• news
  • SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 20 2008 10:00 AM

Seriously, Who Wants to Travel to the United States?

Submitted by DevilsReject

Edited by nicole_powers

Tags: Homeland Security, Airport Security, Terrorism

The United States Department of Homeland Security scares the hell out of me. What is really bad is I am a United States citizen and it scares the hell out of me. It really has to be scary to someone that isn't a citizen of the United States.

Think of this scenario. You fly back into the United States after visiting some friends in Europe. A Homeland Security Officer, specifically a Transportation Security Agent hands you a pair of pliers and tells you to remove your nipple ring.

The Transportation Security Administration said Friday its officers at a Texas airport appear to have properly followed procedures when they allegedly forced a woman to remove her nipple rings -- one with pliers -- but acknowledged the procedures should be changed.



Congratulations TSA. You're brilliant. Forcing someone to remove a piercing, in a rather personal spot, with pliers kind of does scream that procedures should be changed. If there were any damn procedures in the first place and they aren't just running this security thing by the seat of their pants.

That's old news. Now onto the new news. This is the type of thing where I strongly believe that any government official should have at least a general knowledge of current technology.

Back in April of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court decided that searching laptops without reason is well within the law, and does not violate any Fourth Amendment Rights.

So wait. Now I am confused. The Ninth Circuit says that TSA Agents can search my papers, effects, laptops, iPods, iPhones and other electronic devices without probable cause, but the Fourth Amendment says that they cannot. Unless the probable cause is "Everyone is a Terrorist". Then it kind of makes sense.

The judges noted that precedent already allows searches of 1) briefcases and luggage, 2) a purse, wallet, or pocket, 3) papers found in pockets, and 4) pictures, films, and other graphic material. In fact, the Supreme Court allows border agents wide latitude, only drawing the line at searching the "alimentary canal" of a suspect without reasonable suspicion (seriously).



Well, at least they have to have reasonable suspicion to check my large intestines, that is comforting.

Don't worry though! Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) introduced a new bill to help with this! Well, not so much help, but at least you will get a receipt for the expensive piece of electronic equipment that the TSA Agent, who makes just more than minimum wage, is illegally seizing from you.

(5) A requirement that an individual subjected to a border security search of an electronic device shall receive a receipt for such device if such device is removed from the possession of such individual.



Basically, what Rep Sanchez is trying to do is bring more accountability to the TSA and Homeland Security. She is trying to create paper trails so we can figure out what they are doing.

Sanchez's bill would bring more routine to the search process. The bill requires the government to draft additional rules regarding information security, the number of days a device can be retained, receipts that must be issued when devices are taken, ways to report abuses, and it requires the completion of both a privacy impact study and a civil liberties impact study. Travelers would also have the explicit right to watch as the search is conducted.



Sanchez also wants data about the searches, which would have to be turned over to Congress once per quarter. Specifically, she wants to know how many searches are being done, where they take place, and the race and nationality of those being searched.



So what does all this boil down to? The TSA can illegally (in my opinion) search your laptops, iPods, iPhones and Blackberries. They can also seize these devices if they deem it necessary. Rather than fix this problem, they are trying to pass legislation in order to make the TSA accountable for the electronic devices they are seizing. It seems like legislation we really shouldn't need in the first place.

Here is an idea. Let's not treat every single person that is entering the United States as a potential terrorist. Let's not presume that every single person entering the United States is guilty rather than innocent.

I cannot even begin to imagine what this is doing for business travel in the United States. What practical business person would want to travel to the United States and have their legitimate business files searched and possibly their laptop seized? For that matter, who would want to leisurely travel to the United States and suffer the same outcome? This has to be affecting our business and tourism trade.

What makes this even worse is that most terrorists probably know more technologically than what the TSA or Homeland Security is giving them credit for. It leads me to believe that the TSA Agents are searching for someone who is wearing a shirt that says "I R A TEAROREST!".

I would have to go ahead and assume that most terrorists know there are multiple ways around specifically having information stored to the hard drive of an electronic device. Things like peer-to-peer connections, online repositories and this internet thing, can walk right around security in an airport or at a border. This is the point where technology is an important knowledge to have if you are a public official.

Something needs to be changed. The system we are currently dealing with is greatly flawed. These issues are obviously big reasons not to visit the United States for business or for pleasure. With our economy the way it is now, we shouldn't be doing anything that will prevent money from flowing into our country.

I am tired, as a citizen of the United States, of being afraid to leave the country and return, even though I have done nothing wrong. I don't deserve to have my personal items seized on behalf of National Security.

