Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Judge Limits DHS Laptop Border Searches

Posted by timothy on from the oh-you-wanted-the-fourth-amendment-here-too? dept.

Declan McCullogh is reporting at CNET that a federal district court judge has rebuked the Department of Homeland Security, "which had claimed it can seize a traveler's laptop and search it six months later without warrant." As described in the article, DHS policies have been stacked against travelers entering the US, including citizens returning from abroad: "There's no requirement that they be returned to their owners after even six months or a year has passed, though supervisory approval is required if they're held for more than 15 days. The complete contents of a hard drive or memory card can be perused at length for evidence of lawbreaking of any kind, even if it's underpaying taxes or not paying parking tickets." This ruling does not address immediate searches at the border, but says that DHS cannot hold computers for indefinite searching, as in the case to hand, concerning a US citizen returning from a trip to Korea, whose laptop was seized and held for months before a search was even conducted on it.

78 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. Revenge by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Funny

    DHS to Judge: Enjoy your time on the no-fly list, sucker!

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  2. Re:Rights?! by f3rret · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I foresee TrueCrypt's website will be getting a lot of new visitors soon.

    --
    Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  3. Burned CDs by mederbil · · Score: 2, Informative

    A computer engineer I worked with was going through the border and was apparently not allowed to have burned CDs of software on him. He just so happened to have a very stable version of XP he didn't want to get rid of. Solution: Stick it in the CD drive, put the battery somewhere and they won't take the time to check the drive.

    1. Re:Burned CDs by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No CDs?? I would like to see the rule on that, that would mean you can't bring music CDs, and you might as well not have CDR disks anyway, if you can't use them while you are out. This doesn't sound legit.

      what part of DHS does?

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    2. Re:Burned CDs by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

      What rule? What a custom agent says is the rule. If you question it, or even hesitate, you earn a beat down and a felony conviction.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Burned CDs by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Something similar happened to me when I crossed into Canada. I just happened to have water filters in my trunk, and the guy labeled in "commercial products" and refused to let me enter, although I explained it was my own personal items. So I dumped them in a trash barrel and continued through.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  4. Finally ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm glad to see that the law is finally curtailing some of these absurd laws. For the last bunch of years a bunch of draconian policies have been deemed legal "because we say so". It's about fucking time the courts started bitch-slapping these down.

    America has become absurd, and many people simply won't go there while it's like this.

    I think every country should start doing exactly the same things to all US citizens. Let's see how long it takes before Americans start to complain about being fingerprinted, cavity searched, and arbitrarily detained.

    I like most Americans, but your fucking government is out of control.

    1. Re:Finally ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
          -- Thomas Jefferson

    2. Re:Finally ... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      The irony is that when Jefferson was faced with his own version of the Patriot Act (the 1790s Alien and Sedition Act), he did not immediately reach for the gun. Instead he advised the Member States refuse to enforce the law as unconstitutional, and then he organized the Democrats to take-back the Congress from the Federalists. The act was repealed in 1803.

      In contrast Obama RENEWED Bush's act. Hmmm. What we really need is this to kill the Patriot Act:

      The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act.
      ----- Proposed Amendment XXVIII.
      Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed. ----- SECTION 2. The Supreme Court will have the authority to review cases, and as part of the ruling declare these cases constitutional or unconstitutional, however the decision by the States (section 1) shall be superior.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:Finally ... by Sabriel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think every country should start doing exactly the same things to all US citizens.

      I propose the opposite. I propose we make it as nice as possible for US citizens to enter other countries, so they can see just how ugly the US border policies are by comparison.

      US tourist #1: "Yeah, it was cool! We arrived in Australia and the border guards gave us barbecued prawns!"

      US tourist #2: "And then we got back to the US and all we got was fingerprinted and a cavity search..."

    4. Re:Finally ... by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think every country should start doing exactly the same things to all US citizens. Let's see how long it takes before Americans start to complain about being fingerprinted, cavity searched, and arbitrarily detained.

      I like most Americans, but your fucking government is out of control.

      I find that, in general, my countrymen and women who are most opposed to ridiculousness like this are the very ones who leave the US the most often. Those numbskulls who approve of treating all international travelers like terrorists on the other hand stay at home

      Maybe its that travellers experience security theater firsthand and then become opposed to it. Maybe it's more that people who want full body cavity searches of all people coming into the US are so xenophobic about the evil non-americans trying to steal their precious "freedom" from them that they won't leave. Or maybe it's just that those people who can't see that it's doing nothing are so dumb they don't realize there's anything worth seeing outside of our borders.

      Whatever the case, blaming Americans who do venture past our borders is blaming the wrong demographic.

