Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #457 > unrolled thread

Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-06 13:31 -0400
    Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2011-04-06 13:04 -0500
      Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-06 14:39 -0400
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-06 16:13 -0400
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-06 16:37 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> - 2011-04-06 16:44 -0600
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-07 11:40 -0400
                Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> - 2011-04-07 14:57 -0600
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) - 2011-04-06 17:58 -0400
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2011-04-06 15:41 -0700
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) - 2011-04-07 08:40 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-07 08:55 -0400
                Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2011-04-07 08:38 -0700
                Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) - 2011-04-07 13:11 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-07 11:47 -0400
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-07 11:43 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border BreadWithSpam@fractious.net - 2011-04-07 13:04 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) - 2011-04-07 13:13 -0400
              [OT] Warrantless Computer Searches at Border John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2011-04-08 12:40 -0700
                Re: [OT] Warrantless Computer Searches at Border Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2011-04-08 14:52 -0500
                Re: [OT] Warrantless Computer Searches at Border JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-08 16:30 -0400
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border BreadWithSpam@fractious.net - 2011-04-06 18:57 -0400
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-07 11:52 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border BreadWithSpam@fractious.net - 2011-04-07 13:00 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2011-04-08 00:27 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-09 12:48 -0400
                Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-09 14:18 -0400
                  Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-09 15:04 -0400
                    Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-09 15:50 -0400
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2011-04-06 21:04 -0500
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-07 12:02 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2011-04-07 09:44 -0700
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-09 12:52 -0400
      Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2011-04-09 19:43 +0200
    Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-08 18:00 -0400
      Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2011-04-08 16:54 -0700
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2011-04-08 17:28 -0700
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2011-04-08 22:12 -0500
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-09 03:51 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-09 08:00 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2011-04-09 19:28 +0200
                Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-10 09:22 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border pf@porkain'tkosher.oink (Paul Fuchs) - 2011-04-10 13:45 -0700
                Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-10 18:01 -0400
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-09 07:50 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2011-04-09 22:49 -0500
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2011-04-10 02:49 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 08:13 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-10 08:45 -0400
              Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-10 09:32 -0400
          Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2011-04-09 16:34 -0400
            Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> - 2011-04-09 22:58 -0500
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2011-04-09 07:45 -0400
        Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2011-04-09 13:27 -0400
      Re: Appeals Court Strengthens Warrantless Searches at Border Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2011-04-09 19:11 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#593

In article <Wuednf7R7o7Y1z3QnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> That's not the same as entering the US from Canada.
> 
> That's entering the US for the purpose of changing planes to Canada. 
> The US is odd in that way, mostly due to the terminals at airports like 
> JFK.  You can't enter JFK for transit to another country without going 
> through customs.
> 
> You can land at Amsterdam from North America and change flights to 
> Africa or the Middle East (for example) without going through Dutch 
> customs.  Same for Frankfurt.

Same for many airports in Europe.  The airside shops, bars and 
restaurants will even let you pay in most major currencies (though since 
the Euro came into being, multiple currencies is not the problem it used 
to be).

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619

On 2011-04-09 1:28 PM, Paul Sture wrote:
> In article<Wuednf7R7o7Y1z3QnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Alan Browne<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>  wrote:
>
>> That's not the same as entering the US from Canada.
>>
>> That's entering the US for the purpose of changing planes to Canada.
>> The US is odd in that way, mostly due to the terminals at airports like
>> JFK.  You can't enter JFK for transit to another country without going
>> through customs.
>>
>> You can land at Amsterdam from North America and change flights to
>> Africa or the Middle East (for example) without going through Dutch
>> customs.  Same for Frankfurt.
>
> Same for many airports in Europe.  The airside shops, bars and
> restaurants will even let you pay in most major currencies (though since
> the Euro came into being, multiple currencies is not the problem it used
> to be).

Sure.  I just mentioned the two airports I use most as hubs for European 
travel.  I've been through both of those over a 100 times combined, but 
only entered Holland twice and Germany at F'furt less than 10 times.


