Slashdot Mirror

I own a passport and have traveled to 38 countries on 5 continents. I can't think of any place that offers more freedom than the US. Is our government more invasive than in the past? Yes. Should we change that? Absolutely. Is there someplace with both the same level of security and a less invasive government? No. I am hard pressed to even identify a less invasive government.

How many of those countries have an NDAA and allow their citizens to be militarily imprisoned without a trial?

How many of those countries have a "constitution free" zone that covers most of their population?

How many of those countries have continue to hold innocent prisoners cleared for release a la Gitmo?

How many of those countries have openly assassinated one of their citizens for engaging in protected speech?

You're either snarking the shit out of us, have limited to your travels to places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, or have a terminal case of American Exceptionalism.

Pretty certain US border officials have ridiculous powers that aren't properly kept in check by the US constitution though. Here's an example.

Our rights in Britain aren't as strong as the US but even here it would have been a lot harder to search him if he wasn't at an airport.

Allowing the general public to see the video without a warrant means people can spy on you (using the government cameras) and therefore invade your privacy.

That's true but it's my understanding the courts have ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. If you don't want to be recorded, stay home. I think this page sums up the current state of the law: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

The best thing everyone in reciept of such a gag order can do is publish or publisice it in the same way as any ordinary warrant served. They will try to prosecute, but in so doing they will have to put their law to the test. They don't want to do that -- yet. So, I'd hurry up and publish.

There have been some such cases, but the Feds always drop the case before it gets very far, because they know it won't stand up to public scrutiny before anything but the most statist-supportive judge.

I've yet to see the NSA leak mail.

Just because they won't let you see it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. For example, when they pass along mail to the DEA, who then lies to courts about where they got it.

The border patrol considers everything within a hundred miles of any coast or national border to be under its jurisdiction.

Here's a map of what that looks like. Note that it completely covers pretty much all of the major population centers.

Anyone know a good freedom dealer? I'm an addict and need my fix of freedom, but I can't seem to find it within the borders of the US at this point.

Maybe are you too close to the borders ?

Everything was authorized by the Patriot Act (section 215 and others)

 
The ACLU is suing the NSA, in part, on the grounds that the government's actions do not comply with the Patriot Act:

the executive branch's use of Section 215 violates the plain language of the statute itself. The statute requires that records seized under its authority be "relevant" to an authorized foreign-intelligence or terrorism investigation. But while that language imposes a real limitation on when the government can use Section 215, the FISC order covering all VBNS customers demonstrates that this "relevance" restraint is shockingly inadequate. Similarly, the FISC order shows that the government—with the FISC's secret approval—is acquiring future records of telephone subscribers based on the same "relevance" requirement, even though the statute uses words that clearly show it was only meant to cover "tangible things" already in existence.

 
What investigation is the data collection relevant to? The government admits they are collecting the data to search through it in the hopes of finding something to investigate.

Regardless, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law or action that violates the constitution is itself illegal. The government's actions clearly violate the fourth amendment.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone
Too late re highway searches.
Enjoy your Transportation Security Officers at stops under Department of Homeland Security Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) and the next generation of state and federal teams.

http://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone-map

Rochester isn't on this map, but I'm sure its in there...

There are many police departments around the country which receive most of their funding from selling assets seized in civil forfeiture laws. It has become the norm in many places, rather than the exception it used to be.

Here is one example of many: http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-police

In the past, the main goal of seizing drug money (in this case, the bitcoins) has been to gain evidence in building a drug case. Namely, that the physical set of bills was "sent from" a buyer and "received by" someone in exchange for illegal narcotics. The usage of said money to buy new jerseys for the police softball team was always a perk, but ultimately not relevant.

Do you actually believe this? I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so naive. Maybe I'm just missing the sarcasm.

Or maybe you're talking about police in your home country. Here in the U.S.A. police routinely seize valuables with little or no justification, relying on the threat of violence to get what they want in the street and then relying on their privileged positions within the legal and political systems to make sure no one can do anything about it.

Departments are routinely allowed to keep 80% of the money they seize, and the totals routinely reach the millions.

