Slashdot Mirror
Bill To Add Accountability To Border Laptop Search
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) has introduced a bill that would add accountability to the DHS searches conducted upon the laptops of those crossing the border. Specifically, it would require the issue of receipts to those who had their property confiscated so that it could later be returned, would limit how long the DHS can keep laptops, would require them to keep the laptop's information secure, and would create a way to complain about abuse. Finally, the DHS would be required to keep track of how many searches were done and report the details to Congress. Rep. Sanchez also has also issued a statement about the proposed bill."
Yep, it doesn't even mention the word "citizens". The bill itself is quite short and makes a lot of sense.
Take a look: HR 6869: Border Search Accountability Act of 2008
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Why do you assume you have this right? Seriously, this isn't trolling. It's well founded that even US citizens may legally be searched when entering the US.
Reference: Border Search Exception
I found a link on Thomas for the actual bill: Border Security Search Accountability Act of 2008 (Introduced in House). Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but hopefully it can clear up questions as to whether it applies only to U.S. Citizens, or to *anyone* who is crossing the border.
BTW: This is the PROPOSED text of the bill. It's by no means a law, yet, and is certainly subject to amendment before/if it ever it gets voted on.
I wanted to go the US many years ago, visit New Orleans (pre-Katrina) and soak up the local culture.
Ever since people have been treated like criminals upon entering the country I decided I would never go to the US, not even if my job demanded it.
It's a shame though.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
It's not specific for the US - making laws is usually easier than getting rid of them. So, if there's a way to make something that's allowed by law, but which you don't like impractical by saddling it with extra laws, that's usually preferred to repealing the law which allows it in the first place.
will make a plane fall out of the sky or crash into a building.
Since any of these searches are done by _customs_, it doesn't matter what or what not the data on the laptop might do to the plane. It has already landed.
How can a bill be amended to address several unrelated things,
Think of a bill like a patch to source code. There is no way for the version control software to require that patches add only one feature. To enforce such a rule, you have to have peer review and a strong cultural commitment to that rule. Basically it has to be implemented as a soft rule rather than a hard rule.
Now US politicians all seem to think the end justifies the means. And usually the ends are very greedy ends (i.e. get reelected anyway possible). With that sort of attitude commitment to any sort of soft rule quickly goes out that window. Now tacking on these sorts of things makes it easier to get them passed (people who like the bill enough will pass it anyway) and makes it easier to get the bill passed (add a pork barrel project for a senator and now he'll vote for the bill). If *ahem* breaking *cough* ... I mean stretching ... the rule helps you or your allies get ahead and ends justify means, then of course you'll do it. On top of that because it's not a hard rule no one can concretely say you've broken any rules and it never gets punished.
It is bad but unfortunately quite common to see bills made up of a collection of unrelated compromises in order to get enough people to vote for it. What baffles me is that you say it doesn't happen in Europe (or at least not as much). Please, what is your secret to pulling that off?
It is actually pretty simple. Party A proposes "We must do X" but opposes doing Y. Party B says "Well, we will only let you do X if you let us do Y". So then a bill that was meant to address a specific issue gets a ton of compromise crap added into it, which is frequently unrelated, but it is all just bargaining chips to try and get the original bill passed by both sides. Now, of course, a great deal of those bargaining chips come down to various congress critters come down to "well if you tack on 10 million for my pet project I will vote yes" and then multiply that out by however many votes are needed to pass the stupid thing.
The other frequent occurance is a bill that has no chance of failing. "Let us vote to declare Cancer a bad thing and that we should research ways to fight it!" well of course everyone is going to vote yes, so all those little congress critters start tacking on a bunch of crap knowing that they can add a ton of garbage before a bill like that has a chance of failure.
The biggest problem is the naming of bills. PATRIOT ACT for example. You can't vote against it, if you vote against it you are not a patriot and you support terrorists. Or the Child Online Protection Act...can't vote against it unless you support pedophiles. Doesn't matter how aweful the language in the bill is, the name is what people here and form their own warped ideas of what the bill ACTUALLY does.
Ultimately, this was the reason "line item veto" was proposed. Normally the President has to shoot down the whole bill or pass the whole thing. He wanted line item veto to "stop the pork and unrelated stuff" so he could veto out parts of the bill and leave the rest. Now, the reality is, for someone who has been paying attention, he has been using signing statements like they are line item vetos (or attempting to). A signing statement is just a note about "this is how I interpret the bill, and as long as it is interpreted this way I pass it". So...the real goal was to once again expand executive power so that he could line item veto out oversight clauses and the like. So he could basically rewrite any law AFTER it had passed out of congress and then sign it into effect.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
No, it isn't. YOU are wrong, he is correct.
While the United States of America is located WITHIN the continent of North America, (which it gets it's name from) the PROPER term for people from the U.S.A. is "Americans". It is the short form of "Citizens of the United States of America". People from Canada (also part of North America) would take exception to being called "Americans". Not because they necessarily dislike America or because they think Canada is on a different continent, but because it is INCORRECT. Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Canada are called "Canadians".
Also, Mexico is part of the continent of Central America. These people would ALSO take exception to being called Americans, they are "Mexicans". In case you cared, We also have "Colombians", "Peruvians", "Brazilians", "Argentinians", and many others, NONE of which think they should be referred to as "Americans". That appellation belongs solely to citizens of the United States of America.
Intentionally using incorrect terminology in an attempt to lessen the prestige of a country by removing the continent name from which the country name is derived is INSULTING and a rather juvenile attempt at belittling citizens of that country. It makes you look petty, small, and stupid.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory