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

441–450 of 617 posts

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

#441

Post by nkrisc »

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?

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.

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

#442

Post by lugg »

uwydr wrote: post #436
seanccox wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the Declaration of Independence was signed, Africans comprised a significant percentage of the US population (60% of SC, 40% of VA, and 20-25% of northern urban centers like Boston and Newport [1])(2). They were not white, likely not Christian, and instrumental to the establishment of the US. 1) https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/... 2) https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/statistics_on_sla…

They were slaves. They weren't part of the processes that led to the founding of the republic. In other words, that's like saying pack mules founded the USA. America was founded by Christian whites.

Fucking christ. Mules? Seriously?

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

#443

Post by uwydr »

blanche_ wrote: post #440
uwydr wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were slaves. They weren't part of the processes that led to the founding of the republic. In other words, that's like saying pack mules founded the USA. America was founded by Christian whites.

You're comparing black people to mules? Seriously? They contributed their work not to mention what people from US did to native americans.

I would've compared them to robots but they didn't exist back then. What I meant is that they were used for their force, not for their brains.

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

#444

Post by CydeWeys »

uwydr wrote: post #436
seanccox wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the Declaration of Independence was signed, Africans comprised a significant percentage of the US population (60% of SC, 40% of VA, and 20-25% of northern urban centers like Boston and Newport [1])(2). They were not white, likely not Christian, and instrumental to the establishment of the US. 1) https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/... 2) https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/statistics_on_sla…

They were slaves. They weren't part of the processes that led to the founding of the republic. In other words, that's like saying pack mules founded the USA. America was founded by Christian whites.

People aren't mules. People have culture in a way that mules do not, and African culture became an important part of American culture and identify in a way that is not true of, say, Finland.

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

#445

Post by bsenftner »

mlang23 wrote: post #399

Best thing is to just not have anything to do with the US of A. Death penalty, loaded guns everywhere, a general attitude of being the masters of the world which leads to things like suspicionless searches. No, thanks. I think the best would be if more people would actually stop dealing with the USA. Its becoming a trend. I once turned down an invitation to a conference in Hawai, and guess what, I was not alone.

As an American citizen, I've been trying to talk my family into leaving for years. Comments here reference the problem being the State and not the citizens. I beg to differ, the citizens in "general America" are dangerous and stupid to themselves and everyone around them. The entitled attitude of middle and upper middle class anyone is so unreasonable, I sometimes walk around the gang-tagged zones in my own neighborhood and think "we're a nation of trapped rats, we deserve this for the lies we keep repeating, we keep eating, we keep electing, and the most empty lie how we're the greatest nation on earth, what a hoot!"

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

#446

Post by lugg »

odiroot wrote: post #438
psv1 wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - on a personal level, I tend to avoid travelling to the US. For the same reasons that I avoid travelling to most of the Middle East or China.

Middle East I can understand but what's your beef with China?

Not AP but given my own government is unable to protect its own citizens travelling there im not about to risk a transfer through there. It's unlikely anything would happen but given my work I'm almost certainly on a list there and I'm simply not willing to risk it.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-24/china-hostage-dipl...

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/yang-hengjun-australian-writer-d...

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

#447

Post by iron0013 »

homonculus1 wrote: post #439
iron0013 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The founders included that clause for a reason.

The Supreme Court opinion in DC v. Heller explains why that clause was included: >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and…

And to think that Scalia considered himself an originalist! I guess that only applied when it was convenient to him :/

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

#448

Post by commanderjroc »

abtinf wrote: post #254
compiler-guy wrote: post #195

I support this ruling very strongly, and am super-glad it went the way it did. But at the same time, if it were as obvious as just quoting the constituion, it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. The SC decides cases that are difficult, not cases that are easy. Again, I believe this is the right decision, but it was no layup.

There are many obvious cases that have made it to the Supreme Court. All it takes is a pig headed state or federal attorney general who insists on trying to uphold oppressive laws.

Not exactly correct, the Supreme Court still has to accept the appeal onto its docket. Many of times, the Supreme Court will disregard the case and leave it to the lower courts to hash out.

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

#449

Post by angry_octet »

reactor4 wrote: post #397
angry_octet wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lock screen is a reason for 'reasonable suspicion'? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems unreasonable. If I have a lock on my briefcase it isn't reasonable to suggest it's full of contraband.

“lock screen with CP”

What's 'CP'? Is that supposed to be PC (Probable Cause)? I still don't get it.

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

#450

Post by sojournerc »

mlang23 wrote: post #399

Best thing is to just not have anything to do with the US of A. Death penalty, loaded guns everywhere, a general attitude of being the masters of the world which leads to things like suspicionless searches. No, thanks. I think the best would be if more people would actually stop dealing with the USA. Its becoming a trend. I once turned down an invitation to a conference in Hawai, and guess what, I was not alone.

He says while commenting on web site based in the USA
Post reply on HN