From the ACLU:

In 2008, the Department of Justice's forfeiture fund topped $1 billion. By contrast, in 1986, the year after [the law changed to allow departments to keep most of the money they seize], the fund took in $93.7 million. This money does not account for the hundreds of millions seized by state law enforcement agencies.

The money is the point of the seizures. Any evidentiary value is a bonus.

That is, as long as those students don't object to being watched constantly by a camera.

I don't meant to sound like a card-carrying member of the Fringe Lunatic Association, but after the multiple recent revelations that the LEO's ride around photographing cars and license plates, USPS photographs all mail, the NSA collects metadata on all phone calls, the FBI and NSA together mine data from social networks—in short, that the US government in fact does all those things that the fringe lunatics warned about for years—it's hard to trust a university, whether state-run or private, with a camera to watch me at my computer in much the same way that it's impossible to trust Microsoft to watch me with an always-on X-Box One camera/mic setup.* I feel that recent events have given students very good reason to question whether the benefits of automatic frustration-recognition software are worth the risk that some sort of data might make its way from the camera to an FBI/NSA/Fusion database, despite the sturdiest ringfences and firewalls of promises, hope, and trust. Really, if the MOOC designers are really concerned about frustration, why not just include an "I'm frustrated! Give me a hint!" button on the user interface? Why monitor faces through a camera, and why propose the idea at the same time that MS's creepy XBox camera idea went down in flames?

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

Tell me about the 'secret laws'

You don't fucking get it, do you? How can he tell you about a secret law? The ACLU and other organizations continue to ask the government that very same question, but the government refuses.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the Nation's Capital, and Yale Law School's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic filed a motion today with the secret court that oversees government surveillance in national security cases, requesting that it publish its opinions on the meaning, scope, and constitutionality of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. That section, which authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to foreign-intelligence or terrorism investigations, was the legal basis for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order revealed last week by The Guardian requiring Verizon to turn over months' worth of phone-call data.

"The ultimate check on governmental overreach is the American public," said Alex Abdo, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "For years, the government has secretly relied on sweeping interpretations of its surveillance powers, preventing the very debate it has now belatedly invited on the wisdom and legality of those powers."

In addition to the initial rulings by the court on Section 215, the motion filed today also asks whether earlier opinions have been revisited in light of more recent rulings by other courts, such as the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in the GPS tracking case U.S. v. Jones. Another answer sought by the motion is whether the FISA Court has considered the constitutionality of the "gag order" that bars companies from revealing that they have been ordered to turn over information under Section 215. (In 2008, a federal appeals court agreed with the ACLU that an analogous gag order provision relating to "national security letters" was unconstitutional.)

"In a democracy, there should be no room for secret law," said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. "The public has a right to know what limits apply to the government's surveillance authority, and what safeguards are in place to protect individual privacy."

Also, don't wonder why the world tells you to go fuck yourself when you ask for Snowden. If you weren't murdering teenagers with completely illegal and immoral drone strike programs after killing a few hundred thousand civilians in multiple wars of aggression, maybe everyone wouldn't burst out in laughter every time you uttered the phrase "rule of law."

True, I've been thru the border a number of times recently, and they really don't care.
But had my name appeared on some watch list, I'm sure they would have searched everything.

But there are exceptions. .There is a so called constitution-free-zone in the US where
customs and migration and border patrol are free to search you any time they want.
The zone covers 100 miles inland of any border.

authorized by and deemed legal by Congress and the court system

That's not entirely true. The court system has not ruled one way or another whether the secret programs are legal. The Supreme Court has so far refused to hear cases brought against the NSA's spying program because the defendands have not been able to prove that their constituional rights were violated by these programs (due to their secret nature) but with Snowden's leaks they can now easily prove that their communications have in fact been targeted and, as a Verizon customer, the ACLU has filed a case against the NSA in federal court.

Thanks to Snowden the Supreme Court will likely be forced to rule on the constitutionality of these programs and if they are found uncsontitutional it matters not what laws Congress passed or Executive Orders the President issued to authorize them because those all become null and void.

