Slashdot Mirror


Homeland Security Stole Michael Arrington's Boat

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Arrington, founder of TechCrunch, lives near Seattle and bought a boat there. He ordered it from a company based near him, but across the border in Canada. Yesterday, the company tried to deliver it to him, and it had to clear customs. An agent for the Department of Homeland Security asked him to sign a form. The form contained information about the boat, including its cost. The price was correct, but it was in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars. Since the form contained legal warnings about making sure everything on it is true and accurate, Arrington suggested to the agent that they correct the error. She responded by seizing the boat. 'As in, demanded that we get off the boat, demanded the keys and took physical control of it. What struck me the most about the situation is how excited she got about seizing the boat. Like she was just itching for something like this to happen. This was a very happy day for her. ... A person with a gun and a government badge asked me to swear in writing that a lie was true today. And when I didn't do what she wanted she simply took my boat and asked me to leave.'"

812 comments

  1. This never happened to me, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    in the years that I imported horse manure.

    1. Re:This never happened to me, by cantsleep · · Score: 2

      You must not be from Utah. Here in Utah they would have taken your horse manure.
      Honestly, I have NEVER EVER EVER received kind service from ANY state or federal employee. And I'm not even an abrasive person. That includes the city councilmen and the girls working the concession stands at the local state university.

      Well, too be completely fair my postman is super nice to me... but it looks like I'm going to be seeing him one day less a week. F*CK!

    2. Re:This never happened to me, by flayzernax · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The U.S. postal service, while government subsidized is actually still a private subsidy, they are also competing against USPS and Fedex.

      There is no competition for DHS, Homeland thugs. They are all dropouts, drugies military, and police rejects.

    3. Re:This never happened to me, by flayzernax · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      In other words the USPS is not a paramilitary group trying to gain power. They are a business in the service of serving their customers.

    4. Re:This never happened to me, by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      "The U.S. postal service ... are also competing against USPS " They ARE the USPS :) I assume you meant "against UPS"

    5. Re:This never happened to me, by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe he meant the United States Power Squadrons
      They are mortal enemies

    6. Re:This never happened to me, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, she has always just wanted to have a boat.. and seized the opportunity to have that one. What with the way she got all excited and stuff. ; )

    7. Re:This never happened to me, by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Yes, and thanks for the correction.

    8. Re:This never happened to me, by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      lol...

    9. Re:This never happened to me, by gv250 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "The U.S. postal service ... are also competing against USPS

      That explains a lot.

    10. Re:This never happened to me, by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      The U.S. postal service, while government subsidized is actually still a private subsidy, they are also competing against USPS and Fedex.

      Obviously you meant UPS in the latter, though they're really only competing for *packages*. The USPS is the only one allowed to actually send normal mail.

    11. Re:This never happened to me, by Gorobei · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I have NEVER EVER EVER received kind service from ANY state or federal employee. And I'm not even an abrasive person. That includes the city councilmen and the girls working the concession stands at the local state university.

      Wow, then you are doing something really wrong. Sure, 20% may be idiots with a pre-conceived notion of what the situation is, but 80% are people doing a job and wanting to have a good experience for themselves (and that includes fixing your problem, etc.) If you can get a girl's phone number at a bar, you have enough social skills to get good service from a state or federal employee.

      70 over the speed limit, 3 years unfiled minor tax forms, fishing out of season, expired vehicle registration, no car insurance, underaged drunk semi-naked 15 year-old. All resolved with a warning, a high-five, or a $17 payment (for the annoying tax issue, penalties waived.)

      And the supreme court judge who granted us smoke breaks during jury sequester (easy negotiation, the court bailiff was impressed though,) and the hot assistant DA (loved the red dress) who returned my lost wallet and said she got satisfaction out of making private citizens happy, and could she do anything more for me?

      I love my interactions with government.

    12. Re:This never happened to me, by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      The U.S. postal service, while government subsidized is actually still a private subsidy, they are also competing against USPS and Fedex.

      Obviously you meant UPS in the latter, though they're really only competing for *packages*.

      So it's a dicksize competition then?

    13. Re:This never happened to me, by cantsleep · · Score: 1

      You must not be from Utah. And what's a bar? =)

    14. Re:This never happened to me, by Gorobei · · Score: 1

      Closest I got to Utah was Arizona. Got pulled over for 87mph in Buckeye. Using my English accent, told the cop how much better the roads and scenery and everything was in Arizona and the United States (how can you not speed on such an awesome motorway?) He let me off and gave me a list of Arizona attractions. Win for us both.

    15. Re:This never happened to me, by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the Customs agent had less than high-school education. Yes, she could do a job, if it was not complicated.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    16. Re:This never happened to me, by ranulf · · Score: 1

      Maybe, she has always just wanted to have a boat.. and seized the opportunity to have that one. What with the way she got all excited and stuff. ; )

      And I bet she was singing this to herself as she did so....

  2. No way... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    A person in a position of power abused that power? Well color me surprised! I'm sure this has everything to do with DHS and nothing at all to do with the fact that every imaginable authority organization has had people who abuse their power since the dawn of time. Why is this news? Pursue your problem, get it resolved... But this is not "news for nerds" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    1. Re:No way... by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But this is not "news for nerds" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

      Yeah, just close your eyes....

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:No way... by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      It's not really in nerdspace, but still - it highlights the fact that people in positions of power misuse it.

      Maybe Franz Kafka was an optimist.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it is concerning someone of somewhat importance within the 'tech' crowd who has a considerable amount of ears to hear his voice.

    4. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Having opinions isn't an abuse of power. Acting on them (which he hasn't done) is.

      Also, restricting human liberties is possibly a bigger abuse of power, if inconveniently decentralized. But good on you for having an opinion.

    5. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then they came for me,
      and there was no one left to speak for me.

    6. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean becides not defending DOMA, stopping DADT, and offering same-sex benefits to military? Yep, he's done nothing. Thanks Obama!

    7. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... You are a nerd, and you are commenting.

      QED.

    8. Re:No way... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure this has everything to do with DHS and nothing at all to do with the fact that every imaginable authority organization has had people who abuse their power since the dawn of time.

      Well, that's one way to rationalize your feelings of powerlessness. "I'm not a pussy, I'm a cynic!"

    9. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, Obama sure isn't acting on his opinions in trying to ram gun control down America's throats...

    10. Re:No way... by PhxBlue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "... stuff that matters."

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    11. Re:No way... by jamesl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But this is not "news for nerds" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

      Unless it happened to you.

      Secretary Janet Napolitano oversees the third largest Cabinet department and leads our nation's efforts to secure our country from terrorism to natural disasters.
      http://www.dhs.gov/about-dhs

      Arrington is an interesting person but it's a stretch to say the he's either a terrorist or natural disaster.

    12. Re:No way... by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Arrington is an interesting person but it's a stretch to say the he's either a terrorist or natural disaster.

      Unlike the DHS.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    13. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But this is not "news for nerds" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination."

      I respect your tenacity, but trying to stretch something that small and stiff, is (5, Futile), not (5, Insightful). 'Twas news enough for me.

    14. Re:No way... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      This is one case where somebody is abusing their power. In any system you're going to have a few bad apples that spoil the bunch.

      I'm not suggesting that this is the only case where the DSHS abuses it's power, but claiming that one example means something is just plain silly. It's the collection of incidents where they fail to properly train and supervise their agents which is where you see a problem.

    15. Re:No way... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      But this is not "news for nerds" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

      No need to stretch the imagination. They guy with the missing boat is the former owner of TechCrunch.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    16. Re:No way... by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it isn't. It is a case where LOTS of people are abusing their power. This agent is not working in a vacuum. She is working in a framework that was designed by other people who also abused their power. She is supervised by people who are abusing their power. If the boat is returned promptly returned with an apology and the agent fired, then you can legitimatly claim that she was working alone, outside the authority of her position. Until that time, claiming that she was a rogue agent not supported by the full force of the government is nothing but a poor rationalization.

    17. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary is not quite correct, here's the actual wording he used from the link:

      The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.

      It has language at the bottom with serious sounding statements that the information is true and correct, and a signature block.

      I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.

      While he was at first legally in the right by pointing out the error and refusing the validate the form, he then made a major fuck-up. You can't declare the value in CAD for customs purposes, so technically he just tried to get the agent to violate the customs law by using CAD on the form. Had he simply stood his ground and refused to sign, or taken the pen and amended the form himself, he could simply file a complaint with a supervisor and probably have had the entire thing taken care of in a few hours.

    18. Re:No way... by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

      Arrington is an interesting person but it's a stretch to say the he's either a terrorist or natural disaster.

      Perhaps he's somewhere in between.

    19. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This times 10. If there is one major threat to national security it is the manner in which the Department of Homeland [in]Security conducts itself.

    20. Re:No way... by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty sure most of the states are going to beat him to it.

      Hmm, it's almost like a majority of the population is ok with it.

      Damn politicians, bending to their whims.

      Does not matter. Passing laws, enacting regulations, issuing EO's does not trump the Constitution. It's no different than if the government passed a law or regulation that authorized DHS to conduct random no-warrant, no-probable-cause house searches, or passed laws restricting the right to vote based on skin color.

      If the majority are in favor of restricting/altering the 2A , then it shouldn't be any problem to follow the established procedure to amend the Constitution. The simple fact that none of the anti-gun people will even attempt to start the amendment process is proof that they don't think the majority agrees with them.

      Once it's OK to "go around" the Constitution on the 2A, then that opens the door to the rest of the Bill of Rights being neutered. Either the Constitution is valid or it is not. There is no middle ground.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    21. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah if I did something like that to a customer I'd probably be sacked. "Oh you're not signing the doc that's misprinted, so we're taking your stuff now, yeehaw".

      If it's beyond your authority you call up your boss and ask "Hey boss, what do we do - the doc is wrong", boss says "Oh one of those USD-CAD mixups again, no big deal, amend it and sign the amendments and we'll fix it at our end later."

      If you want to be so rigid you might be one of those replaced by bots.

    22. Re:No way... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can you show me where the Constitution says there can't be limitations on the arms that you have a right to bear?

      The right to bear is not being infringed. Only the definition of arms.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    23. Re:No way... by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Rationalize or not, I'm pretty sure you can't do shit about it either, no matter how "powerful" you may feel.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    24. Re:No way... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      No, this is a case where a single officer demanded that he sign the form before releasing the boat. This isn't a large number of officers, this is one officer in one case. Only a fucking moron would think that's evidence of anything other than one case.

      Had you bothered to read the fucking post before responding, you would have realized that the GP acknowledged that there is a problem with DHS.

      Any moron that read the article would know that there was at least one other officer involved.

      And one would hope that a supervisor or senior officer had to sign off on the seizure -- if DHS allows a single officer to determine that a seizure is warranted and lets her complete the seizure with no other oversight or verification of the facts, then it sounds like the entire DHS is to blame for not requiring more oversight for a power that is so easily abused.

    25. Re:No way... by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, wait... you were talking about the DHS agent? No. She didn't abuse her power. She, as he insisted, followed the letter of the law. No paperwork, no boat.

      It wasn't *his* paperwork that was wrong, it was the US Government's paperwork. As an agent of the Government, it should be incumbent upon her to help correct it. Or rather than seizing the boat, why didn't she just turn him around and send him back to Canada to await corrected paperwork.

    26. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /me thinks you missed the sentence typed...

    27. Re:No way... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

      The Constitution of the United States is the document that tells the government what it CAN do. It is what "constitutes" the federal government.

      If your "freedom of speech" is up for interpretation every time someone says something bad, you have no freedom of speech.

      If you are so quick to give away the rights of others simply because they aren't the rights YOU don't get much use out of then all YOUR liberties will be short lived as well.

      If one "right" can be taken away, then they all can. Then we have no rights, just privileges at the whims of others.

    28. Re:No way... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you show me where the Constitution says there can't be limitations on the arms that you have a right to bear?

      The right to bear is not being infringed. Only the definition of arms.

      Can you show me where it says that they can't modify the definition of "the People" to only include those in or approved by the government?

      Sophistry is sophistry.

      "It depends on what the meaning of "is", is."

      "Freedom is slavery."

      "Ignorance is strength."

      "War is peace."

      Why not amend the Constitution if most people are in favor of restricting/altering/abolishing 2A Rights?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    29. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, how the fuck do you know? Second, why is it his job to figure that out? If it really was that simple to solve, why didn't the agent help him do so? This isn't just a problem for this guy. Our tax dollars are now being spent to impound his boat.

    30. Re:No way... by hazah · · Score: 1

      Except for that annoying bit everyone seems to keep forgetting... having a voice in a supposedly democratic republic. How's that first amendment doing, by the way?

    31. Re:No way... by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      You are implying in a strong way that all the stuff about democracy and freedom is pure fluff put above a power system like all others.

      That's what the elite wants, of course. But even if you think that all you've been fed is propaganda, trying to uphold it is a good exercise for personal freedom. Use "their" weapons against "them".

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    32. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back to gun control again? Shit slashdot, you really are getting so fucking boring.

    33. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't. It is a case where LOTS of people are abusing their power. This agent is not working in a vacuum. She is working in a framework that was designed by other people who also abused their power. She is supervised by people who are abusing their power. If the boat is returned promptly returned with an apology and the agent fired, then you can legitimatly claim that she was working alone, outside the authority of her position. Until that time, claiming that she was a rogue agent not supported by the full force of the government is nothing but a poor rationalization.

      People do stupid things. If you hadn't noticed. Sometimes they get fired. He will, in all likelihood get his boat back with an apology. And I'm sure DHS has posts close to the Arctic circle for the agent involved. But, unless she clearly violated procudures she will not be fired. If every idiot was fired half the country would be out of work. And don't forget your tin foil hat. You never know...

    34. Re:No way... by notknown86 · · Score: 1

      Why is this news?

      Well, given that Michael Arrington was fired from his own company for ethical reasons a year or two back, his complaints about abuse of power *do* posess a certain ironic value.

    35. Re:No way... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with training and supervision. It has everything to do with law enforcement agencies hiring angry, stupid, thugs instead of normal people. And the 'bad apple' line doesn't cut it. You think this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time? It happens every day. It's just usually not this dramatic and so doesn't make the news. If it were a bad apple problem this woman would be fired immediately and never again hired to work in a position of power over others, but I guarantee that is not going to happen.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    36. Re:No way... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Now that's a matter of interpretation. Which is a job for the courts if there is a dispute, and ultimately for the Supreme Court. So far it seems the courts are OK with the status quo. Which is "no machine guns", but "lesser" weapons are allowed.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    37. Re:No way... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      People do stupid things. If you hadn't noticed. Sometimes they get fired. He will, in all likelihood get his boat back with an apology. And I'm sure DHS has posts close to the Arctic circle for the agent involved. But, unless she clearly violated procudures she will not be fired. If every idiot was fired half the country would be out of work. And don't forget your tin foil hat. You never know...

      What a load of bullshit. This isn't about stupidity it is about abuse of power. This woman needs to be fired immediately and never hired to work in any form of law enforcement ever again. Any other position is condoning this sort of behavior.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    38. Re:No way... by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

      Exactly, thus limitations and restrictions on things that a group of people don't want. Make it artificially hard to obtain.

      Same goes with the left side on gun control, the right side with abortion, both sides on medical marijuana.

      I'm sure 100 years from now, free speech will be allowed as long as your in a room by yourself. Restrictions and all.

    39. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, OK if it's that easy:

      Your right to free speech is not being infringed, we are just changing the definition of "speech".

      Your right for not being illegally searched without probable cause is not being infringed, we are just changing the definition of "probable cause".

      Your right to a trial by a jury of your peers isn't being infringed, we are just changing the definition of "Peers"

      Your right to not be inflicted with cruel and unusual punishment isn't being infringed we are just changing the definition of "Cruel and Unusual"

      Get the idea .... ?

      BlueStrat is right there is no middle ground, you open the door for one, you open it for all of them.

    40. Re:No way... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      A person in a position of power abused that power? Well color me surprised! I'm sure this has everything to do with DHS and nothing at all to do with the fact that every imaginable authority organization has had people who abuse their power since the dawn of time. Why is this news? Pursue your problem, get it resolved... But this is not "news for nerds" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

      Uhhhhh, because it happened to the founder of TechCrunch? Seriously man...

    41. Re:No way... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Rationalize or not, I'm pretty sure you can't do shit about it either, no matter how "powerful" you may feel.

      Joe Schmoe may not, but someone well known in the interweebz (like the founder of Tech Crunch) might. The fact that this is in ./ in the San Francisco Chronicle and Business Insider might give him (and his lawyer) a good chance to fix that shit.

    42. Re:No way... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      A person in a position of power abused that power?

      That's not exactly unusual on the 'net - once you have influence... the temptation to use it for your own personal hobbyhorses rises exponentially. (Heck, most of my friends use their blogs and Facebook feeds as platforms for their personal views - and they have pretty much no influence even over their own friends.) Oh, wait... you were talking about the DHS agent? No. She didn't abuse her power. She, as he insisted, followed the letter of the law. No paperwork, no boat.

      But Arrington is not at blame for the lack of paperwork. If you read the article (if you didn't you shouldn't be talking shi... err, writing an opinion), the paper is/was provided by the government, and it was provided with wrong/false data. Furthermore, the agent was demanding Arrignton to sign the paper, testifying that the information PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT was accurate, which was not.

      So she, the agent, did not follow the letter of the law. Nowhere in the letter of the law says that you must put your signature as affidavit that something false is true when you know that it is false.

      Either that, or you have a funny understanding of what the letter of the law means (and I don't mean "funny" as a term of endearment.)

    43. Re:No way... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      That article was written by and about Michael Arrington. The biggest drama queen in tech reporting. And not known for honesty. It's not even sure there was a boat, let alone a second officer.

      No story here until someone corroborates it.

    44. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it stopped being news for nerds along time ago!

      it is now "Slashdot (15)" according to my browser window.

      you need to check your facts ...

    45. Re:No way... by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Well, that was kind of the point: only rich people have real power.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    46. Re:No way... by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Not very well, apparently.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    47. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that as tourism not terrorism.

    48. Re:No way... by Cathy344 · · Score: 1

      That would be the very definition of infringement. You're not attacking the right itself, you're just trying to nibble away at the fringes. It's like saying, you have the right to speak your mind, but you don't have the right to express distrust or criticism of the government. If you do that, the government will punish you. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but not arms that satisfy this list of cosmetic effects. If you keep or bear any of THOSE arms, the government will punish you. Same thing. Just keep and bear OTHER arms, ones the state approves of, and just express OTHER ideas from your mind, ones the state approves of.

    49. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Idiots don't get shades of grey. Where is the outrage about not being able to own Tommy Guns? I think they would be great for home protection, and they sure look cool!

    50. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you show me where the Constitution says there can't be limitations on the arms that you have a right to bear?

      The right to bear is not being infringed. Only the definition of arms.

      Can you show me where it says that they can't modify the definition of "the People" to only include those in or approved by the government?

      That was exactly the case in Dred Scott vs Sandford, a Supreme Court ruling from 1856.

    51. Re:No way... by LowerTheBar · · Score: 1

      This is new because of the many things this agency is doing here are just a few:
      Order 1.8 billion rounds of ammunition in the last 10 months (that's right that's billion with a 'B')
      Recently raided a small firearms dealer - no charges where filed, but all firearms, computers, storage devices, and files (personal and business) where confiscated.
      Recently raided a private firearms collector - again, no charges, and again everything confiscated

    52. Re:No way... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Funny enough, they fall into both categories.

      Ministry of Peace indeed.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    53. Re:No way... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      The constitution did not specify that congress had the ability to limit the bearing of certain arms, and thus, congress does not have that authority.

      In fact, the very limitation of bearing arms is expressedly forbidden by the constitution, the 2nd amendment in fact. Any limitation therefore would be unconstitutional.

      The states on the other hand, are free to do as their constitution allows.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    54. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're referring to a document for which "the People" used to refer solely to white, male, land owners. As for modifying the actual terminology of the document to use something other than the phrase "the People" I point you to Article Five.

      Newsflash - definitions can change over time, that's one reason why we have DICTIONARIES. The amendments are present to help clarify issues or make changes to the original document. Hence, the presence of the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments.

      The protection against reversing those amendments comes from the populace as 75% of the states need to agree to the proposed amendment, good luck getting THAT to happen. Also, good luck getting 75% of congress AND 75% of the states to agree on anything relating to the 2nd amendment outside of "it exists".

    55. Re:No way... by tacokill · · Score: 1

      As long as you keep parsing words, you are making his point. But that doesn't matter anyway because you misunderstand, at a very basic level, what the Constitution is and what it represents.

      You are proposing that the government is allowed to restrict arms because the Constitution didn't say they couldn't. Uhhhm, no. Sorry. It doesn't work like that.

      The Constitution defines a limited set of things the government is allowed to do. It goes to explain that anything not included in that limited set is not to be intruded upon by the government. The "default", if you will, is the government has zero power. We grant it specific and enumerated powers that are defined in the Constitution (and case law). It is not the other way around where everything is prohibited and the government allows us to do certain things.

    56. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, I haven't seen many gun owners being members of a well regulated militia.

    57. Re:No way... by Blue+Lozenge · · Score: 1

      Does not matter. Passing laws, enacting regulations, issuing EO's does not trump the Constitution. It's no different than if the government passed a law or regulation that authorized DHS to conduct random no-warrant, no-probable-cause house searches, or passed laws restricting the right to vote based on skin color.

      It's funny you say that, because they've already passed laws that authorize the DHS to conduct random no-warrant, no-probably-cause boat searches: 14 USC 89(a) reads "[Coast Guard] officers, may at anytime, go aboard any vessel subject to the jurisdiction or to the operation of any law of the U.S., address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship's documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel, and use all necessary force to compel compliance."

    58. Re:No way... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "The right to free speech is not being infringed. Only the definition of what is speech"

      Now, how does that look?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    59. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can show you when you submit the exact time you stopped beating your significant other.

      Natas Revol appropriately ignores the spirit of the law in favor of a far altered parsing of the letter.

    60. Re:No way... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      A person in a position of power abused that power?

      it's also one side of the story.

    61. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say DHS is rather more an unnatural disaster...

    62. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if the point of a militia is to protect the people, and it is an individaul liberty as per the miller ruling, how should "the people" defend themselves against predator drones? With a "non-asault rifle" limited to a 10 round magazine? Is it dangerous to have people owning assault rifles, hand grenades, and anti aircraft missles? Yes it is. It's even more dangerous to have them out driving on the road with you every day where 10's of thousands are killed in the US alone each year due to "accidents". Hopefully the day never comes where you thank god some "gun nut" ignored federal law and created a homemade rocket launcher. Even more hopefully the day never comes where all you could do is wish one had.

    63. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. Another fucking idiot whining about a story not being "news for nerds." Who the fuck are YOU do decide that? If you don't like a story, SHUT THE FUCK UP and move on!

    64. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I live, you have to wear sleeves, all the time. Not just wrist to elbow must be covered, but wrist to shoulder. Unlike in the US, where you can go around in a T-shirt and vest, and, yes Sparky, they have the right to bare arms.

      In Soviet Russia, I slay me.

    65. Re:No way... by Mansing · · Score: 1

      The simple fact that none of the anti-gun people will even attempt to start the amendment process is proof that they don't think the pre-purchased congresscritters agree with them.

      FTFY

    66. Re:No way... by daffmeister · · Score: 1

      Ummm... Stuff That Matters perhaps?

    67. Re:No way... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      you can't do shit about it either, no matter how "powerful" you may feel.

      Are you sure? How many Israeli agents went after NAZI war criminals? Since NDAA, we are now in a state of war (technically?) with the STATE Inc.; and people have long memories. The diffference being, these DHS criminals won't be moving to Argentina.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    68. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure most of the states are going to beat him to it.

      Hmm, it's almost like a majority of the population is ok with it.

      If you search for news articles about this you'll find that they actually all seem to think it's ok, and that he should just shut up about it because he's rich. It's completely absurd.

    69. Re:No way... by zr · · Score: 1

      so all they need to do is get rid of the rich and they're the only ones with power. worked out wonderfully for ussr..

    70. Re:No way... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The Second Amendment exists to embed the capability for effective revolt in the public.

      The Founders KILLED enough of their lawful government that it gave up and decamped to England.

      When protests and votes cease to work, violence IS the answer. Without willingness to put lead in the enemy's guts, we'd have no USA.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    71. Re:No way... by LocalH · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "once it's OK"? It's been "ok" to go around the Constitution ever since it was decided that it was legal just to ban drugs without worrying about that pesky Bill of Rights (after all, prohibition of alcohol required an amendment because it happened in a time when the Constitution was much more respected). Also, don't forget the curtailing of free speech in certain situations by separating those who wish to legally and non-violently protest into "free speech zones". The Constitution has been ignored for decades, what makes you think the 2nd will be any different?

      --
      FC Closer
    72. Re:No way... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      The states on the other hand, are free to do as their constitution allows.

      The states were free, until the incorporation doctrine was established in the 1890's. Most of the bill of rights since then has limited the powers of the states as well as the federal government.

    73. Re:No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well color me surprised! I'm sure this has everything to do with DHS and nothing at all to do with the fact that every imaginable authority organization has had people who abuse their power since the dawn of time.

      It has everything do with the DHS and their hiring and training practices. They foster an environment where this sort of thing happens, and the agent who seized the boat most likely received a commission or bonus for bringing in auctionable property.

      It's news for nerds because it happened to a famous nerd.

    74. Re:No way... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "once it's OK"? It's been "ok" to go around the Constitution ever since it was decided that it was legal just to ban drugs without worrying about that pesky Bill of Rights (after all, prohibition of alcohol required an amendment because it happened in a time when the Constitution was much more respected). Also, don't forget the curtailing of free speech in certain situations by separating those who wish to legally and non-violently protest into "free speech zones". The Constitution has been ignored for decades, what makes you think the 2nd will be any different?

      Exactly the point, I agree.

      When Federal government officials & politicians start being killed in numbers by militia, snipers, & IEDs, they won't have to waste time on guessing what the motive is, will they?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    75. Re:No way... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Likely left out the part about carrying on like a whiny douche and demanding service from the government lakey and telling them how to do their job. Government lakey responded by temporarily holding up the importation of the vessel, until the fiscal matter can be confirmed and resolved.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    76. Re:No way... by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Are you talking to me or a straw man?

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    77. Re:No way... by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I have no idea what are talking about, but I'm pretty sure you didn't fix Mr. Arrington's problem in last two days.

      Now, this situation (with DHS agents being dicks and all) may change in the future and you may influence this change (a little), but the current situation is that if you are confronted like this, you have two options: swallow or go postal. If you are rich and powerful, you also have an option of getting everyone's attention, calling your powerful friends and all. I'm your average Joe Schmoe and I do not have this option.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    78. Re:No way... by Larryish · · Score: 1

      "One morning, as Gregor Samsa was waking up from anxious dreams, he discovered that in his bed he had been changed into a monstrous vermin.

      Then he got a government job."

      - Franz Kafka

    79. Re:No way... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      The reality is rather like:
      Waking up, getting two letters, one which tells you that you get a top government job, the other telling you that you have a very aggressive type of cancer and will be dead in two months.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  3. De oppresso liber by TrentTheThief · · Score: 2

    Vote from the rooftops

    1. Re:De oppresso liber by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Vote from the rooftops

      That was only effective until December 17, 1903...

    2. Re:De oppresso liber by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you do that...don't forget to wear your bullseye target vest for the drone strikes. Also, it may help to RTFM, noob.

      It's past time for the revolution, and the longer we put it off, the less chance for success we have.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    3. Re:De oppresso liber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many think it's already too late. They still have the support of the masses, too.

    4. Re:De oppresso liber by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that you automatically assume that technological threats are automatically unbeatable. One of the primary reason that current military technology does so well in the current active theaters is because there is a decided lack of everyday electronics in the hands of the locals. On the other hand, in most of north America, it's a simple matter to pick up some arduinos, PICS, or STAMPS, some batteries, and a few sensors and construct all sorts of interesting devices to cause mayhem on a national force.

      Also of note, urban warfare takes on an entirely new dimension in the presence of ubiquitous mass transit in the form of trains and subways. Guerrilla warfare will remain effective for many decades to come. Insurgency is not always defined by a grubby bad of ne'r-do-wells with a rifle.

      A government only functions because the citizenry acknowledge it and grant it authority. If enough people ignore it, it will die.

  4. Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The government is creating a giant force of people with ill-defined powers who are itching to push people around for the sake of the fatherland. The current gun control push is to make the nation safer for these guys. We either get this government back into its Constitutional box or we will be the ones in the box.

    1. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Re: gun control have a look at a few quotes.

      http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml

      One of my favourites, due to it's simplicity and honesty (rare for a politician) is

      "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

      Janet Reno
      U.S. Attorney General
      1993-12-10

    2. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is who we human beings are.

      I remember a customs agent screening a small group of us after we got off a Carnival Cruise. He was so pleased and arrogant as he shouted " this is all under customs, now". He was near drunk with a feeling of power. I remember an unemployment office bureaucrat whose responses told me I was under her control. The list goes on and on.

      This will persist as long as sin exists in the world, including within ourselves. All sarcasm aside, we need to limit government to protect us from ourselves

    3. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How would gun control make a difference? Are you proposing that when the customs thug takes your boat, you should shoot them and drive it off into the sunset? Because the government has a lot more guns than you, and a police force highly trained in their use. Unless you are planning on holding a full-blown revolution and storming Washington, your guns aren't going to protect you from the government.

    4. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I am pro gun the notion that a population with firearms can do much against American forces is sort of not real. Notice that in the war on terrorists that RPGs, bombs and mines seem to be the great problem and not some guy with a rifle or pistol. So for us a gun can be useful but to form a militia to stand against our government if it gets out of control simply is not an option. The American public gets things out of proportion in that they think in terms of defending their home and cops or feds usually are very mild in the way that they take out a hostile suspect. They may shoot into a home. They might set a home on fire to force the person out. But they do not pull up with a flame thrower nor do they vaporize the home to dust which is a trivial effort these days.

