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

551–560 of 617 posts

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

#551

Post by neonIcon »

shkkmo wrote: post #507
abstractbarista wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Y…

2/3 = 66% So if I ate 66% of a cake you just ordered, and handed you back the rest would that not be considered a vast majority of your cake?

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

#552

Post by plankers »

drop_the_mike wrote: post #544
Karunamon wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Given that I once threw a bean burrito at a road sign for fun as a teenager I take issue with its supposed purpose of being eaten \s Your argument is invalid.

Maybe if there were an entire recreational industry built around tossing burritos at road signs. But, uh, there's not.

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

#553

Post by youareostriches »

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?

Unfortunately having cars everywhere (and a car-centric culture and urban landscape) will probably kill more people in the long run via CO2 emissions than gun domestic deaths. The collapse of the entire ecosystem and the corresponding mass extinction is undeniably the most important problem of this century.

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

#554

Post by roywiggins »

Slippery_John wrote: post #518
roywiggins wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's a trial court opinion, so quite possibly not much, depending on what precedent gets set on appeal.

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

#555

Post by black_puppydog »

umvi wrote: post #543
Thrymr wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> 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 Unintentionally? I highly doubt that. I would guess the majority of the tens of thousands of deaths were the result of the gun owner intentionally pulling the trigger, not because they were bumbling around transporting it incorrectly, stor…

You do realize that 500 gun deaths alone would make headlines in most other countries?

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

#556

Post by SimbaOnSteroids »

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…

15,000/325,000,000 ~= 1/25,000. Just for scope because 15,000 sounds big but not that huge for a country this large. Yes its way too high, but its not like Americans are Yosemite Sam all the time.

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

#557

Post by black_puppydog »

umvi wrote: post #490
arayh wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According this article ( https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-sta... ) your chances of dying from a motor vehicle incident is approximately three times higher than dying from a gun assault.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, I would have assumed the chances of dying by gun assault was even lower. How was the probability of dying from a gun assault calculated? With car accidents you can generally assume random distribution, but you have to do some math with gun statistics before you can assume random distribution (remove suicides, remove gang-related deaths, etc.)

I'd be surprised if car accidents were randomly distributed. But assuming GP is correct, or even assuming you are correct that it's an even bigger difference, I'd argue that both are way too high, and that the gun deaths even being in the same order of magnitude as car deaths is entirely preventable, and pretty shocking in itself.

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

#558

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

umvi wrote: post #550
kiba wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My uncle told me a story about when he was deployed to Afghanistan there was a designated area by the mess hall you were supposed to use to ensure your sidearm chamber was clear. Every once in a while, there was an accidental discharge and an officer would be seen over there sheepishly holstering their sidearm. My uncle pointed out that it wasn't required that you had to pull the trigger, just that you had to ensure…

Meanwhile, this happens:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/police-off...

And this:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/03/19...

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

#559

Post by wonderwonder »

umvi wrote: post #550
kiba wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My uncle told me a story about when he was deployed to Afghanistan there was a designated area by the mess hall you were supposed to use to ensure your sidearm chamber was clear. Every once in a while, there was an accidental discharge and an officer would be seen over there sheepishly holstering their sidearm. My uncle pointed out that it wasn't required that you had to pull the trigger, just that you had to ensure…

So soldiers trained by the US military would sometimes make mistakes with their weapon resulting in a discharge they were not expecting? Seems like perhaps its not so simple a tool after all...

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

#560

Post by wonderwonder »

bluGill wrote: post #521
Thrymr wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Car owners kill ~38,000 people a year. Guns kill ~15,000 a year (excluding suicides). There are roughly 20,000 suicides a year via firearm. I would argue that if you compared the number of cars driven on a daily basis in the us vs the number of guns fired, that guns cause far more deaths on a per use basis. Seems like Car owners are far more respectful of their 'weapon' on a per capita basis.
Post reply on HN