Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 139 posts

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#81

Post by steveklabnik »

tptacek wrote: post #73
steveklabnik wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this. Most liberals I know just shrug. It's why the far left has so much contempt for liberals in general. Every time I criticize Obama, I have to go out of my way to qualify that I'm _not_ a Republican, either.

Maybe what you're uncovering here has less to do with the mentality of Obama supports and more to do with the superficiality of terms like "liberal" and "conservative". There are vegan liberals who want to outlaw the consumption of meat. To them, most of us are posers too.

Agreed. The 'liberal/conservative' dichotomy is incredibly unhelpful. Honestly, I don't even find left/right to be that great, as I personally consider liberals to be right of center.

When I say 'liberal,' I personally generally mean 'neoliberal,' which has a pretty large overlap with the Democratic party and the popular conception of 'liberal.'

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#82

Post by tptacek »

_b8r0 wrote: post #79

It's things like this that mean that I won't go back to America. I love Americans, and there's a great deal of the US I'd love to see but it's just not going to happen while stuff like this goes on.

My most vivid experience of traveling in Europe in 2000 was of having my bags searched on a train midway between Zurich to Prague. Not as a condition of getting on the train, but 30 minutes out from the last station we'd stopped at. Not on any individualized suspicion, but as one of several passengers to receive the same treatment. Not in order to protect the safety of passengers, but (evidently) as part of a drug interdiction program.

Beware the grass-is-greener trap. You may be right: it may be that there are fewer circumstances in which your electronics will be searched in Europe than in the US. But by and large European law operates under a regime that values communitarian values more highly than individual ones. You can certainly be searched without a warrant all throughout Europe.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#84

Post by jorgem »

tptacek wrote: post #53
lhnn wrote: post #45

>“We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” Well frankly, in that case, I don't give a shit what you conclude, because you're mentally incompetent. "We also conclude that following the Constitution for Americans reentering the…

The Constitution does not forbid the government from conducting searches without warrants at the border. The word "reasonable" is in the 4th Amendment in order to defer judgement about what searches are and aren't constitutional to the the courts. Unfortunately for your argument, SCOTUS has for many many decades held that border searches are, subject to some limitations, reasonable.

They should make supreme court justices try to drive across the Mexico border once per year.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#86

Post by sneak »

tptacek wrote: post #69
betterunix wrote: post #4

So, remember a few months ago, when people like me were saying that the third parties are the only hope in America's democracy? Then a bunch of people said that Obama was worlds different from Romney, and that comparing Obama to Bush was lunacy. I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this.

An article like what? I voted or and contibuted to Obama because I felt he would fight for public schools and against nationwide voucher programs, and because he supported meaningful health care reform. I had absolutely zero expectation that Obama would waste political capital revamping CBP. The TSA is a far bigger problem for ordinary Americans than CBP is, and a more constitutionally offensive one. I think we can a…

Sometimes, when faced with a terrible set of game theory circumstances, the only winning move is not to play.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#87

Post by tptacek »

sneak wrote: post #86
tptacek wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An article like what? I voted or and contibuted to Obama because I felt he would fight for public schools and against nationwide voucher programs, and because he supported meaningful health care reform. I had absolutely zero expectation that Obama would waste political capital revamping CBP. The TSA is a far bigger problem for ordinary Americans than CBP is, and a more constitutionally offensive one. I think we can a…

Sometimes, when faced with a terrible set of game theory circumstances, the only winning move is not to play.

I guess I don't think this was one of those situations, given that eliminating the TSA was not the only issue at stake.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#88

Post by angersock »

sneak wrote: post #86
tptacek wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An article like what? I voted or and contibuted to Obama because I felt he would fight for public schools and against nationwide voucher programs, and because he supported meaningful health care reform. I had absolutely zero expectation that Obama would waste political capital revamping CBP. The TSA is a far bigger problem for ordinary Americans than CBP is, and a more constitutionally offensive one. I think we can a…

Sometimes, when faced with a terrible set of game theory circumstances, the only winning move is not to play.

A wonderful quip, but what is its explanatory power here? What is it here "not to play"?

I'm as much Fuck the Man as the next person, but let's try to dig a bit deeper.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#89

Post by pmorici »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #61
pmorici wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those things listed for Romney were actions taken in relation to his campaigning for president it isn't surprising that he would do those things in that context because a segment of the Republican base supports those positions. Surely if he were anti-gay or a closet misogynist there would be evidence of that in his record of actions taken as a governor. Take the example of the "mandatory insurance provided birth-…

>point being that the common reason for not voting for the third party candidate is fear that the other guy wins. I'm suggesting that that's a stupid reason if the difference is $9 + campaign rhetoric. I'm kinda flabbergasted. I genuinely believe that Romney/Paul would have been a significant setback for LGBT rights in America. At the same time, I can point to numerous things that were accomplished in the Obama admin…

I think you perhaps overestimate the setback that might have occurred. For example, things like repealing DADT would have happened regardless because a lawsuit had already been won ruling DADT unconstitutional a year prior to Obama doing away with the policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans#Log_Cabin...

The Wikipedia article on Mitt Romney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Sam...

even suggests he supported equal rights and benefits for LGBT couples as a governor though he apposed the use of the word "marriage" to describe said couples.

It seems like few people actually bother to look up a politicians actions and instead just take other politicians and partisans word for it when it comes to the "radical" positions of their opponents. I'd attribute the progress more to the changing attitudes of the country as a whole than the election of any one person.

Re: DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

#90

Post by drivebyacct2 »

pmorici wrote: post #89
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>point being that the common reason for not voting for the third party candidate is fear that the other guy wins. I'm suggesting that that's a stupid reason if the difference is $9 + campaign rhetoric. I'm kinda flabbergasted. I genuinely believe that Romney/Paul would have been a significant setback for LGBT rights in America. At the same time, I can point to numerous things that were accomplished in the Obama admin…

I think you perhaps overestimate the setback that might have occurred. For example, things like repealing DADT would have happened regardless because a lawsuit had already been won ruling DADT unconstitutional a year prior to Obama doing away with the policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans#Log_Cabin... The Wikipedia article on Mitt Romney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Sa…

I can't believe you're chastising me or trying to correct me, or whatever, for judging Romney based on the actions that he PLEDGED to carry out during his term if he were elected.
Post reply on HN