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

You mean if suddenly the cheapest helicopters were $50,000 instead of $80,000 it would mean the world was a drastically different place?

No, I mean if the helicopters used for police surveillance cost $50,000 instead a million dollars plus several hundred dollars an hour in operating costs.

$80,000 wouldn't even pay the annual salary for a pilot, and I don't even know if it would buy a high quality FLIR camera.

Too late, we already have free speech zones and nearly two thirds of America lives in constitution free zones so we passed that part of the slope a while back.

Anybody who doubted we were going back to "the age of the robber barons" and one set of laws for the rich and one for the poor? Here ya go, if your ass don't have a lawyer on speed dial you be fucked.

so if the police dont read you your rights, you lose them?

No. The article explains that the person in question had NOT been arrested, had been freely answering other questions, but refused to answer one that concerned shotgun shells found at the murder scene.

The ACLU has a "bust card" that helps clarify the matter. The person in the article should have kept his fucking mouth shut, period.

Still befuddles me. So you're telling me if you provide any information whatsoever, you're legally obliged to answer every single question, even if it leads to self incrimination? IANAL so does answering some questions automagically count as forgoing your right to silence blanche carte?

so if the police dont read you your rights, you lose them?

No. The article explains that the person in question had NOT been arrested, had been freely answering other questions, but refused to answer one that concerned shotgun shells found at the murder scene.

The ACLU has a "bust card" that helps clarify the matter. The person in the article should have kept his fucking mouth shut, period.

Still befuddles me. So you're telling me if you provide any information whatsoever, you're legally obliged to answer every single question, even if it leads to self incrimination? IANAL so does answering some questions automagically count as forgoing your right to silence blanche carte?

so if the police dont read you your rights, you lose them?

No. The article explains that the person in question had NOT been arrested, had been freely answering other questions, but refused to answer one that concerned shotgun shells found at the murder scene.

The ACLU has a "bust card" that helps clarify the matter. The person in the article should have kept his fucking mouth shut, period.

so if the police dont read you your rights, you lose them?

No. The article explains that the person in question had NOT been arrested, had been freely answering other questions, but refused to answer one that concerned shotgun shells found at the murder scene.

The ACLU has a "bust card" that helps clarify the matter. The person in the article should have kept his fucking mouth shut, period.

Thanks. I added it to the list:

Join the ACLU anti-surveillance petition.

Drones....coming to neighborhood near you.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/ohio-in-strong-position-to-win-drone-site/nXHG4/

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/ohio-aerial-surveillance-system-moving-forward-without

ACLU anti-surveillance petition:
https://www.aclu.org/secure/repeal-the-surveillance-state2

I actually made most of this comment in another post about the NSA but it bears repeating.

ACLU Petition to Stop Massive Government Spying Program

Please sign that petition. Or go through the EFF action page. Or Write your Representative or Write your Senators. They are easy enough to find. Seriously. If you aren't telling the people that represent you how wrong, awful, and downright unacceptable the NSA actions are they have no reason to stick their neck out to change it.

Nobody is asking you to fight a war, like previous generations of Americans have. Just sign a petition. Write a letter. It is that easy to improve this country. Whether you think that is true or not, remember that an outcry from a small group of people have altered politics before and it can happen again. The only thing preventing this country from getting better is silence.

ACLU Petition to Stop Massive Government Spying Program

Please sign that petition. Or Write your Representative or Write your Senators. They are easy enough to find. Seriously. If you aren't telling the people that represent you how wrong, awful, and downright unacceptable the NSA actions are they have no reason to stick their neck out to change it.

Nobody is asking you to fight a war, like previous generations of Americans have. Just sign a petition. Write a letter. It is that easy to improve this country. Whether you think that is true or not, remember that an outcry from a small group of people have altered politics before and it can happen again. The only thing preventing this country from getting better is silence.

....from last paragraph:

Firsthand experience with these systems, and horror at their capabilities, is what drove a career intelligence officer to provide PowerPoint slides about PRISM and supporting materials to The Washington Post in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.

