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

The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

uncrunched.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 246 posts

Re: The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

#221

Post by Bud »

sneak wrote: post #170
Bud wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blah, blah, blah. The problem isn't some vague platitude about how there is "too much government". This wasn't caused by Social Security or other defined benefit programs (which make up most of "government"), or by the Veterans Administration, or by the Postal Service, or by FDA. It was caused by one specific agency, created by W, which should never have been created, is duplicative by its very nature, and which has…

> And no, this isn't evidence that we are heading for a Gestapo society. No. The Gestapo was highly organized, disciplined, and effective. Homeland Security, by contrast, is a bunch of minimum-wage flunkies, unable to get a job anywhere else because of malfeasance, complete lack of job skills, illiteracy, or a combination of these, which fails to accomplish anything of note whatsoever. What about the NSA/CIA who have…

I did not intend to suggest that other parts of the defense apparatus might not also be doing bad things; I was talking only about this particular incident.

I do, however, think that if we just stripped away all of the parts of DHS that were a reaction to 9/11, that would solve at least some of our problems.

Re: The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

#222

Post by jrs235 »

jrs235 wrote: post #193

I’m sure they’ll say they haven’t seized the property yet… They’re just holding onto evidence. After Michael spends thousands on lawyers fees to get it back and prevent a default judgement and seizure he might get it back. This could turn into one of those ridiculous, United States vs Buddy (yes against the property not the person) cases where Michael will have more trouble defending the boat as only a third party wi…

Really? A downvote?

Has anyone else ever heard of United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U....

I would not doubt that if you asked DHS if they seized his property that they would say they haven't and that it is currently being held as evidence.

He'll probably get his boat back but not after a legal fight costing several thousands of dollars.

Re: The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

#223

Post by smsm42 »

user24 wrote: post #180
smsm42 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99.99% of all paperwork is done to cover somebody's ass in case something goes wrong. So if the guy is fine, nobody cares. If the guy makes trouble in Australia, border control's ass is covered - they asked about if he's a criminal, and he lied, so they could do nothing, so no blame on them. If there were no such question, eventually somebody would say "oh, if only border control would ask the right questions, we cou…

But the problem with all these things is that if the guy had lied on the form and then got in any kind of trouble, suddenly it becomes a huge issue that he lied on the form. It makes the bureaucrats life easier at the expense of the rights of the people involved.

Of course. That's the whole point of it.

Re: The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

#224

Post by InclinedPlane »

narag wrote: post #182
InclinedPlane wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DHS is a problem but it is not the problem. It's a symptom of the problem of excessive government control over our lives. For the most part the DHS is just an amalgam of other agencies anyway, and those would still exist even if the DHS did not.

Excessive government control is not exactly the same as big government. IOW, you can be against too much control (i.e. massive spying on innocent citizens) and still want public healthcare and so on.

In theory, sure, in practice I don't think it's ever worked out that way. Can you give examples of countries with sizable government expenditures (e.g. 40% GDP or more) that do not also feature onerous regulation and extensive government interference over many aspects of daily life?

Re: The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

#225

Post by nitrogen »

rayiner wrote: post #214
nitrogen wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should everyone accept collective blame for decisions they didn't make or support in any way?

Because we live in a society where we've empowered the majority to make decisions like this. We reap the benefits when it turns out well, we should share the blame when it turns out poorly.

That seems like a non sequitur. There is a linguistic symmetry to your suggestion, but I don't think that is a good argument for agreeing with it. Basically, I don't see any practical value to feeling like it's my fault that a bunch of other people made a decision that affects me negatively, nor would I take credit for other people's decisions that affect me positively when I originally disagreed with them.

Re: The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

#226

Post by snowwrestler »

ScottBurson wrote: post #158
snowwrestler wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think you understand the score, but to me it seems more like a persecution complex. The irony is that in Arrington's situation the border agent tried to educate Mike that this was a rule that could be safely bent in the interest of expedience, but it was Mike himself who insisted on perfect procedure.

Lying to a federal agent is a felony. I'm not saying it justifies rudeness, but I can see being quite thoroughly paranoid about signing a federal form that contains a known inaccuracy. The agent's opinion that the discrepancy was unimportant might not have been shared by her superiors. If people can be subject to federal prosecution for signing a form prepared by government workers, those workers should consider it t…

At the top of this thread is someone complaining about how "flunkies" love to use complex procedure to punish people.

But in this actual case, the agent seems to have done the opposite--try to help bend the process so Mike could get on with his life. Mike is the one who decided to, in his own words, "stand on principle."

As to how serious that particular bend is, I don't personally know. I would tend to assume that a trained federal agent might have a better handle on that than Mike Arrington, though.