    5. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by efudddd · · Score: 1

      Do you have an exact attribution or context for that quote? Googling for about 10 minutes yielded a bunch of right-wing sites citing the "Associated Press", one or two "ABC", and one individual claiming to have seen it that day on CSpan, but no newspaper citations. Given the nature of the statement, I find the lack of the latter renders it pretty suspect and am honestly curious to know the original source. FWIW, Snopes has declared another quote from the same time period (1994) to be bogus.

    6. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot isn't for gun nuts, take your apocalyptic fantasies elsewhere.

    7. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All evidence to the contrary aside, of course. Seems to be working pretty good for the terrists. I mean, there is still so many of them, right? All those forces don't seem to be able to stop just a few. All we need here in amerika is a little organization, and boom! Revolution on, no matter the guns. In a revolution, you steal your opponents weapons, and if you don't think there are plenty of civilians that know how to use them, then you are not thinking.

    8. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. People need to wake up. Even if you don't own a gun, you should understand that as soon as you're not allowed to have one you are guaranteed to be unable to defend yourself against your government. If that doesn't concern you then you haven't been paying attention.

    9. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i quite like this one:

      The constitution is a radical document. It is the job of government to reign in people's rights.

      -- Bill Clinton

    10. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you get this fake gun quote from some repository or did you make it up yourself?

    11. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article does away with some of the Orwellian euphemisms that infest our society today. It actually uses 'stole' instead of 'impounded' or whatever bullshit these guilty minded thieves would have us use. Let us not revert back to words that obscure rather than describe reality.

      Specifically, our government was never in a 'constitutional box'. Its members had all the same aspirations of violent power over other people as they do today. Washington lead an army that slaughtered plenty of innocent people who opposed a whiskey tax not long after the ink on the constitution was dry. The limits of their violence against others were not an effect of the constitution, but instead of their ability to exert control over people. They had to be small because they were small; they had to preach non intervention because the populace was intolerant of intervention. The restraint was not a function of the constitution, the constitution was a function of their restraint, which in turn was an effect of the people who they ruled over. Our acceptance of statism is what gives rise to statism. 300+ million cannot be ruled by 3 million(counting military and police force, the direct mechanisms for violence). It takes a horizontal attack of citizen vs citizen to make that happen. It requires a sort of attack from our fellow tax livestock to keep us in line. It is not the threat that armed thugs will have their way with you, but that for every armed thug, 99 fellow slaves cheer and support your abuse and actively support your abuser and provide him the means to perpetuate his violence against you. You know this is true, even if not consciously. Try mentioning at a family event that taxation is a specific form of theft and thus evil, see what happens. You don't even need to do the experiment, because just in reading this, the emotional response you feel from considering doing it is sufficient evidence that you know exactly who it is that keeps you in line.

    12. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police Force HIGHLY trained in their use? Give me a break. I've seen the local cops shooting at my range. They aren't exactly sharpshooters.

    13. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Because the government has a lot more guns than you, and a police force highly trained in their use."

      There are 4 times the number of firearms in private ownership than military or police. The statement would have been correct if you were suggesting overall firepower, but not strictly firearms.

      "How would gun control make a difference?"

      In this instance it wouldn't. In terms of actual prevention of harm due to firearms, generally the states with lower gun ownership have less gun violence. Even the best people can be accidentally careless or emotional and harm others with the easiest way possible to them. Having weapons means you have more opportunity. Simple statistics.

    14. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Grave · · Score: 1

      You presume that a majority of the US military would go along with oppressing the citizenry. I actually really quite doubt this.

    15. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      If/when things really get out of control and the US completes its transformation into East Germany or even WWII Germany what do you plan to do about it? Guns in the hands of private citizens are for that true SHTF situation when the government goes completely off the rails and truly takes over. Then a violent revolution would be necessary. In that situation I'd hate to see hundreds of unarmed citizens getting mowed down by assault rifles and crushed by tanks because the only thing they had to fight with was their fists.

      And also everyone has the right to defend themselves, to at least try to fight back with current era weapons. The government shouldn't be the only one to have weapons. That's a recipe for disaster in every way.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    16. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, all the countries where people can't own guns are dictatorships.

    17. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by TehDuffman · · Score: 1

      Re: gun control have a look at a few quotes.

      http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml

      One of my favourites, due to it's simplicity and honesty (rare for a politician) is

      "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

      Janet Reno U.S. Attorney General 1993-12-10

      I cannot find this quote on anywhere but obviously right-wing pro-gun biased website.

    18. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      You're not thinking big enough. You're thinking about you and how you would benefit from shooting the DHS agent and driving off into the sunset. In fact, you wouldn't.

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

      That is what guns are for.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    19. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by colfer · · Score: 1

      Wow that quote sure gets a lot of play. I'm guessing if she said it she said in the context of "this is what they are afraid of, but it's not what we are doing." Context please? Link to the full article? I have found two things: a 30-minute press conference she gave of 1993-12-09, and an Associated Press report on the following day. An A.P. report is the one commonly cited is association with this reputed quote. It says nothing like that, except that Pres. Clinton wanted to "go further" than the waiting periods and background checks in the Brady Law. Reno goes into her personal views, which are that licensing gun owners is more important than registration of guns themselves. Here she is drawing a distinction between her own views of the White House, which was proposing registration. Reporter: "what do you thing about registration?" Reno: " I don't think [she stops, then] I don't like it." She was very blunt and clear, and generally you won't find too many news conferences like this by officeholders on C-SPAN nowadays, especially on gun control. So the quote make no sense and does not appear in the video or the A.P. articles.

      Janet Reno and Clinton were against firearms for felons. She was for owner licenses, which no registration of firearms. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/52917-1 http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Clinton-Talks-Tough-on-Crime-Mrs-Clinton-Joins-In/id-480dfa18d1c3d9f5149edd6177bb85d4 http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Majorities-Back-Clinton-s-Gun-Control-Efforts-but-Oppose-Gun-Ban/id-58d85cfe2b91165518244c1d16cefa25

      That is all an AP search turned up. It did say he appeared on all three major networks. "Attorney General Janet Reno said today she favored states taking action to restrict gun ownership. Reno, appearing on ABC, CBS and NBC, repeated her argument that gun ownership should require licensing just as driving a car does." She is in a sense more conservative than the White House, trying to leave the job in state hands, through the rubric of licensure.

      The quote is commonly grouped with a bunch of other specious quotes, like gun control advocate Sarah Brady, whose entire career in the 1970s was working for Republicans, calling for a "socialist America."

    20. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by colfer · · Score: 1

      Sorry, so many typos I'm going to repost:

      Wow that quote sure gets a lot of play. I'm guessing if she said it she said in the context of "this is what they are afraid of, but it's not what we are doing." Context please? Link to the full article? I have found two things: a 30-minute press conference she gave on 1993-12-09, and an Associated Press report on the following day. An A.P. report is the one commonly cited in association with this reputed quote. It says nothing like that, except that Pres. Clinton wanted to "go further" than the waiting periods and background checks in the Brady Law. Reno goes into her personal views, which are that licensing gun owners is more important than registration of guns themselves. Here she is drawing a distinction between her own views and those of the White House, which was proposing registration. Reporter: "what do you thing about registration?" Reno: " I don't think [she stops, then] I don't like it." She was very blunt and clear, and generally you won't find too many news conferences like this by officeholders on C-SPAN nowadays, especially on gun control. So the quote make no sense and does not appear in the video or the A.P. articles.

      Janet Reno and Clinton were both against firearms for felons. She was for owner licenses, with no registration of firearms. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/52917-1 http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Clinton-Talks-Tough-on-Crime-Mrs-Clinton-Joins-In/id-480dfa18d1c3d9f5149edd6177bb85d4 http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Majorities-Back-Clinton-s-Gun-Control-Efforts-but-Oppose-Gun-Ban/id-58d85cfe2b91165518244c1d16cefa25

      That is all an AP search turned up. It did say she appeared on all three major networks. "Attorney General Janet Reno said today she favored states taking action to restrict gun ownership. Reno, appearing on ABC, CBS and NBC, repeated her argument that gun ownership should require licensing just as driving a car does." She is in a sense more conservative than the White House, trying to leave the job in state hands, through the rubric of licensure.

      The quote is commonly grouped with a bunch of other specious quotes, like gun control advocate Sarah Brady, whose entire career in the 1970s was working for Republicans, calling for a "socialist America."

    21. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Slippery Slopes are logical falacies in that they do not "prove" anything. However, slippery slopes are real and are applied in all sorts of areas, just not everywhere univerally. Until people are willing to say it, we remain in danger.

      The most famous of slippery slopes is found in the phrase "At first they came for _______, and I wasn't a ________".

      This is why we need a 2nd Amendment, to tell the DHS person to "get off my boat". It isn't for any other reason. The second Amendment insures we can protect the others. Plain and simple.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    22. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "Are you proposing that when the customs thug takes your boat, you should shoot them and drive it off into the sunset?"

      Hell yeah. Well almost. How about telling the DHS person to ... "Get the fuck off my boat", backed up by a gun?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    23. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or this one

                The constitution is just a piece of paper.

      --George W Bush

    24. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would gun control make a difference? Are you proposing that when the customs thug takes your boat, you should shoot them and drive it off into the sunset? Because the government has a lot more guns than you, and a police force highly trained in their use. Unless you are planning on holding a full-blown revolution and storming Washington, your guns aren't going to protect you from the government.

      Your post is either a red herring, or you're ignorant.

      He's suggesting that a government that constantly reduces the freedoms of its citizens combined with citizens that keep and bear arms will ultimately cross before tyranny completely takes hold. He may no mention of when these two paths would intersect.

    25. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      It's not a question of simply gun control. He's presenting it as one of many freedoms being curtailed.

    26. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      That's not exactly what I would call a good example of a logical fallacy slippery slope. The original quote is from Martin Niemöller. The Nazis did come for him and he was locked up in Dachau.

  5. DHS by parallel_prankster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I dont remember the last time we had a dept that was so pathetic, inefficient, useless, corrupt and annoying as the Dept. of Homeland Security. Why do these people even exist? I dont feel any safer with them being around at all. Just yesterday there was an article in Slate about how insecure airport perimeter security is. http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/02/20/airport_diamond_heist_it_is_shockingly_easy_to_breach_perimeter_security.html

    1. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of the ATF?

    2. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why do these people even exist?

      That happens occasionally in the uncommon case that a slashdotter met a person of the opposite gender 9 months before.

    3. Re:DHS by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they exist because of scared soccer moms who think that perceived security is worth anything, as long as their snowflakes are 'kept safe'.

      really, that's it. fear controls and every leader since the beginning of time knows that.

      you can get anything if you keep the population in perpetual fear.

      that's it. it security theater for most of us who see this. it was never meant to be anything real. no one in upper levels truly would believe this is an effective thing; BUT they also would be hung upside down if some 'thing' happened and they didn't show that they did 'all they could' to stop it. so, its an excuse, too, a CYA move.

      no thinking person believes the BS; but thinking people are not in charge...

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:DHS by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I dont remember the last time we had a dept that was so pathetic, inefficient, useless, corrupt and annoying as the Dept. of Homeland Security.

      The DEA.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:DHS by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure the TSA wins that losers' game.

      http://now.msn.com/lucy-forck-three-year-old-with-spina-bifida-singled-out-for-tsa-screening

      Lucy, their three-year-old, has Spina bifida and is confined to a wheelchair.

      The family managed to make it through the TSA checkpoint without any problems. But as they prepared to walk to their gate, a TSA agent pulled aside Lucy for additional screening measures.

      “They specifically told me that they were singling her out for this special treatment because she’s in a wheelchair,”

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That diamond heist happened in Belgium. You realize that's not in the United States of America and that the DHS has no jurisdiction there, right? Did you even read that article or did you just hear about a diamond heist, Google search, open the page, then copy and paste the URL? I'm not saying that DHS would have prevented it, but when you have to use examples that aren't relevant to further your point, you have no weight behind your argument.

    7. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ATF... Same shit, just pissing on rights you don't care about.

    8. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA is part of DHS.

    9. Re:DHS by Kenja · · Score: 1

      To be fair... the ATF is inefficient and useless due to being massively defunded. They've not even had a full time director in a long time.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    10. Re:DHS by medcalf · · Score: 2

      Look up what HUD gets up to. Or Labor.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    11. Re:DHS by DFurno2003 · · Score: 0

      Not really sure that link is related to the DHS, since it didn't take place in the U.S.

    12. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the TSA a department of DHS?

    13. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair... the ATF is inefficient and useless due to being massively defunded. They've not even had a full time director in a long time.

      The ATF has a long history of abuse. They make up and change regulations arbitrarily, have falsified evidence and testimony in trials to 'nail' someone with a malfunctioning gun as having created a machine gun, etc. People have bought guns and accessories based on an ATF finding that they were ok, only to have ATF change its minds and start demanding either registration (as an AOW) or turn-in of the 'now illegal' items. All arbitrary, all with no legislative action.

      ATF needs to be more than seriously defunded; it needs to be purged; its full of people like the DHS troll in the OP.

    14. Re:DHS by Malc · · Score: 1

      I dont remember the last time we had a dept that was so pathetic, inefficient, useless, corrupt and annoying as the Dept. of Homeland Security.

      The INS.

      Oh wait!

    15. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? The DEA does a great job of preventing people from having fun.

    16. Re:DHS by tlambert · · Score: 1

      I dont remember the last time we had a dept that was so pathetic, inefficient, useless, corrupt and annoying as the Dept. of Homeland Security.

      You should not be judging them on your bias, you should be judging them on their results.

      They got the boat.

    17. Re:DHS by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      they exist because of scared soccer moms who think that perceived security is worth anything, as long as their snowflakes are 'kept safe'.

      Wow could you have any more contempt for "soccer moms"?

      you can get anything if you keep the population in perpetual fear.

      And you can justify anything if you denigrate the target of your policies enough. Theres something ironic here, but i cant quite put my finger on it.

    18. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't remember The American Unactivities Committee, in the McCarthy era.

    19. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DEA is certainly more corrupt, given the large amounts of money to be made.

    20. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he was only referring to a specific subset of soccer moms, scared ones who think that perceived security is worth anything, as long as their snowflakes are 'kept safe'.

    21. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the article he linked to? It talked about airports in the US you moron!

    22. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or ATFE. Or EPA. The list goes on and on and on

    23. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare you forget about 9/11!!!

    24. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes all those people giving homes and jobs to people are real sticklers and force invasive searches before you can walk through the door.

    25. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no government group called INS.

    26. Re:DHS by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? The DEA does a great job of preventing people from having fun.

      This is nearly what I was going to say, so I'll pay it homage through reply.

      I believe it is a mistake to believe that the DHS is ineffective for the same reason that it is wrong to believe that the DEA is ineffective. The government willfully uses faulty logic to maintain its War On Some Drugs (i.e. deliberate, willful fraud in the form of misclassification of various drugs with proven medical benefit, and/or a proven lack of harm) in order to continue to produce and/or protect profit for some individuals (e.g. paramilitary equipment manufacturers, big pharma, privatized prisons akaslavery for profit) at the expense of the health of the nation and its citizens. Is there any reason to believe that a similar mechanism is not the true motivation behind the DHS, an essentially terrorist organization which apparently exists to keep the American people in a heightened state of fear to excuse the suspension of our rights and liberties?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:DHS by Kjella · · Score: 1

      no thinking person believes the BS; but thinking people are not in charge...

      You don't have to believe the BS to spout the BS... The smart people know exactly what buttons to push to manipulate the populace and the internal self-justice of the system, if you call out the emperor for having no clothes it won't have a fairy tale ending as the system will turn on you and the people won't believe you. Even in BS-land you need a certain kind of smarts to rise to the top, though the ability to turn a blind eye is almost equally important.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    28. Re:DHS by tibit · · Score: 1

      Having kids is no excuse for lack of rationality. Soccer moms demonstrate otherwise, and think they are on a high moral ground while doing it. It's quite disgusting. Yes, I have kids.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    29. Re:DHS by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Hooray for sweeping generalizations! Mod this man up in the highest slashdot tradition.

    30. Re:DHS by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      No. No. No. I don't believe this dumb shit anymore, and neither should you. In fact, I don't think you even believe what you're saying.

      HOW MANY PEOPLE have you talked to that thought the DHS was a good idea?

      Now, HOW MANY PEOPLE have you talked to that think the DHS is a worthless hole for tax dollars to go into?

      I posit that this "it makes stupid people feel secure" notion is just a way fro smart people to feel smug that they're "in the know" about the DHS while all the dumb people run the country because since smart people are SO SMART they could do it better. It's basically a talking point that politicians LOVE to see bandied about, because they actually are smart enough to know that when you talk like this you are actually helping them: You feel good and superior, the tax dollars keep flowing and nothing gets done about it.

      I'm just SO tired of this moronic talking point... aren't we smarter than this, Slashdot!?

      --
      -
    31. Re:DHS by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "...fear controls and every dictator since the beginning of time knows that."

      FTFY.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    32. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking stupid? The INS was the most corrupt and ineffective government department, until it was dissolved and turned in to the DHS. 60 Minutes ran a story a few years ago about how the INS in Arizona was using crooks on the Southern US border. Go and look in Wikipedia if you need to educate yourself.

      Best quote about the INS is in the original Men In Black movie.

    33. Re:DHS by thechemic · · Score: 1

      no thinking person believes the BS; but thinking people are not in charge...

      Thinking people ARE in charge. They think that the majority of people will not understand these principles. They are correct. They also understand that the thinking people who do not hold positions of power work hard to wake up the sheeple and convert them into thinkers. So the thinkers in charge work tirelessly to keep them asleep.

      --
      Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
    34. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hooray for sweeping generalizations!

      And what "sweeping generalization" would that be? The claim that "all Soccer Moms blah blah blah"? That is not a generalization. The term "Soccer Mom" refers to a very specific subset of all moms.

      Can't think up a good car analogy, but for a religious analogy, it'd be like saying that "ALL Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God" is a "sweeping generalization". If something is 100% true, it cannot be a "sweeping generalization".

      And don't try and give us that "no true Scotsman" crap. The crux of that fallacy is that the one party is trying to redefine "Scotsman" to mean something it is not. And if anyone is trying to redefine "Soccer Mom", it's you.

    35. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem of being bloody useless seems to correlate with TLAs starting with "D".

    36. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KGB, Gestapo, Homeland Security... different name, same job. If they can throw you in a secret jail and avoid due process then it's all the same thing.

    37. Re:DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all part of the War on the American People.

      the War on Drugs
      the War on Terror

      You name it, and it's a War on ____. That really means it's a War on the American People.

  6. It must have had... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "electronic devices" onboard. I new that new border law was going to give them a "bone".

  7. Maybe there is more to this story ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... just a guess, though the author is a clue.

  8. LOL ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter"

    So, a government functionary with a minor Napoleon complex who just wants to get on with the fun parts of the job then?

    This is what happens when you give stupid people that much power.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:LOL ... by Nyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter"

      So, a government functionary with a minor Napoleon complex who just wants to get on with the fun parts of the job then?

      This is what happens when you give stupid people that much power.

      This is what happens when you give anyone power without having balance and checks to keep them in line.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever I hear "It doesn't matter" my first response is then "then why do I have to sign it?"

      captcha: Sadists

    3. Re:LOL ... by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2

      This is what happens when you give stupid people that much power.

      This is what happens when when you give anyone too much unregulated power. And that power needs to be regulated by a true democracy. Intelligence becomes more of a factor when it comes to working the democracy.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    4. Re:LOL ... by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is what happens when a fearful and ignorant populace allows their rights to be ripped away from them in the name of "security". I am loathe to play the Nazi card, but the empowerment of previously powerless, disenfranchised, and yes, often stupid people was played out the same way in 1930's Germany. If we, as a citizenry, do not turn out every one of the bastards who brought this level absurdity to our lives, we deserve everything we get.

    5. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have found that the best course of action in dealing with bureaucracy is to figure out what they want to hear, and lie shamelessly. Everyone ends up happy.

    6. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blogger is another word for journalist. Please don't take their words at face value. Unless maybe they have some unedited video to show for it.

      Remove the words and analyze the facts.
      The papers were wrong.
      The guy asks the govt official to modify the papers, legal documents, which is illegal in any country.
      Then the govt official asks the guy to sign the paper. He doesn't, because he know the papers are wrong, and would be doing something illegal.
      No alternative remains, but seize the boat.

    7. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that is correct, then the laws are an ass.

      What if the signature was ruined by an ill-timed sneeze? Or the pen ran out of ink part way through?

      At the VERY LEAST the spoiled paperwork would be deleted and filled out again. Correctly this time.

      Alternatively, since any agreement is open to ammendment, scrub out the claim of "I agree this is true and commit perjury". If it is not legal to remove that, then it isn't a legal document of agreement.

      And there was an alternative: refuse the boat's entry. It doesn't belong to Uncle Sam, it belongs to the Canadian company until it is handed over. That's called international theft if US just takes it.

    8. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah man, that's what slashdot is for...

    9. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see the word democracy tossed around a lot, usually in discussions involving freedom. Unfortunately Democracy is essentially mob rule and only protects the freedoms of the majority. Here is the US we often incorrectly refer to ourselves as a Democracy, but in reality we are a Constitutional Republic. This is what gives all of us equal rights and protects us from a Majority that might otherwise try to take rights and powers away from those who do not agree with them. DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A SHEEP VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR DINNER.....

    10. Re:LOL ... by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      It makes me wonder if there are any kickbacks for auctioned off seized items.

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    11. Re:LOL ... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately Democracy is essentially mob rule and only protects the freedoms of the majority.

      It doesn't even do that. It does allow the masses to believe that whatever happens is their own fault though. Even worse, it allows other countries to believe that as well. If you are arrested in some foreign country and tortured they will believe that you condone torture yourself because you voted in the government that has no problem using it, even against innocent people who haven't even been charged with any crime.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    12. Re:LOL ... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      Judges are government employees who are a part of and believe in the system themselves. The fox is guarding the chicken coop and you consider that justice? Checks and balances my ass.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    13. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello? There ARE checks and balances, they simply haven't had time to engage relating to this issue. Now, if the issue is left unresolved or simply goes into a wait-state, then we have a problem.

      Same thing goes for other instances too, even something as simple if a cashier mishears an order in a fast-food restaurant.

    14. Re:LOL ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The masses have the power if they will just decide to exercise it, so it is always their own fault.

      Of course, the masses are easily led, and TPTB deliberately lead them, so it's not like they don't deserve what's coming to them. Unfortunately, the masses of asses don't even know what that is, let alone have the gumption to deliver it. And so it goes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:LOL ... by farble1670 · · Score: 0

      This is what happens when you give stupid people that much power.

      you know what's stupid? not showing respect and courtesy to others, especially those will power over you. oh, but the fellow innocently suggested that a number on the paper work wrong you say? BS. occam's razor says no way. he most likely pulled up acting like a big shot and was rude. are regular folk itching to put people like that in their place? you bet.

      you can be that "respect is earned" guy, and you'll also be the guy without a boat that's spending his time jumping through hoops your mouth got you into. life is much easier if you just keep your mouth shut sometimes.

    16. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody gives a fuck about your fucking captcha, fucker.

    17. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't count on it. The sheep approved this facist bs. The representives that passed this garbage is only doing the will of the people.
      Americas biggest import is assholes of cattle. Yo7 really haven't seen anything yet.

    18. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you whitey! I gots my Obama phone!

    19. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled "legal in every country". You cross out the wrong part, write in a correction, and initial it. That's the way it's done everywhere. And the obvious alternative, if that's not permissible in this instance for some reason, is for the agent to leave the boat where it is and get new papers that it would not be defrauding the government to sign and entrapment to force him to sign.

      Jeebus, man. And people wonder why ACs are put at 0 by default.

  9. Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cross out what you did not want, replace it with the corrrect currency, and inital, then sign the darn document....

    1. Re:Simple Solution by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      That's not necessarily possible. In that case I imagine that what happens is that you're told to get off the boat and come back when someone has the right paperwork.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Simple Solution by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      This is what I would have done in the same situation (and I have). I agree though, given the competence of this "agent", she probably wouldn't have accepted that either even though that is also perfectly legal and the correct thing to do.

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    3. Re:Simple Solution by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      This is what I would have done in the same situation (and I have). I agree though, given the competence of this "agent", she probably wouldn't have accepted that either even though that is also perfectly legal and the correct thing to do.

      Indeed.

      Were this not a case of some power-mad douchenozzle flexing authority just because she knew she could, the conversation would have gone like this:

      Arrington: Hey, there's an error here - the price is marked in USD, should be CAD

      DHS Functionary: Oh, so it is. OK, we'll just correct the amount, cross out 'USD' and replace it with 'CAD...' Okey-dokey, initial the changes and sign in the box.

      Arrington: Huzzah, I has boat!

      DHS Functionary: Huzzah, you has a boat. Now get the fuck off my dock.

      Source: I've been to the DMV more than once.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  10. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ask to have the paperwork re-done

    Isn't that what got his boat confiscated?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  11. "Stole" or "confiscated"? by BBTaeKwonDo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As TFA notes, he will hire a lawyer and get it back. The only variable is when; my guess is that within two weeks, he'll be sailing around. However, if the government accuses the boat of being the proceeds of a drug transaction (very unlikely, since there was no cash or drugs anywhere around) it will take longer. But "stole" makes for a much better headline than the truth, "confiscated", doesn't it?

    1. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd tend to say that when the "confiscation" has no legal basis whatsoever, we can very accurately call it "stolen".

      --
      GStreamer - The only way to stream!
    2. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by czth · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A distinction without a difference; and it's no difficulty for them to also plant drugs on the boat and then keep the proceeds of their theft.

    3. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Zcar · · Score: 2

      So, "confiscation" is the correct term, then? He didn't sign the form to get the boat out of customs impound so they couldn't release it to him.

      This sound like another occurrence of true vs. right answers: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/the-true-answer-and-the-right-answer/

    4. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      The DHS had the authority to hold the boat the minute it arrived on US soil, for customs clearance. That's why Arrington had to sign the paperwork: to get it released.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But "stole" makes for a much better headline than the truth, "confiscated", doesn't it?

      Depends on which of the 3 sides you're on. I'd say it was unreasonably relinquished due to Government error. If the Government can't do its due diligence with accurate information on documents that have this broad of action, It is reasonable to refuse cooperation and bring injustices like this to greater light.

    6. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      if the government accuses the boat of being the proceeds of a drug transaction (very unlikely, since there was no cash or drugs anywhere around) it will take longer.

      In all likelyhood it would never be returned. Traditionally, unless the government is using the actual boat as evidence in a case, they sell it off after 90 days. Of course an investigation into whether or not they were right when they seized it normally takes between 1 & 3 years.

    7. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They didn't steal it, he "voluntarily surrendered" it.

      When the TSA goon confiscated my toothpaste I calmly asked him "Why are you confiscating my toothpaste?"

      He corrected my misunderstanding. "We are not confiscating anything. You are voluntarily surrendering it."

      At that point there was no point in arguing with someone so brainwashed that they are forced to play lawyer semantics to "Take something that doesn't belong to them under the threat of duress."

      God help us all.

      --
      "Only a coward uses censorship."

    8. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, you planning to pay for his lawyer? Sounds like, if he's not willing to pay for legal representation, he's out a boat.

    9. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But "stole" makes for a much better headline than the truth, "confiscated", doesn't it?

      Yes. Welcome to writing.

    10. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by tehcyder · · Score: 0

      I'd tend to say that when the "confiscation" has no legal basis whatsoever, we can very accurately call it "stolen".

      Whenever there's a "copyright infringement!=theft" post, people here love to point out that the definition of theft is that you're permanently depriving someone of their property.

      This isn't theft.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Funny

      The DHS had the authority to hold the boat the minute it arrived on US soil

      If your boat ends up on US soil rather than water, aren't you doing something wrong?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by camperdave · · Score: 0

      It might be even more accurate to say "hasn't cleared customs" rather than "confiscated". The guy refused to sign the import documents which would release the boat and then is surprised when they didn't release the boat?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by tepples · · Score: 2

      He didn't sign the form to get the boat out of customs impound

      Nor did the agency responsible for "the form to get the boat out of customs impound" agree to correct errors on "the form to get the boat out of customs impound".

    14. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true. HOWEVER, it still stands that she vehemently refused to correct the paperwork so that it could be released. In essence, her inability to get it done CORRECTLY has led to the illegal theft of his property.

    15. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never seen the word permanent in the definition of theft. In copyright infringement a person is _never_ deprived of their property. If someone takes my car for a week and brings it back a week later it is still theft.

    16. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by whoever57 · · Score: 0

      Seriously - what the eff did he think would happen if he refused to sign the form? They'd just be all smiles and sunshine and hand the boat over? You can't hold them to the letter of one part of the law (ensuring the paperwork is correct) and then be upset when they follow the rest of the law (requiring the boat be impounded until the paperwork is cleared up). Grow the eff up and deal with the consequences of your choices.

      Did you miss the point where the government had screwed up? I don't suppose you read TFA, so I will excerpt it for you:

      The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.

      So, the government screwed up, producing an incorrect form, refused to correct the form, then confiscated the boat when he refused to sign the incorrect form (while signing it would probably have been a felony) and somehow he doesn't have the right to be upset?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    17. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Zcar · · Score: 1

      The agency didn't, or the agent, who it's possible doesn't have the authority to correct errors? I usually find in these sorts of stories a lot of relevant information isn't reported.

    18. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's cold out right now. My boat is on US soil.

    19. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 0

      Whenever there's a "copyright infringement!=theft" post, people here love to point out that the definition of theft is that you're permanently depriving someone of their property.

      This isn't theft.

      No, the definition of theft is taking something, without permission, that doesn't belong to you. Try taking your neighbor's TV and then explaining to the cops, "I just wanted to watch this one show, I'll give it back when I'm done." In cases of copyright infringement, there is no "taking," therefore no theft. Here, a physical item was taken. Can you really not see the difference here?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    20. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      The guy refused to sign the import documents which would release the boat and then is surprised when they didn't release the boat?