-- 
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#633

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2011-04-09 3:51 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> > Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> >
> >> Also there are very few cases where the Constitution would distinguish
> >> between US soil or foreign soil. It is possible to clear US customs and
> >> immigration in various Canadian airports. Presumably the US customs
> >> officials there have no more rights to search people entering the US
> >> there than in US airports.
> >
> > Actually, the US customs/immigration agents working at Canadian airports
> > have fewer powers because, while working on a "theoretical" US soil,
> > they are still on Canadian soil and must abide by our constitution. And
> > they do not have the power to arrest people, they must call the airport
> > police/RCMP to detain someone who is then put through canadian law
> > process outside fo USA jurisdiction. And there are also cases where the
> > person may have done something which is illegal in the USA but legal in
> > Canada, at which point, canadian police would not arrest the person.
> >
> > So the USA agents are more likely to just let the person through, and
> > ensure there is police at the gate when the plane lands in the USA.
> 
> No.  Part of the agreement to have US customs at Canadian airports is
> that they must turn people over to the Canadian police.
> 
> That said for ordinary criminals, I do wonder if they might play the 
> game you outline for a wanted terrorist.
> 
> > At
> > that point, the person is fuylly under USA jurisdiction and can be
> > arrested according to USA law. This issue became quite noticeable since
> > the Bush Jr regime and its Patriot Act where so many were taken to
> > prison without charge.
> >
> > For instance, Maher Arar, a canadian, was transiting through JFK to get
> > back to Canada. They allowed him into the USA and once done immediatly
> > detained him without charge and transported him to Syria where he was
> > tortured.
> 
> That's not the same as entering the US from Canada.
> 
> That's entering the US for the purpose of changing planes to Canada. 
> The US is odd in that way, mostly due to the terminals at airports like
> JFK.  You can't enter JFK for transit to another country without going
> through customs.
> 
> You can land at Amsterdam from North America and change flights to 
> Africa or the Middle East (for example) without going through Dutch 
> customs.  Same for Frankfurt.

I had a friend from South America who wanted to visit the British Virgin
Islands.  He got a visa there just fine, but all the air traffic
demanded that he go through a USA airport and he couldn't get a USA
transit visa.  Eventually, he took twin engine prop puddle hoppers up
from Trinadad.  The airline was LIAT which stands for Late If At All.

Later, when I flew into Miami International, I asked the head of
immigration about what happened to the transit sections of international
airports that one finds in all other countries.  He said the we don't
have them any more and I could thank Osama Bin Laden for that.  I
replied that was an excellent idea  and wondered if, by chance, he had
his cell phone number handy.  Mr. Immigration was not amused.


-- 
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth 
becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635

Paul Fuchs wrote:

>
> Later, when I flew into Miami International, I asked the head of
> immigration about what happened to the transit sections of international
> airports that one finds in all other countries.  He said the we don't
> have them any more and I could thank Osama Bin Laden for that. 

This was done after 9-11 by the previous regime. In fact, Miami Airport
was a big hub for Iberia where passengers did transfer to flights to
south america. When they removed this ability, Iberia had to move its
hub and offer more non-stops to south america.

Canada used Honolulu as a hub to the south pacific and that stopped
because Bush Jr required all passengers formally enter the USA with
their luggage scanned before returning to the plane.  A compromise was
made that allowed the plane to be refueled away from terminal without
passengers getting off.

Air Canada bought long range 777s to do the route non stop.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578

On 2011-04-08 11:12 PM, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> On 11-04-08 6:54 PM, Paul Magnussen wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> Borders are special places where the certainty that you are under
>>> protective clauses (of, eg, the US Constitution) is vague at best.
>
>> Either the border is in the US or it is not. If it is, then the
>> Constitution applies. If it is not, then where do the searchers get
>> their power to search from?
>
> I believe that provisions in the Constitution that allow the federal
> government to regulate trade are the basis for court decisions that have
> supported searches of people entering the country.
>
> We may all have opinions about how the courts treated that balance, but

The warrantless search in this case would never have passed had the 
search been done, for instance, by the police in Omaha.  So the 
constitution is not interpreted the same as it is "inside" the borders.

> it is almost always a mistake to treat one clause of the Constitution as
> trumping all others. TSA searches for domestic or outbound flights,
> however, can not be justified based on regulation of trade.
>
> Also there are very few cases where the Constitution would distinguish
> between US soil or foreign soil. It is possible to clear US customs and
> immigration in various Canadian airports. Presumably the US customs
> officials there have no more rights to search people entering the US
> there than in US airports.

OTOH, if one is caught doing something illegal entering the US at a 
Canadian airport, then that person is turned over to Canadian police and 
is charged in Canada under Canadian law.

-- 
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607

On 11-04-09 6:50 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

> The warrantless search in this case would never have passed had the
> search been done, for instance, by the police in Omaha. So the
> constitution is not interpreted the same as it is "inside" the borders.

The point I was making is that the searches are borders are 
justified/rationalized based on the government's right to regulate 
trade. So the searches at the border, in principle, should be limited to 
things that government by customs enforcement.

So yes, borders are different, but it's not that the Constitution is 
treated differently in the different locations, it's that customs 
searches (as presumably authorized by the Constitution) can happen at 
boarders. The same excuse can't be used in Omaha.