  5. Re:Rights?! by Izabael_DaJinn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But for many people the problem is NOT that they have something incriminating on their laptops, but the fact they are taken for soooooooooooo long and not returned. TrueCrypt folders or whatever would most likely cause the powers-that-be to keep the laptop even longer.

    --
    Careful What You Wish For....
  6. It has worked this way for 200+ years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    A country has ALWAYS had the right to fully inspect or seize ANYTHING coming in across its border!
    .
    And that includes laptops. The rules haven't suddenly changed. You just noticed that you don't like the rules. And EVERY country has this right (whether or not they can enforce it is another matter).
    Customs officials ALWAYS had the right to search your bags. Now you have this magical Bag of Holding, your laptop, that can hold a God awful lot of things. They still get to search it. It is still just a bag, magical or not.
    .
    It worked that way in medieval China. It worked that way in Imperial Spain. It worked that way in Colonial America. And it works that way now.
    .
    This ruling doe snot fundamentally change that. It merely says you have to seize the laptop outright as contraband, hold the laptop for a reasonable amount of time (e.g., immediately, 15 days, etc.) to search for contraband, or let the laptop go.
    .
    Again this is nothing new. Every country does this.[FN1]
    .
    [FN1]
    The EU is an odd case because they can't decide whether they want to be a bunch of small countries or a single big country. While I am guessing that customs stops no longer occur at interior country borders (e.g., France/Germany, much like intra-state borders NY/PA), the customs searchs still occur at the exterior country borders (i.e., from non-EU/EU, US to EU).

    1. Re:It has worked this way for 200+ years by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

      The U.S. is generally a country with some notion of property rights, though, so the police cannot arbitrarily seize and keep things if no law was violated, even at borders. They can search luggage entering the country, sure, but this case was about whether the police may keep a laptop for six months or longer without any sort of forfeiture proceeding or at least some sort of showing that the laptop was contraband under U.S. law and properly subject to confiscation.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    2. Re:It has worked this way for 200+ years by hypergreatthing · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah see, that's where you are wrong. I don't mind inspecting, even reasonable searches, but seizing anything? At least there needs to be a reason like it's contraband or illegal. Seizing equipment because they can is the same thing as stealing private property, and as far as i know that's covered by the 5th amendment of the constitution. You want to take my property? Fine, just provide me with enough cash so that my property, time spent on it and sensitive information on it is completely compensated for.

    3. Re:It has worked this way for 200+ years by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>A country has ALWAYS had the right to fully inspect or seize ANYTHING coming in across its border!

      Where in the Constitution was the United States government given that power of unlimited property theft (or limitless imprisonment)??? MY reading of the constitution says the exact opposite (Bill of Rights, sections 5 and 9 and 10).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:It has worked this way for 200+ years by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, they can. They do it all the time. Try traveling somewhere with a large amount of cash (even inside the country). If the cops find out, they'll seize the cash and let you go because they have nothing to charge you with. You don't get the cash back though.

      The US used to have a notion of property rights, embodied in the 4th Amendment, but that notion is long gone, and the 4th Amendment is now null and void.

    5. Re:It has worked this way for 200+ years by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And you can't even blame "fear of terrorists". We gave away the 4th Amendment for the War on Drugs, and we'll never get it back. The cops can just take your stuff for fun now, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's not even a "border" thing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:It has worked this way for 200+ years by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have to BE here to be receive your guaranteed rights

      No, you have your rights no matter where you are. That's why they're called "natural rights"; everyone has them. More to the point, to the extent that someone is acting as an agent of the US government under the authority of the US Constitution their authority is limited to that actually granted by the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the US government or its agents the authority to perform any search or seizure without a warrant. If anyone were to perform such a search or seizure without a warrant then said search or seizure would be an illegal act under US law, lacking any Constitutional "legitimacy", regardless of where the act takes place.

      Whether you can enforce your rights is a different matter, of course. Clearly the US government isn't going to help, but there are other options one can try.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    7. Re:It has worked this way for 200+ years by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A friend of mine is in Turkey now. He doesn't enjoy the same rights there as he does here.

      Your rights must protected and enforced.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:It has worked this way for 200+ years by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He has the same rights there as he has here. Enforcement is a separate issue. The US Constitution doesn't grant rights, it simply states that the government is required to respect them in exchange for receiving whatever appearance of legitimacy the Constitution can provide. The rights themselves exist independent of the Constitution, and predate the Constitution.

      If rights only existed to the extent they could be enforced then it would be impossible to violate anyone's rights; the moment they were violated they would disappear. That would render the concept meaningless.