      He refused to commit perjury, and was then surprised--as most people would be--when he was punished for his refusal to commit perjury. How hard is this to understand?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    21. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Wow, two weeks and god knows how much in lawyers' bills, just to get what was his to begin with! Is he lucky or what?

      Many, many times, "confiscated" is just a euphemism for "stole." It seems very, very close to being the case here.

    22. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 0

      Whenever there's a "copyright infringement!=theft" post, people here love to point out that the definition of theft is that you're permanently depriving someone of their property.

      Nice job inserting the "permanently". You made that part up yourself so it would fit.

      This isn't theft.

      Looks like it to me.

    23. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that is wrong too. The mens rea of theft, in both the common law and most state laws, is the intent to deprive the owner of their right PERMANENTLY. If you took your neighbor's TV and you genuinely mean to give it back, it is not theft. Confiscation is not theft for the same reason, they don't want to take your property permanently; that only happens later if the property is not claimed.

    24. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      The DHS had the authority to hold the boat the minute it arrived on US soil, for customs clearance.

      Where in the Constitution does it say that? To be honest, I'm having trouble finding any reference in that document that would authorize a Department of Homeland Security at all...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    25. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever there's a "copyright infringement!=theft" post, people here love to point out that the definition of theft is that you're permanently depriving someone of their property.

      I have never seen the word "permanently" used in that regard.

    26. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So, when a couple of teens joyride a car does anyone claim that the word 'stole' was a bit strong?

    27. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So he is free to hop onboard right now and sail away? No? Then it IS theft.

    28. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mo. he asked that an error on the document be corrected since he was required to swear that the information was correct to the best of his knowledge and it was not. Any reasonable government agent would have struck USD and written in CAD and asked him to sign that rather than gleefully confiscate the boat.

    29. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct in that that the agent who seized the boat is probably not technically breaking any law and will never face criminal charges. However, the word confiscated implies some legitimacy. The boat was seized under false pretenses and Arrington has to pay his own court costs.

      The government usually auctions off seized property in order to fund itself. Of course the peon's superiors will look kindly on her seizure. Hence the agent's smile.

      There was no real legitimacy to the seizure. Thus I think the boat can be considered stolen.

    30. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by DerekLyons · · Score: 0

      Did you miss the point where the government had screwed up?

      No, I didn't
       

      So, the government screwed up, producing an incorrect form, refused to correct the form, then confiscated the boat when he refused to sign the incorrect form (while signing it would probably have been a felony) and somehow he doesn't have the right to be upset?

      I didn't say he didn't have a right to be upset. I said he didn't have a right to be a self centered, self entitled, spoiled little jackass because he was (briefly) denied access to his shiny new toy.

    31. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, he was using correct language. He wasn't saying "No matter what you do, you can't have this toothpaste back." What he was saying was, "you can't pass this point with your toothpaste. If you want to get on the plane at this time you have to hand it over, but if you want, you can leave the line, get rid of the toothpaste however you want, and then go back through the line again." You, probably rightly, valued your time more than you valued the toothpaste, so you handed it over, but you definitely had other options.

      I think that the toothpaste thing is silly, but mischaracterizing it as "confiscation" is silly also.

      P.s., since the toothpaste thing was well-publicized, I have no pity for you. I manage to make it through the airports on a regular basis without having to give anything up, and it's not really that difficult.

    32. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      The DHS had the authority to hold the boat the minute it arrived on US soil, for customs clearance.

      Where in the Constitution does it say that?

      DHS's power is specified by statute adopted by Congress. The authority for Congress to adopt the statute giving the authority to DHS to do this is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (popularly know as the commerce clause), which states that Congress shall have the power "[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

      To be honest, I'm having trouble finding any reference in that document that would authorize a Department of Homeland Security at all...

      The Constitution isn't particularly concerned with how Congress names the particular agencies it creates in the exercise of its enumerated powers, its more concerned with the substance of what government does.

    33. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      I propose we split it down the middle and agree they're stealing it for a (hopefully) limited time.
      Beyond that we should probably just agree to disagree.

    34. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not in this case. The agent is the one that filled in the form by copying the invoice data over in the first place. If she had the authority to do that, she has the authority to either correct it or scrap it and do another one.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    35. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the TSA goon confiscated my toothpaste I calmly asked him "Why are you confiscating my toothpaste?"

      He corrected my misunderstanding. "We are not confiscating anything. You are voluntarily surrendering it."

      TSA guy thinks he is correct. You don't have to give them your toothpaste, you just can't board the plane with it.
      Change toothpaste to your wallet and it becomes: You don't have to give them your wallet, you just can't board the plane with it.

      Slippery slope.

    36. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the ways to justify it, is that you were there voluntarily. You didn't have to go through a TSA checkpoint; it's not like you were minding your own business, and they came to your house and took your toothpaste. You initiated action to involve yourself with a machine that you already knew was comically over-regulated and exists for the purpose of making flying more expensive and frustrating. You knew it was coming if you took certain actions, you thought about it, perhaps with a little dread, and then you decided to click the "purchase tickets" button anyway. You didn't have to do that.

      Unless you wanted to travel fast, but hey, travelling quickly isn't a right.

      See? I'm not so brainwashed that I have to play lawyer sem-- oh wait. Shit. Ok, so evil comes easily to me.

      Let me put this problem another way, though. Sometimes politicians run for Congress on getting rid of this shit. How come these people keep losing? You might be involuntarily going through this crap, but don't we, collectively, agree every two years in the voting booth, that we think TSA is a good idea and their policies are pretty good?

      There really is a voluntary aspect to it, at some level. If everyone, even dark-skinned people, votes overwhelmingly for politicans who say "there ought to be a law that negroes are required to sit in the back of the bus," then at some point I wanna tell people who complain about civil rights abuses, to STFU. Start by fucking voting, please. Really, it's not that hard.

    37. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my opinion, it's not that people are brainwashed, but are forced to play the legal game. The real problem to this is the legal system. Years of people trying to profit from the legal process of a country, regulations and processes are built up to protect the company/public body/department from being culpable/sued again.

      Beauracracy is the bandaid to legal attacks, if you want to solve all these silly regulations you must go to the heart of the matter, which is the legal system. This is perhaps not entirely related to your post, but it's what I think of when I hear terminology like this.

    38. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by kscguru · · Score: 0
      No, you really would be better off "voluntarily surrendering" your toothpaste to the TSA agent.

      Attempting to pass through security with a prohibited item is a crime - think about it, the same laws apply to passing through security with toothpaste ("might be an explosive in disguise") as apply to passing through security with a stick of dynamite, and they're definitely going to arrest you (and not "voluntarily confiscate") for carrying dynamite. Airport security isn't a game where getting caught just means going to the back of the line. You get one chance, once the agent starts looking you over you either pass or get arrested. You do have a choice: "voluntarily surrender" the stupid stuff, or refuse and be arrested for taking a prohibited item through security. That toothpaste is still "yours" despite your arrest - it's just locked up in an evidence locker until you convince a judge/jury that calling toothpaste a prohibited item is stupid ("see? no explosion, your honor"). "Voluntarily surrendering" is indeed a lawyer's trick - but it's a lawyer's trick the TSA is employing for YOUR benefit, because their only other option is to arrest you.

      (Which does suggest a really entertaining protest. Get a hundred people to show up at the airport with a tube of toothpaste, go through security, and all refuse to surrender that tube of toothpaste. Watch the TSA have to deal with a hundred arrestees - I doubt they have the holding space, and press headlines "TSA ARRESTS 100 OVER TOOTHPASTE" would be hilarious. And much more likely to affect the law than whining on Slashdot.)

      --

      A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire

    39. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone armed stole a boat. Sounds more like Piracy to me.

    40. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As TFA notes, he will hire a lawyer and get it back. The only variable is when; my guess is that within two weeks, he'll be sailing around.

      If he's lucky. It might end up crashed like the FBI did to this $1 million Ferrari F50..

    41. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      The mens rea of theft, in both the common law and most state laws, is the intent to deprive the owner of their right PERMANENTLY. If you took your neighbor's TV and you genuinely mean to give it back, it is not theft.

      Hmmm, okay. This may be one of the (regrettably many) cases where the average person's understanding of a word differs from what lawyers mean by that word. Let's put it this way: if I were the guy whose TV had just disappeared, I'd certainly consider my neighbor a thief no matter what he claimed he intended to do with the item.

      The only place I know of where the law makes a distinction between temporary and permanent "theft" is with respect to automobiles, in that joyriding is a lesser offense than, say, breaking into a car and taking a car to a chop shop. But IANAL, etc. Are there other legal distinctions of this nature?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    42. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by iluvcapra · · Score: 1
      Article 1 Section 8:

      The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

      The DHS was created by an Act of Congress, it enforces many laws Congress passes, particularly customs laws.

      The Supreme Court and lower courts have long held that a customs agent is allowed to search and seize private property at international borders or ports without a warrant or probable cause, pursuant to Title 19 USC.

      The DHS merely is the parent of the US Customs Service, to which Arrington's alleged "jack-booted thug" belonged. The US Customs Service has existed since 1789, was enacted by the very first US congress and signed into law by George Washington.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    43. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Zcar · · Score: 1

      I don't see anywhere in the article the agent filled out the form, just that DHS prepared the form.

    44. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      He didn't sign the form to get the boat out of customs impound so they couldn't release it to him.

      They didn't present him with an accurate form to sign.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    45. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Yes. Theft is taking an object with an intent to deprive its original owner of its use. In England they call it "taking without consent". I believe in the US the applicable laws may vary from state to state.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    46. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously - what the eff did he think would happen if he refused to sign the form? They'd just be all smiles and sunshine and hand the boat over? You can't hold them to the letter of one part of the law (ensuring the paperwork is correct) and then be upset when they follow the rest of the law (requiring the boat be impounded until the paperwork is cleared up). Grow the eff up and deal with the consequences of your choices.

      I have a better idea: kill yourself, fascist.

      It's just like you fascists to blame the victim, rather than the perpetrator of evil.

    47. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      They didn't present him with an accurate form to sign.

      Since when is it inaccurate (or "a lie" as it is being reported) to report the sale price of an object bought in Canada IN CANADIAN DOLLARS? If you paid 10 CDN for something and said "I paid 10 CDN for it", are you lying? Of course not.

      He refused to sign a form that was accurate, which led to the confiscation of the boat. That's what happens when you refuse to sign customs forms. That's what happens when ANYONE refuses to sign customs forms.

    48. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Since when is it inaccurate (or "a lie" as it is being reported) to report the sale price of an object bought in Canada IN CANADIAN DOLLARS? If you paid 10 CDN for something and said "I paid 10 CDN for it", are you lying? Of course not.

      That's not what the form said. Assume he paid $10k CDN for it. The form said he paid $10k USD for it, which is not correct. They could have either changed the currency to CDN, or changed the amount to USD. The form had the correct amount with the wrong currency. Why would he refuse to sign a form that was correct?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    49. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The DHS had the authority to hold the boat the minute it arrived on US soil, for customs clearance.

      Where in the Constitution does it say that?

      DHS's power is specified by statute adopted by Congress. The authority for Congress to adopt the statute giving the authority to DHS to do this is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (popularly know as the commerce clause), which states that Congress shall have the power "[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

      To be honest, I'm having trouble finding any reference in that document that would authorize a Department of Homeland Security at all...

      The Constitution isn't particularly concerned with how Congress names the particular agencies it creates in the exercise of its enumerated powers, its more concerned with the substance of what government does.

      HEY.

      Why you gotta break balls, bein' all correct and shit?
       
      ...

      I hate you (not really, lol)

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    50. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with crossing out the USD and replacing it with CAD, initialling it and signing the bottom? Was someone being anal about a printout and caught the lady on a bad hair day?

    51. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      That's not what the form said. Assume he paid $10k CDN for it. The form said he paid $10k USD for it, which is not correct.

      From the summary, which is probably taken verbatim from the article: "The form contained information about the boat, including its cost. The price was correct, but it was in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars." Emphasis mine.

      So, the summary says the form was correct. You claim it was wrong. What is your source?

      They could have either changed the currency to CDN, or changed the amount to USD.

      According to the summary, they did the latter. They changed the CDN to USD. And the price they came up with WAS CORRECT.

      So, I guess the lie comes because he was asked to say he paid in USD when he really paid in the equivalent amount of CDN? If that's true, then EVERY RETURNING US CITIZEN is being asked to lie when they fill out their customs forms. They ask for a listing of what items you are bringing back and their value in USD. I typically don't pay for anything outside the US in USD, so I guess I'm lying when I convert the euros I spent on something into USD, right? I should fill out the form with USD, and then refuse to sign it because I would be lying? Is that how YOU deal with ICE when YOU reenter the US? Expect your shit to be confiscated, then.

      Why would he refuse to sign a form that was correct?

      I don't know, but the summary says he did. Maybe he's an attention whore, or just has a vendetta against ICE and thinks this is a fun way of making them look bad.

    52. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      And "regulating commerce" means stealing boats? Nice try though.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    53. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The form contained information about the boat, including its cost. The price was correct, but it was in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars. Emphasis mine.

      Here's what the article says, since it sounds like you haven't bothered to read it before arguing about it:

      The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.

      It has language at the bottom with serious sounding statements that the information is true and correct, and a signature block.

      I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.

      I thought this was important because I was signing it and swearing that the information, and specifically the price, was correct.

      The DHS agent didn’t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. “It’s just paperwork, it doesn’t matter,” she said. I declined.

      According to the summary, they did the latter. They changed the CDN to USD. And the price they came up with WAS CORRECT.

      Fuck man, just read the goddamn article. It takes about 5 minutes. Here, let me help:

      The DHS agent didn’t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. “It’s just paperwork, it doesn’t matter,” she said. I declined.

      She called another agent and said simply “He won’t sign the form.” I asked to speak to that agent to give them a more complete picture of the situation. She wouldn’t allow that.

      Then she seized the boat. As in, demanded that we get off the boat, demanded the keys and took physical control of it.

      They didn't change the form. The summary does not even say they changed the form. I'm not going to even bother to read the rest of your post, just read The Fucking Article if you want to try and split hairs about it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    54. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the TSA goon confiscated my toothpaste I calmly asked him "Why are you confiscating my toothpaste?"

      That's not toothpaste. That's grey goo!

    55. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      The form contained information about the boat, including its cost. The price was correct, but it was in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars.

      The only reason the currency matters is because it was on a US customs form where prices are supposed to be in USD. It doesn't matter if he paid in CDN and the form showed USD, the important clause there is "the price was correct". If they hadn't converted correctly then the price would not be correct. Since the price was correct, the form wasn't a lie.

      If you're trying to parse that statement as the price was correct but the units were wrong, then you have this problem: a price includes the "units of measure". If you say "the price of the boat was 10,000", you're not making a complete statement. "10,000" what? If you say in one place that the price was 10,000CDN and in another 10,000USD, then the PRICE IS NOT CORRECT in one of the two places. Everyone seems to admit that the price on the form was correct, only that it was in USD instead of the CDN that the buyer actually handed over. BFD. Like I said, if that's the problem, then EVERY RETURNING U.S. CITIZEN is lying on their customs forms when they report prices in USD for things they bought in euros or reals or yen or whatever.

      Fuck man, just read the goddamn article. It takes about 5 minutes. Here, let me help:

      Let me help you.

      The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.

      So they changed the currency from CDN to USD, and THE PRICE WAS CORRECT. So what if they listed the price in USD?

      They didn't change the form.

      It was correct. Why should they?

      I'm not going to even bother to read the rest of your post,

      What you quoted covers it pretty well, and I covered it pretty well the first time. They converted the price right off the invoice from CDN to USD, the owner refused to sign the form with the correct data, his boat was confiscated. He claims the form lied. The story says it was correct. You have nothing to contradict that, so let's just stop reading there.

    56. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Confiscate and Steal are both defined as deprivation of property without legal right. Look it up in Black's Law.

    57. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The only reason the currency matters is because it was on a US customs form where prices are supposed to be in USD. It doesn't matter if he paid in CDN and the form showed USD, the important clause there is "the price was correct". If they hadn't converted correctly then the price would not be correct. Since the price was correct, the form wasn't a lie.

      You're not reading that correctly. Not a single place in the fucking article does he say "the price was correct". Pull up the article and search for "price", it appears 3 times. The actual number of the price was the number that he paid in Canadian dollars, but it was reported as USD. Since the exchange rate is not 1 to 1, then the numeric amount as reported was not correct for USD. It was correct for CDN, but the form didn't say CDN, it said USD. The article says exactly that:

      The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.

      What he didn't explicitly say, and what you are assuming happened but actually did not, is that they did not convert the price. The copied the number and changed the currency.

      So they changed the currency from CDN to USD, and THE PRICE WAS CORRECT.

      No, you're just flat-out wrong. The price as given in USD was not the price he paid for the boat. If it was, then why the fuck would he refuse to sign the form on the basis that the price was not correct? He makes that quite clear:

      I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.

      Option 1, change the units from USD to CDN. Option 2, convert the CDN price to the USD amount.

      They converted the price right off the invoice from CDN to USD

      No they goddamn didn't. They COPIED the price, with the wrong fucking units. They DID NOT CONVERT IT.

      I feel like I'm arguing with a brick. This is not fucking rocket surgery.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    58. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It's not. What's hard to understand is why you consider the boat to be stolen or confiscated, when it had never cleared customs in the first place. You can't confiscate something from someone unless that someone has possession of the thing being confiscated.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    59. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You're not reading that correctly. Not a single place in the fucking article does he say "the price was correct".

      It says that in the summary, which both you and I quoted. If it wasn't correct in the summary, perhaps that should have been what you said instead of simply repeating it with an emphasis on an irrelevant part. I emphasized the part about it being correct, but instead of saying it wasn't, you emphasized the units, as if that mattered. It's like saying that it would be a lie to buy a 4mm screw but say I bought a 0.004m screw. The statement is correct ("the price was correct") but the units are different. So what if the units are different? Since you didn't contest the part about the price being correct, I assumed it was.

      They COPIED the price, with the wrong fucking units. They DID NOT CONVERT IT.

      Then they did not copy the price. The price includes units. Saying they copied the price but changed the currency to USD implies that they CONVERTED IT. But here you're telling me they copied the price again, when the truth apparently is they didn't. Writing '4mm' and '4m' is not copying the size of the screw, it's changing the size of the screw. Nobody I know would call one a copy of the other. Everyone I know would consider it to be copying the measurement if they wrote '0.004m' in place of '4mm'. Maybe it's because I know that the units are a mandatory part of every measurement and some people think all that matters is the digits.

      No they goddamn didn't. They COPIED the price, with the wrong fucking units. I feel like I'm arguing with a brick. This is not fucking rocket surgery.

      I'm sorry that you feel the need for profanity instead of simply pointing out that the summary was incorrect the first time. It's not rocket surgery to say "if I quote something I know is wrong, I'll point out that it is wrong", either. What would you call it when you argue with someone who repeatedly quotes things that he knows are untrue and says nothing about them being untrue, despite multiple chances?

    60. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by tftp · · Score: 1

      The agent == DHS. DHS consists of agents.

    61. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by tftp · · Score: 1

      press headlines "TSA ARRESTS 100 OVER TOOTHPASTE" would be hilarious

      What press? That press is dead and buried. Modern MSM will not report this incident. Note also that all 100+ arrestees will be charged with a crime, and will have to plead some misdemeanor to get out. If they do not, the jails are large enough to hold 100 people, even if the toothpaste refuseniks will have to share cells with career criminals. Their trials, if it comes to that, will be separate, at different venues. You will get no PR out of this.

    62. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy refused to sign the import documents which would release the boat and then is surprised when they didn't release the boat?

      He refused to commit perjury, and was then surprised--as most people would be--when he was punished for his refusal to commit perjury. How hard is this to understand?

      And guess what would have happened if he had signed the paper? She would have gleefully accused him of perjury, and promptly confiscated the boat. I'll bet DHS planned this from the beginning when they placed the "mistake" on the form.

      Somewhere this weekend DHS is having a boat party. Arrington will get his boat back after a lengthy trial, but it will be totally trashed. It is what happens when there are no consequences (DHS, like TSA, are federally immune to any crimes they commit).

    63. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by tftp · · Score: 1

      You can't confiscate something from someone unless that someone has possession of the thing being confiscated.

      The owner of the boat had possession of it from the day he paid the first dollar for it. Who else would it belong to? Tooth Fairy?

    64. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. You're confusing possession (custody) and ownership. Sure, he owned the boat, but it was not in his possession. It was in the custody of customs.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    65. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      No, because it has not entered the United States legally.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    66. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by tftp · · Score: 1

      OK, the boat was in custody of the shipbuilder; that is undeniable because they built it from the ground up. The customs had neither custody nor ownership. They took custody of the ship by the threat of force. Most people call it piracy.

    67. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like when a guy gets beaten up by a bad cop.

      Yes, I did assault the officer's fist with my stomach and face.

    68. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could have given your toothpaste to someone else, or eaten it, or thrown it away. So even if you consider not being able to board a plane "duress" you did have an alternative. In any case, you consented to the regulations when you bought your ticket, and you're the one who didn't comply with them.

    69. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something need not "belong to" the person who currently "possess" it. Possession is not ownership. Possession is simply custody.

    70. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of this matters, you illiterate mongoloid. The GODDAMN ARTICLE makes it clear, and this idiotic excuse for an argument and your complete inability to admit that you were wrong proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you did not READ the fucking thing.

    71. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's blowing smoke up your ass. That is not now, nor has it ever been the mens rea of fucking anywhere.

    72. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Zcar · · Score: 1

      Which, of course, means every agent within the DHS has the exact same authorities, duties, and powers, or that the paperwork is prepared by agents and not some office staff. Not everyone employee of DHS (or, more particularly, ICE) is an agent. Field agents, like this, may not be able to prepare the paperwork.

      An example I know about has to do with another part of DHS, the ATF. Only a small set of examiners in an office in West Virginia can approve transfers of Title 2 firearms (machine guns, silencers, etc.). The ATF agent in your local office can't.

      This could well be a similar situation and, from the information provided, we don't know.

    73. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > he will "hire" a lawyer

      and who pays for that? if the govt is causing you to lose your money for no good reason, what do you want to call it?

    74. Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? by xmundt · · Score: 1

      Greetings and Salutations;
                Yea...it is hard to tell the difference sometimes. I had a trailer that was "confiscated" by the county sheriffs dept because it was "stolen". However, when I got the police report from the cop in Knoxville, it concluded that there had been no theft. The guys that took the trailer did not want any of the stuff that had been on it either. So...after several Emails to the Sheriff, with no results, I had little to do but come to the conclusion that someone wanted a new trailer and mine was at hand. I hope they are enjoying it, because not having it has screwed up my life a number of times!
                  pleasant dreams
                dave mundt

      --
      YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
  12. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

    Otherwise you wouldn't have been an asshole about the whole thing. Make the correction, initial it, and sign the bottom. Ask to have the paperwork re-done and make an appointment to come back when it's ready.

    Did you read the whole article?

    The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.

    It has language at the bottom with serious sounding statements that the information is true and correct, and a signature block.

    I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.

    I thought this was important because I was signing it and swearing that the information, and specifically the price, was correct.

    The DHS agent didnâ(TM)t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. "It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter," she said. I declined.

    He did try to fix it, and the DHS agents acted like morons.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  13. Was the exchange rate wrong? by BetaDays · · Score: 0

    Was the exchange rate wrong? What am I missing? If the document stated the price in US dollars and was clearly marked as being US dollars why would one care that they paid Canadian Dollars if the paper had the correct exchange rate and listed it in US dollars. Or is it that it did but didn't list the exchange rate at the time? Or is it that the document said the price was (example) $4,000,000 when it should have been C$4,000,000?

    --
    Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
    1. Re:Was the exchange rate wrong? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

      If the document stated the price in US dollars and was clearly marked as being US dollars why would one care that they paid Canadian Dollars if the paper had the correct exchange rate and listed it in US dollars

      Dude, seriously, it's in the article ... they took the Canadian dollar value, turned it into American dollars (incorrectly), and asked him to sign a form under oath that what the form said was true.

      The government form was wrong, he tried to fix it, they became assholes and confiscated his boat.

      I'm entirely willing to believe some DHS agent went off and acted like an idiot when he was trying to reasonably fix a clerical error.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Was the exchange rate wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was the exchange rate wrong? What am I missing? If the document stated the price in US dollars and was clearly marked as being US dollars why would one care that they paid Canadian Dollars if the paper had the correct exchange rate and listed it in US dollars. Or is it that it did but didn't list the exchange rate at the time? Or is it that the document said the price was (example) $4,000,000 when it should have been C$4,000,000?

      The latter. He asked them to amend the price copied down as it was untrue unless they changed USD to CAD or factored in the exchange rate. The agent told him to sign anyways. He refused as that would be swearing in writing to something he believed to be an untruth, and they took his boat.

    3. Re:Was the exchange rate wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFA:

      "The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.

      It has language at the bottom with serious sounding statements that the information is true and correct, and a signature block.

      I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars."

      They merely listed the Canadian value in US $ instead of CAD $.

    4. Re:Was the exchange rate wrong? by splatter · · Score: 1

      The amount of paid on the boat was right, but in which countries currency was was wrong. So it was like saying he paid 10K Euro when it was supposed to be 10K Rupees. Euros to rupees trade at 1:75 which is a big difference in cost. Obviously this is exaggerated, and he admittedly says that the Canadian and US dollar are currently trading close to 1:1, but that has not always been the case, as I remember traveling to Canada years ago, and the rate was 1:2.

       

      --
      "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
    5. Re:Was the exchange rate wrong? by BetaDays · · Score: 1

      When I tried the link to the article it didn't work that's why I'm asking.

      --
      Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
    6. Re:Was the exchange rate wrong? by honorable_man · · Score: 1

      Okay all, the rest of the story(I was there). 1. The amount on both invoice and CBP form were in U.S dollars correctly completed on the form. 2. Just because someone has $$$ and posts something first on the web, doesn't make them true. 3. The officer in question did not act gleefully, in fact SHE called back to the office and vessel manufacturer several times to verify the stated value. 4. The officer in question vilified by this rich individual now has to endure all the grief posted here and elsewhere by Mr rich guy and explain why she followed the LEGAL document value and wouldn't cow to his brow beating. 5. Coastal Craft ended up paying for a broker to perform what should have been a personal importation and guess what The value on that entry was EXACTLY the same as on the CBP presented form. 6. Mr. Rich guy will probably post everywhere now that HE was right due to the fact that he has his boat and did not sign anything, but the fact is that the company took the high moral ground and due to ALL the false posting by Arrington, they paid for the paperwork to be processed. 7. We are all at the mercy of individuals who feel (right or wrong) that they can put out whatever they feel and get hundreds of all of you all worked up about the big bad government, fact is the is/was correct and all of us had to jump thru hoops due to arrington's posts and written falsehoods. 8. I am proud to work with this office/officer and all of you should be ashamed for vilifying her/DHS without knowing the facts. 9. It is sad that so many honest working people took some rich guy's word over someone pledged to uphold the law and gets slammed for ding so?

  14. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by parallel_prankster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't get the point. It is about the gatekeeper's ego. If everything he described happened, then it would have made a lot more sense to make the corrections just because it is nice to be honest sometimes you know. She stole the boat because her attitude is like "if you don't do everything the way I want you to do it or if I sense even the slightest disrespect, I will F**K your things". That is what we face at airports too.

  15. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think Arrington overreacted and misrepresented facts, but whining is perhaps a bit strong.

    It wasn't DHS "stealing" a boat, it was them refusing to release it without a signature.
    We don't know whether the agent in question had the authority to make changes to the legal documents. If not, refusing to release it while the paperwork was redone might have been the only valid recourse.
    For those who suggest initialized amendments to the document, whether that is allowed depends on the type of document. DHS might not be allowed to accept amended documents. Their hands could very well be tied.

    What was truly disappointing was his speculations about the DHS agents feelings. That was very unprofessional, to say the very least.

  16. Re:so what? by Feyshtey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's only news because it's a rich person and his boat. When they utilize the new Homeland Security policy allowing them to seize any electronic device at the border without suspicion, and decide to hold on to your IPad or cellphone it will most certainly be your problem. And you will have enabled it to be so because you are so cavalier about a person's rights, so long as they have a different amount of wealth as you.

    Isnt it fascinating that it's abhorent to violate a poor person's rights, but its chiche to promote violating the rights of the wealthy?

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  17. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, because people in power would never abuse you the way they abuse those with more money than you!

  18. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice example of the just world fallacy there. I imagine you do this a lot? Something like this, let's see if I can recreate your style of thinking correctly:

    Innocent: That officer shot me for no reason.
    Overzeetop: Well you shouldn't have made yourself such a larger target. You already know that guns go off by mistake, so when you saw the police officer, you should have thrown yourself to the ground and then you wouldn't have been hit. Simple. It was your error. Don't go bitch and complain about it.

  19. Re:so what? by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That happened to someone with a loud voice that is not so easy to intimidate don't mean that it not happens all the time, with a lot of things (maybe not as expensive in absolute numbers, but could hurt even more to the victim), to people with not so loud or that are easier to intimidate in some way.

  20. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Exactly the point.

    So next time bring a heavyweight lawyer as a sidekick. I suspect that the DHS clerk was breaking more than one law at that moment.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  21. no reason to lie... by dominator · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It sounds like he was being pedantic. 1 USD =~ 1 CAD these days. It's been trading in such a narrow band (0.96 - 1.04) for over a year now. Just fill out the paperwork, and get on with life. Don't upset the pencil pushers. They're goons with badges and guns.

    1. Re:no reason to lie... by medcalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And when they then take the boat and don't give it back because you falsely swore to the authenticity of the import paperwork, then what? Yeah, it's only paperwork. It doesn't matter. Until it does. And if you don't think that this could happen, look up civil forfeiture, which is an even worse abuse.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    2. Re:no reason to lie... by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Just fill out the paperwork, and get on with life. Don't upset the pencil pushers. They're goons with badges and guns.

      This way lies fascism.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    3. Re:no reason to lie... by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Did the penalty of perjury statement end with: But hey don't be pedantic...

    4. Re:no reason to lie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you calculate the price difference based on the exchange rate you've given, and guess the boat's value to have been $400,000 CDN, that would mean you were off by roughly $16,000 on the stated price you were swearing to be true and perfectly accurate under oath by signing the form. Considering the description given of the boat, it was probably worth more, meaning the variance from the actual value would also be more - that would constitute a major problem, and likely result in either the boat being confiscated at a later date when the paper pushers got around to noticing their own error, or the boat being confiscated AND criminal charges being pressed.

    5. Re:no reason to lie... by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      >Just fill out the paperwork, and get on with life. Don't upset the pencil pushers. They're goons with badges and guns.

      This way lies fascism.

      If it was facism, they'd just beat you until you were crippled then take the boat anyway without bothering with paperwork.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:no reason to lie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that if inflation ever gets under control, what you paid in Canadian dollars will end up translating into much less in US dollars, meaning you'll end up paying far more in taxes. Then the IRS gets involved as well and you end up with two equally inept government departments--DHS and Treasury--involved in the fiasco.

    7. Re:no reason to lie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he had signed the paperwork, what makes you believe the boat wouldn't have been confiscated for lying on the import forms?

      This was setup as a no-win situation by the DHS/Border people. They wanted a boat to use for some purpose and knew how to get it.

    8. Re:no reason to lie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here could be a reason why he wanted the correct amount: taxes. if its a million dollar boat, the difference between 1million Canadian dollars to 1million USD is pretty big. That's about 18k difference in the sale value of the boat... which would then be taxable.

    9. Re:no reason to lie... by sjames · · Score: 1

      If it's just paperwork and it doesn't matter, why does it have all the chest thumping about penalty of perjury at the bottom rather than "The signatory pinkie swears that the information in this document is more or less correct"

    10. Re:no reason to lie... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      Perhaps you should look up the definition of 'fascism'.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    11. Re:no reason to lie... by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      One step at a time. Have some patience.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
  22. Customs broker to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't belive anybody is foolish enough to try to import a BOAT without hiring a customs broker to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen.

  23. Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wrong. by hessian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guess what happens when the victim isn't rich?

    We never hear about it, and the agent seizes his boat and profits.

    Corruption is a very real threat!

    So what if this guy is rich? The point is that if they'll do it to rich people, they'll do it to anyone, except little people have no ability to retaliate.

  24. "how screwed up our government bureaucracy ..." by guanxi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He writes:

    itâ(TM)s to highlight how screwed up our government bureaucracy has become.

    If true (we should hear the other side), it's nothing new in the history of governments or the United States. Not that it shouldn't improve, but the good old days never were.

    That's the essential point to understand that if you want to improve things: The problem isn't current bad apples or lack of morality or a temporary increase in corruption; it's the universal, eternal nature of humanity and their institutions. Ignoring that fact is like designing a bridge and ignoring gravity. There are solutions, such as transparency, but it's not a matter of replacing the current 'bad' apples with a new batch -- they will be human too.

    1. Re:"how screwed up our government bureaucracy ..." by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but it's not a matter of replacing the current 'bad' apples with a new batch -- they will be human too.

      We don't want to "replace" the current crop of losers - We want to burn down the whole fucking orchard.

      The security theater has gone on for about 11 years too long now. End it.

    2. Re:"how screwed up our government bureaucracy ..." by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is the universal, eternal nature of humanity. That is why the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution tried very hard to limit the powers of the government. The more powerful the government gets the more likely this sort of thing is to happen and the harder it is to get this type of abuse corrected.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:"how screwed up our government bureaucracy ..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is the universal, eternal nature of humanity. That is why the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution tried very hard to limit the powers of the government. The more powerful the government gets the more likely this sort of thing is to happen and the harder it is to get this type of abuse corrected.

      The people who wrote the US Constitution did not solely want to limit the powers of government. In fact, the whole point of the Constitution was that the previous arrangement was not working - the central government had no real independent power base at all, and therefore virtually nothing could get done without near unanimous agreement of the state legislatures.

    4. Re:"how screwed up our government bureaucracy ..." by guanxi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it is the universal, eternal nature of humanity. That is why the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution tried very hard to limit the powers of the government. The more powerful the government gets the more likely this sort of thing is to happen and the harder it is to get this type of abuse corrected.

      I agree that limited government is one tool to minimize the harm of institutions, but I'd balance it out a little ...

      If not government, who will restrain humanity's instincts to kill and cheat each other? To whom would Arrington appeal to get his boat back? I think that's the primary irony and challenge of society: To protect ourselves against humanity and its institutions, we only have more humans and institutions.

      Also, the Articles of Confederation had even more limited government than we have now, but our ancestors found it too ineffectual. The Framers goal was to create a more powerful central government, though still limited.

      Finally, the Framers were just as human -- petty, corrupt, selfish, dumb -- as we are. The Constitution isn't scripture handed down by gods, but the flawed work of people like our current politicians and society. As someone said, 'we are the ones we've been waiting for.'

    5. Re:"how screwed up our government bureaucracy ..." by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The Constitution isn't scripture handed down by gods, but the flawed work of people like our current politicians and society.

      Which is why the Framers included a provision for making changes to the Constitution.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:"how screwed up our government bureaucracy ..." by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I disagree that all human beings are like this. I have seen plenty of people in positions of power outside the US who are friendly and not angry and cruel and just normal people who aren't out to hurt anyone or prove how 'bad' they are. For some reason there are a lot of people like this in our country. It must have something to do with our culture. Who knows. But it is not as big of a problem elsewhere in my experience. Power does corrupt, but not to equal degrees. One thing that is for sure is that if people like this are not immediately fired when caught in the act of abusing their power things will only get worse.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    7. Re:"how screwed up our government bureaucracy ..." by steelfood · · Score: 1

      The issue is the central government's overreach over the past century, and especially over the past twenty years.

      The Articles were problematic because it allowed every state to print their own money and could not regulate commerce between states. The constitution found a delicate and perhaps not-perfect balance between the dictatorship of old and the anarchy of the new. Problem is, the federal government is quickly turning into the dictatorship that was previously rejected, one that's worse than the one initially disposed of.

      The Framers were human, and not perfect. But they knew their limitations, and understood it and how to work around it. The BIll of Rights aren't even in the constitution. The Framers saw their mistake and corrected it. Imagine if they had been as arrogant and short-sighted as people are today.

      At this point, the rest of the constitution is pretty much useless and the ten amendments are now the only thing standing between We the People and tyranny.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    8. Re:"how screwed up our government bureaucracy ..." by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That's it exactly. You can't fix the "bad apples" problem by growing more apples (all that leads to is a bigger crop of bad apples); you have to get rid of it at the root, and that means killing off these self-serving bureaucracies like the DHS and the DEA.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  25. Re:so what? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I care. Not because the guy is rich and I worship CEOs, but because this is another example of some governmental lowlife taking property.

    As much as I am FOR regulations of corporations I am against misuse of regulation for petty reasons.

  26. Re:so what? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yep, they've been doing this for many, many years. Since the RICO act, in fact.

    --
    No sig today...
  27. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    It sounds like the boat was already being held, and simply wasn't released.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  28. Re:so what? by jythie · · Score: 1

    Having it happen to a rich person makes it news, but the basic problem is there and likely impacts middle class people too.

  29. Re:Cry me a river by nysus · · Score: 0, Troll

    Come on. This is a rich guy who can't go fucking sailing this weekend because some paperwork was wrong. Who gives a fuck?

    This is the story of a bureaucrat doing their job and inconveniencing someone as a result, not a violation of a basic human right. It's a non-story.

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

  30. Name And Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post the name of the agent that did this.

    Tar, feathers.

    Maybe torch as well, but tar and feathers at a minimum.

    1. Re:Name And Shame by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Post the name of the agent that did this.

      Tar, feathers.

      Maybe torch as well, but tar and feathers at a minimum.

      Why not just execute them and their whole family, in fact, fuck it, why not just kill everyone in the whole world?

      Or might that be a tad disproportionate for the "crime" of inconveniencing a rich guy?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  31. Really? by jcobol · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm sure Arrington, with his long history of reporting the facts, is telling us the entire story. And if he is? It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy . . .

    1. Re:Really? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Arrington, with his long history of reporting the facts, is telling us the entire story. And if he is? It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy . . .

      So, you think the guy's an asshole; big whoop. What does that have to do with whether or not he's afforded his Constitutionally guaranteed rights?

      In the immortal words of E.B. Hall: "I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you think the guy's an asshole; big whoop. What does that have to do with whether or not he's afforded his Constitutionally guaranteed rights?

      I'm not sure what constitutional right you think was violated, since I can't read the article, but from what I see, his complaint was that she was rude to him. If he really is a total asshole, I'd be willing to guess he had it coming and is only telling half the story. I deal with customs all the time. I'd expect my shipments to be held if I tell them I've falsely reported the value. It's not some joke you can bully your way through.

    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure Arrington, with his long history of reporting the facts, is telling us the entire story. And if he is? It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy . . .

      so let me get this straight? Mr. Arrington asked Ms. Border Agent to correct a document that may have, or may not have, been correct? Granny with a Gun DARES say "No" to Mr. Richy Rich and he gets his knickers in a knot when his boat is "held for importation processing" and blogs aobut it? He is so upset that he forgets about giving the Canadian captain a ride home to the Sunshine coast? Of course the hired captain is a working minion, so he might be beneath Mr. 1% notice....who cares that he got abandoned along with the boat, because Mr. 1% was inconvienced by DHS because he or the seller didn't provide a correct invioce with the correct price, therefore the document wasn't correct. LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS OH MY! Someone get this man a Binky and a Blanky and WAHWAHWAH.....if that's all he has to blog about his life is pretty good. Good for Gun Toting Granny.

  32. Re:so what? by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What an assholish thing to post. The guy earned his money - you're somehow more okay with his property being seized because you're envious of it? Grow up.

  33. Much worse under Obama regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I always thought the fanatical left was completely hypocritical that they bashed the Bush administration for liberty violations by federal agents but now they are Obama constituents and are completely silent.

    *sigh*
    Oh well; who needs those stupid ethics and morals anyway?

    1. Re:Much worse under Obama regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL You're posting in a thread complaining about how everyone is ignoring the rights of the rich in a story complaining about how the rights of the rich were infringed, to complain about how "nobody is saying anything" about how the rights of the rich are being infringed under Obama.

    2. Re:Much worse under Obama regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the fanatical left is absolutely protesting Obama. They hate him.

      Maybe you're a wingnut and think that normal people are the fanatical left. That's what happens when you form an insular subculture that rejects any info that's contrary to their absurd beliefs.

    3. Re:Much worse under Obama regime by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personal property rights are not just "the rights of the rich".

      You are an idiot.

      Tolerating injustice because you don't like the victim is how this nonsense starts. Sooner or later, the victim will be someone more sympathetic. By then the abuse will be entrenched.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Much worse under Obama regime by chaboud · · Score: 1

      Well, rich-er, but if we keep this up, only the rich will have property. Problem solved.

    5. Re:Much worse under Obama regime by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

      Who is being silent about this? Not me and I have been more than once been criticized as a commie and flaming liberal.

      I did not vote for Obama this time around exactly because of the poor record he and his administration shows on the "liberty violations" and these violations are the biggest reason that people on the left were disillusioned with the whole HOPE thing not the economy. I believe that the bad economy was inevitable whether or not Obama or McCain was elected but felt that Obama would be better on reversing the abuses of liberty during the Bush years.

      Not sure McCain would have been better but we have a demonstration that Obama was no better than Bush.

      This is even knowing that Gitmo is a no win for any president at this point.

    6. Re:Much worse under Obama regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the fanatical left are idiots.

      true, those idiots are consistent in their inconsistency, in that they wanted benevolent big government before obama took office, and are now pissed that he didn't bring that "change" about...

      but they are irrelevant. big government, one that can protect itself first, dominate the world second, and then a distance third, incompetently serve a third of a billion people, ...will NEVER be benevolent.

      I just hope as this shit implodes, that those idiots are rounded up by the machine they built.

    7. Re:Much worse under Obama regime by psm321 · · Score: 1

      Umm, the "fanatical" left is still complaining plenty. Just the mainstream (center-right) Democratic partisans have stopped, because they only care about what party is in power. Please don't confuse the two. (For details, just look at how much the Obama administration derides "professional leftists")

    8. Re:Much worse under Obama regime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your may or may not have a valid idea. But we'll never know because the strawman arguement you used is stupid and offtopic.

  34. DHS = the new Brownshirts, only more stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And they deserve the same sort of respect.

  35. Limit government powers to prevent abuses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you give people power, they will abuse it. Government is usually a parasite. Best to keep it in its smaller symbiotic stages.

  36. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by guanxi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He did try to fix it, and the DHS agents acted like morons.

    Says who? If the customs agent wrote a blog, would it say the same? What if she wrote her blog first and it was posted to Slashdot as "Arrington acts like and a**hole, gets yacht confiscated"? Do we just believe whichever side gets posted to Slashdot first?

  37. Well DUH!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you don't pay them their bribes you don't get your shit across. Everyone knows that...

  38. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Zcar · · Score: 1

    Or, just sign and don't worry since CAD and USD are at basically the same value these days (a 2 cent difference). I get the principle and everything, but it's not like there's a while lot of difference between the currencies these days.

  39. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And if the customs agent doesn't have the authority to amend the paperwork then and there, what happens?

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  40. Re:Cry me a river by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the story of a bureaucrat doing their job and inconveniencing someone as a result, not a violation of a basic human right.

    How do you arrive at that conclusion?

    The DHS agent didn't care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. "It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter," she said. I declined.

    This is a story of a bureaucrat acting like a fucking idiot and asking someone to sign incorrect paperwork, and then acting like a miserable old cow when he tried to resolve the problem.

    Sorry, but if DHS is that incompetent and behaves that much like assholes, that's a major problem.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  41. Re:Cry me a river by hsmith · · Score: 0

    You do realize that the people making this "fucking sailboat" are middle class folk right? If he wasn't buying his "fucking sailboat" - they wouldn't have jobs. I know, it is hard to see through your abhorrent jealousy.

  42. Re:Cry me a river by jcobol · · Score: 1

    Come on. This is a rich guy who can't go fucking sailing this weekend because some paperwork was wrong. Who gives a fuck?

    This is the story of a bureaucrat doing their job and inconveniencing someone as a result, not a violation of a basic human right. It's a non-story.

    My thoughts exactly.

  43. There's a cabal out to get Arrington by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the agent is part of the cabal? Was she involved in the theft of the CrunchPad?

    There's all sorts of reasons to hate the DHS and their agents. Years of reading techcrunch has left me with the impression that there's all sorts of reasons to take what Arrington writes with a block of salt.

  44. America - The new Constitution Free Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its too late to turn back now. They actually have assumed control.

    No tin hat needed.

  45. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Easy enough to confirm she did take the boat. Why do you automatically disbelieve him? In a battle of assholes, the one that goes public wins.

  46. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by cenerentolo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    exactly, this has newsworthiness for a few reasons, two of which i will expand upon.... IF a rich guy can be treated like this, guess what? if youre not rich, YOU ARE GONNA GET IT WORSE.... secondly, it is cause the guy is also a celeb in the geek world, so geeks care about him in the same brainspace that they will occasionally pick up something about steve job's illeg. child.

  47. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I disagree. Many years ago, (2002 or 2003), myself and two friends went to Canada. One friend was French, carrying a proper passport, etc.

    When crossing into Canada, the customs official could not have been more cordial. He asked all three of us to come up at once (we were walking). Had a quick chit-chat about why we were going to Niagara Falls, checked our friend's passport to make sure everything was good, and wished us well.

    Coming back was a completely different experience. We assumed the process would be the same, so we all started up to the customs agent at the same time. He jumped back from his seat, unholstered a pistol, and started shouting commands at us. (3 young college kids). After that, we received the 3rd degree on how two Americans could be friends with a Frenchie, etc.

    CBE officials are power hungry... end of story.

  48. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Both of you are a little selfish, aren't you? "Oh, he's got money so he's got no right to complain."

    This is a bureaucrat fucking up the paperwork, refusing to fix it, then seizing the opportunity to take someone else's toy for a ride. That flagrant abuse of power is a problem with integrity.

    In a country where the constitution was deliberately crafted around the idea of protecting citizens from governmental abuse and seeking to empower the citizens with means to call their government on any and all abuse.

    Integrity problems in government ought to have you up in arms, it's your job as American Citizen[tm]. No matter what the cause is. So git off yer arses arriddy, ye lazy bums!

  49. They told me by AntiBasic · · Score: 5, Funny

    They told me if I voted for Romney, we'd see DHS continue with abuse power... and they were right.

    1. Re:They told me by nickscalise · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whoosh!

      His point was it really did not matter who he voted for. The crap continues.

      Or, it could be that the folks who told him that were just saying ANYTHING to keep Romney from being elected. Because their guy was already giving them stuff, and they did not want to stop receiving stuff.

    2. Re:They told me by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      Oh dear. He's not blaming it on Romney. He said people said that this would happen if he voted Romney, and it did, even though Romney didn't win. He was making a not-particularly-subtle(-so-I-don't-know-how-you-missed-it) point about politics. I'm not sure if it was "Obama supporters are hypocrites" or "it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always wins", but he clearly wasn't blaming Romney.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    3. Re:They told me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, the GP was just making a valiant, heroic attempt to crowbar a much-needed burst of petty party politics into a dull, boring bipartisan issue so that he can pin Blame(tm) on someone instead of actually considering the underlying problems. Blame on, noble AntiBasic! Blame on!

    4. Re:They told me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!

    5. Re:They told me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you should have voted for a lesser evil, or complained about how something is flawed and refused to participate.

    6. Re:They told me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Obama, this crap isn't just continuing, it's even more pervasive!

    7. Re:They told me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you shouldn't have voted for Romney.

    8. Re:They told me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoulda voted for Ron Paul.

    9. Re:They told me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The oldest version of this joke macro that I'm aware of -- so far -- had parameters of "Goldwater" and "the US get into a war".

      Anyone have any older sightings?

    10. Re:They told me by baristabrian · · Score: 1

      Your sarcasm (and humor) are both noted and appreciated by me, one who likes to think of himself as at least somewhat thick-skinned and reasonably enlightend.

      However, I might remind you that most of the folks who lurk here and post here (regardless of how high their IQ's and how extensive their [coughing] *formal* education) seem to want to conveniently forget how their messiah, Obama, was the one who signed the NDAA---after adding even *more* scarily oppressive language to it.

      The irony *and* the hypocrisy are not lost on me.

      In fact, I do appreciate them greatly.

      Many of these same people are the ones who railed against "dubya" for happening to be in office when a Democratic *majority* in Congress passed the Patriot Act.

      Whether stupid, ignorant, or patently partisan, I'll let you decide. I know the ones to whom this applies will be the most angry when reading this.

      If the shoe fits ...

      In any case, thanks for the good laugh and the reminder that not everybody posting here is a, uh, tool.

      --
      -- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
  50. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess what happens when the victim isn't rich?

    They don't have a boat for DHS to steal?

  51. Name names by Alien+Being · · Score: 2

    The American people have a right to know who did this. I'm sure the guy will eventually get his boat, but he'll have no recourse for any damage they do to it. We're paying those bastards big salaries to fuck us over. And they wonder why citizens are seeing red.

    1. Re:Name names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      find out her name and shoot her.

  52. Just sayin'.... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 0, Troll

    If he was being an incredible dick toward the agent, I'm sure she was excited to seize property from an asshole who thinks his money makes him the coolest thing since the last ice age.

    I'm just sayin'... There are always two sides to a story. Unfortunately, since this agent is an official government employee, her TRUE side can't be heard; only the legal facts (the numbers did not match, etc).

    If I were being a real prick toward someone and they relieved their vengeance toward me, I would sensationalize the story about it to try and one-up them, just like this story sounds. If I would, millions of others would, too.

    Again, just sayin'.

    1. Re:Just sayin'.... by nickscalise · · Score: 2

      So, someone is rude, arrogant, flaunting, etc., and that is legal grounds for property seizure?

    2. Re:Just sayin'.... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whether he was a dick to her, or vice versa, is entirely irrelevant. There are only four facts that are relevant in any way, and they're all binary:

      1) Was the information on the form incorrect, yes or no?
      2) Did she tell him to nevertheless sign a form with incorrect information, yes or no?
      3) Did he refuse to swear that information he knew to be false was true, yes or no?
      4) After that, sis she seize the boat, yes or no?

      She doesn't have to like him and he doesn't have to like her. If the answer to all four of the above questions is "yes" then she is entirely in the wrong needs to be slapped down... ideally terminated as unfit to serve the public in any capacity.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    3. Re:Just sayin'.... by Artful+Codger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's kind of a tough call. On the one hand, if you sign off on something government-y that's technically false, that can boomerang on you later on. On the other hand, since the US and Canadian dollar are within a percent or two of parity, the discrepancy is trivial, so any future correction would be trivial. Me, I'd have probably STFU and signed.

      But I could only afford a used boat.So maybe I don't understand...

      The flaw in the system seems to be the inordinate amount of power in one agent's hands. If the agent had to call a superior to do the seizure, and explain the stupid reason... I bet the matter would have evaporated at that point.

      --

      ... plans that either come to naught, or half a page of scribbled lines...
    4. Re:Just sayin'.... by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      No, but refusing to sign the release form due to something that the agent may not have the authority to modify on the fly doesn't constitute seizure, either. It's just something being held a little longer at customs because of an error.

    5. Re:Just sayin'.... by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      If I were being a real prick toward someone and they relieved their vengeance toward me, I would sensationalize the story about it to try and one-up them, just like this story sounds. If I would, millions of others would, too.

      I am afraid you are a little off on the number. It is more like over 7 billion people would do what you described.
      It has been said that there are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth.
      I would add that the three sides show only a superficial resemblance to each other.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    6. Re:Just sayin'.... by hedwards · · Score: 0

      From the article, it sounds like he was being a condescending dick and nobody in their right mind argues with customs over something like that as it's the customs officer that would be making the determination as to whether or not you're being truthful. If you don't agree with the determination, then there are procedures in place, it's usually easier not to argue unless they're being unreasonable or violating the spirit of the law.

      They're main concern is that you're being truthful with them, if the documentation has the correct price and you give that to the customs agent, they're not going to be confiscating the boat as you provided them with the appropriate information.

      In this case, it was an error that she made, and I'm not sure I understand the line of reasoning for his refusal to sign the forms, when it was clear that he himself wasn't falsifying any information. He should have just signed off on it and taken the boat. They're not going to be able to confiscate it over that kind of a technicality when he provided accurate forms to back up the sales figures.

    7. Re:Just sayin'.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No more than just "terminated as unfit to serve the public in any capacity", but rather placed in a federal detention facility for no less than 25 years for grand larceny (the offense of illegally taking the property of another—in which the value of the property taken is greater than that set for petit larceny.) under color of law (the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists)

    8. Re:Just sayin'.... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      If he was being an incredible dick toward the agent, I'm sure she was excited to seize property from an asshole who thinks his money makes him the coolest thing since the last ice age.

      And that was her mistake. Acting on such an impulse was petty and unprofessional. Period. It should cost her.

    9. Re:Just sayin'.... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 0

      No; apparently you didn't read what I typed but read what you wanted to read...

      What I said was that the legal grounds existed for seizing based on improper information. That's a closed deal. If the person who is trying to transfer the property is an ass, the official that is reviewing the information may SMILE when they seize the property *rather* than maintain a straight face, FROWN, or APOLOGIZE.

      Simple Human behavior.

    10. Re:Just sayin'.... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      See my other reply. Same goes here.

    11. Re:Just sayin'.... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      It's kind of a tough call. On the one hand, if you sign off on something government-y that's technically false, that can boomerang on you later on. On the other hand, since the US and Canadian dollar are within a percent or two of parity, the discrepancy is trivial, so any future correction would be trivial. Me, I'd have probably STFU and signed.

      But I could only afford a used boat.So maybe I don't understand...

      The flaw in the system seems to be the inordinate amount of power in one agent's hands. If the agent had to call a superior to do the seizure, and explain the stupid reason... I bet the matter would have evaporated at that point.

      Hell yeah. I'm 100% on board with ya on this one.

      Unfortunately, certain people have more of a tendency to squabble over small things fearing the loss of something later on. In this case, the "wealthy" class fears possible loss of money should they have made a mistake by signing anything incorrectly. Well, that and other things, but the primary focus of those with major money is money.

      Heck, why not pay a lawyer to go with you if you've got that much money to blow. You pay up front to avoid paying more later based on error. Eh, I'm rambling.

    12. Re:Just sayin'.... by dywolf · · Score: 0

      Dont you realize this is slashdot?
      Only automatic kneejerk anti-DHS comments are allowed here.
      Keep your reasonable and realistic comments to yourself!

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    13. Re:Just sayin'.... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      If he was being an incredible dick toward the agent, I'm sure she was excited to seize property from an asshole who thinks his money makes him the coolest thing since the last ice age.

      And that was her mistake. Acting on such an impulse was petty and unprofessional. Period. It should cost her.

      That's cool.

      The mistake in monetary value costs him. The Human response she erred in exhibiting costs her. It's a wash.

    14. Re:Just sayin'.... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 0

      No more than just "terminated as unfit to serve the public in any capacity", but rather placed in a federal detention facility for no less than 25 years for grand larceny (the offense of illegally taking the property of another—in which the value of the property taken is greater than that set for petit larceny.) under color of law (the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists)

      So you're saying the DHS should have never been created with the ability to treat the law as they see fit, when they see fit, for as long as they see fit? Uh, yeah. Of course it shouldn't have happened. This is a stupid squabble over a much larger problem but made it to the public's eye because of the wealth and status of the individual who was "wronged".

    15. Re:Just sayin'.... by sjames · · Score: 2

      The problem is, if you swear to a falsehood, the same government that was willing to confiscate a boat rather than correct a form will be happy to confiscate the boat again because the paperwork is not in order.

    16. Re:Just sayin'.... by HappyHead · · Score: 2

      within a percent or two of parity, the discrepancy is trivial

      Actually, if the estimates I've seen for the cost of this boat (and from the description, they may be) are correct, the discrepancy caused by writing the wrong currency would likely amount to around or over $10k - not especially trivial, especially if that form was then used to calculate the sales tax and such he later had to pay. That makes it fairly significant.

      If the agent had to call a superior to do the seizure, and explain the stupid reason... I bet the matter would have evaporated at that point.

      That's the great part - the agent did call a superior and explain the reason, but left out all of the relevant details. Their explanation wasn't "There's a significant error on the form, and he wants it corrected before he'll sign", their explanation was "he's refusing to sign", and they refused to allow him to speak to that person to tell them why.

    17. Re:Just sayin'.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, just sayin'.

      What are you? A Fox News pundit?

    18. Re:Just sayin'.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that it hasn't cost her and probably won't considering the DHS's history, and the mistake in monetary value that cost him wasn't made by him, it was made by the people who work with her (who also won't be cost anything by their mistake). Doesn't sound like it's balancing out at all there, actually.

    19. Re:Just sayin'.... by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

      So, someone is rude, arrogant, flaunting, etc., and that is legal grounds for property seizure?

      Whether or not they are, if someone refuses to sign a document which must, by law, be signed before an article can be released from government custody, whether because they dispute the accuracy of the document or for whatever other reason, then there is no legal grounds for releasing the article from government custody.

      If the complaint was correct and the agent was authorized to make or accept alterations to the form -- and Arrington's doesn't provide much support for anything on either point more than Arrington's belief that the form was incorrect because the valuation on the form in USD matched the original purchase price in CAD, which may or may not be wrong -- then there was something done wrong in not correcting the form.

    20. Re:Just sayin'.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would explain his entertainment-oriented deviancy from established facts.

    21. Re:Just sayin'.... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      People are human, and if youre a jerk to an official, they may be more technical and "to the letter of the rule" than they normally might. I have a hunch that there is some legal justification, however petty, for what the agent did, that Arrington exercised his usual knack for getting into trouble, and the agent decided that it was time to be petty.

      I suppose we'll find out, but in the mean-time its interesting to watch the traditional slashdot rant about how we live in an oppressive third world dictatorship and we should tear it all down to form an anarchistic utopia (or vote for Ron Paul, or whatever).

    22. Re:Just sayin'.... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The flaw in the system seems to be the inordinate amount of power in one agent's hands

      Usually decisions like that which need to be made on the spot are not made via committee. What ultimately happens to the boat will no doubt be decided elsewhere, but the initial decision to confiscate will usually be by a single person, and reviewed later.

    23. Re:Just sayin'.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but refusing to sign the release form due to something that the agent may not have the authority to modify on the fly doesn't constitute seizure, either. It's just something being held a little longer at customs because of an error.

      Right, and if I'm send to prison, I'm not a "prisoner" either. I'm just an "inmate" who is being "detained."

    24. Re:Just sayin'.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are we supposed to stand up and cheer now? She'll get a minor slap on the wrist and he gets screwed out of money and everything is all good and OK in America?

    25. Re:Just sayin'.... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      The mistake in monetary value costs him.

      I thought customs made the mistake in monetary value. She compounded it by refusing to fix her error immediately. If she waits long enough to fix her error, does the detained boat become "abandoned property" subject to public auction?

    26. Re:Just sayin'.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing "reasonable" or "unrealistic" about DHS. Nothing.

    27. Re:Just sayin'.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even more important (to her anyway) is her bosses reaction, which should have gone something like this...

      Boss: What the F is that boat doing here?
      employee: It's been confiscated because he wouldn't sign the paperwork
      Boss: Why wouldn't he sign it?
      employee: It had an error in the price.
      Boss: You're so fucking fired.

    28. Re:Just sayin'.... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      terminated as unfit to serve the public in any capacity.

      If they kept doing that, they'd end up with a department with no employees.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    29. Re:Just sayin'.... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      The mistake in monetary value costs him.

      I thought customs made the mistake in monetary value. She compounded it by refusing to fix her error immediately. If she waits long enough to fix her error, does the detained boat become "abandoned property" subject to public auction?

      *Her* error? Where did you see that she was the root cause of the error? I must have missed something.

    30. Re:Just sayin'.... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      "DHS takes documents supplied by the builder and creates a government form that includes basic information about the boat, including the price.
      The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars."

      Technically, it doesn't mention her, but she was the agent dealing with him, hence it makes sense that she's doing the paperwork.

    31. Re:Just sayin'.... by tftp · · Score: 1

      *Her* error? Where did you see that she was the root cause of the error?

      The original error might be someone else's, but she enthusiastically adopted this error as her own. Thus it became her error.

      I don't even understand why the owner of the boat asked permission to make changes. You can make any changes you want in any document that you sign; this is because you should sign only documents that you completely agree with. You cannot be given a fixed form and told to sign it, with penalties if you do and with penalties if you don't. A form, with *any* data filled in, is not any different from a document that you wrote entirely by hand.

    32. Re:Just sayin'.... by honorable_man · · Score: 1

      Okay all, the rest of the story(I was there). 1. The amount on both invoice and CBP form were in U.S dollars correctly completed on the form. 2. Just because someone has $$$ and posts something first on the web, doesn't make them true. 3. The officer in question did not act gleefully, in fact SHE called back to the office and vessel manufacturer several times to verify the stated value. 4. The officer in question vilified by this rich individual now has to endure all the grief posted here and elsewhere by Mr rich guy and explain why she followed the LEGAL document value and wouldn't cow to his brow beating. 5. Coastal Craft ended up paying for a broker to perform what should have been a personal importation and guess what The value on that entry was EXACTLY the same as on the CBP presented form. 6. Mr. Rich guy will probably post everywhere now that HE was right due to the fact that he has his boat and did not sign anything, but the fact is that the company took the high moral ground and due to ALL the false posting by Arrington, they paid for the paperwork to be processed. 7. We are all at the mercy of individuals who feel (right or wrong) that they can put out whatever they feel and get hundreds of all of you all worked up about the big bad government, fact is the is/was correct and all of us had to jump thru hoops due to arrington's posts and written falsehoods. 8. I am proud to work with this office/officer and all of you should be ashamed for vilifying her/DHS without knowing the facts. 9. He who posts first is not always correct, sadly so many of you jumped onboard with Arrington w/o any question as to if he was being honest, which obviously he was not. Shame on you.

    33. Re:Just sayin'.... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      flamebait? hah. truth hurts.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  53. Parity? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Since the Canadian and US Dollars are almost the same, the diff was what 10 pence?

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Parity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the Canadian and US Dollars are almost the same, the diff was what 10 pence?

      The problem is the form she asked him to sign was not correct.

      Since it was not correct it's a lie.

      Lying to a Federal Agent (even if it's not under oath) is a Federal Offense and earns you time in a Federal Penitentiary.

      Yes, even if the diff is 10 pence.

      The story reports how excited she was to seize the boat. Do you doubt how much she would enjoy arresting a vile wrongdoer for the heinious crime of lying to the Federal Government?

    2. Re:Parity? by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since the Canadian and US Dollars are almost the same, the diff was what 10 pence?

      They are close. But still not insignificant. And it's going to depend on what date the sale was as to who it's significant to.

      The boat is likely $1m+. It's been in the works since 2011 and usually cheap boats don't take a year to build. Large, highly customized, high end expensive boats take over a year to build. With current exchange rates, The difference for a $1m boat is around $25k. Seattle's use tax rate is .095, plus an additional .3% for vehicles/boats, and .5% excise tax. So that's an extra $2500 in taxes and fees. Yeah it's only a small fraction of the total cost, but I don't think most people want to spend $2500 just because some agent didn't write $#CAD on the form.

    3. Re:Parity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The agent was looking to A)Pocket the difference or B)confiscate the boat and sell it at auction.

  54. How is anyone still suprised... by sensationull · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the US is a totalitarian state now run by the corporations and paranoia merchants who exist to fuel wars. I would not travel there with any electronic device as I would be more concerned about them messing about it or taking it at the border than if I was going to China. Seriously it has to have killed of a bit of tourism if nothing else with the mental border policies. Sure Israel blows up laptops it does not like but at least they have provable reason. I've picked flights to avoid the US as a stop over simply because I don't feel safe traveling there with electronics, not that I have anything to hide but I don't think that matters anymore.

    Call me old fashioned but I just don't want to be irradiated and have all my electronic devices seized and violated at the whim of some random overpaid security guard with a bad attitude.

    1. Re:How is anyone still suprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least in the USA, we aren't required to disclose our passwords for encryption - like in the UK and France.

    2. Re:How is anyone still suprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the US is a totalitarian state now run by the corporations and paranoia merchants

      You say that as if coercive authority doesn't hold the key to coercion. Take your tin foil hat off and admit that when government accepts a bribe, the fault and wrongdoing lies 100% with government.

      Only government holds the key to coercive authority, because government holds a monopoly on coercive authority. That is what defines government.

    3. Re:How is anyone still suprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A bit of background: I'm Canadian, white, from a mediteranean background, professional infosec guy.

      I've been to Israel, and eastern european countries, and been in places where where suicide bombers have detonated themselves and killed and maimed scores of people.

      I advise corporate entities about the risk of going to "questionable jurisdictions" such as China and other IP thieving countries, but the US is increasingly becoming problematic if you seem to not fit the profile.

      I've been better treated by Mexican, Polish, Czech, Cuban, and Israeli border control than the US DHS, and this before and after 9/11.

      The common thread seems to be understanding or risk, incompetence (of a person/dept) and training. The US DHS seems to be afflicted with all three: understanding of risk is flawed, the people hired to safeguard the country seem poorly selected (google those articles of DHS hiring people whose previous work experience was McDonalds) and poor training.

      Israeli's have some of the best training, and they try to avoid using the dumbdumbs for border and customs (they can work on courtesy but that's something else).
      Even in a rural Polish town's airport, you'll have military clad types with full auto weapons on display, but even they understand the situation.

      You don't get that feeling when you enter Uncle Sam's domain, and it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't make anyone safer.

    4. Re:How is anyone still suprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the unions and the leftists who participate in that control. Your hatred for capitalism and your erection for liberalism has colored your view. NONE of them can be trusted. The only rules that matter are those contained in the Bill of Rights, and since the Democrats are so bent on doing away with the 2nd, you can bet your ass that shortly, none of them will matter because that one is the only one the absolutely ensures the remainder.

    5. Re:How is anyone still suprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly enough, that's the same reason I don't leave the US.

    6. Re:How is anyone still suprised... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      the US is a totalitarian state now run by the corporations and paranoia merchants who exist to fuel wars

      I know, Im still waiting for the day when we have elections.

      Pro-tip-- totalitarian states have neither competing parties, nor term limits.

    7. Re:How is anyone still suprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to add in strong public sector unions that protect gun toting civil right violating law enforcement officers from prosecution to your formula for a totalitarian state. Corproation and merchants can't "enfoce" their law without their legalized mafia enforcers.

    8. Re:How is anyone still suprised... by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it's only selectively totalitarian. These sorts of things hit few enough people (and most do not have an audience to tell their story to) that the majority of people float by thinking that all is well. Too many people, from all walks of life, honestly buy into the "Well, if it keeps us safe from terrorists, I don't mind them doing a bit more X" scam and think systemic offenses like these (even if assuming what the agent did was proper policy) are hypothetical.

      And yes, I cannot imagine it hasn't severely reduced both tourism and business travel. You're not alone in doing anything you can to avoid a US stopover.

    9. Re:How is anyone still suprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..are you me?

    10. Re:How is anyone still suprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You most certainly did not deal with US DHS before 9/11 because it did not exist. It was created from the merger of several agencies. Besides I was coming back from the Bahamas withdrawing from oxycodone and barely able to stand and the guy didn't look twice at me. "Welcome home." Of course I believe non-citizens are subjected to more forceful and thorough questioning and entrance procedures, like fingerprinting, photo, and potentially other identifying info in order to get a visitors visa. I saw on TV now the US has digital fingerprint ID labs in the back of government four runners.

    11. Re:How is anyone still suprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another would-be-tourist here. I'd really like to see new york, las vegas, and grand canyon. There is just no way in hell i'd enter the US. Luckily there are also a boatload of other places and countries worth visiting where i wouldn't feel scared to enter as a tourist.

    12. Re:How is anyone still suprised... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Oh how I wish I had mod points. Americans have been asking me why I travel around with such a shitty laptop (my answer: I don't want to travel with my good one in case I get anal-probed and robbed by the TSA/DHS/etc).

      'merica. Yeahhhhh.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  55. Re:Cry me a river by StormyWeather · · Score: 2

    Slashdot hates anyone that builds airplanes, sailboats, custom cars, restores very expensive old cars, designs custom jewelry, owns a tuxedo rental store, etc. Didn't you get the memo?

    I'm about to build a couple 4000 (my cost) pc's for some wealthy clients, so I'm sure they hate me too. I wouldn't be able to feed my family without rich people.

  56. Re:so what? by tompaulco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't want to see such disparity that some people can afford private boats either.
    Just so you are aware, the vast majority of boats are owned by lower and middle class people. Boats tend to be a money sink which a lot of the wealthy avoid unless they just really have so much money that they don't care.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  57. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by BetterSense · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dealing successfully with the ironically-named 'justice system' (where 'successfully' is defined as 'minimal loss of wealth/immediate freedom/future earning potential/continence' is based on two key factors:

    1) Do not appear to have anything confiscatable
    2) Flatter their ego

    Stupid people care about the law. They think that if they obey the law, they will be ok. The fact is, the law really doesn't matter. Cops don't know the law, they just enforce it. The most important thing is to not get involved with the police, and if you do, to not get arrested. If you get arrested, you have already lost.

    The law only matters after you are arrested. But even then, you will end up plea-bargaining to an unrelated charge anyway. The idea that you will stand up before a judge and he will see that you were in compliance with the law and you will achieve some kind of 'justice' is pure naivete. Even if the case is dismissed, you lost.

  58. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if she wrote her blog first and it was posted to Slashdot as "Arrington acts like and a**hole, gets yacht confiscated"?

    I don't care if he called her a dirty &$@*â licking %*@& £^#%er. She can't legally confiscate his boat for that.

  59. Re:uh, that's what's supposed to happen by nedlohs · · Score: 2

    So you think that government agents should encourage people to make false statements and swear they are true?

    If what happened was "I pointed out that the paperwork the DHS had written was incorrect and the agent said they couldn't correct it now and would have get a higher up to fix it which will take a few days and they'll hold the boat until that is done", then yes you would have a point and he would be being a "whiny rich asshole".

    But that isn't what happened. The "they wouldn't let me have my boat right this second" wasn't the point of the whine, which should be pretty obvious to anyone who can read.

  60. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So let's cut their pay, cut back on their training, and cut their support services. That will make them better.

  61. least of his worries by stimpleton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He'll get his boat back. More worryingly this was the third attempt at delivery. It broke down *twice* before and had to return to the manufacturer when attempts were made to deliver. A bigger entity really does not want him to have his boat! Boats breaking down is serious. You evade storms in a working boat.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    1. Re:least of his worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >A bigger entity really does not want him to have his boat!

      The government?

      *laughtrack*

    2. Re:least of his worries by hedwards · · Score: 1

      This is in the Puget Sound. An engine breaking down just means that the coast guard has to come bail you out. And they're never far off. Sure, you might drift around, but you're not likely to drift very far as they'll get to you before you drift into the shipping lanes.

      What's more, if you're out in a storm, it's because you were exercising poor judgement, it's hard to get so far out into the Sound that you're more than a half hour away from someplace you can lay anchor.

  62. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It "no big deal" until the IRS or the boat licensing authority gets ahold of that slip and it doesn't MATCH EXACTLY... Then he gets accused of defrauding taxes and such. A COMPANY has lawyers that can defend that type of clerical error. YOU don't.

    To be totally fair, this is over dramatized. Obviously, without the paperwork, she can't clear the boat. So that means lock it back up until the correct paperwork is redone... And you go to the bottom of the queue for wasting her time.

  63. So clear this up for me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it that we're NOT supposed to care because this is a rich guy who got fucked?

    I don't know about you, but I figure that this isn't good, even though I, personally, have never lost anything to border security.

    1. Re:So clear this up for me. by Kardos · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, this is good news. If the DHS is pissing off rich people, maybe there will actually be some change.

    2. Re:So clear this up for me. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      On the contrary, this is good news. If the DHS is pissing off rich people, maybe there will actually be some change.

      Sure there will - they'll stop fucking with rich people, thus keeping their unconstitutional activities under the media radar.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:So clear this up for me. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Most people get f---ed. The reason this article got posted was because a member of our SUPERELITEJOBCREATOR class was the person screwed over. From what I can see there's nothing newsworthy about this at all, it's just someone with the money to push the story is pushing it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  64. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    Guess what happens when the victim isn't rich?

    They buy a domestic boat instead of outsourcing?

  65. Re:uh, that's what's supposed to happen by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    The customs paperwork on a shipment was screwed up.

    By the customs department, not the company or the private individual. If the company shipping the boat had made the error, or Arrington himself, this would be appropriate.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  66. f*d up bureaucracy on the US/Canada border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know it's a little off topic and few are likely to read an AC's post anyway :), but I have a story of government bureaucracy bullshit related to the U.S./Canadian border.

    Years ago, I tried to cross the border to get into Canada from the U.S. I had been arrested about a year before or so on a minor charge--interference with government operations. Basically some asshole cops were abusing their power, arresting kids outside a music venue, throwing them into the ground, and one of them threw his elbow into me on his way over, knocking me back. So I stood my ground. When he told me to move back, I told him that I wouldn't because a) he hit me on the way over , b) I hadn't moved since this whole thing started, and c) what they were doing wasn't police work, it was plain and simple bullshit. (Btw, one of these cops was later thrown in jail for murdering his young boy lover, and the other gets in trouble periodically for beating up high school students.) So I got arrested. After they let me go, amidst much snickering as they filled out my charge sheet or whatever on their rinky-dinky circa 80s mainframe system (it seemed), I went to court (not the real court, mind you, the misdemeanor court) and pled guilty so I could just get out of there. I paid $150 to someone behind a window and left.

    So flash forward to when I'm trying to cross the border, and the Canadian border/police officer tells me that I have a felony terrorist offense on my record and they won't allow me in. And I'm like, "What?!?!" Well, there's a felony in Canada with the same name as the misdemeanor that I stupidly pled guilty to. I tried explaining this, and my explanation was along the lines of "So these asshole cops were abusing their power, and I was resisting it," all while the cop I'm talking to is obviously taking these (future murderer and disgraced) cops' sides. So I had to sneak into Canada. I'm not sure, but I suspect that to this day, I am still not allowed into Canada. It's something I could maybe fix with a lawyer, but I'm not rich and I'm stubborn about this bullshit.

    So yeah, I'm pretty sure this all happened because of the 9/11 mess, Patriot Act and such. Screw bureaucracy. Screw all of these new government institutions and laws put in place since 9/11 that are just obviously fucked up (TSA, I'm talking about you). And of course, confiscating this guy's boat is bullshit, but as he said, he is rich and he will get it back. How many people have shit like this happen who aren't rich and don't have a popular blog and slashdot to publicize it? I'm guessing far too many.

    1. Re:f*d up bureaucracy on the US/Canada border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying your situation is fair or makes any sense, but this is why you don't plead guilty to things out of convenience.

    2. Re:f*d up bureaucracy on the US/Canada border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, yours happens because Canada classifies crimes differently. I have a coworker who went to Calgary on business and almost didn't get in because he has a misdemeanor battery charge when he was 17. Canada says "violent crime is violent crime".

    3. Re:f*d up bureaucracy on the US/Canada border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.... you're complaining about fallout of an action you voluntarily took simply because you were too impatient to plead your case? I'd say you're being forced to sleep in the bed you made. Not to mention you knowingly violating another nations borders doesn't help your case in the slightest.

    4. Re:f*d up bureaucracy on the US/Canada border by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      So yeah, I'm pretty sure this all happened because of the 9/11 mess

      So, no. Customs has been around a very long time.
       

      as he said, he is rich and he will get it back

      Even if you're not rich, you eventually get it back. Paperworks screwups happen, and they're routinely fixed with little fuss. Having dealt with customs many times, I suspect there's more to the story than Arrington is telling. (Not the least of which, the phrasing of his blog leads me to believe he was *already* frustrated that his shiny toy had been kept from him.)
       

      How many people have shit like this happen who aren't rich and don't have a popular blog and slashdot to publicize it?

      The publicity hasn't accomplished shit except to excite the exiteable and confirm the biases of ignoramuses like yourself.

    5. Re:f*d up bureaucracy on the US/Canada border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This didn't happen because of "the 9/11 mess." It was Canada that denied you, not the US. They routinely deny people with convictions, as is their right as an Independent State. Would you want a bunch of convicted criminals to be admitted into the US willy-nilly? I don't.

      This happened because you got involved in something you should have left alone. Let that be a lesson for the future. Don't talk to cops. Don't loiter around cops. Don't stand your ground against cops. Don't get arrested. "Yes sir, no sir. I choose to remain silent, as is my right." Those are the only think you say to cops. Don't give them the satisfaction.

      And finally, don't be stupid. If you are truly honest with yourself you will admit that you were being stupid. Sure it is noble to "stand up to authority," but what was the result of you getting involved? Did it affect the kids' legal outcome? I'm guessing no, because they hauled you away just like them. If you wanted to affect change, and not just pick a fight with the cops, you should have filed an abuse report after the fact. Take notes and try to get as much info as you can at the scene and go down to the station and waste a couple hours. Be advised that nothing will come of this.

  67. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had a gun drawn on me entering the US as well. Over pepperoni sticks.

    They're a little too excited. The Canadians are armed too now though.

  68. Re:Cry me a river by nysus · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm jealous, that's it.

    You know what makes jobs for the middle class? A larger middle class. If you believe in trickle down economics, you are truly a moron.

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

  69. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by compro01 · · Score: 1

    You know, there exist boats that aren't yachts and are inside the purchasing power of many people.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  70. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who submit's an invoice to the US government in any currency other than USD?

    That's the problem. Is it the US government's job to do a currency conversion for you? No, it isn't. They take the number, they put it on the form.

    Blame the proper party, the builder who submitted documentation to the US government in a foreign currency.

  71. Say what? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    More evidence for thr 10,000 year old theory that people want government power to enrich themselves.

    Stop following words and lok at actions. Someone came up to someone else, waved their hands, and took something. Exit the world of seductive, disabling memes.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  72. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    Obviously, without the paperwork, she can't clear the boat. So that means lock it back up until the correct paperwork is redone... And you go to the bottom of the queue for wasting her time.

    Except she filled out the form with the wrong information. She wasted her own time and he doesn't deserve to go to the bottom of the queue for that.

  73. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    My company ships stuff to Canada and Mexico. The paperwork has to exactly correct from the MANUFACTURER, no changing..So good luck getting that turned around on your own.

    And the agent isn't going to wait... If its not right, you go back to the bottom of the queue. That's pretty standard... If the agent is a bit rough about it.

  74. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    I don't know what you're saying there.

    &$@*â licking %*@& £^#%er

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  75. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by tehcyder · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    It sounds to me like either he deliberately provoked the DHS agent, or else he's got some sort of autism. Any normal person would just have signed the fucking paperwork and got their boat.

    If I got stopped by the police and they said "we won't give you a speeding ticket if you just sign this piece of paper saying you admit you were doing 10 mph over the limit" I would sign the piece of paper, not make a big deal about it if I had in fact been going 12 mph over the limit.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  76. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On slashdot, if there's a confrontation between someone from the government and a rich guy, who do you think people will believe?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  77. Re:so what? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I don't think that's what anyone means here. If this was some non-web-celebrity average Joe getting his laptop seized, it wouldn't be news, and he would be lucky to ever see that laptop again. Because it's a rich guy and his boat, it's news, even though he has the means to pummel the DHS over it in court and get his boat back.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  78. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Copper+Nikus · · Score: 1

    Guess what happens when the victim isn't rich?

    We never hear about it, and the agent seizes his boat and profits.

    Corruption is a very real threat.

    So only rich people are allowed to make slashdot submissions? No wonder so many of my submissions are voted down so quickly.

  79. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    boats are owned by lower [...] class people

    While you're right that a boat is a sink (ba dum tss), your friends may be unrepresentative.

    Considering my ex-private-school friends, there are a lot of boat-owners amongst their families. Suspiciously few boat-owners exist among those I've worked with who don't have fixed accommodation.

    Now there may be a few bank-owned boats purchased by those with just enough regular income to be milked by a loan provider, but they are unrepresentative - especially in 2013.

  80. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, the point is the only reason you care is because it happened to a rich person. This happens to poor/average people all the time but we don't hear about it and we don't care about it. I don't get why you say it's abhorrent to trample a poor person's right when they get fucked all the time. You really think that some no-name defendant with a public attorney gets better representation than a guy like Madoff? The rich buy political and legal power all the time then bitch when they don't get their way. You don't say a thing when a poor person is fucked, but it's a rich guy so slashdot libertarians demand insurrection. Fuck you poor people you guys already have it too good.

  81. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Huh? The DHS only supposed to take stuff when there's a crime being committed.

    --
    No sig today...
  82. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So in America, it is now considered normal that you only have rights if you can and do afford to always have a lawyer besides you?

  83. Re:Poorly written blog ad by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Also, the currency didn't matter so as long as the value of the boat was correct (either in US or canadian dollars).

    Really. Good on you then, I have some money trading I'd like to discuss with you, a proven way to make money!

  84. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by yincrash · · Score: 1

    That's a very costly solution. Especially for those of us that aren't Michael Arrington.

  85. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    And if the customs agent doesn't have the authority to amend the paperwork then and there, what happens?

    Well, she can call a more senior agent who does have the authority.

    She called another agent and said simply "He won't sign the form." I asked to speak to that agent to give them a more complete picture of the situation. She wouldn't allow that.

    Except she only did so to say he wasn't being cooperative.

    Sorry, but if there's nobody there who can make a decision, you call someone else -- and you need to keep going until you find someone who can.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  86. Re:so what? by pnutjam · · Score: 2

    Who cares about the 1st or 4th amendment when we have the 2nd amendment.

    I keep telling people that if you have to use the 2nd amendment to correct your government you have already lost. That is all the excuse they need to bring down the boot. Look how well it worked out for Ireland and Pakistan.

  87. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's OK to temporarily seize his boat because there was an error on his paperwork (clerical or not). The boat was seized and will be released once it's corrected just like would happen to every other person in America. Why do you demand special privilege for rich people? He "earned his money" therefore the rules don't apply to him? If I "earn my money" can I just choose what rules I don't want to follow or is it just for the wonderful American rich?

  88. He was being a dick, that's why they held the boat by Overzeetop · · Score: 0

    No, he was a dick about it. Instead of simply making a notation and signing, he made a big deal about how the agency made an error. It was a dick thing to do, since $1 Canadian is nearly equal to $1 US.

    Technical types get wrapped around the axle over stupid shit like this all the time. I used to, too, before I realized how much more you can get accomplished when you stop being a dick and work with people.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  89. Re:so what? by evil_aaronm · · Score: 3, Informative

    No guns drawn on us, but my wife and I, who really like Happy Jack's in Fort Erie, have lost a bit of desire to go there for lunch because of the assholes manning the US side of the border. On special occasions, we'll push our luck and go, and the Canadians are always cool about it. The Americans are almost always total power-tripping buttheads.

  90. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Exactly.

    The DHS and TSA are examples of a government out of control and trampling the rights of all citizens, just most aren't rich enough to get it public.

  91. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Or, just sign and don't worry since CAD and USD are at basically the same value these days (a 2 cent difference).

    Fifty thousand dollars difference on a $2million boat. The tax folks would have a field day with that one.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  92. Re:so what? by marklark · · Score: 2

    I had the opportunity to look up an address in Washington State on Google Maps and found that there were a lot of boats in the suburbs of Seattle. They were typically parked on their trailers in or very near the front yards of their owners' homes. Small boats, surely, but obviously ready to use when the desire presented itself.

  93. Re:so what? by camg188 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Incidents worse than this have been happening for years under asset forfeiture laws for certain felony crimes.
    It makes one want to become a Libertarian.

  94. Re:so what? by Feyshtey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And my point is that BOTH should be news. And that in no case should the violation of a person's rights be casually dismissed for any reason, including how much or how little money that person might have.

    As soon as we choose who are worthy of protection under the law and who are socially acceptable to victimize we are doomed to fail as a culture.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  95. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by operagost · · Score: 1

    I didn't know there was a minimum income requirement for writing a blog. But thanks for your contribution to class warfare.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  96. did him a favor... by circusboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    honestly, if Coastal Craft's construction is as bad as the grammar on their website... DHS may have saved his life...

    --
    -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
  97. Re:Poorly written blog ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Incorrect.
    2. Like your post.
    3. I do.
    4. It wasn't.

  98. Re:so what? by Feyshtey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or Germany....

    THAT is why you stand up to them.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  99. Re:so what? by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I understand your argument from a moral and ethical perspective; no one ever said that Karl Marx lacked a conscience. The problem lies in implementing a system that enforces "equality" on everybody; it's the enforcing part that the rest of us have a problem with.

  100. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't want to see such disparity that some people can afford private boats either.

    Just so you are aware, the vast majority of boats are owned by lower and middle class people. Boats tend to be a money sink which a lot of the wealthy avoid unless they just really have so much money that they don't care.

    Just so you are aware, I can completely make stuff up as well:

    The VAST(cavernous? I prefer cavernous). The CAVERNOUS majority of boats are kayaks/canoes/etc that don't have associated costs of ownership. I guess if you count them then the vast majority (what is that, anyway? 75%? 90% 99.99999%?) of boats are indeed owned by the lower and middle class. If you don't take into account the "quality" of a good then the poor and middle class probably own the majority of everything. There are a lot more of them than there are rich people. They have nothing to do with this guy trying to bring his yacht through customs.

    My completely made up stuff sounds more plausible, honestly.

  101. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he witnesses the agent being a bitch he has every right to report it loudly and widely.

    You are a worthless apologist. Are you former law enforcement? Sounds like it.

  102. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally! The slashdot libertarian crowd shows their true belief. It's ok for the DHS to steal petty objects from poor people. It's only wrong for the government to take your stuff if it's important rich guy things. Take your iPad? So what you deserve moocher. Impound your car? So what, it's a POS anyway get an education and a job! Take a rich guy's boat? The HORROR! How dare the government we must attack! You guys remind me of Mr. Howell on Gilligan's Island.

  103. Re:Cry me a river by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be able to feed my family without rich people

    If there weren't very rich people maybe you wouldn't have to worry about feeding your family, because there wouldn't be very poor people in a well off country either.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  104. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a customs declaration, same as everybody fills out when entering the country with something valuable. You tell the government you have it and that you bought it, and you state its approximate value in USD. The government doesn't want to know its value in florins, or rubles, or Canadian dollars. The value does not have to be exact, as it's only needed for statistical purposes. Even if knowingly misrepresented, I have yet to meet a government agency that is unwilling to correct paperwork after the fact.

    I expect that much everybody the DHS agent deals with understands this, and doesn't care enough to make a big deal of it. When some guy starts insisting that the government should rebuild its procedures to compute value using a foreign currency, the agent smiled cheerfully, explained that the boat can't be released without the proper paperwork, and likely tried to restrain the laughter at the guy who thinks the world should bend to his will.

    Well, Mr. Arrington, congratulations. Your high moral standards and obsession with accurate reporting have inconvenienced your government and cost you a few weeks' time with your precious new boat while new papers are filed. At least you can post your story online and get some sympathy from faceless strangers.

    Anecdotally, I just received notice from the IRS that I've just finished an audit for 2010. I had rounded a few numbers on my 1040, and they didn't get third-party papers corroborating a deduction, and they thought I was worthy of closer scrutiny. Fixing it took a few hours on the phone, a trip to my accountant, and a signed letter attesting that I really did do what I said I did. Apparently I'll soon be getting a second refund check.

    The government is not out to get you, the hapless individual. The government is out to get all the other assholes who screw over the system, and you just happen to have aroused suspicion. Once you're under suspicion, you have two options. You can be offended and return the offense, approaching every interaction as though you were going to battle, or you can convince the government that you're not the criminal they're looking for, but merely someone who deviated a bit too far from their expectations. The latter's really not that hard, and can help to stretch the bounds of their expectations.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  105. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Skewray · · Score: 1

    Dealing successfully with the ironically-named 'justice system' (where 'successfully' is defined as 'minimal loss of wealth/immediate freedom/future earning potential/continence' is based on two key factors: 1) Do not appear to have anything confiscatable 2) Flatter their ego Stupid people care about the law. They think that if they obey the law, they will be ok. The fact is, the law really doesn't matter. Cops don't know the law, they just enforce it. The most important thing is to not get involved with the police, and if you do, to not get arrested. If you get arrested, you have already lost. The law only matters after you are arrested. But even then, you will end up plea-bargaining to an unrelated charge anyway. The idea that you will stand up before a judge and he will see that you were in compliance with the law and you will achieve some kind of 'justice' is pure naivete. Even if the case is dismissed, you lost.

    This is brilliant.

  106. "New Normal" US Government by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    Welcome to another example of the "New Normal" in US Government-Citizenry Relations. Yes. YOUR Government is no longer there for you, YOU are there for the Government: to sustain itself (le gouvernement pour le gouvernement) and to be its loyal subject (so it asserts its own legitimacy and reason-for-being). Pay your taxes, and do what we tell you to... or else!

    In the old days, the government worker would have assessed the situation, used their brain to think about it, determined that indeed there was an error, and helped the civilian to correct the situation. That required two things:

    1. the ability to think independently;
    2. a customer-service (instead of authoritarian) attitude.

    Part of the Government Bullying problem is also the "metrics-ization" of people's work; it doesn't matter anymore if you do a good job, just if you "met your targets". This means any kind of issue that takes a bit longer puts a blemish on your work performance. Workers are being rewarded to just get rid of you, one way or the other, as quickly as possible. Next in line step forward!

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  107. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand why more people don't get this.

  108. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by operagost · · Score: 3, Funny

    There are other options I'd like to bring along.

    - Licensed armed bodyguard, or state police officer if you have "connections"
    - TV crew
    - Retired Army sniper with a touch of PTSD
    - an Italian-American mother who don't take no crap

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  109. Re:so what? by stiggle · · Score: 2, Informative

    The paperwork was government supplied, not his. His paperwork showed the correct amount in Canadian dollars.
    He tried to get the paperwork fixed at the time and the agent refused to amend to show the correct currency to him to sign a truthful document.

    Remember there is also an exchange rate difference between US & Canadian dollars (although its not much).
    So writing down that the boat is worth $100k USD when its actually only worth $98212 USD ($100k CAN) impacts on the import taxes you have to pay.

  110. This is not the DHS' fault, it's the builder's. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly did DHS "steal" it? He has no right to have a boat from Canada without following proper regulation. The builder sent the price in the wrong currency, and he caught the error. The builder needs to resubmit the correct price, in a currency used by the United States, and then he can sign the form correctly, and accept delivery of his boat.

    Steal implies doing something unlawfully. This was very lawful. There was no theft what-so-ever. It's not the US government's job to be a currency converter for every one importing an asset or object. Declare the value in USD next time and you won't have a problem.

  111. Re:so what? by crypticedge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing is, this person is in one of the best positions to fix the problem. He can draw attention to an issue that affects more than just rich people, but the poor people it affects don't have the money or ability to draw attention to it.

    In a sense, this happening to him is a blessing to all of us, because it can end up being one more nail in the department of illegal detainment, theft and torture.

  112. Re:so what? BIG REASONS by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    Simply, I am against misuse of regulation for BIG REASONS.

    Writers of the Declaration of Indepence & Constitution knew exactly what happens when a government turns tyrannical.

    They had the entire history of the European arena to view tyrannical acts that reduced citizens to mere slave subjects or worse.

  113. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

    Your blasé attitude toward this dystopian paradise is inspiring.

  114. Re:so what? by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All people have a right to their life, liberty, and property. If a government is corrupt, and thus gives preference to the wealthy, that doesn't mean we should abandon the idea of human rights and become basement Marxists like you.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  115. the old adage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The two best days of a boat owners life are the day they buy the boat and the day they sell it".

    Not sure if that works anymore.

  116. Definition of Border by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    It's only news because it's a rich person and his boat. When they utilize the new Homeland Security policy allowing them to seize any electronic device at the border without suspicion, and decide to hold on to your IPad or cellphone it will most certainly be your problem. And you will have enabled it to be so because you are so cavalier about a person's rights, so long as they have a different amount of wealth as you.

    Isnt it fascinating that it's abhorent to violate a poor person's rights, but its chiche to promote violating the rights of the wealthy?

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/

  117. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those of that aren't Arrington don't buy yachts from Canada.

  118. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by AnotherAnonymousUser · · Score: 1

    As much as you might complain about it, the fact that it works its way up to affect the rich people, who can afford to be outraged and can afford the publicity means that it becomes a lot bigger news than a victim from a less wealthy background. Stories like this slip through the cracks all the time, and they're publicized only on a local level, possibly to friends or family. When it affects someone of this kind of standing, he raises his buddies, lawyers up, and gathers a legal defense and a public outcry, and the government has to step down, hopefully for everybody. The government often has to take the response of the people into consideration, and the more publicity a story about a high-profile person receives, the higher the chance that it becomes a persistent or issue that requires addressing. So yes, it happens to everybody, and not much gets done about it. But the more people it affects and the more people complain, loudly, the more likely it is that powers could be rolled back, instead of quietly advanced.

  119. Re:Cry me a river by operagost · · Score: 1

    Excuse me... you left the reason out of your post. The middle class grows because of prosperity, not the other way around.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  120. DHS handled it poorly. by Quimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think regardless of how in the right the DHS rep is they handled it poorly. If they don't have the authority to change the form fine. If they must seized the boat fine. Explain the the gentleman why you are unable to make the changes and why you must seized the boat. Then let them know what the next step is to get things sorted out. Most people are fairly forgiving of inconveniences if they know why they are happening.

    This just smacks of a functionary that enjoys being a pain. As for the DHS agent this is probably not going to go well for them. Even if it doesn't cost them there job it will probably result in a demotion.

    1. Re:DHS handled it poorly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the DHS agent this is probably not going to go well for them. Even if it doesn't cost them there job it will probably result in a demotion.

      ...or they'll get a boat. Forfeiture laws aren't made to return things.

    2. Re:DHS handled it poorly. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      This just smacks of a functionary that enjoys being a pain.

      And you know this... how? Because of the word of a rich guy who was already frustrated because the delivery of his shiny new toy had already been twice delayed?

      Seriously Slashdot, it's annoying as hell how your critical faculties go out the window the moment a story that agrees with your biases gets posted.

  121. Sequestration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should have waited a week for the sequestration. There wouldn't be anyone at the border to check him.

  122. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I call Godwin. Also, your comparison only proves the OP's point. When other countries' militaries are correcting your problems, it's not about the 2nd amendment any more.

  123. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by emho24 · · Score: 1

    Any normal person would just have signed the fucking paperwork and got their boat.

    You sound like the sort of person who has always filed a 1040ez form for your taxes.
    Defending yourself in court or going through an audit takes time and money. There are also legal ramifications for falsifying legal documents. I wouldn't have signed to form either, it was incorrect and it was a potential ticking time bomb problem for him in the future.

    --
    You must gather your party before venturing forth.
  124. Re:so what? by Pope · · Score: 1

    Only large boats are money sinks that the rich avoid.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  125. well by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    Well, that bitch is fired

  126. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a very costly solution. Especially for those of us that aren't Michael Arrington.

    Ordering and importing a boat from Canada is also a very costly solution for those of us that aren't Michael Arrington, but since you seem to be conveniently ignoring THAT little fact...

  127. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    On slashdot, if there's a confrontation between someone from the government and a rich guy, who do you think people will believe?

    The stoner who wasn't there but has a very strong opinion about what happened.

  128. Re:so what? by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

    I disagree. Many years ago, (2002 or 2003), myself and two friends went to Canada.

    It varies, being close to the border I wanted to put one foot (a first, my left if I remember right) in the States. We crossed the border, the driver telling he was from Montreal with some friends (forgetting to mention we were no Canadians, ... worse my father and grandfathers being terrorists or bandits in the forties and earlier), no problem. Returning to Canada was more a problem, customs not really believing our story.

  129. Re:so what? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I don't understand is why he didn't just make a note on the document then sign it.

    "Oh, hang on."

    *writes CDN and initials it*

    "there we go!"

    *sign*

    I do that all the time for things that are worth far more than his boat.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  130. Re:so what? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

    I don't understand why more people don't get this.

    Because it's utter bullshit.

    FYI, this nation, the United States of America, wasn't founded with fancy words and courtrooms, it was created with the blood of men and women who would have rather died standing as free people, than live kneeling as slaves.

    We see the choice you've made, Benedict, but you shouldn't think for a second that you made the right one.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  131. This reminds me of a phrase. by aristotle-dude · · Score: 0

    Don't steal, the government hates competition.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  132. Re:He was being a dick, that's why they held the b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I used to, too, before I realized how much more you can get accomplished when you stop being a dick and work with people.

    That is a nice euphemism for perjury. But I admit that you are right - you get on with people much better if you do not insist on jumping through some pointless hoops just because they are the law. The respect for the law is low, but then again the law deserves no better.

  133. United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency

    The difference is, this guy will probably get his boat back (but won't be re-imbursed for fuel used joy-riding it around, or any damage done by the morons who confiscated it).

  134. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All people have a right to their life, liberty, and property.

    All people have a right to monkeys, hookers, and blow.

    It's true because I typed it.

    If a government is corrupt, and thus gives preference to the wealthy,...

    ...such as by defending all their property, which poor people don't own to defend...

    that doesn't mean we should abandon the idea of human rights

    That's true: the right to life free of personal assault, sexual abuse, wage slavery, etc. should not be abandoned.

    and become basement Marxists like you.

    Oh, that's right, this is America. Everyone who complains about wealth disparity is a Marxist. Also Marxism is Satanism only worse because McCarthy said so.

    Re Type44Q:

    The problem lies in implementing a system that enforces "equality" on everybody; it's the enforcing part that the rest of us have a problem with.

    Who said anything about enforcing equality? One simply has to stop enforcing gross inequality.

  135. Re:uh, that's what's supposed to happen by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 0

    If what happened was "I pointed out that the paperwork the DHS had written was incorrect and the agent said they couldn't correct it now and would have get a higher up to fix it which will take a few days and they'll hold the boat until that is done", then yes you would have a point and he would be being a "whiny rich asshole".

    But that is, minus the temper tantrum, what happened. Customs is holding the boat. He'll call his lawyer, and he'll get the paperwork straightened out and have his boat after a couple of days. BFD.

    It's not like the feds just took it -- they have to pretend drugs are involved in order to do that. That's the worse part of this whine, pretending that this minor snafu somehow compares with the actual seizures of property that the feds have been engaged in for decades.

    The "they wouldn't let me have my boat right this second" wasn't the point of the whine

    Take the emotional content and subjective reporting out of his post, and that is exactly all that remains: due to a paperwork error, he couldn't get his boat that day. "A person with a gun [in some U.S. states that could be anyone] and a government badge [that's all government agents] asked me to swear in writing that a lie [not a lie, an error] was true today. And when I didn't do what she wanted she simply took my boat [it's not yours until the paperwork's done] and asked me to leave [your business there is done for the moment, of course you should leave]." In other words: due to a paperwork error, the transaction could not be completed at that time.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  136. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speculation? Not everyone has Asperger's Syndrome. Most of the time, people's attitudes are very clear.

  137. Re:so what? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, it's OK to temporarily seize his boat because there was an error on his paperwork (clerical or not).

    An error put there by the same people who seized the boat. How... convenient.

    Now take off your fucking blinders.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  138. Re:so what? by kraut · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Having crossed a fair few borders in my life, the US ones are without a doubt the most unpleasant ones.Worse even than the former East German one (albeit on a West German passport... I'm sure with an eastern block passport they would have been even worse).

    It's odd, given that on the whole the US is full of friendly people trying to be helpful... all the assholes seem to hang out at the border and at airports.

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  139. Re:uh, that's what's supposed to happen by HappyHead · · Score: 1

    So you're saying you didn't actually read the article, but are commenting on what you imagine it might say instead?

    Customs didn't impound the shipment until the paperwork gets straightened out.

    Customs demanded that the incorrect paperwork be authenticated anyways despite being incorrect, insisted that because it was _their_ paperwork, it was not possible for it to be incorrect, despite the error being _RIGHT THERE_, and when the guy you're so angry at for having made more money than you refuses to authenticate paperwork listing the value of imported goods with a price that's likely in excess of $10,000 away from being correct, the customs agent didn't say "Well, until this paperwork error is corrected, we can't let you have your boat", she said "The paperwork is correct! Since you won't sign it, hand over the keys and get off the boat" with an implied "Or I will shoot you. Please please let me shoot you".

    Frankly, he deserves some respect for having the integrity to refuse to lie under oath, despite the armed thug deciding to commit an act of government sanctioned piracy (I believe the term is "privateer" in that case) to punish his refusal to follow their demand that he do so.

    Last, he'd probably be more willing to buy American if he was able to find the thing he wanted to buy at a decent price offering. He definitely won't be buying anything from that particular manufacturer again, for reasons unrelated to armed theft by government thugs, which you'd also know if you'd bothered to read the article.

  140. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mod parent down Equivocation (possibly the geek's most common fallacy, which is why parent is modded so high).

    Owning a rowboat with an outboard motor is not the same as owning the class of boats under consideration here.

  141. Re:so what? by dubbreak · · Score: 1

    *writes CDN and initials it*

    He paid in content delivery networks?

    Canadian dollar is CAD. Which is finally worth less than the USD once again.

    --
    "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
  142. Re:so what? by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

    Whine whine.

    Do you really think it's only newsworthy because it's a rich guy, and how dare they abuse a rich guy? It's because they seized A FUCKING BOAT over its owner's insistence to correct a paperwork discrepancy.

    I'd be super-pissed if they took my laptop or my phone or my car, and I'd be just as justified. And I'm sure others would support me and agree that it was wrong. But that they seized something so huge and valuable over something so stupid underlines the effrontery of the DHS and its agent.

    Everything isn't class warfare or OWS.

  143. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  144. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are other options I'd like to bring along.

    - an Italian-American mother who don't take no crap

    This.

    Who needs a gun, when you could be packing a Sicilian matriarch?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  145. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your logic makes no fucking sense. Just because there's no rich or poor doesn't mean you don't have to worry about feeding your family. Ask the people of the former Soviet Union.

  146. How come you didnt use your 2cnd amendment rights. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean you have the right to defend your life, liberty, and Property... sounds like that boat was pretty critical to all that.

  147. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Huh? The DHS only supposed to take stuff when there's a crime being committed.

    No. You can't get stuff into countries without the correct paperwork. You don't have the automatic 'right' to import anything. If the paperwork wasn't correct then the boat can't clear customs until the correct paperwork is available.

  148. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by hedwards · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but that's bullshit.

    By your reasoning the only way for the government to be OK is to not have any law enforcement or courts at all. Because there'd be no point in having them if they can't arrest or prosecute anybody.

    Yes, plea-bargaining is a problem, but you make it sound like everybody is equally likely to be in that position, when the reality is that if you're not around criminals, it's unlikely that this will even come into play. Stay away from organized crime and the likelihood of ending up like that goes down drastically.

  149. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Easy enough to confirm she did take the boat. Why do you automatically disbelieve him? In a battle of assholes, the one that goes public wins.

    She didn't "take" the boat, He was trying to pick it up and she wouldn't release it. Has no one on Slashot actually done a job similar to hers?

    I bet her thought process was similar to this:
    Some guy wants his boat, here's the form...everything looks fine. Wait, what did that guy say? The value is wrong?
    Crap, the currency is wrong? I bet it's Alan...goddamn it Alan, you already got in trouble for screwing up the gross tonnage on a boat last month. You're so fucked this time.
    c'mon, man, just sign the form...oh god it doesn't even matter what the value is...
    I have to go and put in a request to have this changed with records? fuck, that will take like another two weeks. No, we can't just initital the change and have you sign it. We have this new electronic system and it sucks...something about document retention but the forms can't be changed once we make them. Really, just sign this, it'll never come up.
    Seriously, you won't do it? Yeah the currency is wrong. whatever. The form is still fine, it's not wrong. I do this crap all day, it'll be fine.
    You won't sign it? God, whatever. Okay get off the boat and give me the keys, we can't release it without you signing this form. What? I don't care if you get your boat, I'm just here to process the paperwork. get off the damn boat so I can finish doing my job.
    I wonder what I can get for lunch...

    I doubt she was "excited" to seize the boat. She was probably just glad the guy who was making her day more annoying wouldn't be bothering her anymore.

  150. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

    He did try to fix it, and the DHS agents acted like morons.

    Says who? If the customs agent wrote a blog, would it say the same? What if she wrote her blog first and it was posted to Slashdot as "Arrington acts like and a**hole, gets yacht confiscated"? Do we just believe whichever side gets posted to Slashdot first?

    Words of someone who's obviously never had to deal with a petty bureaucrat's Napoleon complex.

    Piece of advice, Broseph - this is a nation whose police officers regularly murder citizens, and are awarded with paid vacations (oh, I mean, "paid administrative leave") for doing so.

    Expecting an honest answer from these jack-booted thugs is like expecting water to not get you wet - Ain't gonna happen.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  151. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Canadian boats are unlikely to be any less expensive than American ones are. The Canadian Dollar and US Dollar have been at parity for several years now to within a cent or two. Any cost savings like that would likely be eaten up by the additional transportation costs.

  152. Re:uh, that's what's supposed to happen by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

    By the customs department, not the company or the private individual.

    So he says. I'm not sure how he could know whether the error was Customs' or the shipper's. But either way, what did he expect? "There's a error here. Your colleagues at another office must have filled this form out wrong." "Oh, thanks sir, I'll just take your word for that without further investigation and we'll proceed."

    Look, people have problems with bureaucrats every day. I had a heck of a time getting my title and tags for my car last time. It's not news, it's not theft, it's not seizure. It's part of the annoyance of living on a planet so crowded with monkeys that they've had to appoint some monkeys to keep order.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  153. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one is saying he shouldn't have protection under the law. They are saying he already does, so why is this news. Meanwhile if someone without a silo full of money to go swimming in gets property taken without cause, they really don't get protection under the law because going to court is expensive and so this is more important to publicize.

    To repeat:

    Not news: Someone mildly put out because of governmental bureaucracy.

    News: Someone deprived of property without recourse.

  154. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by TheFlamingoKing · · Score: 1

    So, if you got pulled into an interrogation room, and the police say "if you sign this confession, you'll be free. All taken care of." clearly any normal person should just sign the paperwork, right? Except this happens all the time to trick black men into signing confessions for crimes without support of a lawyer. Your analogy is ridiculous.

    This agent of the government asked Arrington to commit fraud, and he's just supposed to "sign the fucking paperwork"? Enjoy that boot stomping on your face.

  155. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Or, just sign and don't worry since CAD and USD are at basically the same value these days (a 2 cent difference).

    Yea, sure, if you don't mind the risk that some petty bureaucrat is going to have a hissy over the difference, charge you with felony tax evasion, and have your ass sent to the federal penitentiary for 2-5.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  156. Re:so what? by penglust · · Score: 2

    The problem is far too many assholes hanging out in Congress. Starts at the top a trickles down.

  157. Bad economy, bad people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, so the incorruptible are corruptible, lower their wages, and they behave just like authorities across the border, just with higher bribes. Skirt past them with awesome toys, and they become envious in their dead end DHS job. I know border agents definitely hate seeing happy families crossing the borders, so they make it hell to cross back.

  158. LOL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is clearly a conspiracy by the socialist obama administration to punish the John Galt's of our society for not giving up their hard won posessions fast enough.

    We must all GO GALT!

  159. game over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's time to just admit that the terrorists won.
    Time to call this game over.

  160. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120326032958AAFy01P
    http://boats.oodle.com/bayliner/for-sale/length_20/
    http://www.boatquest.com/search.html?uwc=True&BoatType=&used=&Manufacturer=&year_min=&year_max=&length_min=180&length_max=360&price_min=&price_max=&ListingId=#.USegYaXmEuM

    Those are just a few examples turned up by a fast google search, but a ~20' power or sail boat is a fairly decent-sized boat. May of which you can get for about the same price as a new car. Last I checked a lot of people in the US own one or two of those (cars), so why is it so unbelievable that a middle-class person could own a boat, too?

    My father-in-law owns one. He's a lineman for the power company. You can't find a much bluer-collar job than that short of the auto industry.

  161. Next time ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... give them the sales price in BitCoin.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  162. Re:so what? by Serzen · · Score: 1
    Quite the opposite happened to me: We were crossing at the Thousand Islands Bridge to do some sight-seeing on the Canadian side and were detained for 2 hours while the Canadians tore the back seat out of the car, pulled the spare tire, grilled us about our criminal records (none), demanded to know about any sealed juvenile records (we told them to ask the Attorney General if they wanted to know about that). When we finally got our car back, we were escorted to it by armed guards wearing bullet-proof vests, to find that nothing had been put back the way it belonged.

    When we returned to the US side, the agent asked us to pop the trunk, didn't even look in it, but shut it for us and said to have a nice day.

    All of our paperwork was in order--the only reason we can come up with is that I'm brown-skinned and have a beard. Except that my ancestry is English, Irish and Native American.

  163. Re:so what? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    Calm down. The parent and GP to your post are most likely drones that believe as long as the government is being run by good (Democrats / Republicans) the little guy will be protected from the evil rich monster.
    They do not own guns and think that the first amendment means you can tell your boss at Walmart to "Fuck off" with no repercussions.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  164. just my 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im sure it has nothing to do with Arrington being an asshole most of the time !!!

  165. Gun Control by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    A person with a gun and a government badge asked me to swear in writing that a lie was true today.

    This is why I think we should have Gun Control only for Govt and Govt employees and not for the rest of the population.

  166. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by guanxi · · Score: 1

    Words of someone who's obviously never had to deal with a petty bureaucrat's Napoleon complex.

    Obviously you have no idea about me. Bureaucrats and the people they deal with are all human; some are petty, some are earnest and hard working, some care, some don't. I just don't buy the story of the person who posts their blog first, or has a bigger platform from which to complain. Your sig says it best:

    Capitalism is really Feudalism, but with a much better PR department

    Arrington is the one with the PR department.

  167. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but if there's nobody there who can make a decision, you call someone else -- and you need to keep going until you find someone who can.

    Yep, it's a code red emergency when a yacht is held up at customs while its tax paper work is refiled. Obviously, more DHS agents are needed so there is appropriate coverage when these situations pop up.

  168. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

    What was truly disappointing was his speculations about the DHS agents feelings. That was very unprofessional, to say the very least.

    You deserve mod points

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  169. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    agreed. Just write CAD, and sign it. The agent is not authorized to change the form. But you can correct errors.

  170. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by guanxi · · Score: 1

    On slashdot, if there's a confrontation between someone from the government and a rich guy, who do you think people will believe?

    I know your question is rhetorical, but I think there's a serious point here: Tech hero (Arrington, Elon Musk) vs. anyone else (customs agent, NY Times), and people here seem to take the tech hero's at face value.

  171. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    It sounds like the DHS clerk was way out of line, and deserves to be dismissed for this. The problem is: you'll have to prove it. You'd think that they'd be interested in cases of abuse of power, but in practice government organisations close up ranks and turn a cold shoulder if you complain about one. Then it's your word against theirs, in other words you've already lost. For this reason I always* record any conversation with government officials.

    * Make sure it's legal, though. The rules vary per country and with circumstances. Also, hide the recorder, use a smart phone + app that streams to a remote server, And if you feel hard done by, don't tell them "I recorded this!", especially at borders. Border officials often have additional powers such as seizing your recorder / smart phone.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  172. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by houghi · · Score: 1

    Acting like an asshole should not be reason enough to get his yacht confiscated. It might sometimes be a good idea, but for now being an asshole is not enough of a reason.

    So if the customs agent wrote such a thing, there would be no difference and perhaps it would be even worse as the agent then would have admitted of going in against the law.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  173. Re:so what? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2

    "'All people have a right to their life, liberty, and property.'

    All people have a right to monkeys, hookers, and blow.
    It's true because I typed it."

    Not to get all technical on you, but "life" and "liberty" appear in a rather famous sentence in the US Declaration of Independence, and the US has this amendment to the Constitution about unreasonable search and seizure. That's not true because I typed it. That's true because it is in our official documents as a nation.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  174. Re:uh, that's what's supposed to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    asked me to swear in writing that a lie [not a lie, an error] was true today

    An error becomes a lie when both parties are fully aware that it is incorrect, and make what amounts to a legal oath stating that it is true. In particular, when the legal document they are being told to sign indicates severe legal penalties if they sign it and it is not accurate, and it contains significantly incorrect information (a currency change on a large monetary value that can amount to more than the average person earns in a year is NOT insignificant), it becomes a major issue.

  175. Re:so what? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    Do you really think it's only newsworthy because it's a rich guy, and how dare they abuse a rich guy?

    No, I don't think it's newsworthy at all. Government official bullies someone? That happens every day.

    You appear to think this is newsworthy. Because it involves a big expensive boat.

    Everything isn't class warfare or OWS.

    Apparently it is. Unfortunately we live in a world where most of us will be ignored or even treated as kooks if we suffer an injustice and complain about it, unless we're rich enough in which case it'll be splashed across the front pages of sites like Slashdot.

    You know that because of the victim here, the issue will be resolved in a few days, if not sooner. Whereas most people who have their laptops taken rarely see them back in anything like a reasonable time frame.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  176. Re:so what? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    Yet that is not what he is doing.
    He by making this public is slapping those hands. Making them look bad.
    Sure he could just call a few friends, do a few favors and get his boat and his revenge on that piece of shit government unionized drone.
    You are correct also in pointing out that the poor can not do that.

    WHICH MAKE THIS IMPORTANT TO US!

    As to your last point.
    I hope to do well for myself and my family. Someday to even own a boat. I am willing to put in 50 - 60 hours a week at work plus am working with someone on a business that hopefully will allow me to work less at some point and enjoy my own boat.
    If you want to do 35 hours a week at Walmart and take my taxes to supplement your lifestyle then I do not have to like it, but since a majority feel that way,, Take my shit and enjoy.
    But do not act like hard work and risk are fucking evil. People who put in the effort and take the risks deserve what they get and petty, can not be fired, government union, badge flashing, power tripping drones and those that support them can go fuck themselves.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  177. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The really stupid part of this system is that the agent *doesn't* profit. Nor does the agency; they lose money on most of these siezures. A brand new boat, perhaps. However, the odds are non-trivial that the modern country where it was manufactured has a court system in which a lien could be placed on the boat, rendering it useless in the area. Yes, it's a dirty trick, and yes, it should be pulled..

  178. Re:uh, that's what's supposed to happen by nedlohs · · Score: 2

    No that isn't what happened. The issue he is complaining about isn't that a mistake was made on the form and that inconvenienced him. It's that he pointed out a mistake on the form and the agent of the Federal government told him to sign it anyway because it's just paper work and he should just lie.

    Again the issue isn't the mistake. And it isn't that he can't have his boat this minute. The issue is the federal government asking him to swear that a falsehood was true in a legal document.

    And an error becomes a lie when you know it is wrong and swear is it true anyway, so your nitpicking there is completely wrong.

    And yes it's sensational language. That's what people use when they want something to be noticed - see any newspaper for many more examples.

  179. Re:so what? by dryeo · · Score: 1

    That's true, the first thing the United States of America did was get rid of slavery, then they restored all the stolen land to the natives, proving that the War of Independence was about the rights of men everywhere.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  180. Re:so what? by houghi · · Score: 1

    As much as I am FOR regulations of corporations I am against misuse of regulation for petty reasons.

    You lake it sound as if they are two opposite things. They are identical.
    Just think about it.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  181. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to be an Internet Tough Guy, but I sincerely hope I never end up in a situation like yours. If I was just innocently trying to follow procedure and some power-tripping limp-dick fuckstick pulled a gun on me and started shouting at me, I'd probably keep walking towards him, cursing him out, and telling him he'd better make damn sure he aims well.

  182. Re:uh, that's what's supposed to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But either way, what did he expect?

    Perhaps he expected "I show you the receipt, from which this number was copied, and I show you your form, onto which it was directly copied, with the error, and you use your head and realize there's an error", rather than "We don't care, sign the paperwork or get off the boat"

    I had a heck of a time getting my title and tags for my car last time.

    In line with your own re-imagination of the described incident from the article, perhaps you would have had less problem getting your title and tags if you hadn't been so busy throwing feces at the agent trying to give them to you?

  183. Re:so what? by houghi · · Score: 2

    So cute. You still think the constitution matters.
    (I probably will go to hell for this)

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  184. Only if it isn't newsworthy happening to a "pleb" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think it is not newsworthy if it happens to some ordinary Joe or Jane?

    I do.

    And even if that Joe or Jane is filthy rich, it's still as newsworthy, isn't it? Even if "not at all newsworthy" is your assessment. In which case, why bring up the wealth?

  185. What was the agent's name? by BobSutan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Name names. This thug needs to be held accountable for her abuse of public trust and power.

    --
    "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    1. Re:What was the agent's name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or how about waiting to get both sides of the story and not jumping to conclusions.

    2. Re:What was the agent's name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but through legitimate channels not sexy enough to make the news.
      Not to the Internet and not to you. Mob just isn't.

    3. Re:What was the agent's name? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      First, demonstrate she has abused her position - using facts rather than the word of a rich guy who was already frustrated and upset because the delivery of his shiny toy had already been delayed twice.

    4. Re:What was the agent's name? by tftp · · Score: 1

      First, demonstrate she has abused her position - using facts

      Fact #0: The boat is in hands of customs.

      Fact #1: There is no good reason for that to happen. At least neither the shipbuilder nor the purchaser did anything wrong. They even refused to do wrong when asked to.

      What would you do in his place? Would you sign a knowingly false document? Hard to deny that it is false if you pointed out the error a moment ago. The guy didn't sign. He wanted the document corrected, but the DHS agent refused to do her job.

      The owner may have an excellent *criminal* case against the agent for racketeering or something like that because she threatened him with harm unless he commits an illegal act. And when he refused to break the law she executed the threat.

      Depending on circumstances, the boat can be sold at an auction for peanuts, and the agent can buy it. Here is the motive for the crime. Would you like to get a $1M boat for $50K?

  186. A normal even in the Kindom of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is anyone surprised by this? America has accepted a dictator as president. It has also accepted an immense unelected government that operates with impunity and without accountability. Abuse of power is normal and expected.

  187. Re:so what? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    It's the sad state of our country that has created the class warfare mentality that allows you to believe the words you wrote. For my $.02, I don't give a shit what was seized, or who it was seized from...this agent was wrong, pure and simple, and she should be made an example of. The fact of the matter is that what's "news", is only news because it generates revenue for the media. I guarantee you that if Homeland Security took something from some destitute single mom, and the media got wind of it, they'd be all over it. Stop letting your envy get in the way of real life.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  188. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Sique · · Score: 1

    He can't, because it's the official document of his import of a boat. If the sum in the chitty is wrong, and he knows it, then it's defrauding the IRS and avoiding taxes. So he definitely has to ask for the right information to be filled in, and that's what he did. You can't blame him for that.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  189. Re:so what? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    I've got an idea. Everybody go get a couple of these. Put them in some sort of suspicious enclosure with blinky lights. Go through the border with the device blinking merrily. Get it confiscated.