We need to have officials in charge of things like the Security of the Nation, that are educated in technology so that processes like this can be eliminated or streamlined to make more sense. Accountability of the TSA and Homeland Security is a good idea on paper and in legislation, but in application we are making them accountable for something they shouldn't be doing in the first place.

DevilsReject just chooses not to leave the country anymore and sits in his basement with his 77 ferrets. Alone.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

Comments
DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

SEP 21, 2008 08:19 PM

GrayRains said:

DevilsReject said:
If i get pulled over, and the officer asks for consent to search my automobile, i have a constitutional right to deny the search. Most people just assume they have to give consent. If i choose not to give consent, and the officer still wants to search my vehicle he has to obtain a warrant. At that point the warrant has to be obtained by legally specifying why he wants the warrant. If he has no good reason other than "I want to" then he loses the ability to search your vehicle.



Hold on, isn't it true that you never ever completely own your car 100%? That's why you pay fees for registration and all that, because the government has a stake in the ownership of your car, and as such, can search your vehicle with due cause?

Just asking because I want to know more about that topic.



No. You own your car 100%. If you don't it's usually the bank that owns a stake in your vehicle in the means of a lien.

You pay to register and plate your vehicle because you're legally required to in order to operate it on public streets and highways. If you fail to register and plate or falsely register or plate your vehicle you're breaking the law.

The government has no stake in your vehicle.


Squire

Squire

I'm lost
November 2003

SEP 21, 2008 09:54 PM

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:

mingol said:
My posts were in response to what I took to be your blanket assertion that since flying is a 'privilege' and not a Constitutionally protected right, the Fourth Amendment need not apply to air travellers. But if that isn't what you were trying to say - and it now appears that it was not - then I don't think we have very much left to disagree about.



Flying is a privilege and not a right protected by the U.S. Constitution. You give up some, if not most, of your rights under the Fourth Amendment when you invoke that privilege the same way you give up some, but fewer, rights when you drive a car. The key question in deciding whether a search is reasonable, is whether said search contravenes what our society concludes is an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." We have a "high" expectation of privacy regarding our homes. Thus, it is kinda hard for the government to get in there: it requires a warrant or facts to which one of the Fourth Amendment's "narrowly tailored exceptions" apply. This expectation of privacy diminishes when we take advantage of a privilege like driving a car or flying on a plane. These activities are already highly regulated by the government and the stakes are a bit higher than they are on your porch.

By the way, this whole discussion assumes that the entity doing the searching before you fly is a government agency. Private companies can search whatever the hell they want as a condition of doing business with them.



Exactly which rights do i give up when i drive a car? As compared to flying on a plane where i pretty much give up any and all expectation of privacy



No warrant is needed at all. Only probable cause/reasonable suspicion is needed in order for law enforcement to search a car. Again, automobiles are already highly regulated by the government, making it unreasonable for an individual to have a high expectation of privacy in her car. Autombiles also present an inherent exigent circumstance because they can be driven away from law inforcement.



They only need probable cause and reasonable suspicion to search a home too.



No.

To seach a home, law enforcement needs a warrant, unless, as I stated above, a narrowly tailored exception to the warrant requirement (exigent circumstances or consent are the first ones that comes to mind) applies. So, if the cops come to your front door and hear someone screaming bloody murder inside, thus satisfying at least probable cause and said narrowly tailored exception (exigent circumstances), they may enter a home without a warrant. Otherwise, no warrant, no entry. If they have information that generally illegal activities are taking place within a home, they have to get a warrant, issued by a neutral and detached magistrate who has reviewed law enforcement's information and has determined that it rises to the level of probable cause for said warrant to issue.

DevilsReject said:
If i get pulled over, and the officer asks for consent to search my automobile, i have a constitutional right to deny the search. Most people just assume they have to give consent. If i choose not to give consent, and the officer still wants to search my vehicle he has to obtain a warrant. At that point the warrant has to be obtained by legally specifying why he wants the warrant. If he has no good reason other than "I want to" then he loses the ability to search your vehicle.



Again, driving in your automobile = lesser expectation of privacy = easier to search than your home. You are correct that you don't have to give consent. Consent, however, means squat if an officer encounters "articulable circumstances" that give rise to probable cause. I mean, don't you watch COPS? When is the last time you saw a cop have to get a warrant after pulling someone over and smelling marijuana? They just go ahead and search the car, no?