      Anyway, we are speaking of U.S. citizens and agents of the U.S. government. Regardless of what may occur in other countries, they must adhere to U.S. law in every respect to maintain their legal status. The U.S. government obviously cannot authorize them to act contrary to U.S. law, and if they do so on their own they can be held accountable for it within the victim's jurisdiction.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  7. The rollback of the Bush era infringements by mollog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It still scares me to see how badly the Bush administration has damaged democracy and the American constitution. It will take years, but this is another step away from the proto-fascist path that our country had started down when the far right-wing neocons came to power.

    They are still out there. The Supreme Court has been loaded with ideologues and until one of them leaves the bench we are stuck with a judicial system that has been gamed for the sake of the wealthy and well-connected who care nothing for our country's laws and traditions.

    --
    Best regards.
    1. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by JesseL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thank goodness Obama has done so much to fix all that.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    2. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Peach+Rings · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It scares me how scared people are that they think this is rational behavior. The "reasonable suspicion" that the border agent had at the scene was:

      Hanson appeared nervous, the discovery of the condoms and the male-enhancement pills, and Hanson's statement that he had been working with children

      Then they searched his laptop 3 times and found a single image of what appeared to be an adolescent girl naked on a beach, so they arrested him for possessing and transporting child pornography, and since it's federal, he's going to PMITA prison.

    3. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by tophermeyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am not going to defend the Bush administration. But it is worth noting that Obama has been President for 1 1/2 years already and he's done pretty much nothing to roll that back. Bush hating made sense back in 2007 while we was still enacting crap like this, but its only fair to also be critical of the guy who came into office promising "change" and has instead protected the status quo (in terms of fascist analogies towards government).

    4. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot your sarcasm tag. It's a testament to Bush's awfulness that yet another centrist, milquetoast suit was hailed as liberal saviour.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    5. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>>It still scares me to see how badly the Bush administration has damaged democracy and the American constitution

      Yes George Duh Bush is a git, but Obama signed the Patriot Act Renewal bill, so now he's just as much of a git. Obama should have kept his promise and let the Patriot Act expire. Obama's other broken promises:

      1 - Stop snatching people off streets. Provide a Right to fair trial. - (REALITY: We no longer have Miranda rights even for U.S. citizens.) (Can be held indefinitely w/o trial)
      2 - Right to Privacy - (They now spy on us via warrantless wiretaps and track our cellphones) (Patriot Act renewed by Obama.)
      3 - No interrogation. Close Guantanamo. - (Revoked - now they interrogate American citizens too.)
      4 - End the war. - (Now it's been extended two more years.)

      So now we've had three shitty presidents in a row.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Kpau · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As opposed to a central corporate string-pulling government economy... yeah that was so much better (/sarcasm). Get a grip - both sides of the ocin here suck.

    7. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by jbeach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is NO WAY that Obama was worse than Hillary (who fully approved the invasion of Iraq without looking over the evidence) or John Edwards (willing to be nominated while he was having a reckless affair, which shows how much he values honesty *and* the efforts of all working for him).

      Simply not possible.

      What I think is going on here, is that Obama is being called awful simply because he's not a savior. There are a lot of big messes going on right now, people. Any one of them would be the most notable thing to happen in a presidency - and we're getting all of them at once. He inherits two wars, a historic recession, and now possibly the worst ecological disaster in US history.

      McCain would clearly have been worse, just by continuing more of Bush's policies than Obama. I wish Obama were continuing none, but at least now the economy has been pulled back from the cliff.

      And above all else, Obama shows himself as better than McCain simply by not foisting on us an obscenity like Palin.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    8. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a 2nd Amendment supporter, about the only thing I can say positive about Obama is that he signed the bill into law allowing people to carry firearms in National Parks. Of course, he didn't really want to sign that, but it was attached to some other crap he wanted, so he signed it anyway. So, in a way, Obama has been better for gun-rights supporters than Bush, who never signed any such bill, and also wanted to renew the idiotic "Assault Weapons Ban" (but Congress refused to renew it at the time so he never got to sign it).

      As for shitty Presidents in a row, I think it's been a lot more than 3, unless you want to try to segregate them based on their shittiness. Honestly, I can't think of the last GOOD President this country has had. It certainly hasn't been within my lifetime. Eisenhower, perhaps? FDR? Jefferson? Washington? All the ones since the 60s have sucked:
            JFK: Bay of Pigs
            LBJ: Vietnam war, welfare
            Nixon: extending Vietnam war, Watergate
            Ford: dunno
            Carter: ineffective in mideast crisis
            Reagan: massive deficit spending on military, Iran-Contra affair
            Bush I: Gulf War I, "read my lips: no new taxes"
            Clinton: not horrible, but didn't do anything good either, stupidly got caught getting blowjob from ugly intern with loose lips; signed bill overturning Glass-Steagal Act leading to Mortgage Meltdown
            Bush II: Afgh & Iraq wars, Patriot Act, Cheney, Halliburton, Blackwater, ineffective in Katrina, the list goes on and on
            Obama: extending Afgh & Iraq wars, ineffective with BP oil spill, promised "change" but everything's still the same as under Bush even though he has a Democrat-controlled Congress to work with

    9. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're aim is poor, because you're targeting the wrong person. I hate corporations. Centralized power of ANY kind, whether it is in a corporation or government, is dangerous to individual liberty. I guess that's why I hated BOTH bush and Øbama.