    The DHS will stare at the device, likely confiscate it, eventually get bored and put it in some forgotten corner.

    Wait a little while until their brains have fixated on the next Alfalfa.

    Drive the local DHS folks bonkers.

    Sit back and enjoy a job well done.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  190. Clerical errors are already clearly explained by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since the CAD is currently weaker than the dollar, having declared it in USD instead of CAD would be adverse to the government, which actually makes it easier. (It depends on the exchange rate at the date of export, but based on today.)
    (Rulings adverse to the importer entered after Dec 2004 actually HAVE to come from a formal protest.)

    http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=e7f7df984a01d3c9478867fa0f872497&rgn=div5&view=text&node=19:2.0.1.1.19&idno=19

    19CFR 173:
    Â 173.1 Authority to review for error.
    Port directors have broad responsibility and authority to review transactions to ensure that the rate and amount of duty assessed on imported merchandise is correct and that the transaction is otherwise in accordance with the law. This authority extends to errors in the construction of a law and to errors adverse to the Government as well as the importer.
    [T.D. 70-181, 35 FR 13429, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46830, Aug. 9, 1979]

    Â 173.2 Transactions which may be reviewed and corrected.
    The port director may review transactions for correctness, and take appropriate action under his general authority to correct errors, including those in appraisement where appropriate, at the time of:
    (a) Liquidation of an entry;
    (b) Voluntary reliquidation completed within 90 days after liquidation;
    (c) Voluntary correction of an exaction within 90 days after the exaction was made;
    (d) Reliquidation made pursuant to a valid protest covering the particular merchandise as to which a change is in order; or
    (e) Modification, pursuant to a valid protest, of a transaction or decision which is neither a liquidation or reliquidation.

    Â 173.4a Correction of clerical error prior to liquidation.
    Pursuant to section 520(a)(4), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1520(a)(4)), the port director may, prior to liquidation of an entry, take appropriate action to correct a clerical error that resulted in the deposit or payment of excess duties, fees, charges, or exactions.
    [T.D. 85-123, 50 FR 29957, July 23, 1985]

    Â 162.23 Seizure under section 596(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)).
    (...)
    (d) Seizure under 19 U.S.C. 1592. If merchandise is imported, introduced or attempted to be introduced contrary to a provision of law governing its classification or value, and there is no issue of admissibility, such merchandise shall not be seized pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c). Any seizure of such merchandise shall be in accordance with section 1592 (see  162.75 of this chapter).

    As I understand the circumstances, on importation he performed what's called 'prior disclosure' - (Â 162.74 Prior disclosure.) identifying orally or in writing to the customs officer of the violation, before an actual investigation was begun. In this case the importer is supposed to tender any potential penalties/duties (in this case, none, since the import value was actually LOWER than declared) .

    And finally:
    Â 162.75 Seizures limited under section 592, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
    (a) When authorized. Merchandise may be seized for violation of section 592, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1592) only if the port director has reasonable cause to believe that a person has violated the statute and that
    (1) The person is insolvent,
    (2) The person is beyond the jurisdiction of the United States,
    (3) Seizure otherwise is essential to protect the revenue, or
    (4) Seizure is essential to prevent the introduction of prohibited or restricted merchandise into the Customs territory of the United States.
    (b) No seizure if prior disclosure. Under no circumstances shall merchandise be seized under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1592 if there has been a prior disclosure of the violatio

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Clerical errors are already clearly explained by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Since the CAD is currently weaker than the dollar, having declared it in USD instead of CAD would be adverse to the government

      1 USD = $1.01824 CAD. So it is just about equal, but even if it isn't I don't follow why it should make any difference what currency the price is in. Are you implying that the government doesn't know about exchange rates?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    2. Re:Clerical errors are already clearly explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I understand, Arrington was importing a boat worth X CDN. The import paperwork declared it worth X USD. Same X. It should have been 0.982*X USD. I can only assume this means a higher import duty than it should be - so it's actually advantageous to the government, right? (In which case the cynic in me wonders if this happens all the time.)

    3. Re:Clerical errors are already clearly explained by tftp · · Score: 1

      I don't follow why it should make any difference what currency the price is in.

      If he signs the paperwork and the price is not correct then his boat is really in danger. That's exactly why he didn't sign. You should never make untruthful statements in writing when a LEO verbally instructs you to do it. LEOs are allowed to lie.

    4. Re:Clerical errors are already clearly explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay now the rest of the story ( I was there)
      1. There was no error on the CBP form, importer just did not read his own invoice.
      2. Just because someone posts BS on the web doesn't make it correct or right.
      3. The builder of the boat ended up paying for a broker to perform the importation.
      4. The owner did not even stay around to attempt to reason, he just walked off and left everyone hanging.
      5. Guess what the value on the broker entry was EXACTLY the same as on the CBP presented paperwork.
      6. The owner will now probably make all these claims on how he was right ,but will not admit his own arrogance in creating this issue himself.

    5. Re:Clerical errors are already clearly explained by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Check my quoted links above, it should be in there but in case it's not: the reason the value change makes a difference is because it IS handled differently.

      Basically, if fixing an error is to the importer's advantage, it's easier to fix. If fixing the error would help the government (increase duty paid, etc.), it's harder.

      So essentially by declaring in USD, he was overdeclaring the value. This is trivial to fix, can be remedied by oral notification and re-filing of docs as 'clerical error'.

      --
      -Styopa
    6. Re:Clerical errors are already clearly explained by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Relevant part of my post above, highlighted:
      " That officer was ENTIRELY in the wrong, if the circumstances are being reported accurately"

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re:Clerical errors are already clearly explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The boat was probably not "seized" but "held". You should know the difference.

  191. Re:The majority of americans want more gun control by crakbone · · Score: 2

    So you regulate the people who will be regulated because the people who won't be regulated did something bad?

  192. would it be illegal? by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

    to name the agent publicly?

    --
    Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
  193. Re:so what? by turp182 · · Score: 1

    He probably works for the DHS, wouldn't surprise me if he participated in this unfortunate situation.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  194. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    I hear you on the point that it would be easier to make an informed judgement if we could get the whole story... but I've had enough experience with the likes of DHS, ATF, and TSA to know that the probability that Arrington's account is at least accurate in regards to the attitude of the agent approaches 1.

    Arrington might not be the most reputable source, but neither are the Alphabet Soup agencies.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  195. Re:so what? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    No, I'm with pnutjam on this one. Relying solely on guns to handle the situation is a complete backslide when we have some pretty marvelous processes in place that make that unnecessary if we simply participate in them. The second amendment stuff is an argument for entering into an endless morass of violence instead of doing the dull, dreary work of keeping a close eye on what our government is doing at all times.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  196. Re:so what? by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Actually, the point is the only reason you care is because it happened to a rich person. This happens to poor/average people all the time but we don't hear about it and we don't care about it.

    I think the reason we care about it is that it's a rights violation and we heard about it. We could give a flying whether it was a mentally ill homeless person camping in Golden Gate Park who had their blanket stolen or someone generally considered morally repugnant, like Larry Ellison, having a yacht stolen

    It's kind of hard to care about an event of which you are unaware because some indignant AC fails to successfully communicate about the event in a compelling way, and only offers vague anecdotes about it "happens to poor/average people all the time". Pictures or it didn't happen. Thanks.

  197. Re:so what? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    That's true, the first thing the United States of America did was get rid of slavery, then they restored all the stolen land to the natives, proving that the War of Independence was about the rights of men everywhere.

    1) We did, eventually, get rid of slavery, and it was, again, the blood of free men who made it possible. Your attempt at refutation only serves to further cement my point.

    2) Manifest Destiny was not and is not part of the Constitution, and thus, non sequitur.

    3) Nobody likes a douchebag pedant, you know.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  198. Re:so what? by garyebickford · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm a boat owner (cruising sailboat, presently 'dry' while I repair the hull). The boatyard where it is kept includes boats and owners of all kinds. The majority of boat owners in my experience in New England is carpenters, guys who have a small business (single restaurant, dry cleaning shop, a guy who transports cars for a living, etc.) There are a few doctors and lawyers, a couple of $1MM+ catamarans, but most of the boats were bought used for $10,000 to $100,000. These folks are just everyday folks. Some people ski for a hobby, some drive boats around. The annual cost for most boat owners is about the same as the skiers - marina costs run $3000 to $10,000 per year depending on the boat, the location, and the amenities. If I had my boat in the water, at the two places I've been it would be costing me either $75 or $105 per foot for six months. It's a 44 foot boat for the purposes of calculating the cost.

    Power boat prices have been down just like house prices because many people used their house equity to get into a boat that was too big & expensive, the value of the boat was less than they owed, and they let boat got repossessed right before or after their house got foreclosed. The price of fuel is also a big consideration for power boats - a 36 foot power boat with twin 340-HP gas engines may burn from 1/6 to 2 gallons per mile depending on how you drive it - below 'hull speed' of 6 knots or thereabouts, boats are much more efficient. A "Cigarette"-typeT go-fast boat may cost $100 per hour to drive.

    For two or three years there has been a glut on the market, especially at the very low end - a lot of folks just walked away from their old, paid-for boat, leaving the marina to finally take the boat for the back slip fees. So you can go to most marinas right now and find a pretty good boat that maybe needs a bit of work, and the marina may just give it to you if you will pay a year's slip fees in advance.

    Sailboat prices did not slump the same way, in part because apparently sailboaters tend to be more conservative about money - i.e. they're cheap. :) They tend not to buy more boat than they could afford. But according to the folks at the boat show I just attended, things are picking up at all levels.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  199. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares about the 1st or 4th amendment when we have the 2nd amendment.

    I keep telling people that if you have to use the 2nd amendment to correct your government you have already lost. That is all the excuse they need to bring down the boot. Look how well it worked out for Ireland and Pakistan.

    And the American Revolutionary way, which is why we are still under British rule. Oh wait, won that one. Never mind.

  200. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is full of these hate filled malcontents. That is how they've been trained.

  201. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least the rich can do their job here and set precedence for the rest of us. The DHS isn't going to get regulated until some rich people are inconvenienced.

  202. I hate importing things.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    many years ago I imported a broken car from the USA to Canada. I had tonnes of documentation, text messages between me and the seller, private messages from a forum printed out along with the forum posts about the sale, 2 copies of the Bill Of Sale and probably other documents that I'm forgetting about. The officer pretty much tossed all the paperwork aside and said "I don't think you paid what you're saying.. He made up a number which was about $3000 more than the $1500 car I bought. And pretty much told me that if I don't agree with it and pay the extra taxes on importing it, they will just take it. It wasn't until I mentioned the name of a friend that works there they got me off the hook. If I didn't do that, then I probably would have refused the pay, they would have taken the car and I would probably have issues crossing the border after that.

  203. An ignorant public and misrepresented legislation by drnb · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure most of the states are going to beat him to it. Hmm, it's almost like a majority of the population is ok with it. Damn politicians, bending to their whims.

    OK, with what, banning fully automatic machine guns? That's what many of the people you reference think is going on. That's what some politicians actually claim is going on. That what popular media like the Colbert Report have claimed is going on.

    However the truth is quite different. They are proposing to ban rifles that are functionally identical to popular hunting and sporting rifles when a 5 round magazine is inserted into them (note many ship from their respective factories with low capacity 5 or 10 round magazines), rifles that differ only in cosmetics. Hold no more rounds than normal rifles, shoot no faster, shoot the same ammunition, etc.

    Do you really think an ignorant public supporting legislation that is intentionally being misrepresented is contradicting the GP's suggestion of gun control being forced, it actually seems to be supporting the GP. The misrepresentation being the mechanism by which the government subverts the system.

  204. Re:so what? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

    That's why I don't sign off on things at 5:30 in the morning. ;)

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  205. Re:so what? by matrim99 · · Score: 2

    No, it's OK to temporarily seize his boat because there was an error on his paperwork (clerical or not).

    No, it is not OK, regardless of the person't wealth. It is not OK to sieze property because of a governmental clerical error. It is not OK to sieze property because of governmental clerical error. It is not OK to put a person in jail temporarily because of a governmental clerical error.

    Clerical errors can take *years* to identify and remedy. It is not OK to punish the victim of these errors until the error can be corrected, again, regardless of the wealth of the victim.

    --
    Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
  206. boats'n'hoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    boats'n'hoes, boats'n'hoes, gotta get more of them boats'n'hoes..

  207. Where do they find these trigger-happy people??? by bobthesungeek76036 · · Score: 1

    I was stopped for a tail-light out on my truck last night. Two officers in the vehicle and one stayed right at my side with his hand on his firearm at all times. Scary what they are teaching these LEOs these days!

    --
    Karma: Bad
  208. Re:so what? by garyebickford · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually the parent is correct. The vast majority of boats really are owned by Joe and Sam the carpenters down the street. Go to most boatyards or marinas, and you'll be able to meet them. Some marinas are definitely gold-plated, but in most cases it's a Bud Light crowd.

    Interestingly, in most cases also, the folks in boats don't care how much you make - I've had many a beer sitting around a fire with a guy who owns a $1million + catamaran on one side and a guy who cleans houses for a living with a 25 foot fishing boat on the other. They've known each other for years, and they're both welcome any time on the other's boat. And they both dislike the 'boat snobs' who think the size of their tool makes them important ;) Boat people mostly respect each other because of their common interest - even with the mostly-friendly dichotomy between 'rag-boaters' (sailors) and 'stinkpotters' (power boaters).

    There's a Creedence Clearwater song about "people on the river". It's mostly true.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  209. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    Depends on the rich guy.

    Arrington is an asshole, but he hasn't pissed off as many people. Bill Gates probably wouldn't get nearly as much support, although some people still might try to look past his history at Microsoft. However, I think if it happened to someone like Rupert Murdoch, Darl McBride, etc. you'd at most get some posts saying that while the government shouldn't act this way, they couldn't have picked a bigger dickhead to harass.

    You can even go the other way as well. If this happened to someone who was almost universally loved like Linus or Woz, almost no one would even try to take the governments side.

  210. Re:so what? by garyebickford · · Score: 1

    It was also much more true back in the days when 'yachts' were custom-made wood boats. I've been told that a wood boat takes 2 hours per week for every 10 feet of length to maintain. I think that number goes up a lot above 15 or 20 feet (4-6 meters). So back in the day, a boat of significant length required a full time crew just to keep it afloat. Fiberglass, to a lesser extent steel and aluminum, and relatively 'mass' production methods have rewritten the boat ownership equation.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  211. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 2

    > The government is not out to get you, the hapless individual.

    This may be true for the government, but not necessarily true for the individual. There's two sides to the social transaction, and either one can be intractable. The agent could see the victim simply as a target of opportunity. (See: Now I've got you, you sob.)

    And no, you don't have to convince the government, you have to convince the agent you are facing.

    The agents stated (according to the report) "It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter". Yet when he fails to sign it when expected, suddenly it DOES matter? You can't have it both ways.

    Consider a nefarious intent scenario:
    Once the paperwork is signed, and taken away, there is nobody to attest to the protest that it is incorrect. You say "it is only needed for statistical purposes", yet what are the penalties for it being incorrect? ... confiscation? Tax evasion investigation/charges?

    While I don't assume nefarious intent, you don't NEED intent when dealing with the government, you merely need to examine procedures.

  212. Re:so what? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    No guns drawn on us, but my wife and I, who really like Happy Jack's in Fort Erie, have lost a bit of desire to go there for lunch because of the assholes manning the US side of the border. On special occasions, we'll push our luck and go, and the Canadians are always cool about it. The Americans are almost always total power-tripping buttheads.

    Canadian Customs and Immigration can be butt heads as well. I've had friends detained for hours because an official decided a Canadian could do the work (never mind he was teaching on a very specific subject and methodology that he had years of expertise implementing - and the work fell under NAFTA Professional Categorization). At one point it was looking like I was going to run the session and do the setup all by myself if my coworkers got sent back. We finally decided to simply move the future sessions to the US and avoid the hassle.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  213. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    Yep, it's a code red emergency when a yacht is held up at customs while its tax paper work is refiled.

    Ignore the millionaire's boat for a minute there, Skippy.

    If you bought something and were bringing it into the country, and if the government paperwork was incorrect and you tried to correct it, would you expect that the DHS would be capable of actually resolving this issue and fixing the paperwork? Or would you expect them to confiscate what you have?

    I don't give a damn if this is a yacht or an computer monitor -- it shouldn't be that difficult to try to work with them to correct broken paperwork.

    This is just lazy and incompetent agents.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  214. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    I'd add this is what brokers are for. If this is $100k+ you don't do these things yourself. Normally, you would call the company you bought the boat from, and they would have to get you the correct paperwork... It's THEIR MISTAKE. Then you go sit in the agent's office wasting YOUR time, not hers until its right.

    This is where he's way to paranoid because he does web news and all that JuJu crap. He's totally correct lawyers will cause all sorts of grief over typos... But in reality that doesn't happen very often. Also, customs agents aren't your mom, they won't wait, and won't tell you what to do... They expect you to know the hoops.

    Next time HIRE a Broker so you don't screw up!

  215. Re:so what? by garyebickford · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately for Marx and his adherents, the math just doesn't work out. Without going into the gory details and math, here is an analogy. Imagine a society with complete 'equality' - everyone has the same resources. This is equivalent to a wheat field - every stalk is the same height, everyone is equally productive, everyone has the same demands for resources. A nice grass lawn is another example.

    But if you look at this from a systems point of view, this is a very artificial system. It requires a lot of work to maintain this against the natural effects of its environment. It has to be plowed, seeded, mowed in the case of a lawn. It has to be treated with chemicals to prevent various pests and weeds (nature) from destroying that nice pretty evenness, and fertilizer to correct the nutritional deficiencies that will develop over time. And this expenditure of energy and resources has to be maintained increasingly over time.

    And what happens if this artificial enforcement of the desired plan is stopped? Nature comes back. Messy, uncoordinated, glorious Nature will return and a real ecosystem will be regenerated. An ecosystem that has biological entities at all scales (not all the same size and shape), competing freely with one another for the available resources, at the same time cooperating with each other to retain the existing resources within the system, and to optimize the utilization of available energy. And the natural system that results will also be optimally capable of surviving, adapting to and prospering with changes in the environment.

    This is analogous to free enterprise and to democracy - the same math applies as to ecosystems. Note that monopolies, manipulation of government, and dictatorship all have the same problem as the wheat field, but I have blathered long enough! See the book "The Edge of Chaos".

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  216. Re:so what? by garyebickford · · Score: 1

    Somebody once said, "The three most dangerous words in the world are 'Go ahead, shoot.'"

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  217. Re:so what? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    It is news if the government can seize your property just because of their bureaucratic error. Do you think this cannot happen to poor people too? Only, for them, it won't be a boat, but likely some part of their livelihood.

    We are *lucky* some rich person has been inconvenienced in this way. Otherwise, no one would ever know about this particular ability of the government to fuck with you. Unless you believe that they only screw with rich people.

  218. Re:so what? by deadweight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If DHS steals a rich person's boat, they can get another. If they steal MY boat, that is pretty much most of my net worth gone. So GO RICH PEOPLE - Get as much publicity as you can if DHS abuses you. It will make it better for me too!

  219. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad that the IRS agent you worked with was helpful. The one I'm working with is not. I've been trying to convince them for over 4 years now that I actually was married and had a dependent child in 2000. They accept that I was married and had a dependent child in 1999, and that I was married and had a dependent child in 2001, but I have no proof that I was married and had a dependent child in 2000 so I owe them $27k in taxes.

  220. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 3 times I have had to deal with Airport security they really were about moving people through as fast as possible while not violating any of their little rules. The worst time I had was at the local courthouse doing my civic duty, I wanted to ream that guy a new one, but I had better things to do that day then end up in jail.

  221. Re:so what? by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

    I thought we already made a choice that rich people are more worthy of protection, like, a couple of centuries ago, if not earlier.

    --
    May Peace Prevail On Earth
  222. Re:so what? by Feyshtey · · Score: 1
    You're an idiot. I am not saying that it should be news because of this person's status. I'm saying that it's being reported on because of it. I dont agree with that, in fact I abhore it. My whole fucking point was that it is wrong to dismiss this bad behavior of govt agents, and the level of wealth of the victim is and should remain wholly irrelevent.

    I guarantee you that if Homeland Security took something from some destitute single mom, and the media got wind of it, they'd be all over it. Stop letting your envy get in the way of real life.

    And you'd be wrong. This shit happens every day at the border and at airports, and even along roadways. People doing absolutely nothing wrong are pulled over and detained for hours, goods are confiscated, possessions are damaged. I personally know of one person who was pulled over in Colorado for speeding (4MPH over...) and sat on the side of the road with her 2 kids under 10years old for SIX FUCKING HOURS in 90+ degree heat while DEA tore her car apart. She politely pointed out a procedural error of the officer that pulled her over and the next thing you know there's a DEA officer there. Why? Who the fuck knows. He was chatting with my friend being all friendly and said he had a drug dog in training in his vehicle, and would it be ok to just use this as a training excercise and let the dog sniff around the car. Believing she had nothing to fear she agreed. The dog reacted to something, or more likely to nothing, and they treated it like a full on smuggling incident from that point on and had multiple state patrol and DEA vehicles there in minutes.

    They never had any reasonable suspicion and never found anything, and you never heard shit about it even though it's been in letters to the editor for 3 major news agencies.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  223. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My wife and I visited Niagra back in the late 90s. She is American and I was a H1B visa older (6 year legal resident originally from the UK). No problems going over to Canada but when I came back we pulled up to the border control toll plaza, handed over our passports (mine included the visa that still had five years left on it) and the ass said "don't ever cross the border again - I could rip this out of your passport right now and tear it up and send your wife home crying".)

    "Thanks officer"

    F*** them, hired goons.

  224. Re:An ignorant public and misrepresented legislati by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Uh, no.

    Colorado's proposed legislation is limiting magazines to 15 for rifles, 8 for shotguns.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/us/gun-control-laws-clear-initial-hurdle-in-colorado.html?_r=0

    Maybe it's you who needs to stop misrepresenting?

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  225. Re:so what? by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

    Because it's utter bullshit.

    FYI, this nation, the United States of America, wasn't founded with fancy words and courtrooms, it was created with the blood of men and women who would have rather died standing as free people, than live kneeling as slaves.

    ... and slave owners.

    --
    May Peace Prevail On Earth
  226. Re:so what? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    I think you are mistaking cause for effect.

    The reason libertarians get up in arms about rich people is that is what the stories are about. If they don't know if something specific is happening to poor people, they can't complain about it on-topic.

    I don't think that the libertarians around here act at all like you suggest they do. They respond to stories. It just so happens that the media only likes writing about the rich and those with notoriety. The understanding is that the poor are subject to the same, or worse than the rich people, so the fact that the rich get fucked over means that the poor are probably getting it worse, only no one was aware of it until now.

    In short, having a story about a rich person having problems isn't just about the rich people, if you understand that if they have it bad, the middle class and the poor have it much worse.

  227. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Acting like an asshole isn't grounds to confiscate a boat, so if the customs agent posted such a blog it would only confirm that she's corrupt.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  228. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those guards at Niagara Falls are out of control. I had a similar experience when I was visiting with my teenage daughter. Crossing to Canada was no more hassle than buying a soda at a burger joint. When coming back to the US, the guards insisedt we proceed separately and in single file. I go through first and proceed to wait for my daughter behind me, and she suddenly gets delayed when being asked all kinds of questions. At that point the guards started demanding I leave the area because I had already been processed and threatening me with arrest. I tried to explain I wasn't going to leave until my underage daughter go through. Needless to say, I wasn't going to leave her alone in a foreign country.

    We both got through in the end, but it was an ugly tense situation which could have gone very badly.

  229. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Hatta · · Score: 1

    The government is not out to get you, the hapless individual.

    The government is out to get anyone they can. Why would they care about you, the hapless individual?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  230. Petition Obama to return his Boat! by apraetor · · Score: 1
  231. Re:so what? by Sperbels · · Score: 2

    There's not reason to let it fade into oblivion without making a lot of noise. We can't make it too easy for the bastards.

  232. Re:so what? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    Not really.

    This is a basic customs issue that could impact ANY ONE that has something that a customs agent wants to steal. This is a very fundemental issue of corruption that you should no be so quick to excuse or ignore.

    YOU WILL be next.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  233. Form seems to have been accurate; duty needs paid by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    Dude, seriously, it's in the article ... they took the Canadian dollar value, turned it into American dollars (incorrectly), and asked him to sign a form under oath that what the form said was true.

    The form almost certainly cares about the value at the time of import (since customs duty is based on value of the import, not the USD-value-of-the-foreign-purchase-price-of-the-import-based-on-exchange-rate-at-the-time-payments-were-made), and requires the value to be declared in US dollars, not foreign currency, and Canadian dollars currently trade at very close to 1:1 with US dollars (which Arrington acknowledges, though he states that wasn't true when he made most of the payments on the boat, but doesn't explain why he thinks that is relevant.) Given that the currency exchange rates are fluctuating and, at any given point in time, there is a range of plausible valuations though the current price on any particular exchange will be fixed, the exact CAD purchase price is as accurate as any other valuation in USD.

    If Arrington refuses to sign the form because he disputes the CBP's valuation (and, therefore, the amount of import duty that must be paid prior to releasing the boat) then, whatever the basis for the dispute of the valuation, it needs to be resolved before the boat can be released.

    Now, maybe if more details are available there is information which supports this being something done wrong bu Customs and Border Protection, but right now it looks like Arrington was presented an accurate form.

  234. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a clear clause in the law to state that: "The value does not have to be exact", that there's no penalty for small errors. Otherwise, he had every right to be careful - more so with an item that can be expensive.

  235. This happened to me by Jmc23 · · Score: 3, Informative

    going the opposite direction. I just notated on the form which information was false but that the agent insisted I needed to sign it regardless of whether it was true. They didn't seem too happy about that but let me through anyways.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  236. Re:so what? by jammer170 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then why didn't the agent simply tell Arrington to do so? She should be far more familiar with the paperwork and process than he is. His suggestion was not unreasonable, but the agent's response sure as hell was.

    --
    Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
  237. Gun bans. by MYakus · · Score: 1

    Why is an administration who has been militarizing police forces so interested in disarming civilians?

    1. Re:Gun bans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh.

  238. Re:Welcome to Obama's America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, you clearly don't remember that those same people were already working for the DHS and TSA and behaving exactly the same way back when your holy emperor Bush Jr. was in charge. If we're going to blame a political party (which we shouldn't, because it's happening regardless of which one is in charge), then the Republicans are the ones who actually caused this problem.

  239. I'M ON A BOAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, no I'm not anymore. Shit.

  240. Re:so what? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > Actually, the point is the only reason you care is because it happened to a rich person.

    Bullshit.

    He cares because it matters. The only relevant aspect about the victim is the fact that we get to hear about it.

    Caring about the situation is entirely orthogonal to that.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  241. Re:uh, that's what's supposed to happen by DragonWriter · · Score: 0

    Customs didn't impound the shipment until the paperwork gets straightened out.

    Yes, they did.

    The only part that needs straightened out is his signature.

    when the guy you're so angry at for having made more money than you refuses to authenticate paperwork listing the value of imported goods with a price that's likely in excess of $10,000 away from being correct, the customs agent didn't say "Well, until this paperwork error is corrected, we can't let you have your boat", she said "The paperwork is correct! Since you won't sign it, hand over the keys and get off the boat"

    Assuming that the CBP has a standard method of calculating valuation (which is always approximate: there is a difference between "price" and "value") of the import based on purchase records and it was correctly applied (which may well use the exchange rate and the time of import, for purchases that are recent enough that the purchase price is even relevant to assessing the valuation), then the form was correct, Arrington's assumption that the form was incorrect because the valuation in USD happened to match the CAD purchase price was wrong, and the agent ws correct in what she said.

  242. Re:uh, that's what's supposed to happen by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    If you read the article you would discover that the number on the document he was asked to sign was taken directly from the invoice printed by the company...except it was converted from the Canadian dollars on the invoice into U.S. dollars are the form which the government created and asked him to sign.
    So, let's recap, we have a document from the Canadian company which states the price for paid for the boat in Canadian dollars. We have another document created by the Customs Department using data taken from the document provided by the Canadian company that uses the same number but states that it is U.S. dollars. The question for you is, who made the mistake, the Canadian company which said that it was paid in Canadian dollars, or the U.S. Customs Service which said that the Canadian company was paid in U.S. dollars?

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  243. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    1) doesn't always work. I've only had one thing confiscated by US customs: A shilling. It's an obsolete coin, no longer legal tender anywhere in the world. Just a little disc of cheap metal. I posted one to a collector in the US. The envelope arrived, but the coin was gone: They actually forwarded on an empty envelope! I'm guessing because of the rule against importing currency. A shilling isn't currency, and hasn't been for decades, but the American inspector presumably wasn't familiar with disused British coinage.

  244. Re:so what? by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

    And your leadership seems to agree. That's why they are also more valuable, and therefor warrant being protected by teams of people with full auto assault weapons and large clips but you and I are not able to legally obtain the same protections.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  245. Re:so what? by eek_the_kat · · Score: 1

    and this one time.. at band camp...

    gotta love the anecdotes in this thread; superlatively delicious.

  246. Re:so what? by rhsanborn · · Score: 4, Informative

    This was addressed in the comments on the article. He offered to make the change, the agent informed him he wasn't allowed to change the form.

  247. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whichever has the lower /. ID.

  248. Re:Cry me a river by eek_the_kat · · Score: 1

    Middle class canadians. At least they have healthcare when they get laid off.

