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

571–580 of 617 posts

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

#571

Post by Ensorceled »

SilasX wrote: post #525
Ensorceled wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, yeah, this is why I hate having these discussions.

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

#572

Post by jopsen »

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…

Is it really that bad though. We like painting a negative picture, because we want the US to improve.

But on the human freedom index the US is ranked 17 alongside Sweden.

The US has problems, systemic and cultural problems that should be fixed. But your risk of getting shot in a mass shooting is low.

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

#573

Post by sitkack »

SilasX wrote: post #525
Ensorceled wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US constitution makes the same delination, with the majority of the document outlining the limits of government power. It is only because some people want to strip others of constitutional protection that they argue about who it covers. Everyone gets freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, etc.

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

#574

Post by gamblor956 »

tfha wrote: post #396
gamblor956 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, if a warrant is obtained using illegal evidence, then you poison the warrant and all the evidence arising from it. Parallel construction happens way less frequently than people think it does, since it requires that there be an actual parallel path to the evidence that would have been available at the time the evidence was improperly obtained. It's basically only upheld when evidence was collected improperly throu…

> Parallel construction happens way less frequently than people think it does This seems like a rather vague claim

I used to be a public defender before I went into corporate and tax practice. Out of roughly 100,000 cases that went through the local PD office while I was there, fewer than 10 involved parallel construction.

Including the two neighboring counties, out of nearly 750,000 criminal cases during that time, only about 3 or 4 dozen involved parallel construction, and most of those were gang cases in which the parallel construction involved one of the gang members turning on his homies.

It's big news in local legal circles when the prosecution tries to use parallel construction to get evidence into the record because it happens so rarely.

It does happen more frequently at the federal level, but they also have significantly more resources to conduct investigations along parallel paths.

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

#575

Post by gamblor956 »

taurath wrote: post #346
gamblor956 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, if a warrant is obtained using illegal evidence, then you poison the warrant and all the evidence arising from it. Parallel construction happens way less frequently than people think it does, since it requires that there be an actual parallel path to the evidence that would have been available at the time the evidence was improperly obtained. It's basically only upheld when evidence was collected improperly throu…

I don’t think you have to be mirandized to give a confession, no?

You do have to be Mirandized if the prosecution expects to use that confession--or any evidence derived from that confession (under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)-in court.

For the record--I am former public defender. And I successfully used the failure to properly Mirandize a client successfully many times to block the prosecution from introducing evidence.

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

#576

Post by gamblor956 »

nkrisc wrote: post #441
taurath wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you have to be mirandized to give a confession, no?

Not a lawyer nor intimately familiar with the subject, so until someone more knowledgeable chimes in and at risk of making a fool of myself: I believe it depends on context. If you're in police custody and being questioned, you need to be read your Miranda rights. If the police show up to your door and you suddenly blurt out a confession, I don't think it matters.

That's mostly correct, but it gets even more contextual: if you confess right when you greet the police, your confession is admissible.

However, once the police start asking questions, they have to show they had not created a "custodial" situation in which the suspect was not free to leave (or in this case, to close the door and tell the police to fuck off). In most states, the burden is on the defendant to show that a custodial situation was created; in some states, that is presumed and the police have to show that a custodial situation was not created.

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

#577

Post by gamblor956 »

jeffdavis wrote: post #513
dragonwriter wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The First Amendment does not have the same restrictions as the Second Amendment.

To the extent that your speech does not also constitute illegal action, there are no restrictions on speech and those protections do not depend on nationality, citizenship, etc. All that matters is the jurisdiction of the US court system (since they can't enforce First Amendment rights if they don't have jurisdiction).

Some types of speech are also acts, like conspiring to commit a crime, or inciting violent action. In those cases, the content of the speech is protected, but the actions of the speech are subject to prosecution.

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

#578

Post by waterheater »

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #386
waterheater wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A general definition is "oppressive power." A tyranny must be recognized. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution "The Continental Congress declared King George a tyrant who trampled the colonists' rights as Englishmen..." If you recognize a tyranny but do nothing, you stand to receive further oppression. Consider the case of the PRC. The CCP is tyrannical toward those they rule; we plainly see this re…

So what you say the main thing is, when I declare you a tyrant you are a tyrant. And because they suppressed (non voting, poor) people in the UK didn't declare their king a tyrant it wasn't one for them.

Humans can recognize tyranny but never do anything about it. Bullying, abusive relationships, and slavery are some examples of this reality. Once you recognize the form of tyranny, you can put a name to it and act.

I don't know the exact reasons people put up with tyranny. I suspect every situation is somewhat unique. However, answering that question would allow many future harms to be prevented.

The American revolutionaries declared King George III a tyrant, but that couldn't be the end; open rebellion would mean certain harm or death. So, they acted. They made a case for taking up arms against the crown. They then resolved to become independent (found in the Lee Resolution/"Resolution of Independence"). Two days later, they declared independence. And they fought. Note, though, that the Revolution required the recognition of tyranny.

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

#579

Post by ineedasername »

hannasanarion wrote: post #473
ineedasername wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I read that, but the author presented a viewpoint from the historic example of luggage, cargo, etc. searches and then simply stated the courts disagreed. Expanding on that to talk about why those things are in fact different and not comparable is a salient point, and not something that a reader of the GP comment would necessarily come away with otherwise.

Because the reasons are fairly obvious to everyone here. Smartphones are basically an extension of our brains. They are our eyes, ears, mouths, and memories. Searching a smartphone (and usually copying its contents) is an invasion of privacy far beyond flipping though a ship log or traveler's diary, so that precedent isn't good enough to establish reasonableness.

Well, maybe what I wrote was redundant then.

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

#580

Post by TimTheTinker »

ineedasername wrote: post #452
TimTheTinker wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... as long as such regulation does not infringe the right of the people to keep or bear arms for all the purposes envisioned by the constitutional framers. Wikipedia has an excellent reference on this. See the "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" section: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Unit...

The purposes of the framers appears to be a well regulated militia, and that militia subject to "unlimited" control by congress. I agree this would mean congress could not dismantle or subvert the purpose of the militia, but having tight controls over the weaponry at their disposal when not in a state of current or imminent battle would not seem to so undermine it. After all, even the professional military have much,…

See the Wikipedia article - it mentions several further purposes both separate from and contained in the notion of a militia.
Post reply on HN