Land of the Free My Butt.

• tk421

  

  http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/border-search/
  
  Hope, change, hope, change. Better hope the CBP doesn't copy your laptop for no reason. I don't know how anyone can defend this crap. It's bad enough that the CBP can legally stop anyone in the U.S. within 100 miles of the border and demand their citizenship, now they can legally search, copy and confiscate any digital devices they feel like at the border. If I had the means, I would seriously be leaving this country. It's pretty apparent now that the 4th Amendment of the Constitution no longer is valid in this country.
  

  The authorities may seize laptops, cameras and other digital devices at the U.S. border without a warrant, and scour through them for days hundreds of miles away, a federal appeals court ruled.
  
  The 2-1 decision (.pdf) Wednesday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes as the government is increasingly invoking its broad, warrantless search-and-seizure powers at the U.S. border to probe the digital lives of travelers.
  
  
  Under the “border search exception” of United States law, international travelers, including U.S. citizens, can be searched without a warrant as they enter the country. Under the Obama administration, law enforcement agents have aggressively used this power to search travelers’ laptops, sometimes copying the hard drive before returning the computer to its owner.
  
  
  
  Courts have ruled that such laptop searches can take place even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, and more than 6,500 persons have had their electronic devices searched in this manner since October 2008.

  Obama defenders, lovers, voters I ask you ........ where is the change?
• tk421

  

  bump
• TheQ

  Sounds like somebody is worried about all of the porn sites they visit.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I didn't see anything in the article that says the Supremes have ruled on this. I'm betting it will get shot down. At least I hope it does.
  
  Better pray all the conservative justices stay healthy until Obama is out of office, though.
• O-Trap

  

  Yeah, this is a whole new breach of privacy.
• majorspark

  

  Writerbuckeye;733955 wrote:Better pray all the conservative justices stay healthy until Obama is out of office, though.

  This. The left will hold an around the clock death watch on the conservative justices throughout Obama's term or terms as POTUS. If it gets to a second term we may need some divine intervention.
• sleeper

  

  Hopefully this gets overturned, I have no idea how the court of appeals allow this.
• dwccrew

  

  tk421;732746 wrote:http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/border-search/
  
  Hope, change, hope, change. Better hope the CBP doesn't copy your laptop for no reason. I don't know how anyone can defend this crap. It's bad enough that the CBP can legally stop anyone in the U.S. within 100 miles of the border and demand their citizenship

  
  
  While I don't agree that they should be able to search through our possessions without a warrant or probable cause, you are mistaken about them being ablt to stop you within 100 miles of the border. As I read the article, it states they can stop you AT the border and take your laptop, etc. hundreds of miles away to search through it; not that they can stop you within 100 miles of the border and search your things.
• mella

  I think that this is the next logical extention of "national security laws" that have been in practice for many years. This type of invasion of privacy did not start with Obama and it is not unique to Dems.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Mmm Mmm Mmm! Barrack Hussein Obama!
• Footwedge

  CenterBHSFan;734025 wrote:Mmm Mmm Mmm! Barrack Hussein Obama!

  This is Barry's fault? Is this not anything more than an extension of the Patriot (sic) Act? When did the Patriot (sic)
  Act come unto being?
  
  Just a hint (wink wink)..the House, Senate and White House were all run by Republicans when all this crud started.
• tk421

  

  dwccrew;734014 wrote:While I don't agree that they should be able to search through our possessions without a warrant or probable cause, you are mistaken about them being ablt to stop you within 100 miles of the border. As I read the article, it states they can stop you AT the border and take your laptop, etc. hundreds of miles away to search through it; not that they can stop you within 100 miles of the border and search your things.

  
  http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone
• goblue44688

  

  Courts have ruled that such laptop searches can take place even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, and more than 6,500 persons have had their electronic devices searched in this manner since October 2008.

  So it's all Obama's fault?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Footwedge;734058 wrote:This is Barry's fault? Is this not anything more than an extension of the Patriot (sic) Act? When did the Patriot (sic)
  Act come unto being?
  
