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

601–610 of 617 posts

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

#601

Post by roywiggins »

nybble41 wrote: post #587
roywiggins wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fourth amendment just says searches have to be reasonable, not that they have to be done pursuant to a warrant. What counts as "reasonable" is very much not clear unless you look beyond the text. There's no evidence, for instance, that the fourth amendment was meant to prevent customs checks at the border. Inside the US, customs checks would be unreasonable searches, but at the border they have always been legal.…

> The fourth amendment just says searches have to be reasonable, not that they have to be done pursuant to a warrant. The only reason it doesn't say that is that it's inherent in the term "warrant". A warrant is exactly the legal authority to use force on behalf of the government contrary to the rights which the law would normally guarantee, which is a prerequisite for performing any search or seizing any property (a…

I used "warrant" in the same sense that Wikipedia uses it in the context of searches. I could have been more specific and said "judicial warrant" or "court order."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant

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

#602

Post by themaninthedark »

JasonFruit wrote: post #563
themaninthedark wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably mean CP - child porn

Who talks about child pornography enough to need an abbreviation?

The internet? People like to abbreviate things.

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

#603

Post by hannasanarion »

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?

"reasonable suspicion" is a term of art, not a new thing that was just invented by the court. There is already an abundance of case law that explains what can count as reasonable suspicion and what can't. Refusing a voluntary search is not enough for reasonable suspicion.

Here's an explanation of reasonable suspicion in comic form (part of a larger chapter on 4th amendment law): https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1833

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

#604

Post by nybble41 »

DanBC wrote: post #596
nybble41 wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why people always discount suicides among gun deaths, as if suicides only happen to "other people". Probably because the interesting statistic is not "gun deaths" but rather "fatal gun-related accidents" and "homicides" (with or without a gun involved). Suicides don't just "happen"; there is no "risk of suicide" which could be affected by the presence or absence of any particular tool. If you don…

> there is no "risk of suicide" which could be affected by the presence or absence of any particular tool. This is wrong though. Reducing access to means and methods is one of the best ways to prevent suicide and we see drops in rates of suicide whenever we see changes to a commonly used method. Two of the best documented examples are when the UK changed from coal gas to natural gas, and when the UK introduced cataly…

You're missing the point. You're talking about reducing the number of (successful) suicides. I'm saying that there is no risk of suicide either way because it's something that people choose to do, and choices are not risks.

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

#605

Post by DanBC »

nybble41 wrote: post #604
DanBC wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is no "risk of suicide" which could be affected by the presence or absence of any particular tool. This is wrong though. Reducing access to means and methods is one of the best ways to prevent suicide and we see drops in rates of suicide whenever we see changes to a commonly used method. Two of the best documented examples are when the UK changed from coal gas to natural gas, and when the UK introduced cataly…

You're missing the point. You're talking about reducing the number of (successful) suicides. I'm saying that there is no risk of suicide either way because it's something that people choose to do, and choices are not risks .

You're missing the point that if someone chooses to die but uses a less lethal method then there's a good chance they do not die and are saved by medical attention.

You're making the mistake of thinking that someone makes a choice to die and is then determined to carry out that choice and will use rational thinking to chose the most lethal method. It's often not a choice they make; they're often not determined to die and people usually do not make efforts to avoid being found; choice of method is complex but tends to focus on what's easily available and quickly fatal.

Have a read of The International Handbook of Suicide Prevention, edited by Rory C. O'Connor, Jane Pirkis, because it covers all this in detail. Or you can read the NCISH research. Or you can read Professor Nav Kapur's book Suicide Prevention.

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

#606

Post by nybble41 »

DanBC wrote: post #605
nybble41 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. You're talking about reducing the number of (successful) suicides. I'm saying that there is no risk of suicide either way because it's something that people choose to do, and choices are not risks .

You're missing the point that if someone chooses to die but uses a less lethal method then there's a good chance they do not die and are saved by medical attention. You're making the mistake of thinking that someone makes a choice to die and is then determined to carry out that choice and will use rational thinking to chose the most lethal method. It's often not a choice they make; they're often not determined to die…

> You're missing the point that if someone chooses to die but uses a less lethal method then there's a good chance they do not die and are saved by medical attention.