Temporarily putting aside any discussion about cynicism or idealism and how one feels about the effectiveness of petitions, if you decide to sign into the preceding petition (and unconcerned about the negative aspects of possibly being added to a "watch list") you'll be given the ability to (/.ing it, in a sense) by resubmitting a formatted response in 3 different ways.

Via Twitter:

Using the Patriot Act, the govt has been secretly tracking the calls of every #Verizon Business customer.Act now: http://bit.ly/13IoqhD #NSA

Facebook:

Using the Patriot Act, the government has been secretly tracking the calls of millions of Americans. Yes, really. Act now.

and your Email:

A leaked court document obtained by The Guardian, and since reported on by numerous news outlets, has exposed the government spying on Americans. Using the Patriot Act, the U.S. government has been secretly tracking the calls of every Verizon Business Network Services customer – whom they talked to, from where, and for how long – for the past 41 days.

It's time to get angry. Be part of a strong public outcry against this program by signing the petition immediately and letting your friends know what's happening in this country. https://www.aclu.org/secure/stop-massive-spying-program?Ms=taf_acluaction_NSA_130606

....from last paragraph:

Firsthand experience with these systems, and horror at their capabilities, is what drove a career intelligence officer to provide PowerPoint slides about PRISM and supporting materials to The Washington Post in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.

Temporarily putting aside any discussion about cynicism or idealism and how one feels about the effectiveness of petitions, if you decide to sign into the preceding petition (and unconcerned about the negative aspects of possibly being added to a "watch list") you'll be given the ability to (/.ing it, in a sense) by resubmitting a formatted response in 3 different ways.

Via Twitter:

Using the Patriot Act, the govt has been secretly tracking the calls of every #Verizon Business customer.Act now: http://bit.ly/13IoqhD #NSA

Facebook:

Using the Patriot Act, the government has been secretly tracking the calls of millions of Americans. Yes, really. Act now.

and your Email:

A leaked court document obtained by The Guardian, and since reported on by numerous news outlets, has exposed the government spying on Americans. Using the Patriot Act, the U.S. government has been secretly tracking the calls of every Verizon Business Network Services customer – whom they talked to, from where, and for how long – for the past 41 days.

It's time to get angry. Be part of a strong public outcry against this program by signing the petition immediately and letting your friends know what's happening in this country. https://www.aclu.org/secure/stop-massive-spying-program?Ms=taf_acluaction_NSA_130606

Perhaps even send the raw footage to the AFL-CIO

Nitpick, but I assume you mean the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), not the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)...

So again, private companies recording stuff is bad because *mumble mumble* the government?

When the government has immediate and easy access to Google's data, and Google is recording more and more data every day about everyone, the government will have immediate and easy access to more data. There's no mumbling involved, unless you count the gag orders the DOJ has placed on everyone about their broad wiretapping programs.

It just seems like you have a MISPLACED anger/concern. You are apparently totally fine with these corps recording whatever and whenever they want, but at the same time that they aren't powerful enough to resist government requests?

I don't believe Google Glass is required by the company to always record everything and report it back to them, but that does happen to be its function when it is being used. If a customer decides to use a device that records everything about them that is sent and then analyzed by private company, that's really not my concern unless it empowers the government to have another avenue for shredding the 4th Amendment. The reality of the NSA wiretapping scandals and the concern of overreach of the government using National Security Letters to cast a wide net using dubious forms of probable cause is well known. I shouldn't have to go over it unless you are totally incapable of using a search engine.

As for your fear about abuse of power - what the heck do you think will happen if corporations ARE powerful enough to resist government requests for video feeds? You think they are going to self regulate and make you happy? Hint: they'll throw your ass under the bus for another dollar of profit.

Corporations shouldn't have to be powerful enough to to head-to-head against the government if the government is respecting the 4th Amendment and using transparent legal means to acquire information about suspects of crimes. Getting into self-regulation is a red herring because the problem isn't with government regulation. The problem is that the government is abusing its power by pressuring private corporations to hand over data, so it's logical to assume that more data in the hands of Google -- which already releases information and account access to the government -- means more data in the hands of the government.