      Why must decisions always be placed in someone else's hands? Why can't I make my OWN decisions of what I want to buy, or wish to work, or desire to live. Bush/Obama both tried to take away my freedom of choice. As if I'm serf.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      His Democrats Congress passed a bill, and he signed into law, a requirement that I MUST buy health insurance, or be punished (fined $950). Now they are pushing a bill that would require me to have a license to publish on the web. Plus this idea to charge people for how much carbon they use. They bail-out companies like GM that should be been allowed to pass away.

      What's next? I buy a normal car instead of a hybrid car, and I get fined $1000 per year? This is called central government control of the economy.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Corporatism and central planning are the same thing - it's government and corporations working as one. Obama's policies certainly qualify

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    12. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Compared to what Lincoln and Wilson did, the Bush Administration was a minor league play.

      Hell, or what happened under Jackson.

      Indian Removal Act was far more damaging than anything Bush did or dreamed of doing.

    13. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's an insightful idea: really, the problem from government central planning, and monopoly (or non-competitive oligopoly) central planning are about the same, aren't they? With no need to please the customer, problems don't get fixed. "We're AT&T: we don't have to." Corporate lobbying of government decision makers and coprorate lobbying of big monopoly players through partnership agreements, whic quite different in style, seem to end up working the same way.

      Hmm, if only we could move the seat of power in America from one central monopoly to 50 or so competing smaller governments, so we had a choice - nah, that's a radical kook idea, no one would ever buy that.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Technician · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The great depression was extended for years due to to the action the government took to end it. Now we are doing the same thing again with the stimulus. Expect this recovery to last a while.
      http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

      Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

      In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

      Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    15. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama is very far from Lenin.

      Obama hasn't instituted the killing of people politically opposed to him, nor has there been a mandate to sell off farms Zimbabwe style with a mandatory percentage of the crops going to the urban workers.

      Obama maybe left of Bush and a bit left of the Clintons, but he is far from European Labour or the Greens and way right of Soviet Union Communist Party.

    16. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A chimpanzee could do just as effective a job as President as him

      Actually, we already tried that. George W Bush did a much worse job than Obama is doing.

      So we've changed from a chimpanzee to a baboon. Great. Big improvement. Chimps are actually smarter than baboons.

      I think the real problem is that, after eight ruinous years of Bush, people were looking for a savior. What we got was an everyday politician. Obama is not great, but he's not bad either. I would prefer to have a great president, but I'll settle for average over abysmally shitty any day.

      No, he's not "not bad" or "average", he's downright shitty. Maybe not quite as abysmally shitty as Bush, but the improvement is so slight that it's pretty much unnoticeable. As I said before, his response to the oil spill disaster has been every bit as ineffective as Bush's response to Katrina. And he hasn't done anything to end the stupid and unproductive wars, and in fact has added more troops. I really fail to see how this guy is substantially different from Bush at all. At least he doesn't talk like a moron, but speeches don't equal results.

      If that happens, this country will not survive. I mean that quite literally. A Palin presidency would actually make us long for the days of George W Bush.

      I have serious doubts this country is going to survive, regardless of who wins the next election. It's tearing itself to pieces.

    17. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, they are not. Concrete example:

      In the old days all the power companies in my country were owned by the government, be it local or national. Following the lead of the Thatcherites and Reaganites we decided to let the free market reign and privatized the companies.

      The problem is, power companies will use the assets that make up the infrastructure which a nation is completely dependant upon as collateral for loans, risky business endeavours etc. This what companies do and there is nothing wrong with that, except if it means that your economy could come crashing down at any time through no fault of your own because some jackass decide to play the lottery and now a couple of million people are sitting in the dark.

      So what did we do? We separated the companies that supply energy from the ones that manage the infrastructure. The infrastructure is safely in public hands, so there's no risk of waking up one day to find out the powerlines are owned by google. The suppliers are free to do whatever the heck they please within the rules, and if one of 'm goes tits up, we just switch to one of the two dozen other choices. Same principle applies to the phonelines and within a few years I expect the cable providers will do the same.

