Posts: 2,890
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2003
[url "http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/90325"]http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/90325[/url]
[url "http://f3.yahoofs.com/ymg/null__9/null-864316583-1208966128.jpg?ymx_OR_CjHiaa.9X"][/url]Following in the wake of February's news that customs agents were seizing electronics and [url "http://tech.yahoo.com/blog/null/71776"][#005699]making copies of all the files on cell phones and laptop hard drives[/#005699][/url], a federal appeals court has ruled on the legality of such searches. The result: Yeah, customs can do whatever it wants to your computer when you come across the border, without a warrant, and without cause.
[url "http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/border-agents-c.html"][#005699]The ruling extends to all electronics[/#005699][/url]: In addition to laptops, feds can seize phone records and even digital pictures on your camera as they hunt for evidence. The ruling was unanimous among the three appellate judges.
Be assured that the ruling has little to do with thwarting terrorism. The appeal was actually part of an ongoing trial of a man named Michael Arnold, who returned from the Philippines and had his laptop scoured by the feds. They found purported images of child pornography on the laptop and later arrested him. In his trial, the evidence was suppressed for probable cause issues, as the court said that customs had no reasonable suspicion to search his laptop in the first place. That ruling has now been overturned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
no warrant, no cause, you gotta laptop we'll search it, you're not wearing your seat belt, we now have probable cause to search your car and persons . . . read your email and IMs, listen to your calls no worries
welcome to 1984 y'all , welcome to hell
sm
sm
[signature]
Posts: 1,039
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
0
SM, leave your child porn at home and you should be alright ]
[signature]
Posts: 2,890
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2003
that aint the point dingus
sm
[signature]
Posts: 1,157
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation:
0
Posts: 1,039
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
0
At least this idiot had the opportunity for the courts to rule whether or not the Feds viollated his Constitutional rights.
Which is unlike what your Liberal kin are doing in New York City, where they are suing a Georgia Gun Dealer because guns he has sold are ending up in their city, and they have petiioned the court to not allow any reference to the 2nd Amendment argument for his defense.
Or how your Enviro Nut Jobs have used acts like the Endangered Species Act to introduce the non native Grey Wolf that was not even endangered, protected or threatened, to a region of the country that was not even in favor of it being here. Then not allow tax paying citizens the right to protect their pets, livestock, or hell even their children, by killing one of the cute cuddly critters, even if it was caught in the act of killing any of the above.
Now that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Fix problems like these and I may have more sympathy for a guy carrying child porn on his laptop. Remember
if you have nothing to hide, you don't have anything to worry about, no matter if Big Brother is listening.
[signature]
Posts: 33,086
Threads: 404
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
I agree with Braz, what are you afraid they will find SM? If you have nothing to hide why would you be concerned, oh thats right because Bush came up with the idea. Now if Clinton had come up with the idea when he was in office then it would have been fine[unimpressed].
[signature]
Posts: 2,890
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2003
RED HERRING ALER T
RED HERRING ALERT
[signature]
Posts: 2,890
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2003
This is a version of the very popular “The innocent have nothing to fear” argument, which is wheeled out whenever authorities wish to bring in new measures which increase surveillance or limit freedoms in the name of increasing security. For example, someone demands to search your luggage. You object to this intrusion on your privacy, but you are told that if you are innocent, you have no reason to object. After all, what are you trying to hide?
The argument is a particular species of false dichotomy. You are presented with a simple either/or choice. Either you’re guilty, and so should be exposed; or you are innocent, in which case nothing will be exposed, and so you have nothing to worry about. Either way, you have no legitimate reason to be concerned. Like all false dichotomies, the problem is that there is at least one more option than the two offered in the either/or choice.
You think you’re so innocent, try proving it. That’s what “nothing to hide” is about: destroying the notion of innocent until proven guilty, meant to protect we the people from abuse of power, and instituting the barbaric notion of guilty until proven innocent, where anyone can be searched, anyone can be seized, and sometimes, even the trial can be dispensed with. It’s about getting Americans used to the idea of proving their innocence at every opportunity, putting them on trial at the airport or at the roadside. After all, anybody who doesn’t want to prove their innocence must be guilty of something.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is more for those reading, than you WH2 - you and braz are lost causes fer sure, you both would have made great nazi's
sm
[signature]
Posts: 33,086
Threads: 404
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
I understand what you are saying SM but at some point you have to consider the possibility that there could be those people trying to get into the USA that are trying to harm us. Don't you think there is the possibility that terrorist will try to come into our country again and this is no different than being searched at the airport in my opinion. This time it was child porno but what if there had been plans on that laptop on how to blow up some important building, would you say that was invasion of privacy? Sure we have to draw the line somewhere but I have no problem drawing it at our borders.
[signature]
Posts: 2,890
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2003
same argument, same response
with your logic we should search everyone everyday all the time
sm
[signature]
Posts: 1,039
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
0
SM, as usual you totally missed my point. My point is there is not a politician out there that cares on bit about our constitutional rights. They all have agendas and they all try and twist the constitution to fit their agendas. They all should be thrown in jail for failing to protect our constitutional rights. Even some judges fall into this category.
Our Constitution is not an ever green document. It is set in stone, and until poloticians and judges from both sides realize this our country will continue down the path it is today, no matter which party has control.
[signature]
Posts: 2,890
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2003
the constitution is not set in stone, it can be ammended and the judicial has the responsibility to interpret it . . .
[signature]
Posts: 709
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
SM thanks for this post It gives me a lot to think about when I cross the border on my Alaskian trip this summer. I was going to bring two laptops an older one that I've only had for a year and I don't know if there is any kind of stuff on it from the previous owner. That one will stay home. I am also going to pre register my equipment before I cross over to Canada. Hopefully that helps? but I don't know for sure. Thanks agian Chief
[signature]
|