Also, if no probable cause, they can't detain you any longer than neccessary to finish their business. An example: you're pulled over for busted tail light on your VW bus that is covered with Deadhead stickers; cop wants to search your car because the cop thinks all Deadheads are carrying drugs; other than that, the cop cannot articulate any reason for a search; said cop cannot detain you any longer than it takes to issue the traffic ticket; can't make you wait for K9 or whatever. This is an example of an illegal seizure.

DevilsReject said:
When i walk through an airport, at no point am i asked for consent, consent is just assumed and i have no other choice but to give them consent. Explain to me how that is constitutional?



It's called implied consent. In my state, your consent to be breathalyzed when law enforcement deems it necessary is implied as a condition of having a driver's license. Same thing with flying: when you buy a ticket, you are consenting to their rules. It's all right there on your ticket or boarding pass or whatever. Like it or not, at some point you agreed to those terms. Why can they do that? Lesser expectation of privacy, etc. (see above).

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

SEP 21, 2008 10:33 PM

Squire said:

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:

mingol said:
My posts were in response to what I took to be your blanket assertion that since flying is a 'privilege' and not a Constitutionally protected right, the Fourth Amendment need not apply to air travellers. But if that isn't what you were trying to say - and it now appears that it was not - then I don't think we have very much left to disagree about.



Flying is a privilege and not a right protected by the U.S. Constitution. You give up some, if not most, of your rights under the Fourth Amendment when you invoke that privilege the same way you give up some, but fewer, rights when you drive a car. The key question in deciding whether a search is reasonable, is whether said search contravenes what our society concludes is an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." We have a "high" expectation of privacy regarding our homes. Thus, it is kinda hard for the government to get in there: it requires a warrant or facts to which one of the Fourth Amendment's "narrowly tailored exceptions" apply. This expectation of privacy diminishes when we take advantage of a privilege like driving a car or flying on a plane. These activities are already highly regulated by the government and the stakes are a bit higher than they are on your porch.

By the way, this whole discussion assumes that the entity doing the searching before you fly is a government agency. Private companies can search whatever the hell they want as a condition of doing business with them.



Exactly which rights do i give up when i drive a car? As compared to flying on a plane where i pretty much give up any and all expectation of privacy



No warrant is needed at all. Only probable cause/reasonable suspicion is needed in order for law enforcement to search a car. Again, automobiles are already highly regulated by the government, making it unreasonable for an individual to have a high expectation of privacy in her car. Autombiles also present an inherent exigent circumstance because they can be driven away from law inforcement.



They only need probable cause and reasonable suspicion to search a home too.



No.

To seach a home, law enforcement needs a warrant, unless, as I stated above, a narrowly tailored exception to the warrant requirement (exigent circumstances or consent are the first ones that comes to mind) applies. So, if the cops come to your front door and hear someone screaming bloody murder inside, thus satisfying at least probable cause and said narrowly tailored exception (exigent circumstances), they may enter a home without a warrant.



So that part where i said "They only need probable cause and reasonable suspicion" is correct, because, you know, Officers can search a home without a warrant.

They can also pull the "in plain sight" card out too.

DevilsReject said:
If i get pulled over, and the officer asks for consent to search my automobile, i have a constitutional right to deny the search. Most people just assume they have to give consent. If i choose not to give consent, and the officer still wants to search my vehicle he has to obtain a warrant. At that point the warrant has to be obtained by legally specifying why he wants the warrant. If he has no good reason other than "I want to" then he loses the ability to search your vehicle.



Again, driving in your automobile = lesser expectation of privacy = easier to search than your home. You are correct that you don't have to give consent. Consent, however, means squat if an officer encounters "articulable circumstances" that give rise to probable cause. I mean, don't you watch COPS? When is the last time you saw a cop have to get a warrant after pulling someone over and smelling marijuana? They just go ahead and search the car, no?

Yes. I use COPS for educational purposes. Once you start adding variables to the situation, like you're doing, the ball game changes. But if i am driving down the road, get pulled over, the Officers cannot just up and say "We're searching your vehicle" without probable cause or some type of reason. If i am not in a cloud of smoke, no smell of alcohol, or anything of that sort, they can't just search my vehicle.

DevilsReject said:
When i walk through an airport, at no point am i asked for consent, consent is just assumed and i have no other choice but to give them consent. Explain to me how that is constitutional?



It's called implied consent. In my state, your consent to be breathalyzed when law enforcement deems it necessary is implied as a condition of having a driver's license. Same thing with flying: when you buy a ticket, you are consenting to their rules. It's all right there on your ticket or boarding pass or whatever. Like it or not, at some point you agreed to those terms. Why can they do that? Lesser expectation of privacy, etc. (see above).