      There are some things that are simply too important and too valuable to be trusted to the free market. Electrical infrastructure. Transportation. Phonelines, the internet. As folks on Slashdot repeat over and over, a corporation has 1 objective and that is too squeeze out as much profit as possible for the shareholders, consequences be damned. When there is choice, that is not a problem, but when you're dealing with a natural monopoly, it is.

      You know what would happen if the US actually did what you preach? You would wake up one day and find out that not only does China own all your national debt, they own your powerlines, the road you use to go to work, the postman delivering your mail and the modem allowing you to post your ideological drivel.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    18. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wasn't there a few Democrats in power when all of these laws enabling this bullstuff were being passed?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    19. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No the real problem is that someone making $30,000 a year expects someone else to pay $15,000 to take care of their health.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    20. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Clinton signed CALEA, DMCA, and yet another copyright duration extension (whoever gets elected in 2012 will need to sign another one too, I think).

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    21. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect.

      Logic like that is why nobody takes economists too seriously.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    22. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>There was nothing in the Constitution that allowed other races to vote until 1870

      But the U.S. Constitution is just ONE constitution of several. There were state constitutions as well, and the northern constitutions allowed "freemen" (blacks) to vote the same as whites. And for women: New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and a few others allowed female suffrage.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    23. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Centralized power of ANY kind, whether it is in a corporation or government, is dangerous to individual liberty.

      In the absence of some outside restraining force, how do you avoid the inevitable natural concentration of power when everything is left to its own forces? Neither governments nor corporations appeared out of thin air; similar institutions have inevitably been created by people of civilizations that are very different otherwise. This seems to imply that the very nature of human society leads to them.

      Government, in that sense, is an attempt to curb the threat of centralized power by trying to have a single entity, which is at least nominally controllable, and can all other such entities - corporations - in check. It is itself effectively a private corporation (for citizens only) with non-transferable shares. Without its regulative effects, you instead have a bunch of completely uncontrollable, powerful entities that fight each other by all means available. Worst-case scenario is that they form a cartel, and then you have a corporatist dictatorship. So what do you propose?

      Why must decisions always be placed in someone else's hands? Why can't I make my OWN decisions of what I want to buy, or wish to work, or desire to live.

      The other side of a coin is having more than one choice. Elections were commonplace in all communist states, and they're still held in e.g. North Korea. It's just that the list of candidates is such that choice is meaningless. But the same effect can also be achieved economically, through monopolistic collusion - when your choice is not "buy X or Y", but "buy X or don't buy at all" - and for some categories of goods (e.g. food), the latter simply isn't an option. And a similar scheme with an even greater potential for abuse is possible on the job market...

    24. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by aztektum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Requiring people to have healthcare so they can stay healthy is uhm a bit on the oppsite side of the spectrum of a man responsible for murdering ~4 million men, women and children.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    25. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>$15,000 a year for health care

      Bull. Shit. The Nationwide Company quoted high-deductible, catastrophic insurance for me. $140/month. I then negotiated the price downto $95, so that's only ~$1200 a year. Other than those living on the street, anybody could afford that. It's less than what most people spend for cable TV and cellphone. If money is tight, cancel the cable/cellphone and then you'll have the money to buy this same plan I am currently investigating.

      >>>1 in 6 American's are currently without health insurance

      Exaggerate much? The number the Democrats stated was 40 million from a scientifically inaccurate postcard study whose numbers are worthless. Or about 1 in 8.

      BUT even that number is not accurate. According to a *science study*, that figure included approximately 10 million people who are not Americans (i.e. they are intruders that entered illegally). Another 10 million don't have private insurance, but they ARE covered by existing government insurance (Medicare, SCHIP, SSI). And another 10 million are people like me who can afford insurance but simply choose not to, because we're young and healthy and don't need it.

      So the conclusion of this scientific study was that 7-8 million U.S. citizens are not currently covered, and cannot afford to buy coverage. That's only 1 in 39, not 1 in 6.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    26. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by element-o.p. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the modern Republican party is not really Republican. That's why I no longer consider myself Republican (and haven't for a long time).

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    27. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Peach+Rings · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do pay your own bills, through taxes. Everyone shares the cost.

      Consider the alternative that you're suggesting. You suggest that people who get sick should have to pay for their care, as if it's a good/service that they're consuming. But the sick are in a situation where declining to visit the doctor can put a human life at risk!

      The thing that must be avoided at all cost is a financial disincentive to receive medical attention. That's the human rights part- a person in need of care should never have to balance their life against the needs of their family, and recovering people in a hospital should never have the additional burden of worrying about bills. The easiest way to accomplish this is to simply make medical care free, and to bill everyone. Sick people (who have enough to worry about anyway) aren't penalized for things out of their control, which I would think that Free Marketers would understand is pretty sensible from an economic perspective.