Forcing someone to live when they wish to die is no better than killing someone who wishes to live. You are welcome to try to talk them out of it but have no right to interfere with their choice—whatever it may happen to be.

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

#607

Post by thephyber »

hannasanarion wrote: post #295
threatofrain wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly a crucial protection but if law enforcement conducts an embarrassing or destructive search (such as when police recently blew up a man's home), they can still essentially end you. But yes, it's good that you can't be simultaneously nailed in court with illegally collected evidence. * https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-...

And in such a case, you can sue for harassment. The police can't routinely violate your rights just for the heck of it, they need to show a good-faith belief that what they're doing is legal and could produce evidence useful in court.

> And in such a case, you can sue for harassment.

> they need to show a good-faith belief...

That's not how being a plaintiff works, which is what is frustrating about this type of situation.

They do some action which is legally questionable. You have to show standing and potentially damages to be able to bring the suit, then you have to prove that what they did was not a good faith belief that their actions were legal. The onus is on the person without the power with (typically) minimal resources.

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

#608

Post by strictnein »

tghw wrote: post #352
strictnein wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no more or less disturbing for journalists to be subjected to this. They're not some special class of protected people.

The freedom of the press is specifically called out for a reason.

The freedom of press in the 1st amendment refers to the printing press and the owners of those presses didn't want to be restricted on what they could print or be forced to print things they disagreed with.

It was not, in any way, intended to refer to "journalists", a group whose only defining characteristic appears to be employment by a certain group of private companies.

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

#609

Post by bregma »

ameister14 wrote: post #539
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…

> When any governing entity no longer respects those rights, it's time to turf the bums out and start again. Interesting that you read it that way. I read it as when YOUR governing entity no longer respects YOUR rights, it's time to turf the bums out and start again. Yeah, everyone has the rights, but not everybody has the same government. The People are not random people, they are citizens.

That document declared "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"... which part of that says only some men are created equal, or only citizens were endowed by their Creator, or that maybe some Rights are inalienable?

I see no room in the wording of the founding statement of the USA to read into it that it's OK for an administration to treat some people like shit as long as it's only certain groups. I only get the sentiment that if the administration treats anyone wrong (for a strictly definition of wrong), it's time for them to go.

As soon as it becomes OK to discriminate between those with inalienable rights and those without based on privileges like "citizenship" then it becomes easy to redefine or revoke such privileges at will. There is plenty of historic precedence for just that. The only legitimate reading of 'all' is all, not some or a few or all citizens.

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

#610

Post by DanBC »

nybble41 wrote: post #606
DanBC wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point that if someone chooses to die but uses a less lethal method then there's a good chance they do not die and are saved by medical attention. You're making the mistake of thinking that someone makes a choice to die and is then determined to carry out that choice and will use rational thinking to chose the most lethal method. It's often not a choice they make; they're often not determined to die…

> You're missing the point that if someone chooses to die but uses a less lethal method then there's a good chance they do not die and are saved by medical attention. Forcing someone to live when they wish to die is no better than killing someone who wishes to live. You are welcome to try to talk them out of it but have no right to interfere with their choice— whatever it may happen to be.

> Forcing someone to live

Suicide prevention is not "forcing someone to live". Suicidal thoughts are usually transient and any delay in suicidal action allows the person to seek help. Like I said in my first post, reducing access to means an methods is only part of the package that we need to be providing.

You keep trying to make this point: you keep trying to say that suicide is a choice that people make. I'll try again: it often is not a choice that people make. Please just go read the research. Here's a tweet about "Rapid Onset Despair": https://twitter.com/ProfLAppleby/status/939820235946971138

You especially need to pay attention to intoxication and suicide. Or are you saying that an impulsive decision made when very drunk is no different to a considered decision that is stable over months made when sober?

> no right

Since you mention rights, people have a right to life and suicide prevention respects that right. It respects that right in a way that wide-spread gun-ownership doesn't.

UNCRC Article 6: https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/U...

UNDHR Article 3: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

UNCRPD article 10: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-...

I live in England and the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act specifically give HCPs the right to take away people's choice in some limited situations. I don't know where you live but you almost certainly have similar laws around substituted decision making.

Post reply on HN