I personally never agreed to those terms. Those terms were set into place and performed whether i liked it or not.

And i really hate to tell you this, there are no rules and regulations about the TSA, customs or anything like that on boarding passes or tickets.

The most i have seen on airline tickets are the rules and regulations of the Airline regarding canceling a ticket or refunding a ticket, which is a novel in itself, if they put all the rules and regulations of the TSA or Customs with it, it would be two novels.

If anything it's implied that you know you are going to be searched. It's implied that there is no room for the fourth amendment when it comes to stopping terrorists, who aren't really going to do anything that these clowns are searching for anyway.

I don't have a lower expectation of privacy when i leave my house. Not in my car, and definitely not at an airport. You damned well better have a good reason for performing a search, and the blanket "stopping terrorism" line is getting old. What i do know is that the TSA is definitely taking away from the common citizen and doesn't really seem to be preventing anything other than driving people away from the United States and air travel.

Then you get into the whole "Who watches the Watchmen?" question.

Squire

Squire

I'm lost
November 2003

SEP 22, 2008 12:15 AM

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:
Flying is a privilege and not a right protected by the U.S. Constitution. You give up some, if not most, of your rights under the Fourth Amendment when you invoke that privilege the same way you give up some, but fewer, rights when you drive a car. The key question in deciding whether a search is reasonable, is whether said search contravenes what our society concludes is an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." We have a "high" expectation of privacy regarding our homes. Thus, it is kinda hard for the government to get in there: it requires a warrant or facts to which one of the Fourth Amendment's "narrowly tailored exceptions" apply. This expectation of privacy diminishes when we take advantage of a privilege like driving a car or flying on a plane. These activities are already highly regulated by the government and the stakes are a bit higher than they are on your porch.

By the way, this whole discussion assumes that the entity doing the searching before you fly is a government agency. Private companies can search whatever the hell they want as a condition of doing business with them.



Exactly which rights do i give up when i drive a car? As compared to flying on a plane where i pretty much give up any and all expectation of privacy



No warrant is needed at all. Only probable cause/reasonable suspicion is needed in order for law enforcement to search a car. Again, automobiles are already highly regulated by the government, making it unreasonable for an individual to have a high expectation of privacy in her car. Autombiles also present an inherent exigent circumstance because they can be driven away from law inforcement.



They only need probable cause and reasonable suspicion to search a home too.



No.

To seach a home, law enforcement needs a warrant, unless, as I stated above, a narrowly tailored exception to the warrant requirement (exigent circumstances or consent are the first ones that comes to mind) applies. So, if the cops come to your front door and hear someone screaming bloody murder inside, thus satisfying at least probable cause and said narrowly tailored exception (exigent circumstances), they may enter a home without a warrant.



So that part where i said "They only need probable cause and reasonable suspicion" is correct, because, you know, Officers can search a home without a warrant.



I think you're missing a fundamental point here: while it is correct that officers can search a home without a warrant, they can only do so IF they can articulate a reason to do so that falls within A NARROWLY TAILORED EXCEPTION to the warrant requirement. This is a helluva lot different than saying law enforcement can mosey on up to your house without a warrant and search whenever they want.

DevilsReject said:
They can also pull the "in plain sight" card out too.



Remember, we're talking about homes at this point. Ah fuck it. If you can't grasp what I have been telling you thus far is the current law of the land, I really don't think you are going to be able to understand the term "curtilage," i.e. the area directly surrounding a home, and how it differs from the "open field doctrine." There, I've given you some nifty terms to Google. Knock yourself out.

It's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of my ass/butt. I took two years of state and federal criminal law and criminal procedure, dude! Including a semester-long class of Amend. IV search and seizure law. It's not like I made this shit up or that this is my opinion. I'm just telling it like it is.

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:

DevilsReject said:
If i get pulled over, and the officer asks for consent to search my automobile, i have a constitutional right to deny the search. Most people just assume they have to give consent. If i choose not to give consent, and the officer still wants to search my vehicle he has to obtain a warrant. At that point the warrant has to be obtained by legally specifying why he wants the warrant. If he has no good reason other than "I want to" then he loses the ability to search your vehicle.



Again, driving in your automobile = lesser expectation of privacy = easier to search than your home. You are correct that you don't have to give consent. Consent, however, means squat if an officer encounters "articulable circumstances" that give rise to probable cause. I mean, don't you watch COPS? When is the last time you saw a cop have to get a warrant after pulling someone over and smelling marijuana? They just go ahead and search the car, no?