    28. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by jthill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a requirement that I MUST buy health insurance, or be punished (fined $950)

      So buy insurance. If you don't, nobody's going to just let you die because civilized countries, decent humans, don't do that. If you get sick and can't afford the hospital stay that would make you healthy again, then somebody's going to pay for it anyway -- that somebody being the taxpayer. So we don't care if you're young and healthy and say you don't need it when the truth is you'd rather gamble with our money, and we don't really lend much credence to accusations of immorality from anyone who suggests we would or should just watch someone's child die right here in our own country.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    29. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      P.S. Also you didn't answer the question: How can Obama BE any more liberal? He's only a few steps away from where Lenin stood on the political spectrum (central planning).

      Wow. Just.... wow.

      Folks, this is probably the most graphic display of how far to the right the American political spectrum is skewed you're likely to see for some time.

    30. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I just think Palin would tear it to pieces faster.

      Yes, definitely. She'd probably start a nuclear war or something.

      But, we are rapidly entering the kind of mentality that got us into the original Civil War. The main difference is that the battle lines are not as strictly drawn on state lines.

      Yep. It seems to be more urban vs. rural, but still more complex than that. The country is pulling apart in many directions, over many issues: immigration, spending, bailouts, foreign wars, taxation, corporate power (particularly over government), loss of manufacturing and other economic changes, etc.

    31. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by kuei12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real issue is neither Obama or McCain should have made it that far up the ladder. We had several better people to choose from, and americans typically pick the two biggest idiots to compete in the final leg of the race. The american people are to blame. NOBODY ELSE!

    32. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its the same stuff as people calling democrats communist, its just a place-holder for things they dont like, without giving too much though to reality.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    33. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...quoted high-deductible, catastrophic insurance..."

      So...in other words..insurance that's basically useless for:

      A) Anyone who has a chronic health problem.
      B) Anyone who occasionally visits a doctor for routine health care and check ups
      OR
      c) for a family or couple.

      Thanks for making *that* convincing argument!

    34. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never understood this. Fascists supported a dictatorship where individual freedom is all but dead. Republicans support a libertarian philosophy (albeit not as extreme as the actual LP) for maximum individual freedom.

      Republicans, not all but many, do not support the libertarian philosophy. That is why dissatisfied Republicans left the Republican Party to start the Libertarian Party. Republicans seek to restrict liberty just as much as Democrats do, only in different arenas. Businesses can do whatever they want to make a profit but individuals can't do whatever they want in private.

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
    35. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a requirement that I MUST buy health insurance, or be punished (fined $950)

      So buy insurance. If you don't, nobody's going to just let you die because civilized countries, decent humans, don't do that. If you get sick and can't afford the hospital stay that would make you healthy again, then somebody's going to pay for it anyway -- that somebody being the taxpayer.

      That might be true elsewhere but not in the US. Taxpayers don't pay the medical bills for those unable to pay, those who use medical services pay.

      So we don't care if you're young and healthy and say you don't need it when the truth is you'd rather gamble with our money

      What is this if not trolling? Neither I nor many others want to gamble with other people's money, what I want is to be able to pay out of pocket for regular medical bills, and be able to shop around for the providers of said services. With most medical care if the medical staff is told the bill will be paid out of pocket, so they don't have to file an insurance form, they will reduce the cost. It does cost money to file those forms after all. And just as with everything thing else, I want to be able to shop around for health care.

      and we don't really lend much credence to accusations of immorality from anyone who suggests we would or should just watch someone's child die right here in our own country.

      It doesn't happen often where we allow children to die because of lack of medical care now. Though an adult, being unemployed, a student, and not having insurance after I was hit in an accident after my classes I was Medevaced by helicopter to a hospital where I stayed while in a coma. After I came out of the coma I was moved to a rehab house where I stayed a few more weeks. Once I left there I still went through more months of therapy. All together my medical bills came to more than $120,000, without any guarantee the docs, hospital, rehab house, and therapists would ever be paid.

      Not only that, but for children there are a number of Shriners Hospitals for Children, 22, in the USA. There is no requirement children admitted to any of them or their parents be able to pay. The same with comedian Danny Thomas's St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. Let's see what Funding says"
      "All medically eligible patients who are accepted for treatment at St. Jude are treated without regard to the family's ability to pay. St. Jude is the only pediatric research center in the United States where families never pay for treatments that are not covered by insurance, and families without insurance are never asked to pay. In addition to providing medical services to eligible patients, St. Jude also assists families with transportation, lodging, and meals. Three separate specially-designed patient housing facilities--Grizzly House for short-term (up to two weeks), Ronald McDonald House for medium-term (two weeks to 3 months), and Target House for long-term (3 months or more)--provide housing for patients and up to three family members, with no cost to the patient. These policies, along with research expenses and other costs, cause the hospital to incur more than $2.4 million in operating costs each day. Around $180,000 is covered by patient insurance, the remaining $2.22 million/day is funded by charitable contributions."