Over the last four years, the government's requests for electronic and physical surveillance have steadily increased after a brief decline in 2008 and 2009, with a total of 1,856 applications in 2012. However, the truly shocking number is how many times it applied for Section 215 orders, also known as business records requests, which as far as we know give the government extremely broad authority to access "any tangible thing," including sensitive information such as financial records, medical records, and even library records.

Last year, the government made 212 applications to the FISC under Section 215, over 94 percent of which the court found it necessary to modify â" 200 to be exact. This is up from 205 in 2011, which may not seem like a huge difference, but consider that in 2009 the FBI made only 21 requests and the FISC modified just 9.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/theyre-watching-fbi-business-records-requests-jump-900

Agreed.
There is a huge difference between expressing your political views and making threats. Saying you plan to start a revolution and start chopping off heads is crazy and dangerous.

If we're going to discuss government overreach in suppressing free speech, I'm sure there are many more legitimate examples. Hop over to the ACLU.org for plenty of real issues to get worked up over. http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/standing-rights-students-free-expression

you can look it up. i won't bother doing it for you. but here's one link:

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/nsa-spying-americans-illegal

They already had him on doing a drug sale, and the cell phone was searched after he was read his rights and his items were confiscated for booking.

But in most jurisdictions, if they had taken his car while making the arrest, they would have had to get a search warrant before they started digging around in the car.
It seems only proper that they get a warrant for the phone. If it makes as much sense as you seem to imply, they would have no problem getting the warrant.

Unless they suspect there evidence in the car, they don't automatically have a valid reason to search it. Even if they believe there may be a trunk full of drugs, most police agencies will get the warrant just to be sure it stands up in court, because "suspecting there is evidence" has been found to be just too big of a loop-hole and has been so often abused that it is routinely thrown out. In fact in some jurisdictions, if they seize the car/phone, all emergency situations cease at that point and there is no longer exigent circumstance to search for drugs. Bombs, maybe, but drugs or cell phone data, not so much.

See: http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

As for "having him on Drug sales", I fail to see why that makes a difference. They already had is phone too. He wasn't going to be given a chance to wipe it.

You are correct. I actually carry around paper work in my camera bag for when I get hassled by the police or security guards, that spells out my rights. The ACLU has a page about it, and I don't see why google glass would be any different.

15 states passed laws prohibiting themselves from implementing a national id and 25 more "rejected" the law

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/yes-states-really-reject-real-id

Sounds like a dead end

Seriously, you mean a data center like this can't handle the traffic?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

and the 5 million people (as of 2011) with security clearances aren't enough?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/security-clearances-increasing/

and the NSA recruiting at Defcon and math colleges all around the country isn't happening?

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/411/2890348/NSA-hiring-reforms-serve-as-model-for-government

These guys have cash and are all of their activities are shielded under FISA and the National Security Act and State Secrets Privilege.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fix-fisa-end-warrantless-wiretapping

It's happening, it is a reality, and it is more than possible. Even with an inside whistle blower, the courts will not limit the power of the government to spy on us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

The only thing we really have going for us is the Catch-22 on the use of the data. If it is every used in a trial, chain of custody and 4th amendment issues likethe exclusionary rule will suppress the evidence since it was obtained without a warrant. The only thing that stands in the way of the NSA and fully implementing 1984 is the 4th amendment.

There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces

There is where I live. The fact that you do not know what the big deal is, is the big deal. Remember how they got to Big Brother? Not by going to war. They got there because people were not interested in their privacy.

Or to quote from yet somewhere else: "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."

So I guess you don't live in the United States. I am really concerned about protecting these rights, which you seem to want to constrict.

Yes, 100%. It also completely ignores recent court decisions which have ruled public photography to be a FIRST AMENDMENT right.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

If anything I think the ubiquity of cameras carried by public citizens is having exactly the opposite effect this article claims. Actions by police trying to suppress people recording them in public are leading to court rulings clarifying the rights of citizens to photograph and record in public.

