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

511–520 of 617 posts

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

#511

Post by AnimalMuppet »

bluGill wrote: post #505
Youden wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Um... you've been making a bunch of statements that at least assume certain values. You only introduced this "scientific" standard when someone disagreed with yours. That seems... suspicious.

As it happens, I mostly share your values. But it's not cool to just turn off conversation based on values because someone doesn't share yours, and because they don't provide a scientific basis.

You're likely right that you could never get agreement on (certain) values with Youden. The conversation still might be worthwhile, though.

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

#512

Post by auiya »

umvi wrote: post #481
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.

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

You bring up a good point. Traffic fatalities in general are are a HUGE problem in the US, not just alcohol-related, and they're mostly due to poor civil engineering. Another abject failure of US governance.

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

#513

Post by jeffdavis »

dragonwriter wrote: post #272
vkou wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Applying intermediate scrutiny to the federal ban on arms possession by unauthorized aliens, the court found the law to be reasonable. Since unauthorized aliens "often live largely outside the formal system" and are "harder to trace and more likely to assume a false identity," the government may rationally limit their access to firearms. > Thus, the Seventh Circuit leaves Meza-Rodriguez with the right to bear arms,…

> What is the point of a theoretical right that can't be exercised in practice? It is perhaps a more accurate description to say that Meza-Rodriquez is in the class of people to whom the right applies, but that the right allows restrictions based on conduct, including illegal presence.

Does that same reasoning apply to free speech?

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

#514

Post by AnimalMuppet »

BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #464
throwaway6734 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can't actually see how the American state (not population or country) has devolved into something to be concerned about over the last 20 years I find this timeframe strange. Although the US has had major policy mishaps in the last 20 years (Iraq war, NSA surveillance, etc), imo policy is still better than at any other time in America's history. What timeframe do you think had "better" policy?

The fact that you refer to the murdering of a couple of million Iraqis as a 'policy mishap' just underscores the other guys point.

... and doesn't actually answer the guy you're replying to at all.

Mind you, I'm not saying that he's right. I'm just saying that you didn't actually answer him.

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

#515

Post by greggman2 »

umvi wrote: post #487
osullivj wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can also factor out gang-related gun homocides since your average American/tourist is not involved in organized crime. Basically, the chances of being killed randomly by a mass shooting or random murderer are extremely tiny. I will say though that even ignoring gun homicides, our average homicide rate in the USA is rather high compared to other western countries.

Tiny is relative is it not? Relative to Japany chances of getting shot are extremely high. It's also not just about getting shot, it's about being near it and having to worry about it. I've been in at least 3 shooting situtstions in my time in the USA. Once in Westwood waiting in line for movie, once in Santa Monica while eating, once in Mira Loma as a kid and if I add friends and family they've all had experiencea. They weren't shot but they should not have to we even worry about the proximity.

Go live in a safe country for a few years then come back and you'll feel what you've become insensitive to

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

#516

Post by 12elephant »

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…

My sentiment exactly! To me, the essence of America is captured in the New Hampshire state motto: "Live free or die".

There are some people who don't vibe with this sort of philosophy. But thank God the USA exists for those of us that do!

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

#517

Post by AnimalMuppet »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #482
sbarre wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about the US citizenry but about the state. If you can't actually see how the American state (not population or country) has devolved into something to be concerned about over the last 20 years, perhaps you're not looking hard enough. Domestic politics and policies are cruel and divisive, international policies have regressed dramatically (i.e. they've pulled out of major international treaties around arm…

>This is not about the US citizenry but about the state. So "stop dealing with the USA" is supposed to mean stop dealing with the US government? I don't think so.

Kind of hard to live here without dealing with the US government. Even harder to visit here without dealing with the US government. (The US government's actions when you cross the border was the original topic, after all.)

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

#518

Post by Slippery_John »

roywiggins wrote: post #220
ISL wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a customs check reasonable without probable cause? I understand the pragmatic argument, but not the implicit presumption that an upstanding citizen would come home with contraband.

This court decision linked ends up concluding that CBP doesn't need a warrant, but they do need reasonable suspicion- a much lower standard- before performing a search. More than no suspicion, which is what CBP etc were claiming.

I wonder how much effect this will actually have. Will they count rejection of voluntary search as suspicion of wrongdoing?

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

#519

Post by Karunamon »

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…

Given the amount of ammunition fired into targets and other inanimate objects for fun, I take issue with that "purpose" argument.

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

#520

Post by fdjlasdfjl »

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.

Uhhh no they don't, unless you're referring to absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia. Constitutional rights apply to all in a specific geographical region. "Congress shall pass no law" was a significant leap in rights and freedoms which is baked into most, if not all, modern constitutions.
Post reply on HN