Once you start adding variables to the situation, like you're doing, the ball game changes. But if i am driving down the road, get pulled over, the Officers cannot just up and say "We're searching your vehicle" without probable cause or some type of reason. If i am not in a cloud of smoke, no smell of alcohol, or anything of that sort, they can't just search my vehicle.



YES! Everything you've written here is correct.

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:

DevilsReject said:
When i walk through an airport, at no point am i asked for consent, consent is just assumed and i have no other choice but to give them consent. Explain to me how that is constitutional?



It's called implied consent. In my state, your consent to be breathalyzed when law enforcement deems it necessary is implied as a condition of having a driver's license. Same thing with flying: when you buy a ticket, you are consenting to their rules. It's all right there on your ticket or boarding pass or whatever. Like it or not, at some point you agreed to those terms. Why can they do that? Lesser expectation of privacy, etc. (see above).



I personally never agreed to those terms. Those terms were set into place and performed whether i liked it or not.

And i really hate to tell you this, there are no rules and regulations about the TSA, customs or anything like that on boarding passes or tickets.

The most i have seen on airline tickets are the rules and regulations of the Airline regarding canceling a ticket or refunding a ticket, which is a novel in itself, if they put all the rules and regulations of the TSA or Customs with it, it would be two novels.

If anything it's implied that you know you are going to be searched. It's implied that there is no room for the fourth amendment when it comes to stopping terrorists, who aren't really going to do anything that these clowns are searching for anyway.

I don't have a lower expectation of privacy when i leave my house. Not in my car, and definitely not at an airport. You damned well better have a good reason for performing a search, and the blanket "stopping terrorism" line is getting old. What i do know is that the TSA is definitely taking away from the common citizen and doesn't really seem to be preventing anything other than driving people away from the United States and air travel.



Well now you're just being obtuse. Probably because you are cornered and want to beat your chest about something. Implied consent, by definition means you don't have to personally agree to those terms in order for them to apply to your conduct. But good luck getting anyone to care what your expectation of privacy is as opposed to what the U.S. Supreme Court has said is a reasonable and objective expectation of privacy. Yeah, that's a workable standard: "Oh hi weary traveler, please inform us as to what your expectation of privacy might be. We'll gladly accomodate you." You sound like the kid at the little league game that wants to argue with the ump about striking out.

DevilsReject said:
Then you get into the whole "Who watches the Watchmen?" question.



I'm not gonna click on that. Who is watching the Watchmen? State and federal courts. If you don't like what Watchmen are doing, file a lawsuit. Or better yet contact the legislature and ask them to change the law or amend the U.S. Constitution.

AceT

AceT

Portland, OR
April 2004

SEP 22, 2008 12:48 AM

I think it's pretty clear what they're trying to tell us. These laws aren't unconstitutional, the Constitution is unconstitutional.

I visit Canada a lot, and since last year I've pretty much stopped bringing my primary laptop with me specifically because of this.

I even read an article not too far back explaining, in a mainstream technology periodical, the process of uploading all of your drive's contents to a server, wiping your laptop, then downloading the contents when you reached your destination. This is an actual process people are expected to perform if they want their private stuff to remain private.

It gets better, encrypting your content doesn't help, because you're required to give any passwords when asked. That is of course, unless giving such a password would incriminate you, then you can refuse under the Fifth Amendment. So as far as I understand it, your stuff can only be searched if you are not doing anything illegal.

surreal

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

SEP 22, 2008 02:09 AM

Squire said:
I think you're missing a fundamental point here: while it is correct that officers can search a home without a warrant, they can only do so IF they can articulate a reason to do so that falls within A NARROWLY TAILORED EXCEPTION to the warrant requirement. This is a helluva lot different than saying law enforcement can mosey on up to your house without a warrant and search whenever they want.



I think you're the one missing the fundamental points. When i said a home can be searched without a warrant, you said "No". Which technically is untrue.

You're the one adding things after the statement is made. I never said anything about a police officer "moseying" up to your house and searching it.

Basic Question: Can Police Officers search your house without a warrant?

Basic Answer: Yes.

If you're arrested in your front yard for a felonious act, the officers at that point have the ability to search your home without a warrant, even if you're still in the accusation stage of the felony and nothing has been proven.

It's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of my ass/butt. I took two years of state and federal criminal law and criminal procedure, dude! Including a semester-long class of Amend. IV search and seizure law. It's not like I made this shit up or that this is my opinion. I'm just telling it like it is.