The problem is that things that have been criminalized domestically have 
also been added to the list of things that can't be imported. I simply 
don't know what the case law is here, but I would hope that someone who 
is caught at the boarder importing, say, marijuana, would only be 
charged with the federal crime of importing the stuff and not with 
crimes having to do with possessing it, as the search was only allowed 
because of import restrictions.


>> Also there are very few cases where the Constitution would distinguish
>> between US soil or foreign soil. It is possible to clear US customs and
>> immigration in various Canadian airports. Presumably the US customs
>> officials there have no more rights to search people entering the US
>> there than in US airports.
>
> OTOH, if one is caught doing something illegal entering the US at a
> Canadian airport, then that person is turned over to Canadian police and
> is charged in Canada under Canadian law.

Again, this isn't the US Constitution treating things differently in 
different places. This is an issue of Canadian law.

Cheers,

-j



-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#611

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

> Again, this isn't the US Constitution treating things differently in 
> different places. This is an issue of Canadian law.

The jurisdiction with the US sector of canadian airports was a hotly
negotiated issue. The USA wanted its own police authority there, but the
canadian government insisted they would retain police jurisdiction.

There are lots of issues about soverignty. ( a country never allows a
foreign police force to enforce foreign laws on its own soil unless it
has been militarily invaded). There are also practical issues such as
where a US police force would store priosoners.

And there are also human rights issue sbecause the US zones are just
virtual ones and the passengers are still on canadian soil and must be
afforded canadian law and protections.

The deals were negotiated at the request of the USA whose intl airports
were not equipped for the growing number of business and leasure
travelers from Canada.  Pre-clearance allowed flights to shift to
smaller domestic airports, so it not only relieved customs facilities at
airport such as JFK, biut also the airport itself since flights could
land at LGA instead.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617

In article <90cnmbFmrrU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> So yes, borders are different, but it's not that the Constitution is 
> treated differently in the different locations, it's that customs 
> searches (as presumably authorized by the Constitution) can happen at 
> boarders. The same excuse can't be used in Omaha.

<http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-liv
ing-constitution-free-zone>

[one line]
-- 
If you could teach a cat to dance, 
you'd never have to leave the house.
  -- Pat Sajak

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618

In article <90cnmbFmrrU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> 
> The problem is that things that have been criminalized domestically have 
> also been added to the list of things that can't be imported. I simply 
> don't know what the case law is here, but I would hope that someone who 
> is caught at the boarder importing, say, marijuana, would only be 
> charged with the federal crime of importing the stuff and not with 
> crimes having to do with possessing it, as the search was only allowed 
> because of import restrictions.
> 
   I would think, if they hit the proper amounts, the intent to sell 
would also be a commerce-related offense. 

>

-- 
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
 ---PJ O'Rourke

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#620

On 2011-04-09 11:49 PM, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> On 11-04-09 6:50 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> The warrantless search in this case would never have passed had the
>> search been done, for instance, by the police in Omaha. So the
>> constitution is not interpreted the same as it is "inside" the borders.
>
> The point I was making is that the searches are borders are
> justified/rationalized based on the government's right to regulate
> trade. So the searches at the border, in principle, should be limited to
> things that government by customs enforcement.

You're right, it's a valid distinction.  (international commerce v. 
protection from unreasonable search).
>
> So yes, borders are different, but it's not that the Constitution is
> treated differently in the different locations, it's that customs
> searches (as presumably authorized by the Constitution) can happen at
> boarders. The same excuse can't be used in Omaha.
>
> The problem is that things that have been criminalized domestically have
> also been added to the list of things that can't be imported. I simply
> don't know what the case law is here, but I would hope that someone who
> is caught at the boarder importing, say, marijuana, would only be
> charged with the federal crime of importing the stuff and not with
> crimes having to do with possessing it, as the search was only allowed
> because of import restrictions.

A recent case, a Newfie returning home from Alberta followed his GPS and 
ended up at the Maine border and crossed it.  He was carrying a small 
amount of marijuana - but obviously enough to make a tidy profit on.

Arrested.  A few days later expelled from the US (fine perhaps) and his 
pickup truck was seized.  On that light basis, I'd suspect that he could 
not be tried for possession, only illegal import.

Not sure if it was under federal law or state.

I'm very surprised they let him go.  OTOH, Newfies are very charming and 
likeable.


>
>
>>> Also there are very few cases where the Constitution would distinguish
>>> between US soil or foreign soil. It is possible to clear US customs and
>>> immigration in various Canadian airports. Presumably the US customs
>>> officials there have no more rights to search people entering the US
>>> there than in US airports.
>>
>> OTOH, if one is caught doing something illegal entering the US at a
>> Canadian airport, then that person is turned over to Canadian police and
>> is charged in Canada under Canadian law.
>
> Again, this isn't the US Constitution treating things differently in
> different places. This is an issue of Canadian law.

