Yes but passing through our airports isn't a nightmare...
Last time I checked airport security in canada murdered Polish citizen because he did not spoke english.
That's quite disingenuous... He was tasered and restrained because he had become unruly and destructive.
Certainly the situation could have (and should have) been handled better, and the RCMP should have only tasered him once, but to call it murder, and specifically to say it's because he didn't speak english, is a blatant falsehood.
You can't continue to reside in territory controlled and defended by a sovereign people and then claim you signed no document consenting to abide by their rules. Your mere presence in their territory subjects you to their jurisdiction. That is in fact the whole purpose of securing and controlling territory--to establish dominion over that territory and those within.
Who are they? How are they different from me? Am I not a part of them? And if 60% of people say it's okay to kill the rest of the 40%, should the 40% submit?
In a democratic society, "they" are the majority. You are a part of them, but you get your one vote and no more. They can bind you without your explicit consent, because at the end of the day they are the ones who protect you from the dangers of other nations, anarchy, etc.
"By agreeing to settle the case, the DHS avoided either any new appellate precedent limiting its borders search authority, or any judicial review of the specific basis for its actions with respect to Mr. House. As in other cases, the DHS treated the threat of judicial review of its actions as the ultimate danger to be avoided at all costs, even if that required destroying evidence it had previously claimed was vitall…
While I can't blame them at all, it is too bad Mr. House settled. I wonder what would have been the outcome.
Who are they? How are they different from me? Am I not a part of them? And if 60% of people say it's okay to kill the rest of the 40%, should the 40% submit?
In a democratic society, "they" are the majority. You are a part of them, but you get your one vote and no more. They can bind you without your explicit consent, because at the end of the day they are the ones who protect you from the dangers of other nations, anarchy, etc.
So if this 60% majority decides to kill the 40% minority, would you still think it's okay to do so? If not, then how about 70%/30%? Or 90%/10%? Where are the lines for which actions and who decides on them?
How would you put this into action if you're a typical business traveler? It doesn't seem very practical.
The organization should have a number of laptops designated solely for international use. They should be restored to the org's "gold image" and kept "in stock" and available. Prior to leaving on an international trip, the traveler "checks out" a laptop from I.T. for the duration of his trip. No personal or business data should exist on the data at this point. Once destinated, the needed business data can be downloade…
Yup. This is more or less exactly how the company I work for does it.
I don't mean to undermine the effort of put into the lawsuit and this careful analysis. But... Shocking. Government has access to passenger's itinerary. I mean, with all the recent revelations, we might have just assumed that.
You have missed the point. It is not that the government has access to your itinerary, it is that low-level government officials (apparently) have access to your itinerary with no administrative oversight whatsoever. The NSA at least puts on a show of getting FISA court approval. But DHS isn't even going through the motions. The key passage from the article: "The implication is that rather than search its own ATS dat…
I think this even misses the broader point a little. For political opponents of particular government actions, constitutional protection against illegal searches and seizures do not exist if you travel internationally. Of course, DHS has been given extraordinary power when it comes to searches and seizure under the presumption that those powers would be used only to protect our boarders. But here they've been used to circumvent the legal framework for searches pertaining to domestic investigations, which exist largely so this sort of thing won't happen. The DHS has broken that presumed mandate, and abused its extraordinary powers not for heroic ends like the action movie cop that just wants to get the ultimate bad guy, but to harass people associated with inconvenient political groups. It's evidence that, as we might have suspected if we were more rational as a country after 9/11, that no government agency, no matter how noble its mandate, can handle the responsibility of being handed its own reigns. It's a clear indication that the full power of the constitution needs to encompass all government agencies and all of their associated actions.
Last time I checked airport security in canada murdered Polish citizen because he did not spoke english.
That's quite disingenuous... He was tasered and restrained because he had become unruly and destructive. Certainly the situation could have (and should have) been handled better, and the RCMP should have only tasered him once, but to call it murder, and specifically to say it's because he didn't speak english, is a blatant falsehood.
he was tasered, cuffed and than tasered several times more. No CPR. That is murder.
I, personally, have no trust in any government, so I sort of assumed that too. But that's me. I think you're right and it raises an important question for others, whether the government is really what they think it is.
That sort of cynicism is probably the chief enabler of such corruption. As with any other human endeavor, government will never be perfect, but that isn't a reason to give up on holding government to high standards. It is reasonable to take precautionary steps in your personal life while at the very same time demanding that the government behave such that those steps are completely unnecessary.
Some of us believe the government can't be "fixed." Who watches the watchers, and all that.
"DHS lawyers claimed that international travel provides, in and of itself, sufficient Constitutional basis for detention and search of international travellers and the search, seizure and copying of the digital contents of their belongings." Really? Fucking hell.. With every month that goes by, I am less and less inclined to travel to, or do business in, the US.. edit: I'm aware that later in the article they say the…
> Really? Fucking hell.. With every month that goes by, I am less and less inclined to travel to, or do business in, the US.. The insinuation being that the US is the only country doing this? I hate this sort of thing as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend the US is the only country engaging in this behavior. We can certainly expect better, but don't blind yourself to the obvious. Based on recent events, mayb…
Based on recent events, maybe you shouldn't be traveling anywhere, period.
So, one should give up their freedom of movement because "recent events" have caused institutions to implement policies to eliminate it? Also, "everybody's doing it" is a pretty distasteful rationale.
> Really? Fucking hell.. With every month that goes by, I am less and less inclined to travel to, or do business in, the US.. The insinuation being that the US is the only country doing this? I hate this sort of thing as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend the US is the only country engaging in this behavior. We can certainly expect better, but don't blind yourself to the obvious. Based on recent events, mayb…
> The insinuation being that the US is the only country doing this? Can you please make up your mind? Either Americans are "exceptional" and this is "the best country in the world", or not. If not then I don't think its okay to hate on others when they are upset with things happening on this soil. As we all know things in US go downhill since a while. This issue would not suprise in Russia in 80s or on Cuba, but if U…
I have long speculated that the US chooses Cuba, NK, Russia, China, et al, as "enemies" purely out of jealousy.