Well given your extensive knowledge of COPS and your ability to attend school, i am impressed.

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:
DevilsReject said:
If i get pulled over, and the officer asks for consent to search my automobile, i have a constitutional right to deny the search. Most people just assume they have to give consent. If i choose not to give consent, and the officer still wants to search my vehicle he has to obtain a warrant. At that point the warrant has to be obtained by legally specifying why he wants the warrant. If he has no good reason other than "I want to" then he loses the ability to search your vehicle.



Again, driving in your automobile = lesser expectation of privacy = easier to search than your home. You are correct that you don't have to give consent. Consent, however, means squat if an officer encounters "articulable circumstances" that give rise to probable cause. I mean, don't you watch COPS? When is the last time you saw a cop have to get a warrant after pulling someone over and smelling marijuana? They just go ahead and search the car, no?



YES! Everything you've written here is correct.



Well thank you, all that hard work to gain a degree in Law Enforcement, go to the academy and actually become a cop has just been made all worthwhile because some dude who watches COPS says so.

Well now you're just being obtuse. Probably because you are cornered and want to beat your chest about something. Implied consent, by definition means you don't have to personally agree to those terms in order for them to apply to your conduct. But good luck getting anyone to care what your expectation of privacy is as opposed to what the U.S. Supreme Court has said is a reasonable and objective expectation of privacy. Yeah, that's a workable standard: "Oh hi weary traveler, please inform us as to what your expectation of privacy might be. We'll gladly accomodate you." You sound like the kid at the little league game that wants to argue with the ump about striking out.



Obtuse?

The TSA flies by the seat of their pants making procedures as they go, and you're defending them, and i am the one being obtuse?

Could you imagine if we put Police Officers on the street and said "Learn as you go", can you even imagine the consequences of that? It's the whole reason that Police Academies and the requirement to attend them came to be.

The government puts together a loosely written procedure, puts untrained and in some cases unqualified personnel in position to keep the loosely written procedures in place with the general public and i am the obtuse one for calling bullshit on it.

The obtuse thing is that you claim to have legal knowledge and you don't see an issue with anything going on. That is obtuse.

The organization and implementation of the TSA is disgusting, and what we are giving up in order to remain "Terror Free" has done nothing but make the terrorists win. They're laughing at us because we're spending millions to ensure that people who have never done anything wrong, or have no intention of doing anything wrong, can no longer take more than 3 oz. of chocolate pudding on a jet without having it confiscated.

Squire

Squire

I'm lost
November 2003

SEP 22, 2008 06:20 AM

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:
I think you're missing a fundamental point here: while it is correct that officers can search a home without a warrant, they can only do so IF they can articulate a reason to do so that falls within A NARROWLY TAILORED EXCEPTION to the warrant requirement. This is a helluva lot different than saying law enforcement can mosey on up to your house without a warrant and search whenever they want.



I think you're the one missing the fundamental points. When i said a home can be searched without a warrant, you said "No". Which technically is untrue.

You're the one adding things after the statement is made. I never said anything about a police officer "moseying" up to your house and searching it.

Basic Question: Can Police Officers search your house without a warrant?

Basic Answer: Yes.



I then immediately discussed the exceptions to the warrant requirement because it is just plain stupid to make the general statement that "a home can be searched without a warrant" without qualification. I think that's pretty clear to pretty much everyone. Your silly point here that I am "technically" wrong is just pathetic semantics.

DevilsReject said:
If you're arrested in your front yard for a felonious act, the officers at that point have the ability to search your home without a warrant, even if you're still in the accusation stage of the felony and nothing has been proven.



I see your gambit now. You tailor VERY vague fact scenarios to fit your argument. "Felonious act." What's the felonious act that raises sufficient probable cause to search the house? "[A]bility." I can certainly dream up a scenario where a person commits a felony in their front yard and law enforcement could NOT get into the house without a warrant. What is the point of this? Do you really want to impress us all that much? Kinda sad, dude.

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:
It's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of my ass/butt. I took two years of state and federal criminal law and criminal procedure, dude! Including a semester-long class of Amend. IV search and seizure law. It's not like I made this shit up or that this is my opinion. I'm just telling it like it is.



Well given your extensive knowledge of COPS and your ability to graduate from law school and practice criminal law, actually file and argue and win suppression motions, and file and win criminal appeals based on violatons of my clients' Amend. IV rights, i am impressed.