      "We don't really lend much credence to accusations of immorality from anyone" who makes up BS!

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
    36. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "...quoted high-deductible, catastrophic insurance..."

      So...in other words..insurance that's basically useless for:

      A) Anyone who has a chronic health problem.
      B) Anyone who occasionally visits a doctor for routine health care and check ups
      OR
      c) for a family or couple.

      You left out a very important OR
      d) Anyone who wants to pay out of pocket for regular medical expenses.

      I'd rather have catastrophic medical coverage and use a health saving account to pay ordinary medical costs. If I were married, even if I had children, I'd still prefer my option. The only thing that would change that is an expensive chronic issue. In which case I'd be willing to pay more for more coverage. Unlike others I believe in personal responsibility.

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
    37. Re:The rollback of the Bush era infringements by laughingcoyote · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought I pretty clearly stated that I do not think "whatever government does is right. Let's see...

      I didn't say a duly elected government had the right to do whatever the hell it wants, and genocide is certainly well outside those boundaries. On the other hand, taxation is widely considered to be a legitimate function of government.

      Wait, I did very explicitly say that. Helps to read what you're responding to.

      As to calling Godwin, that type of hyperbole fits to the definition what Godwin's Law was made for-hysterical references to Nazism and the Holocaust as analogies to things that are nothing like genocide.

      As to why taxation is not theft, let's look at what the definition of theft is. We'll start with Princeton Wordnet:

      larceny: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully; "the thieving is awful at Kennedy International"

      Alright, let's try Merriam-Webster then:

      1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

      Note the common thread here: theft is an unlawful taking. Taxation is a lawful taking. Therefore, taxation is not theft. I'm not arguing at all that that makes it right by definition-one can certainly argue that taxes are too high and have a legitimate position. But by the definition of theft, taxation is not theft. By the definition of government, taxation is considered a legitimate function of government, even in the freest of liberal democracies. Genocide is not. To compare the two is ludicrous.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  8. Re:Rights?! by vxice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rights are meant to protect you from a corrupt government. It is your duty as an American to resist a corrupt government just as the red coats were removed from this country by force after being told to leave so much for 'violence is never the answer.' Laws that make criminals easier to catch make revolutionaries against corrupt government easier to catch and the only one interested in that are the entrenched corrupt government. Liberties are meant to defend you from your government and should NEVER be surrendered. Violent revolution adds a physical cost to corrupt governance.

    --
    every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
  9. Re:Rights?! by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rights are meant to protect you from a corrupt government. It is your duty as an American to resist a corrupt government just as the red coats were removed from this country by force after being told to leave so much for 'violence is never the answer.' Laws that make criminals easier to catch make revolutionaries against corrupt government easier to catch and the only one interested in that are the entrenched corrupt government. Liberties are meant to defend you from your government and should NEVER be surrendered. Violent revolution adds a physical cost to corrupt governance.

    According to the Constitution there are rights we cannot be forced to give up because they were not given to us by men.

    But they were sure taken by force by weak minded men

    --
    Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
  10. Jurisdiction, anybody? by r_jensen11 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The complete contents of a hard drive or memory card can be perused at length for evidence of lawbreaking of any kind, even if it's underpaying taxes or not paying parking tickets.

    Holy balls, Batman! The DHS is like the CIA, FBI, ATF, and IRS all in one! What's that? You don't even need an associates degree to join? Great Scott!

  11. PortableApps.com + microSDHC by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    PortableApps.com = move your digital life onto removable media, able to run on any PC.
    microSDHC = 1-16GB storage on a sub-fingernail-sized removable media.
    Unless they're gonna go thru all the lint in everyone's pockets, they can have the notebook.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:PortableApps.com + microSDHC by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod this up...
      Honestly there is absolutely no point to a laptop search, unless the physical laptop may have been tampered with (which the visual inspection already done for domestic travel would suffice). What keeps someone from putting data onto a memory card and sticking it into their phone / game system / whatever on a hidden partition? Or better yet, using the internet to simply transfer it from a public PC lab outside of the country to a server they set up inside (if they are a returning US citizen it isn't hard to expect them to have a computer already on the inside of the border). The reverse, a visitor could use a public pc lab / free wifi to download whatever from a server in their home country. If the laptop was used for criminal activity worthy of scrutiny, a criminal would simply throw it away and buy a new one (since the activity would certainly have been worth the cost of a new computer, if it was worth searching for to begin with).

      Laptop drive/media searches are *entirely* security theater... all it does is cost criminals $400 and everyone else time and dignity...