  Just a hint (wink wink)..the House, Senate and White House were all run by Republicans when all this crud started.

  
  Certainly it is not his fault. It is not from his administrations' origin. But he is the figurehead of the country right now and as such, certainly isn't doing anything about it. I'm fairly certain that Obama must have known a little something something about this. Have they (administration) spoken out against this, yet? I don't know for sure - why I'm asking.
  I don't know of anybody who hasn't complained about the Patriot Act in one form or another, therefore and besides, bitching about Bush. Bush is no longer holding that seat, somebody else is.
  
  As far as the issue itself, I think we both agree that it is BS. But as long as a President doesn't take at least a verbal stand against it, they are just the continuance of the original fault, IMO.
  
  I'm not the one who promised to change things and give people hope.
  
  I've bitched about things like the P.A. when Bush was President, bitched about Bush. I will complain about things like the P.A. when Obama is President, therefore complain about Obama.
  Nobody has to like it or agree with it.
• bases_loaded

  

  Anyone have a sick feeling about the coincidence of this and now Barry buddying it up with Zuckerbook?
• BGFalcons82

  

  bases_loaded;734219 wrote:Anyone have a sick feeling about the coincidence of this and now Barry buddying it up with Zuckerbook?

  
  Not until you posted this.
• BGFalcons82

  

  sleeper;733997 wrote:Hopefully this gets overturned, I have no idea how the court of appeals allow this.

  
  The 9th circuit is also known as the 9th circus court of appeals. It's in Cali. Land of fruits and nuts. I'll have to find it somewhere, but I read an article on the SCOTUS recently that said they overturn more than 50% of the 9th Circus' decisions of the cases brought to them. Kind of a high number, don't you think?
• BoatShoes

  tk421;732746 wrote:http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/border-search/
  
  Hope, change, hope, change. Better hope the CBP doesn't copy your laptop for no reason. I don't know how anyone can defend this crap. It's bad enough that the CBP can legally stop anyone in the U.S. within 100 miles of the border and demand their citizenship, now they can legally search, copy and confiscate any digital devices they feel like at the border. If I had the means, I would seriously be leaving this country. It's pretty apparent now that the 4th Amendment of the Constitution no longer is valid in this country.

  
  I hear it's pretty cheap to move to Haiti. Hardly any government there to interfere with your life. True, true freedom. What are you waiting for???????
• I Wear Pants

  First I'm very against this.
  
  Secondly is that too many in both parties (don't think this is Dems, there are tons of Republicans who think they should be able to search whatever you do on a computer in the name of "security") who don't give a shit about our rights as far as technology and the internet go. Hell, look how hard it is for the FCC to do anything meaningful to protect network neutrality.
  
  Which is another thing, the internet is an important economic engine so anyone who doesn't protect that is really hurting us. So the GOP needs to come out in full support of network neutrality. Though I won't hold my breath since they love the big telecom corporations (to be fair so do many Dems which is just as disappointing).
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;734277 wrote:First I'm very against this.
  
  Secondly is that too many in both parties (don't think this is Dems, there are tons of Republicans who think they should be able to search whatever you do on a computer in the name of "security") who don't give a shit about our rights as far as technology and the internet go. Hell, look how hard it is for the FCC to do anything meaningful to protect network neutrality.
  
  Which is another thing, the internet is an important economic engine so anyone who doesn't protect that is really hurting us. So the GOP needs to come out in full support of network neutrality. Though I won't hold my breath since they love the big telecom corporations (to be fair so do many Dems which is just as disappointing).

  
  I disagreed with them when they went after Eminem back in the early- and mid-2000s. I don't agree with their Fairness Doctrine proposals.
  
  But I like the Broadband Policy Statement they put out a few years ago (2007, maybe), provided it is interpreted properly. If not interpreted properly, however, it could be more of what we're seeing.
  
  From Wikipedia, on "Network Neutrality:"
  

  FCC broadband policy statementIn 2005, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Broadband Policy Statement (also known as the Internet Policy Statement), which lists four principles of open Internet,[16] "To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:"
  
  - access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
  - run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
  - connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
  - competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
  
  These points are often summarized as "any lawful content, any lawful application, any lawful device, and any provider". President Barack Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 called for an investment of $7.2 billion in broadband infrastructure and included an openness stipulation. During the FCC's hearing, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association urged the FCC to adopt the four criteria laid out in its 2005 Internet Policy Statement as the requisite openness.
  
  In 2008, when the FCC auctioned off the 700 MHz block of wireless spectrum in anticipation of the DTV transition, Google promised to enter a bid of $4.6 billion if the FCC required the winning licensee to adhere to four conditions:[17]
  
  - Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
  - Open devices: Consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
  - Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms;
  - Open networks: Third parties, such as Internet service providers, should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network.
  
  These conditions are broadly similar to the FCC's Internet Policy Statement (FCC's applications and content are combined into a single bullet, while an extra bullet adding a requirement for wholesale access for third party providers was included). The FCC adopted only two of these four criteria for the auction, viz., open devices and open applications, and only applied these conditions to the nationwide C block portion of the band.[18]
  
  In September 2009, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed to add two additional rules on top of its 2005 policy statement, viz., the nondiscrimination principle that ISPs must not discriminate against any content or applications, and the transparency principle, which requires that ISPs disclose all their policies to customers. He also argued that wireless should be subject to the same network neutrality as wireline providers.[19]
  
  In October 2009, the FCC took the next step by approving a notice of proposed rule making on the subject of net neutrality.[20]
  
  In May 2010, after it was believed the FCC would drop their effort to enforce net neutrality, they announced that they would continue their fight. It was believed they would not be able to enforce net neutrality after a Federal court's overthrow of the agency's Order against Comcast. However, under commission chairman Julius Genachowski, the FCC has proposed reclassifying broadband internet access providers under the provisions of Title 2 of the Communications act in an effort to force the providers to adhere to the same rules as telephone networks. This adjustment is meant to prevent, "unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities or services."[21]
  
  On December 21, 2010, the FCC approved new rules banning cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites such as Netflix. The rules also include a more limited set of obligations for wireless providers. The rules would not keep ISPs from charging more for faster access. Republicans in Congress have announced plans to reverse the rules through legislation.[22] Verizon has also indicated that it will challenge the FCC's decision in court [23], and Colin Crowell, the former Senior Counselor to the FCC Chairman, has called such court challenges "inevitable." [24]

• Thread Bomber

  

  Wait a minute.... I thought the ACLU was a bad thing???
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Footwedge;734058 wrote:This is Barry's fault? Is this not anything more than an extension of the Patriot (sic) Act? When did the Patriot (sic)
  Act come unto being?
  
  Just a hint (wink wink)..the House, Senate and White House were all run by Republicans when all this crud started.

  
  Did you conveniently forget your hero EXTENDED the Patriot Act when he had a chance to kill it?
  
  This is HIS law now, just as much as it was W's.
• stlouiedipalma

  Been going on since 2008. 'Nuff said.
  
  Paranoid people will find just about anything under their beds or in their closets. At least now you have a big, black bogeyman to blame it on.
• queencitybuckeye

  stlouiedipalma;734476 wrote:Been going on since 2008. 'Nuff said.
  

  
  It's fine if losing the right to be left the fuck alone doesn't bother you. It bothers me a great deal.
• stlouiedipalma

  queencitybuckeye;734480 wrote:It's fine if losing the right to be left the fuck alone doesn't bother you. It bothers me a great deal.

  
  We lost a lot of that with the Patriot Act. I would have been happy if it were repealed, but the foreign-born, sleeper Muslim currently living in the White House has other plans.
  
  Next up, your guns.
  
  I suppose martial law is next, soon to be followed by some kind of Sharia law.
  
  Hey, one of the premium channels has been showing Conspiracy Theory lately. Which one of you fits the Jerry Fletcher role?