FIXED

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:

DevilsReject said:
Squire said:
DevilsReject said:
If i get pulled over, and the officer asks for consent to search my automobile, i have a constitutional right to deny the search. Most people just assume they have to give consent. If i choose not to give consent, and the officer still wants to search my vehicle he has to obtain a warrant. At that point the warrant has to be obtained by legally specifying why he wants the warrant. If he has no good reason other than "I want to" then he loses the ability to search your vehicle.



Again, driving in your automobile = lesser expectation of privacy = easier to search than your home. You are correct that you don't have to give consent. Consent, however, means squat if an officer encounters "articulable circumstances" that give rise to probable cause. I mean, don't you watch COPS? When is the last time you saw a cop have to get a warrant after pulling someone over and smelling marijuana? They just go ahead and search the car, no?



YES! Everything you've written here is correct.



Well thank you, all that hard work to gain a degree in Law Enforcement, go to the academy and actually become a cop has just been made all worthwhile because some dude who watches COPS says so.



Must . . . not . . . resort . . . to . . . ad hominem . . . . Resisting . . . resisting . .. .

And dude, leave COPS out of this. I love that show. Although in my experience Reno 911 is a better representation of law enforcement in general.

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:
Well now you're just being obtuse. Probably because you are cornered and want to beat your chest about something. Implied consent, by definition means you don't have to personally agree to those terms in order for them to apply to your conduct. But good luck getting anyone to care what your expectation of privacy is as opposed to what the U.S. Supreme Court has said is a reasonable and objective expectation of privacy. Yeah, that's a workable standard: "Oh hi weary traveler, please inform us as to what your expectation of privacy might be. We'll gladly accomodate you." You sound like the kid at the little league game that wants to argue with the ump about striking out.



Obtuse?

The TSA flies by the seat of their pants making procedures as they go, and you're defending them, and i am the one being obtuse?

Could you imagine if we put Police Officers on the street and said "Learn as you go", can you even imagine the consequences of that? It's the whole reason that Police Academies and the requirement to attend them came to be.

The government puts together a loosely written procedure, puts untrained and in some cases unqualified personnel in position to keep the loosely written procedures in place with the general public and i am the obtuse one for calling bullshit on it.

The obtuse thing is that you claim to have legal knowledge and you don't see an issue with anything going on. That is obtuse.

The organization and implementation of the TSA is disgusting, and what we are giving up in order to remain "Terror Free" has done nothing but make the terrorists win. They're laughing at us because we're spending millions to ensure that people who have never done anything wrong, or have no intention of doing anything wrong, can no longer take more than 3 oz. of chocolate pudding on a jet without having it confiscated.



Again with the beating of the chest. If you recall, I haven't been defending TSA, just engaging in what I thought was a general discussion about search and seizure law. I studied pretty hard for that exam (got an AB as I recall) and I like to flex a bit as the opportunity rarely presents itself to do so anymore. But I'll stand by my assertions about implied consent and reasonable expectations of privacy as applied to airport searches.

For 2006 and about a fourth of 2007, my job was to fly all over the country to take depositions. Some weeks I was in the air 5 days out of the week and I always had my laptop. I never felt like any of the searches to which I submitted violated my rights, but that is because I understand that flying is not a constitutional right.

Oh, and sorry about your pudding.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

SEP 22, 2008 06:35 AM

IDGAS said:
This old new for anyone who regularly reads Schneier on Security. Below are several posts from his blog on this topic and disk encryption. Most posts by Bruce Schneier have links to the original story and other relevant sites.

U.S. Government Policy for Seizing Laptops at Borders, August 1, 2008
Crossing Borders with Laptops and PDAs, May 16, 2008
Microsoft Has Developed Windows Forensic Analysis Tool for Police, April 30, 2008 [Another reason why Microsoft sucks.]
U.S. Customs Seizing Laptops, February 12, 2008

Disk Encryption
Encrypting Disks, July 4, 2008
How to Secure Your Computer, Disks, and Portable Drives, December 4, 2007

Laptop Seizures in Sudan, September 13, 2006 [Could this have been our inspiration? The freedom loving Sudanese.]

From my latest blog post: this is lovely. The NSA Teams Up with the Chinese Government to Limit Internet Anonymity. It is always a good idea to work with the freedom loving Chinese Government - thugs and goons. More here - U.N. agency eyes curbs on Internet anonymity.