    2. Re:PortableApps.com + microSDHC by macaulay805 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ironically, your tagline fits your post "-1 Wrong". The solution you're suggestion is fixing the symptom, NOT the problem. The problem is unreasonable search and seizure. That is the problem we should be tackling.

  12. Re:Rights?! by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rights?! Rights?! This is Soviet America you don't need Rights so move on already!

    These searches and bullshit by the grunts with the badges and guns are just for us little people. When you fly in on a private jet, the HMS is, let's say, much more courteous.

    Now peon, quit your bitching about the order of things and get back to work with the rest of us nobodies!

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  13. Re:ruling makes sense by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The ruling does not make sense. Please tell me how warrantless searches of computers are legitimate to begin with.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    I'd say searching anyone's laptop as an unreasonable search and seizure, unless someone beat someone's head with the laptop and the laptop in question becomes a murder weapon.

    We need judges who uphold the constitution and which deliver practical rulings to make us safer. All this does is further "legitimize" what should be an illegal practice by the DHS.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  14. Re:Rights?! by pluther · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They weren't taken by force.

    They were gleefully surrendered by frightened cowards.

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  15. Re:ruling makes sense by jschottm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Please tell me how warrantless searches of computers are legitimate to begin with.

    It's called the Border Search Exception and it has a long history of being upheld by the Supreme Court. It has its roots in the acts of the First Congress in 1789. If you leave the country, you're subject to being searched upon return.

  16. Re:ruling makes sense by camperdave · · Score: 2, Informative

    When you are at the border you are no longer "in" the US. You are "between" countries. You have no rights.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  17. Thank God! by tlambert · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank God!

    As opposed to a central corporate string-pulling government economy...

    ...we are SO lucky the newly elected government fixed the corporate string-pulling of government before some terrible disaster or environmental catastrophe took place!

    -- Terry

  18. Re:ruling makes sense by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, but that still doesn't make it right or truly legitimate. However, I think we can all agree that the intent of it wasn't to search everything but rather give border officers the authority to search for things like weapons not search computer files.

    We need government to be limited and this allows for baseless, pointless searches, both destroying freedom and destroying sane fiscal policies. This must be repealed either at the legislative or by the courts as unconstitutional.

    And for those delusional masses who think that this prevents "terrorism", ask yourself, what computer file can be gotten in a foreign country that is illegal that can't be gotten via the internet?

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  19. Re:ruling makes sense by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you are at the border you are no longer "in" the US. You are "between" countries. You have no rights.

    Its like a little mini-gitmo for everyone coming to america!

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  20. Re:ruling makes sense by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Not according to the US founding fathers.

    We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness---That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it,

    Rights are not given to the people by the government, rights are natural, given by God (or nature). Governments are given rights by the people. People, however have natural rights given to them simply by being human. The right to oppose government and the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches is a natural right, not a right given by government because the government has no authority to give or take away rights.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  21. Re:ruling makes sense by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's all nice and well, but the Declaration of Independence has no basis in law, and never has.

    Worse, however, is the fact that the Constitution has no legal weight either.

  22. Re:ruling makes sense by nomadic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's all nice and well, but the Declaration of Independence has no basis in law, and never has.

    Ehh...not really that simple. The Declaration has some weight in US statutory law.

  23. Reboot instead of rewrite by zooblethorpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps we just are overdue for a revolution and a rewrite of our constitution and government to one that properly secures rights, because this 200 some year old one isn't held in high enough regard anymore...

    Heck, I'd settle for a reboot instead of a rewrite, where the Constitution is put back in place as the actual legal foundation for anything in this country's legislation.

    As things currently stand, there's so much awful unconstitutional cruft floating around that will likely never be cleared away... and then new laws are written and new case law decided based on this unconstitutional cruft. Meh. Idjimit (or corrupt) congress members can draft and even pass horribly written, prima facie unconstitutional legislation, and unless it's challenged and taken to court and judged unconstitutional, it stands. Herein lies the rub.

    So how about we just clear house, clean out the cruft, and get back to basics. And make sure any knucklehead in public office actually understands and follows through on those various oaths to protect and uphold the Constitution.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  24. Lenin by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

    >>>Obama hasn't instituted the killing of people politically opposed to him

    I don't recall Lenin doing that either, after the old dictatorship had been toppled, a new government had been instituted and peace achieved.

    Lenin achieved peace? And he didn't have those politically opposed to him killed? AHAH! He did neither. By decree Lenin established the Cheka (secret police), the precursor to the KGB. The Cheka was run by Felix Dzerzhinsky who was widely known as a large scale human rights violator. He routinely used torture and summary executions and conducted the Red Terror.

    Falcon

    --
    Should there be a Law?