Re: The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

#227

Post by malandrew »

justlearning wrote: post #113

"So now I have to hire a lawyer to try to figure all this out." forgive my ignorance, but isn't Arrington a lawyer?. Question - Why does a lawyer need to hire another lawyer to represent him? Although, there are several branches of law specialization, Arrington could take it on himself to file the case against DHS? no? "I live a fairly simple life and that didn’t change much after I sold TechCrunch in 2010" - yeah we…

I imagine that in this case there is also a benefit of distancing himself from the process of finding a legal resolution. If I hire a lawyer, I'm using the system as it's supposed to be used. If I represent myself (because I'm a lawyer), it's easy for the opposing side to misconstrue that as "contempt" of the process.

Re: The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

#228

Post by ScottBurson »

shawn-butler wrote: post #184
ScottBurson wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lying to a federal agent is a felony. I'm not saying it justifies rudeness, but I can see being quite thoroughly paranoid about signing a federal form that contains a known inaccuracy. The agent's opinion that the discrepancy was unimportant might not have been shared by her superiors. If people can be subject to federal prosecution for signing a form prepared by government workers, those workers should consider it t…

Umm, you break federal laws or regulations every day in the course of your normal life. I guarantee it. You add in state and municipal codes and you probably are breaking the law right now as you read this and probably in multiple ways. Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over…

you break federal laws or regulations every day in the course of your normal life.

Perhaps. But if that's true, I don't know which laws they are or how I'm breaking them.

Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over for speeding?

You have completely twisted what I said. First, I said if someone can be prosecuted for signing a form prepared by government workers. You left that critical condition out entirely. Secondly, and more broadly, I'm not talking about government workers demanding absolute accuracy of us -- I'm talking about them demanding absolute accuracy of themselves.

IANAL, obviously, but it does occur to me that once the customs worker encouraged Arrington to sign the form anyway, should he ever have been prosecuted for doing so -- which I agree seems unlikely -- he had, I would think, a valid entrapment defense. Of course, he probably had no proof that she said that, but being able to argue it might have been sufficient anyway. So I agree, he probably should have signed the form.

But I don't really care about that. Arrington is not collecting a salary paid by my tax dollars; he is simply a citizen attempting to protect himself. Whether he made the right choice or not here is for him to figure out. What I care about is the behavior of my government, which I pay for and which claims to be acting on authority vested in it by its citizens, of which I am one.

Re: The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

#229

Post by raintrees »

Kiro wrote: post #127
raintrees wrote: post #88

The form is being treated as a contract, and like all contracts I am requested to sign, I would line through and correct them as needed, then sign. If the other party will not allow the amendments, then we go to the next step, but in the mean time, the contract was made factually correct. I did this with my girlfriend (now wife) on our first rental contract and was amused by her shock at my changing the "official" fo…

Why so overzealous? Would you be shocked if I said that I always sign stuff without even reading it?

No, not shocked. I think we all tend to live in buffer zones at times where we may not be paying attention. I am sorry to say that it is not uncommon for me to realize that I have been driving down the road and not really paying attention to road conditions.

I guess I just choose to keep myself on task when faced with a contract much more often than not, and consciously make the decision to read it or not read it each time. Most of the time I will read it, and make sure it is factually correct.

I freely admit I do occasionally choose to forgo reading a contract if other factors are weighing heavier. Like the impatient person behind me in line that seems to want to clean the floor with me because they are in a much bigger hurry :)

Re: The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

#230

Post by jasonlotito »

d23 wrote: post #212
jasonlotito wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you have reason to be afraid, but... > Charm simply does not work on underpaid meatheads Charm, or respect, works on people. Sorry, but when you call them meatheads, it doesn't instill me with any confidence that you treated them with respect. The actions you describe support that fact (mostly through the way you describe it). Again, maybe you have a reason, but unless you are leaving critical things out, your…

Back and forths like are annoying and make this community look pedantic. You know damn well you sometimes deal with people who simply don't respond to your niceties. It's a fact of life, and the commenter was simply pointing that out. You don't know the situation. Why does it have to be his fault? Some people out there really are assholes and really do just want to take advantage of people.

> You know damn well you sometimes deal with people who simply don't respond to your niceties.

People.

> Again, maybe you have a reason, but unless you are leaving critical things out, your attitude is what makes it impossible.

I said as much.

> Why does it have to be his fault?

It doesn't have to be. I said as much.

> Back and forths like are annoying and make this community look pedantic.

Commenting is not the way to handle this then. Downvote, or flag if you think it's not appropriate. Commenting, however, signifies what I said contributed to the discussion. If it didn't, then any reply would be equally worthless.

Post reply on HN