Yes (constitution) and No (law).  It is the US customs detecting an act 
that is illegal on entry to the US under US law.  But the peculiarity of 
the agreement is that the person is turned over to Canadian law 
enforcement.  As noted, if the act is not illegal in Canada then the 
person would be let go.  In most cases the penalty for an illegal act 
will be more lenient in Canada than in the US.


-- 
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600

On 04-08-2011 23:12, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> Oh, and I am talking out of my ass here. I don't have any particular
> expertise, so just because I express these views with some air of
> confidence shouldn't mean much.

Well, God spoke to Balaam through an ass ...

-- 
Wes Groleau

   “What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing;
    it also depends on what kind of person you are.”
                                                       -- C.S.Lewis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#608

On 11-04-09 3:34 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 04-08-2011 23:12, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>> Oh, and I am talking out of my ass here.
>
> Well, God spoke to Balaam through an ass ...

Yeah, I learned that story from a a song, "The Five Constipated Men of 
the Bible".

The first was Cain, he wasn't Abel.
The second was Moses, he took the tablets.
The third was Balaam, he couldn't move his ass.
The forth was Solomon, he sat for forty years.
The fifth was Sampson, he brought the house down.

(As you see, I had a thorough religious education as a child.)


I love the Balaam story. It actually illustrates that monotheism came 
later than most people imagine. If there is only one God, then why did 
He care so much whether a priest of a false god cast some curse?

Much of the indications of monotheism in the earlier texts aren't so 
much "I'm the one and only God", but more of "I am the one and only God 
for you people."

Cheers,

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#577

On 2011-04-08 7:54 PM, Paul Magnussen wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2011-04-06 1:31 PM, Fred Moore wrote:
>>> <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/border-search/>
>>
>> Borders are special places where the certainty that you are under
>> protective clauses (of, eg, the US Constitution) is vague at best.
>
> Either the border is in the US or it is not. If it is, then the
> Constitution applies. If it is not, then where do the searchers get
> their power to search from?

The purpose of a border station is to admit one into a country, or not. 
Until admitted, you are not in the country.

 From the article, it's clear that the higher court referenced the 
constitution, of course, but their steadfastness was quite loose: the 
customs agents were allowed to search a computer based on a long ago 
criminal charge with no other reasonable grounds to suspect it contained 
child porn (non mentioned in the article in any case).

Were it the police in St-Louis who stopped him for a traffic charge, 
then on looking up his past found the child porn charge, and then 
searched his computer, it would be an illegal search.  And if the police 
held him pending a warrant, no judge in his right mind would issue a 
warrant without a good reason presented.

Looks like to flavours to me.

-- 
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591

In article <8bSdnZuXvZiAPQLQnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
> > On 2011-04-06 1:31 PM, Fred Moore wrote:
> >> <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/border-search/>
> > 
> > Borders are special places where the certainty that you are under 
> > protective clauses (of, eg, the US Constitution) is vague at best.
> 
> Either the border is in the US or it is not.  If it is, then the 
> Constitution applies.  If it is not, then where do the searchers get 
> their power to search from?

There's a good discussion of this on today's (Saturday, 2011.4.9) 
Macintouch Security forum:

<http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/security/index.html#d09apr2011>

Scroll down to Government Control/Issues. Gregory Tetrault covers the 
history well. The original border search was to prevent smuggling of 
taxed imported goods, those taxes being what funded the government. 

While I deplore the US Gov't assertion that it has a right to search 
your computer, cell phone, or iThingy at whim, remember that most of the 
countries you might travel to don't even have a _pretense_ of 
unreasonable search and seizure, let alone in fact. ALL searches are 
justified is the worldwide norm. (Having traveled to literally dozens of 
countries and having been searched more times than I can count, but less 
than I expected, I have first-hand data here.) Therefore, even if the US 
wasn't intruding on its citizens' rights, you should still follow 
whatever security measures you think are appropriate to keep your data 
private and secure from other countries' security forces.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590

In article <P76dnS-wkfQTGALQnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2011-04-06 1:31 PM, Fred Moore wrote:
> > <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/border-search/>
> 
> Borders are special places where the certainty that you are under 
> protective clauses (of, eg, the US Constitution) is vague at best.

In my experience once you are through passport control you are on that 
country's soil.  Customs comes later.

What happens before passport control is another matter, and I've heard 
stories about that.  For example the guy who was obnoxious to everybody 
on a flight who then tried jumping the passport queue; he was physically 
prevented from doing so and complained to the passport officers.  They 
simply said "Not on our territory.  We can do nothing about it".

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web