the world by homicide rate (behind only mexico, brazil and venezuela).

Overall, US gun ownership does not present a significant practical risk unless you go to certain places. Concerns about gun policy (and the death penalty) by potential visitors to the US are thus ideologically, not practically based.

I personally think that our lack of collective support for our struggling cities/regions says much more about us as a country than our active shooter drills (of which I am also not a fan).

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

#503

Post by zackmorris »

willmadden wrote: post #299
zackmorris wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is no constitutional right for people outside of the US to seek asylum in the US. 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).

Personally, I think that the American Dream was always an ideal to live up to, not something established that only exists in the US. If we deny someone's dignity and rights simply because they aren't a US citizen, then we've embraced injustice and broken our pledge of liberty and justice for all.

I'm not a lawyer, but reading through this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

Something stood out:

An applicant initially presents his claim to an asylum officer, who may either grant asylum or refer the application to an Immigration Judge.

So I think that the "Nanette Barragan questions Kirstjen Nielsen" video I linked shows that the border crossing agent committed a crime when she turned away people seeking asylum. She should have either: a) granted their asylum or b) admitted them to go before an immigration judge.

From there, the border crossing agent should be tried in court for her actions. In which case, she can either say that she is guilty and take the penalty, or that she was following orders and then the next person up in rank should go through the process until it reaches Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. In which case, she can accept responsibility, or claim that she was following orders from the president.

It looks like Kirstjen Nielsen resigned on April 10, 2019, a month after the March 2 video:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kirstjen-nielsen-resigning-dhs-...

We're seeing this a lot lately, where high-ranking officials are skirting the law, then resigning to shield the president. That's not how it should work in America.

I say all of this because I imagine if I was a border crossing agent, and I denied asylum to someone outright, then found out later they died because of my actions, I'd likely get PTSD and never recover. At the very least, I don't know how I'd be able to sleep at night.

Which is why I think I'm right as far as the spirit of the law, even if the letter of the law doesn't match up with what I'm saying.

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

#504

Post by wonderwonder »

DataWorker wrote: post #495
wonderwonder wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"There’s no meaningful risk of getting shot and the US is one of the safest places in the world"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

The United States is Ranked 94th in the world by intentional homicide rate.

"The odds of dying in a car vs getting shot are relevant." Why? I did not mention cars at all in my post so not sure how you bringing up cars renders my response illogical. Is your argument that individuals killed by gun violence would still be dead if there were no guns? Does this include victims of mass shootings in schools, churches etc.? By your rational, we should allow all countries to own nuclear weapons as the odds of dying in a car crash vs a nuclear explosion are far higher.

In 2017, over 15,000 people were killed by firearms (excluding suicide) and traffic deaths killed ~38,000. A car's primary function is not to kill, whereas a gun has almost no other purpose.

I appreciate the recommendation to get out more, but one of the nice things about modern technology is we always have access to facts wherever we are, and those facts indicate your points are very flawed.

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

#505

Post by bluGill »

Youden wrote: post #488
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…

> 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!) I think if you think these things are anti-US propaganda, I think you might want to examine the bias you have when you observe your own country. The death penalty may be rare but it's something that shouldn't exist, especially in a well-developed country and even…

You have made a statement about your values. However there is no scientific reasons to make on set better than another. Thus we will never get agreement.

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

#506

Post by SilasX »

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.

Every country in the world makes a distinction between rights/privileges/protections they afford their own citizens vs non-citizens within their borders.

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

#507

Post by shkkmo »

abstractbarista wrote: post #478
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.

As an American, I'm lovin' it! Guns are everywhere, yet shootings are very rare. I feel very safe knowing I and others around me all want and enjoy safety, and we have strong law enforcement to keep it that way. (Although I agree that our 4th amendment has been horrifically raped in modern times.) The vast majority of gun deaths are consentual (suicide), and of the homicidal remainder, the vast majority are within or…

> The vast majority of gun deaths are consentual (suicide),

~2/3 is a majority, but certainly not a vast majority.

> and don't flagrantly disobey police officers, and I guarantee you'll be completely fine.

Plenty of people are shot by police without flagrantly disobeying police orders. It may reduce your risk, but it does not eliminate it.

> If you disagree with all this, it's probably just not the country for you. You make a good decision staying out.

As a country founded on pluralism, The USA has plenty of room and hospitality to offer those who disagree with you.

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

#508

Post by [deleted] »

SilasX wrote: post #506
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.

Every country in the world makes a distinction between rights/privileges/protections they afford their own citizens vs non-citizens within their borders.

[deleted]

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

#509

Post by Thrymr »

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…

How do you store and carry your weapon safely? How do you transport it? Who has access to it and the ammunition? It is a simple tool that kills tens of thousands of people a year, the least we can do is treat it with at least the level of respect we give other potentially deadly tools (hardly a piano).

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

#510

Post by AnimalMuppet »

wonderwonder wrote: post #504
DataWorker wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"There’s no meaningful risk of getting shot and the US is one of the safest places in the world" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... The United States is Ranked 94th in the world by intentional homicide rate. "The odds of dying in a car vs getting shot are relevant." Why? I did not mention cars at all in my post so not sure how you bringing up cars renders my response illogical. Is your ar…

A few things:

First, when you bring up the page, the list wasn't sorted by rate, so being 94th on it is meaningless. It turns out that if you sort it by rate, the US is 89th, so not much difference, but... the unsorted list didn't prove your point.

Next, so what if the US was Xth on the list? Is that good? Bad? Indifferent? Your claim seems to be that that's high, but you don't actually provide any reason to reach that conclusion based on place on the list.

Why are cars relevant? Because most of us accept the risk of driving in a car, without worrying about the danger level. It's low enough that we just casually accept it. If guns kill half as many, that's too many (it's also too many from cars!), but it's not a danger that keeps many of us awake at night.

> A car's primary function is not to kill, whereas a gun has almost no other purpose.

That argument may not be saying what you think. First, the dead don't care either way. But second, if cars kill more by accident than guns do on purpose, does that make cars better, or worse?

Post reply on HN