Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by bluGill » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

Thrymr wrote: post #509

umvi wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Most gun owners give their gun that level of respect.

Car owners kill far more people than gun owners do not give much respect to how deadly their weapon is.

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

#522

Post by Ensorceled » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

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.

Canada's Bill of Rights does not restrict those rights and protections to citizens except for political rights such as running for office and voting. The right to due process in particular, is considered universal in Canada.

Other countries take a similar approach to rights.

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

#523

Post by xenocyon » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

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

I don't understand why people always discount suicides among gun deaths, as if suicides only happen to "other people".

It's true that you can limit your gun risk by being white/urban/middle-class/mentally healthy, but these are not advantages available to everyone. There's a lot of victim-blaming in some of these comments, which glosses over the fact that plenty of infants and toddlers die from guns.

Gun deaths in total numbers are roughly the same as car deaths: each are approx 30-40K per year in the USA.

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

#524

Post by bluGill » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #511

bluGill wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coul…

I did turn the conversation off: it is clear nobody will win any argument and I'm not interested in continuing it.

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

#525

Post by SilasX » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

Ensorceled wrote: post #522

SilasX wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Canada's Bill of Rights does not restrict those rights and protections to citizens except for political rights such as running for office and voting. The right to due process in particular, is considered universal in Canada. Other countries take a similar approach to rights.

Yes, there exist rights that Canada recognizes in everyone, just like there are rights the US recognizes in everyone. There are also rights it recognizes for a smaller class of persons. Just like I said before.

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

#526

Post by jvanderbot » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

thomascgalvin wrote: post #496

bregma wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Slavery and suffrage were eventually fixed. perhaps it's revisionist, but I'm told most founders wanted it one way, and wrote non binding language such as this, while punting legal battles to actually implement these principles in favor of diplomacy.

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

#527

Post by sterlind » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #485

ubermonkey wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a US citizen. Most of his points are valid. Guns fucking everywhere is a problem. Lots of Americans think so. Yes, we absolutely execute people -- and our criminal justice system is a completely sham, especially if you're not white and rich. Oh, and God save you from our health care economics. If I weren't American, I'd absolutely never come here. In fact, I am American, and I'm actively researching ways to estab…

> Guns fucking everywhere is a problem. Which is a bigger problem - guns everywhere or cars everywhere?

Cars really depend on where you are. The US is huge, and it's not really possible to live in e.g. rural Texas without owning a car. Everything is miles and miles apart. On the flip side, New York has an efficient subway and few people own cars. But with the geography of America, it's simply not practical to have the same sort of public transport common in Europe.. the country is 3000 miles wide.

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

#528

Post by 0xffff2 » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

ubermonkey wrote: post #475

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…

I'm a US citizen. Most of his points are valid. Guns fucking everywhere is a problem. Lots of Americans think so. Yes, we absolutely execute people -- and our criminal justice system is a completely sham, especially if you're not white and rich. Oh, and God save you from our health care economics. If I weren't American, I'd absolutely never come here. In fact, I am American, and I'm actively researching ways to estab…

>Guns fucking everywhere is a problem.

Please elaborate. I have a house in an open carry state, and I rarely seen anyone actually carrying. Even as a gun owner by far the most likely place I'm going to see a gun is on the hip of a law enforcement officer.

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

#529

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 6:57 PM UTC

mike00632 wrote: post #382

Pyxl101 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning. The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulat…

If it really is the case that the law is written in the form of an idiom then maybe we shouldn't be taking it as gospel and let it grant people right to individually own a weapon capable of murdering numerous people. I mean, if we really are going to say that the second amendment grants such rights then it's not too much to ask that it be explicit. The fact that it's not explicit is a good basis to interpret the phra…

[deleted]

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

#530

Post by Spooky23 » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #330

Spooky23 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s absurd. Regulate has had a pretty clear meaning from its Latin origins. (Regula: to rule) Regulate is a form that appeared in Middle English that means “to control by rules”. I’m all for guns and appreciating the inscrutable nature of the 2nd amendment. But words mean things.

If you look at the founders’ documents and writings on the subject, “well regulated” isn’t about “regulations,” but about the “proper functioning thereof, as the parent said. There is plenty written about the right to bear arms from that time period by those that wrote the constitution. Words do mean things and those meanings can’t be interpreted without historical context. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prot…

How does a paramilitary organization "properly function" without regulations?

There's obviously a middle ground where regulation is allowed. There's no world where artillery, or arming the insane isn't acceptable in a civilized society. Conversely, the overreach of prohibition of arms in places like DC or NYC is not in alignment with the ideals of nation.

To me, the notion of armed civil insurrection against a modern state apparatus is absurd, and has been since the late 19th century. Civil disobedience and disruptive protest, including protest that undermines control of the armed forces, is the only check on the state's ability to wield force. Even a 3rd rate army is able to control civil unrest.