Incompetence at the Border, March 22, 2007
Laptop with Trusted Traveler Identities Stolen, August 5, 2008



Useful links; thank you.

scylis

scylis

USA
November 2004

SEP 22, 2008 12:44 PM

Squire said:
For 2006 and about a fourth of 2007, my job was to fly all over the country to take depositions. Some weeks I was in the air 5 days out of the week and I always had my laptop. I never felt like any of the searches to which I submitted violated my rights, but that is because I understand that flying is not a constitutional right.



ahh, but owning, keeping, and protecting your own property is. which is exactly what one of the biggest problems highlighted by this thread seeks to circumvent.

plus, for all of your travels, did you ever leave the country and return? a lot of the problems and incidents are occurring when entering the US. while the problem of theft from your checked bags is always there, most everything i've read about involving laptops both here and in many articles out there (a multitude of which have been linked to here) that are being carried with the passenger involve entering the country.

mydogfarted

mydogfarted

Oakland, NJ
June 2003

SEP 22, 2008 01:16 PM

FreakPirate said:
I can no longer enter the United States because I don't have a passport. I miss the days when I could show up at the airport with my drivers license, spend ten minutes going through security and still take my Coke on the plane.

Thanks for fucking up travel.



Hey buddy, the only two times I've had my laptop search was entering Canada. Thankfully all they saw was the cock shots I send to all teh laydeez.

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

SEP 22, 2008 01:19 PM

mydogfarted said:

Hey buddy, the only two times I've had my laptop search was entering Canada. Thankfully all they saw was the cock shots I send to all teh laydeez.



Yes, but that's because our airport security has more or less been forced to follow yours. wink

mydogfarted

mydogfarted

Oakland, NJ
June 2003

SEP 22, 2008 01:25 PM

FreakPirate said:

mydogfarted said:

Hey buddy, the only two times I've had my laptop search was entering Canada. Thankfully all they saw was the cock shots I send to all teh laydeez.



Yes, but that's because our airport security has more or less been forced to follow yours. wink



Well, to be fair, I'd search me for porn on my laptop too.

Squire

Squire

I'm lost
November 2003

SEP 22, 2008 07:46 PM

scylis said:

Squire said:
For 2006 and about a fourth of 2007, my job was to fly all over the country to take depositions. Some weeks I was in the air 5 days out of the week and I always had my laptop. I never felt like any of the searches to which I submitted violated my rights, but that is because I understand that flying is not a constitutional right.



ahh, but owning, keeping, and protecting your own property is. which is exactly what one of the biggest problems highlighted by this thread seeks to circumvent.

plus, for all of your travels, did you ever leave the country and return? a lot of the problems and incidents are occurring when entering the US. while the problem of theft from your checked bags is always there, most everything i've read about involving laptops both here and in many articles out there (a multitude of which have been linked to here) that are being carried with the passenger involve entering the country.



I think we covered this.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Happy Birthday! smile

scylis

scylis

USA
November 2004

SEP 22, 2008 08:34 PM

Squire said:

scylis said:

Squire said:
For 2006 and about a fourth of 2007, my job was to fly all over the country to take depositions. Some weeks I was in the air 5 days out of the week and I always had my laptop. I never felt like any of the searches to which I submitted violated my rights, but that is because I understand that flying is not a constitutional right.



ahh, but owning, keeping, and protecting your own property is. which is exactly what one of the biggest problems highlighted by this thread seeks to circumvent.

plus, for all of your travels, did you ever leave the country and return? a lot of the problems and incidents are occurring when entering the US. while the problem of theft from your checked bags is always there, most everything i've read about involving laptops both here and in many articles out there (a multitude of which have been linked to here) that are being carried with the passenger involve entering the country.



I think we covered this.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Happy Birthday! smile



the right to travel may not be explicitly written in the Constitution, but has been presumed by law and legal precedence, in cases such as U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), and Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), in which Justice Potter Stewart noted "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

i feel that the policies of the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, and in some cases the US Customs department. i, and many others, also feel that it violates the presumed right of privacy established by legal precedence in a manner similar to the presumed right of travel.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
most every precedent i've found involves interstate travel, but that fits the traveling that you have been doing. nowhere have i found specific methods for such travel mentioned.

while i can understand heavier security checks upon returning to the country, the severity of what many believe to be misconduct is out of line with the presumed right to privacy that has been established for US citizens. i also believe it goes against the principals we like to espouse to the rest of the world when such invasive security measures are directed at foreign travelers.



the thing that especially infuriates me is that in many cases, airport security still has glaring holes in it and is not really any more effective than it was before 2001's changes. we seem to be willing to give up a lot for little to no gain out of paranoia.

paranoia will destroy ya.

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

SEP 22, 2008 08:45 PM

I wonder how long until they start searching packages people send to themselves when they come home from overseas? Or do they do that now?

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

featured interviews