Perhaps, but in practice it doesn't matter what it was *intended* to do, only what the wording allows it to be *used* to do. And in this case, it's being used in an attempt to block unfavorable discussions.

That said, the original discussion's use would almost certainly fall within fair use, so they could just respond to the DMCA request and get their stuff put back up, putting the ball back into the court the company sending the request.

They could indeed respond to the DMCA request and get their stuff put back up. But then, potentially, lawyers get involved. And when lawyers get involved, it gets very very expensive. Maybe the EFF or the ACLU will take your case, but they don't have the staff or money (donate today!) to take every case, so they might not be able to, in which case you'll have to hire your own.

The American Civil Liberties Union?

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

"In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government. The Court therefore struck down a ban on campaign expenditures by corporations and unions that applied to non-profit corporations like Planned Parenthood and the National Rifle Association, as well as for-profit corporations like General Motors and Microsoft."

LOL

They have no credibility, whatsoever.

Don't take my word for it.

The ACLU has spoken openly about it.

  http://www.aclu.org/blog/organization-news-and-highlights/heller-decision-and-second-amendment

You can count on this issue never going away. For all the corporately-fueled K St. lobbiests lurking in Congress, private citizens have *VERY* few friends. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is one of them, the American Civil Liberties Union is another. Donations to these two organizations, and others like them are the only way to ensure these watchdog organizations stick around. Without watchdog organizations pouring over every amendment and potential bill we are FUBAR'd. Who else will be watching the watchers?

Then I'm kinda wondering why this lawsuit involves so many people. Surely if it's only a commercial restriction, "researchers, genetic counselors, women patients, cancer survivors, breast cancer and women's health groups, and scientific associations representing 150,000 geneticists, pathologists, and laboratory professionals" would not all have gotten involved? I mean, I understand (and personally espouse) the principle of the matter, but I get the feeling that this encompasses in-house manufacture of the probe for diagnostic use (i.e. profit) as well.

I can't imagine that they can put a police officer on every corner to see who has a flash drive and who doesn't.'"

Why not? The United States does. We already have given the police broad authority to stop and search people for flash drives, mobile phones, or other electronic gear without warrant or cause. If a "free" country like the United States can do this, what makes people think Cuba can't (or won't)?

The extended border region doesn't obviate the need for reasonable suspicion. It is only in ports of entry that suspicion is not required to justify search.

The ACLU seems to think otherwise:

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

• * Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
• * The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”
• * But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States.
• * As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
• * Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship. Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative” stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders. They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts.
• * However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose. On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing.

And the DHS doesn't seem to be afraid to stop and question motorists far from the "real" border even if there's no reasonable suspicion at all:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef3_1361978936

Yeah, what's up with that? One would expect to hear from the ACLU, which one does. Perhaps the Huffington Post would have a bunch of murdered children covering their front page, like this. One would not, however, expect the Democrats themselves to attack their own presiden, which they don't. That's just not how party politics work.

Arbitrary execution.
It happens weekly -- what do you think Terror Tuesday is all about. And one for certain was completely innocent 16yo American born boy. The government knew so much about him when it killed him, that it claimed he was 21.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz2ABHMgELN
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/

Arbitrary indefinite detention.
Obama tried to close the facility at Gitmo and MOVE the PRACTICES to the Thompson Federal Supermax in Illinois. Don't feed me that bullshit about GOP obstruction and he tried to "close GITMO" where people understand "close" to mean "stop the practices" rather than merely continue the practices at a new location.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/obama-promise-close-guantanamo-worse

Libya, and the War Powers Act. Obama conveniently redefines war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/19/obama-libya-lawyers-war-powers_n_879951.html
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/house-rejects-authorization-of-libya-intervention-20110624

* http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/political-speech-facebook

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jul/06/facebook-apologises-free-speech-syria

* http://gawker.com/5885714/

* http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/19/richard-metzger-how.html

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/21/facebook-nudity-violence-censorship-guidelines

I could keep pasting these all day long but I think I made my point.