  249. nigga stole my bike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


       

  250. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    Then there must be a definition for how exact "exact" must be, and how big a difference is considered "not exact".

    Laws are not computer programs. Laws describe the standards for what a society normally considers fair, but they can't describe the abnormal circumstances that sometimes apply. That's what the judicial branch is for.

    If the law says that the customs form must be filled out, then it is up to the individual to fulfill that law to a degree which they think is fair. If the DHS disagrees, the law has procedures to be followed to resolve the dispute. If someone thinks their particular case is abnormal enough that the law shouldn't apply (or should apply differently), they can sue.

    That's how every other law works. If a police officer sees someone speeding, they aren't required to enforce the speed limit - they can use judgement to determine whether the speed is a risk to society. If a contract is agreed upon by two parties, and both decide to ignore it, then there is no legal problem. Laws should not prescribe behavior, but rather describe what behavior the society expects.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  251. Re:so what? by toiletsalmon · · Score: 1

    In a country where the constitution was deliberately crafted around the idea of protecting AFFLUENT CAUCASIAN MALE citizens from governmental abuse and seeking to empower the AFFLUENT CAUCASIAN MALE citizens with means to call their government on any and all abuse.

    I think you forgot something...

    Yes, this shouldn't have happened and was wrong, but I've only got so much outrage to go around. If he can afford to buy a boat, I'm sure he has an attorney. He's a big boy, he'll figure it out.

  252. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In another very plausible series of anecdotes, the government came back a few years later and ruined your friend's lives because they didn't have all the i-dots and t-crosses on the forms.

  253. Awww by WillyWanker · · Score: 0

    Poor rich man. Maybe next time you should buy American.

  254. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point is that if they'll do it to rich people, they'll do it to anyone, except little people have no ability to retaliate.

    Sure they do, but it usually involves guns and homemade explosives.

  255. Re:so what? by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

    Taking a boat because of the paperwork error he described is more outlandish and unreasonable an action than if it were something smaller. Not because the non-wealthy are downtrodden, or whatever you were fed in your poli sci class, but because it's a government agent acting seemingly without reason or limit.

  256. So you can't bring in products.. by sackofdonuts · · Score: 1

    from outside the country and lie about their value but you can bring in H1-B visa people and lie about their salaries? Nice.

  257. another example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another example of government corruption

  258. Use a Freight Forwarder service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They take care of the customs and other international trade-preventing economy-suppression measures.

  259. Re:The majority of americans want more gun control by spacepimp · · Score: 1

    The majority doesn't rule in a Constitutional Republic. It never has, and never will. The point of the the Constitution was to keep in check the power of the government and those citizens who would seek to infringe on those liberties. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. The constitution and the founding fathers knew the dangers of mob mentality. This whole thing is hardly new, and the need of the people to be able to defend themselves rightfully is spelled out for just such a purpose.

  260. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When some guy starts insisting that the government should rebuild its procedures to compute value using a foreign currency

    Except he didn't do that:

    I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.

    He insisted that the information on the form was correct, he didn't care what currency it was in, just that it was correct.

  261. Think of the children! by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

    I've often thought that the problems inherent in democratically elected governments (yes, I know the U.S. is a Republic wherein sovereignty lies in the person, and not the population at large, but the electoral process is democratic) is that they allow individuals to collectively exercise political power without any individual responsibility. Thus, there is no incentive to seek checks on abuse of such power, when such abuse affects "others".

    If there was commensurate risk to each individual in proportion to government abuse of power, things might be different.

    Enter the "crazies", you know those that get ticked off, for some state injustice, perceived, or real, and take it out on "society": you know, "you", "your kids", if you happen to be in the "wrong place at the wrong time". Think rogue LA cop Chris Dorner. Doesn't matter if they "get him" in the end: if, in his rage, he kills your wife and kid, they are still dead.

    So, the premise is this: increased government abuse of power correlates positively with greater number of "crazies" thinking their constitutional rights are violated (some times they are, some times they're delusional), who will take their rage out on you.

    The more abusive government gets, the more likely "crazies" will harm you, or your family.

    Perhaps we just need more Dorners, to show the utter incompetence of government to stop them before they cause harm: "Steal my boat, will ya? I'll kill the next 20 people I see!" After all, "the people" are ultimately responsible for government abuse, and should suffer if "they" allow it to persist. Yes, I know that is a falacious argument and completely disregards the rule of law. However, statistically it holds in the sense that the more abusive government becomes, the greater the chance that someone will "snap", and therefore you will suffer collateral damage

    So, every time you turn a blind eye to this kind of abuse, you place your kids at greater risk of some "crazies" killing them.

    We accept government because order strikes us as safer than anarchy, but at some point of government corruption, that stops being true. Given the propensitiy for public fear to be greatly out of proportion to real risks, perhaps that can be used to an advantage in encouraging a curtailment of state abuse before it truely reaches the point that anarchy (and thus chaotic revolition) actually are to be preferred.

    Won't you think of the children?

    Recall the mantra: The more abusive government gets, the more likely "crazies" will harm you, or your family.

    --
    In Liberty, Rene
    1. Re:Think of the children! by dbIII · · Score: 2

      No I think the problem is a highly individualistic view where large numbers of people do not see themselves as part of "society" and see government as some external force and not something they have a shared responsibility for.
      There's plenty of existing examples of what you appear to be advocating in place like tribal areas in Afganistan and Pakistan and I don't think that's what you really want.
      So I think the answer is instead of turning away from government, turn towards it, take more interest and control of it and get it to do what people actually want it to do. That's much better than bowing down to whichever of your neighbours can afford to feed more guys with guns than anyone else and hiding your daughters from their eyes.

    2. Re:Think of the children! by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Oh, I am not advocating violence, merely noting that it can have a useful effect in encouraging the rooting out of corruption: if we don't seek to hold our governments accountable through lawful means, we will be more likely to suffer at the hands of those who "snap" because of corruption, real or perceived.

      I do think that it will require a general belief that corrpution is pervasive, though, to counter the argument that those who "snap" do so only out of a delusion of perceived injustice. In other words, there has to be a belief that government is horribly corrupt but "what can I do about it?" that can then transition to the realization that "OMG! If I don't do something about it, some "crazy" will get me!" (apart from government abuse of power).

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
  262. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    ...then why are you working with only one agent, if they're not working toward the truth?

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  263. in Canadian $ rather of US$ by denisbergeron · · Score: 1

    Since the beguinning of this US economy slowdown (world recesion) us and canada $ are in parity, so $1 US equal 1$ can. +/- 2cents big deal. !

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
  264. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    It wasn't DHS "stealing" a boat, it was them refusing to release it without a signature.

    Ans there you go misrepresenting the facts too. You missed the part where they refused to provide the correct paperwork. In orher words, they refused him any legal means of getting his boat.

    For no reason.

    We don't know whether the agent in question had the authority to make changes to the legal documents.

    Oh yeah, and she quite clearly told a half truth (technically true, but intentionally deceptive) to the person she phones.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  265. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or apparently, within 100 miles of the border, based on latest reports...

  266. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    And no, you don't have to convince the government, you have to convince the agent you are facing.

    The agent is an agent of the government, and has superiors. Their decisions can be overridden.

    The agents stated (according to the report) "It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter". Yet when he fails to sign it when expected, suddenly it DOES matter? You can't have it both ways.

    The exact value on the paperwork doesn't matter, but the paperwork being filled out and signed does matter.

    Once the paperwork is signed, and taken away, there is nobody to attest to the protest that it is incorrect.

    The person who can attest to the protest is Mr. Arrington himself. If he signs the paper with a slightly-off value, and is questioned about it later, he can simply explain that the value was already filled in, and his instructions were that the precision wasn't important. Surely there is some other paperwork attesting to the boat's value that can be referred to, and can be produced later. With an acknowledgement of the error and an attempt to correct it, the questioning agent has no reason to suspect further discrepancies.

    You say "it is only needed for statistical purposes", yet what are the penalties for it being incorrect? ... confiscation? Tax evasion investigation/charges?

    Actually being charged with anything or having anything permanently confiscated would require a judgement of criminal intent, and that's again where attitude is influential. Using fighting tactics looking for an easy way to "win" is a pretty good indicator that you have something else you're hiding... that's when you'll get more investigations.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  267. Re:so what? by Immerial · · Score: 1

    That was his mistake. He should have just made the change, initialed it, signed the doc and handed it over. It would have been upon the agent to deny accepting it, who probably wouldn't have batted an eye and taken the doc. By raising it, he brought attention to it... which then caused the problem.

  268. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have already been told that the customs agents do have the authority to make corrections.

  269. The DHS is not abusing their power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's what really sucks.

    The Comprehensive Forfeiture Law of 1984 gives them broad seizure powers. Boats, houses, money, anything if they think it's been used in the drug trade. Microscopic amounts of coke in your twenty dollar bills? Lose the bills and your car that's transporting those bills.

    This happens on the Interstate daily. Dan Lundgren was very proud of this bill.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/dan-lungren-drug-warrior-reelection_n_2159755.html
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Asset+forfeiture

  270. Belgian diamond heist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That heist has state-sponsored written all over it. Probably pulled off by one of those Euro countries that's bankrupt or almost bankrupt like Greece, Italy, Spain or Portugal. Might have even been pulled by the French too.

  271. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the incompetent, power-tripping agent told him he wasn't allowed to.

  272. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    Except this happens all the time to trick people into signing confessions for crimes without support of a lawyer.

    Fixed that for you.

  273. Re:so what? by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    The 2cnd one piece of a deterrent, just like cops are a deterrent and not the only solution to crime. Such as better quality jobs and living conditions, happy people, good communities.

    Therefore the 2cnd amendment is relevant as one deterrent, but going directly to the 2cnd to deal with 1 asshole is an overreaction. But feeling oppressed because they (DHS moron) have a gun and you do not is not an overreaction. Being sarcastic and ironic about it and pointing it out and making a ruckus for it is normal.

    Personally I think 99% of government employees, customs agents, etc could do their job without weapons IMO. Even traffic cops in most area's. But people in this country don't respect each other enough to deal with their problems like gentleman and ladies.

    So were (as a Nation) back to wanting guns to be respected and that rolls both ways amongst civilians and not civilians. Lets fix that problem first aye?

  274. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could always advocate getting away from a adversarial justice system that rewards prosecutors for conviction percentages as opposed to actually making sure that the people they jail are guilty. You could put higher penalties on corruption by public servants, and you could put someone in place to arrest and charge those servants who are otherwise immune. There are a lot of situations where checks and balances are broken, or the check is managed by an individual who is overwhelmed by other issues.

    We could try to identify where process and fairness break down and correct them as a society.

    Point is, there's plenty you could do other than throw up your hands and say, "It's either this or SATANIC ANARCHY!"

  275. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government is not out to get you, the hapless individual. The government is out to get all the other assholes who screw over the system, and you just happen to have aroused suspicion. Once you're under suspicion, you have two options. You can be offended and return the offense, approaching every interaction as though you were going to battle, or you can convince the government that you're not the criminal they're looking for, but merely someone who deviated a bit too far from their expectations. The latter's really not that hard, and can help to stretch the bounds of their expectations.

    good dog.

  276. Re:so what? by Gabrill · · Score: 2

    No, he didn't cause the problem. He was punished for finding and demonstrating it.

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  277. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I don't understand is why he didn't just make a note on the document then sign it.

    Probably because this isn't fantasy land; out in the real world, you can't magically fuck with government forms and giggle like a simpering idiot after the fact.

  278. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bureaucrats and the people they deal with are all human; some are petty, some are earnest and hard working, some care, some don't. I just don't buy the story of the person who posts their blog first, or has a bigger platform from which to complain.

    Let me guess: you work for DHS. Which is why you felt the need to come in butthurt and complain about the story, calling the guy a liar for no reason. Are you really so ignorant as to have a hard time believing that these thugs with badges would do such a thing? It happens ALL the time. WAKE UP.

  279. Re:so what? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Because it's utter bullshit.

    FYI, this nation, the United States of America, wasn't founded with fancy words and courtrooms, it was created with the blood of men and women who would have rather died standing as free people, than live kneeling as slaves.

    ... and slave owners.

    ...

    I wonder how Alexander Hamilton would have dealt with annoying pedants and their diversionary tactics...

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  280. Importing a boat from Canada, by westlake · · Score: 1

    Costal Craft builds high tech - high performance - luxury yachts designed for the Pacific Northwest. 48' Coastal Craft 420 IPS

    The 48' Coastal Craft 450 IPS lists for $1.2 million.

    From U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Importing a boat for personal use into the U.S.Importing a boat for personal use into the U.S.

    Rates of Duty: Pleasure boats are generally dutiable when imported into the United States. The following duty rates apply to boats imported for recreational purposes:

    -Sailboats and motorboats other than outboard motorboats: 1.5 percent

    TechCrunch Guy could easily owe the government $10-$20K in import duties and on up from there.

    He needs to show proof of ownership, such as a bill of sale.

    Proof that the boat conforms with EPA regulations (Engine Declaration Form).

    The documentation on a boat in this class has to be tight.

    Welcome to the real world, where border guards carry guns and water is wet.

    1. Re:Importing a boat from Canada, by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the real world, where border guards carry guns and water is wet

      And America is not the land of the free.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:Importing a boat from Canada, by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      What makes you think he didn't have all of that? So maybe he made a slight mistake on one of the forms. That makes you think that the government has the right to take his property? What bullshit. If it is legal for the government to do that the law should be changed. And it still doesn't make it okay. Theft is immoral no matter who does it and no matter what 'laws' the government writes for itself.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    3. Re:Importing a boat from Canada, by pavera · · Score: 2

      The FA clearly states the forms were all generated BY DHS... The government made a mistake generating the forms, and then wanted to force the citizen to lie and say they hadn't made a mistake.

      Then they stole his boat for refusing to be complicit in a lie.

  281. Re:f*d up bureaucracy on the US/Canada border -DUI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FWIW, Canada does not allow persons with DUI's to enter their country

    https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/402/~/entering-the-u.s.-and-canada-with-dui-offenses

  282. Re:so what? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Part of the problem is the pay is so bad now they end up with many people who shouldn't be doing any job that gives them any kind of authority whatsoever. The job and the pay sucks so the major perk is your ability to abuse the power vested in you by people that should know better.

  283. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    So the alternative is to run a live broadcast instead.

    "This is Edison Carter, Live and Direct..."

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  284. We're more concerned about boats than people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Millions of people can invite themselves into the United States and the government does very little.

    Try to bring in your own boat and that's a serious offence.

  285. Re:so what? by Belial6 · · Score: 2

    Are you complaining that the guy who can publicly call out bad behavior by the government is calling them out? Are you suggesting that it would be better if he just quietly availed himself of his preferential status in US society? If he doesn't call out the DHS, who will? Who can?

  286. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 1

    Have you seen the US and Canadian exchange rate recently? This is over a difference of less than 2%.

  287. Re:so what? by Immerial · · Score: 1

    Sorry... problem should have been in quotes like "problem". :D

  288. Re:so what? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    No I'm complaining that the people who have no practical redress against bad behavior by the government are the ones who can't publicly call them out.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  289. Re:so what? by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

    You having the same weapons won't give you the same protection. These people go through enormous amount of *routine* training.

    In fact, if you put yourself against a criminal, chances are:

    1. He is more likely to have more powerful, illegally obtained gun. No matter where you draw the line what is legal.

    2. He is more likely to have more experience with the gun, because this is something he may be doing for a while.

    3. He is more likely to be ready to shoot you, while you are hesitating. If he is already breaking the law, he just won't care. While you, may very well be hesitating.

    You can definitely fix most of those by training yourself (not sure how are you going to learn to shoot at people though), but again, put against criminals, this is an uphill battle, most people won't (and shouldn't for that matter) fight.

    --
    May Peace Prevail On Earth
  290. Re:so what? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    While in the extreme form that you describe, it does require a lot of external pressure to be maintained (which in turn implies that there is some group that is NOT equal), the extreme disparity which currently exists in the US is nearly equally destructive to social goods...including democracy.

    The proper answer is a strongly graduated tax on income that doesn't have loopholes, and doesn't have any sharp boundaries (so that one is always better off when one earns more money). My usual answer to this is a tax of the form
    tax = taxRate * income - guaranteedBaseLevel
    This means that if you earn no income, you will still get a guaranteed income. The size of it is adjustable. Some people favor $0, but I'd go for a considerably higher level. My (current) idea is that with no income the tax should be sufficiently negative to equal a 40 hour/week job with a rate of $5/hour.

    Note that I feel this should be a linear tax, but one could add in a higher power. This would make it more like the current tax system (except that there should be no loopholes and ALL income should be counted), but to me it makes more sense (and leads to a simpler tax system) to just have an adjustable base level. There is a question as to whether there should be a minimum age for this to kick in, but I don't believe that there should be. OTOH, the money earned should be the property of the individual earning it, NOT of their parents. So it should be held in escrow (earning interest at the same rate as long-term treasury bills) until they were, say 12, at which point they (not their parents) should be granted limited access to it. Say half the base level. But it should be available for legitimate expenses, like medical emergencies. Not routine expenses, though. That's up to their parents.
    N.B.: I'm also in favor of universal healh care at a basic level.

    This would be a system which wouldn't unfairly penalize anyone severely, and which would make it more difficult for the wealthy to take advantage of the less wealthy. Naturally it wouldn't prevent them from paying people to do things, but that's hardly unfair, as long as they have a reasonable alternative.

    FWIW, I consider most inherited wealth to be unfair in a system where many people are lacking basic survival needs (clothes, shelter, food, transport, etc....though I could public transport as transport, if it's available). However, I also consider confiscatory taxation of inherited wealth to be unfair. You need a system that balances in between. The system that I proposed does, by eliminating the threat of "Do what I say or starve!" and it's equivalents.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  291. Re:so what? by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

    Allowed them to vote and speak freely, no?

    --
    May Peace Prevail On Earth
  292. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every interaction I've ever had with a law enforcement agent that resulted in longer than 10 seconds resulted in them falsifying their report and/or committing perjury if it went to that level.

    Both reports against me, and reports filed on my behalf.

    I can count the number of 1 minute conversations with police in particular where they haven't lied on the hands of an amputated quadrapalegic. Agents of ATF, FBI, are more cunning and tend to lies of omission. and DHS agents -- I think should be executed for conspiracy.

    In the vast majority of those, they had a partner that corroborated -- or at the minimum, remained silent.

    So yeah -- I believe him. Pretty much period.

    Unfortunately, I can't admit this during voir dire... or professional circumstances.

    Law Enforcement -- not upstanding enough to be trusted

  293. Re:so what? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I believe that the original phrase was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The bit in the us amendment was not directly connected to that. That one comes in as:

    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...

    So while the meaning that you stated is there (given certain interpretations of what you meant) the GP poster was also right to question your statement of it.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  294. Re:so what? by Gabrill · · Score: 1

    All good. 8-)

    I hope we see good results from this publicity. Or at least discover the other half of the story. You know, the US's version of the "truth".

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  295. Re:so what? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Ah. So the Canadians were excluded, or had to go through that process. Nice.

    I've heard many more reports about US border security being intolerable that of the Canadians OR the Mexicans. And those are really the only two alternatives that apply analogously.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  296. ABSURD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's ABSURD!!! He was less than 1% off the actual price.

  297. Re:so what? by chihowa · · Score: 1

    Having crossed a fair few borders in my life, the US ones are without a doubt the most unpleasant ones.Worse even than the former East German one (albeit on a West German passport... I'm sure with an eastern block passport they would have been even worse).

    It's odd, given that on the whole the US is full of friendly people trying to be helpful... all the assholes seem to hang out at the border and at airports.

    I got similar treatment at the East German border, with an American passport. We were in a Belgian car and were waved through, but my father insisted on getting our passports stamped. When he saw them, the guard at the gate jerked back and reached for his gun. After a bit of questioning, though, we were on our way. It was totally worth it: they used a whole page for stamps and signatures and stuff.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  298. Re:so what? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    And remember that this "border" is defined to include all international airports, no matter where in the country they are. Also all ocean shores.

    IOW, they've defined it to include almost all the population. If you aren't covered now, all they need to do is redefine a current airport.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  299. Re:so what? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

    You won't get through to them, mate. As (I think) Sinclair said, roughly paraphrased - the average American worker doesn't perceive himself as worker, but as temporarily inconvenienced millionaire.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  300. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From the article

    I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.

    Author's concern was not currency type as you see from the quote above.. his concern is accuracy. There are also tax implications so this is not just for "statistics". Some people can get away their whole life by signing everything without regard. Others get bit hard, i.e. lose jobs, confiscated property etc. etc. His boat took approximately a year to build so unless the builders are backlogged on orders someone else on Slashdot pointed it that there is roughly $2500 change in taxation on a $1M boat for an incorrect entry.

  301. Re:so what? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Read the party platform CAREFULLY. I'm not a Libertarian because I'm a libertarian.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  302. Re:so what? by weiserfireman · · Score: 1

    It was also much more true back in the days when 'yachts' were custom-made wood boats. I've been told that a wood boat takes 2 hours per week for every 10 feet of length to maintain. I think that number goes up a lot above 15 or 20 feet (4-6 meters). So back in the day, a boat of significant length required a full time crew just to keep it afloat. Fiberglass, to a lesser extent steel and aluminum, and relatively 'mass' production methods have rewritten the boat ownership equation.

    I looked at buying a boat one time. The rule of thumb I was taught was about 10% of the boats value in annual maintenance and fees.

  303. Re:so what? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but there HAVE been prior stories. IPADs being stolen by border guards, etc. Even someone who got his computer back because it had Debian on it, the the guard couldn't use it.

    But nothing was done. There was a wave of noise that was quickly submerged, and the thefts continued unabated, and, as far as I can tell, the thieves were never punished.

    If you haven't seen it happening before, you haven't been paying attention. There have also been reports of border guards pulling aside pretty girls to feel them up, and I seem to recall one account where they made her strip first. Those, however, seem to have received more official notice, and I believe that, at least officially, now the girls are supposed to only by stripped by other women. But if I recall correctly, parents still don't have the right to be present.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  304. Re:so what? by weiserfireman · · Score: 1

    You're an idiot. I am not saying that it should be news because of this person's status. I'm saying that it's being reported on because of it. I dont agree with that, in fact I abhore it. My whole fucking point was that it is wrong to dismiss this bad behavior of govt agents, and the level of wealth of the victim is and should remain wholly irrelevent.

    I guarantee you that if Homeland Security took something from some destitute single mom, and the media got wind of it, they'd be all over it. Stop letting your envy get in the way of real life.

    And you'd be wrong. This shit happens every day at the border and at airports, and even along roadways. People doing absolutely nothing wrong are pulled over and detained for hours, goods are confiscated, possessions are damaged. I personally know of one person who was pulled over in Colorado for speeding (4MPH over...) and sat on the side of the road with her 2 kids under 10years old for SIX FUCKING HOURS in 90+ degree heat while DEA tore her car apart. She politely pointed out a procedural error of the officer that pulled her over and the next thing you know there's a DEA officer there. Why? Who the fuck knows. He was chatting with my friend being all friendly and said he had a drug dog in training in his vehicle, and would it be ok to just use this as a training excercise and let the dog sniff around the car. Believing she had nothing to fear she agreed. The dog reacted to something, or more likely to nothing, and they treated it like a full on smuggling incident from that point on and had multiple state patrol and DEA vehicles there in minutes.

    They never had any reasonable suspicion and never found anything, and you never heard shit about it even though it's been in letters to the editor for 3 major news agencies.

    According to the US Supreme Court, an alert from a drug dog is "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" exists to pull her over for exceeding the speed limit by any amount

  305. Re:so what? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    What does any of that have to do with my post?

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  306. Welcome.. by h8sg8s · · Score: 1

    ..to the new normal. Rapidly approaching the state where regulation complexity exceeds economic effort.

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
  307. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are other options I'd like to bring along.

    - an Italian-American mother who don't take no crap

    This.

    Who needs a gun, when you could be packing a Sicilian matriarch?

    Huh. I'm living in Germany. My mother's 77 years old and an American. If something breaks and there is no receipt, she says "give me that". And gets it replaced. I have no idea how she does it, and I am not sure I want to know.

    She occasionally helps refugees who have a problem with government officials. Again, I am not sure I want to know how she does that, but she has some sort of reputation there. She says she's too old to let herself get bullshitted anymore.

  308. Re:so what? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    You're right. Let's even out everything, so that nobody anywhere has a private boat. And decisions on who gets to use the public boats will be made by the same TSA agent who confiscated the boat in the first place. Now THAT is a society I could sign on for!!!
    It's like Chewing gum in 4th grade, if there isn't enough for everyone, nobody gets any!

  309. Just say no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say no, nd tell her to take it to court. Posession is 9/10 of the law.

  310. Re:so what? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    So...why would anyone do a job, such a mowing a neighbors yard as a teen, if they would get paid for doing nothing?
    and having the government dictate how children are paid for chores by their parents?

    You've been reading way too much Plato's Replublic

  311. Re:so what? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    I am also in favor of the 2nd, I just think it's overplayed currently and not really at risk. Despite your opinion to the contrary, Obama doesn't want your guns.

  312. Re:so what? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    I wonder how Alexander Hamilton would have dealt with annoying pedants and their diversionary tactics...

    I think it would have involved something about a meeting on neutral ground, pistols, and ten paces.

    These days it's lawyers & bank balances at ten paces.

    Looking around at the results, I'm not certain it's an improvement, overall, for society at large.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  313. Re:so what? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    On the other hand seizing a phone is an everyday thing and not news while this is something people find more interesting and so is a better example. The "rights of the wealthy" doesn't have anything to do with it, the government employee abused her power and that's the real story, no matter who it happens to.

  314. Re:so what? by steelfood · · Score: 1

    Sailboat prices did not slump the same way, in part because apparently sailboaters tend to be more conservative about money - i.e. they're cheap. :)

    There's a reason sailboat owners own a sailboat instead of a powerboat: they're too cheap for gas.

    I personally find sailing a much more gratifying experience. But I'm probably also cheap.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  315. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He actually proposed amending it. FTFA: "I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars."

  316. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So suck up to power? That's your solution? I can see no possible way that would ever turn out wrong a few years down the line.

  317. Re:so what? by mdielmann · · Score: 2

    No guns drawn on us, but my wife and I, who really like Happy Jack's in Fort Erie, have lost a bit of desire to go there for lunch because of the assholes manning the US side of the border. On special occasions, we'll push our luck and go, and the Canadians are always cool about it. The Americans are almost always total power-tripping buttheads.

    Canadian Customs and Immigration can be butt heads as well. I've had friends detained for hours because an official decided a Canadian could do the work (never mind he was teaching on a very specific subject and methodology that he had years of expertise implementing - and the work fell under NAFTA Professional Categorization). At one point it was looking like I was going to run the session and do the setup all by myself if my coworkers got sent back. We finally decided to simply move the future sessions to the US and avoid the hassle.

    You seem to be suffering from the delusion that it is any easier for a Canadian instructor (with the same criteria you list) to perform his duties in the United States. Moreover, your clients may have the unsettling surprise of being refused departure if they don't answer the questions correctly, as well. Imagine the difficulties your instructor gets to experience, times 15. This issue occurs in both directions.

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  318. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have no idea how capitalism works.

    Capitalism exploits human laziness, making the smart rich through wise investment rather than labour.

    Working twice as many hours won't make you wealthy.

    It's the great American lie which has made us the shithole we are today.

  319. Re:so what? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    That's interesting news in itself - it highlights that the unacceptable is commonplace.

  320. Re:so what? by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    You saying that defending the 2cnd amendment being an argument for an endless morass of violence. I was pointing out that it is a relevant argument and that the 2cnd amendment does not = lawless anarchy.

  321. The Trillion Dollar Coin: What You Really Need to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article38581.html

  322. Why Bankers Rule the World - It’s the Intere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39053.html

    Captcha: uneven

  323. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The agent didn't need any kind of authority. If you are signing an official document under penalty of perjury, -you- can modify the information. Cross out, write-in, and initial.

    That's what the customs agent should have done -- just cross out USD, write in CAD, and have the guy initial and sign it. Alternately, the guy could have done it himself, but a lot of people aren't aware of things like this, and the DHS is, from what I hear, the single most poorly-trained and poorly-supervised government department out there.

  324. Re:so what? by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    Hehehe (wall of text inc), no he doesn't personally want them in a literal sense. But he serves people that do want you to NOT have them. And very very relevant reasons. Lets put it this way my sister works in big government. She spent all day picketing in cold weather to get her constituents energy bill noticed. Meanwhile Obama wasn't even at the white house, he was in FL golfing with an Exxon executive.

    The big government types want our guns because when they do shit like that they can completely disrespect every American that puts their ass on the line to have some say in our government. You may not buy it, but out government is completely bought and paid for and your vote has meant absolutely nothing for the last few cycles.

    They legitimately want to avoid chaos and anarchy by doing things like this and creating organizations like the DHS, they don't want our country to look like one of those countries were basically law, rules, regulations, whatever are unenforceable by legitimate means. We've been digging our Nation collectively a grave for the last 50 years by completely snubbing libertarians and increasingly banning everything and becoming more authoritarian, while neglecting to build any new infrastructure, promote good social values and sustainable lifestyles.

    So yeah, I know the people in power who artificially inflated our currency year after year want to see us stripped of our guns. I'm not worried about it, I don't own guns. But I kinda chuckle and laugh inside a little every time people think its A.O.K. to disrespect the 2cnd. It really means allot and is worth its meaning alone.

    Now its getting to the point were your a considered a child killer or a bad terrorist if you think its legitimate to escalate to violent warfare for your beliefs. I hate to say this but its a fact of life and when people forget that and live in candyland were authority always know better is when bad things (tm) happen.

    To many people don't truly understand the kind of bullying and harassment being perpetrated on us. We are being disrespected and treated like infirm and less then human by these organizations and every time some incident happens its being thrown in everyones face. There's a quote rolling around on slashsdot from Janet Reno, and she openly admits thats congresses agenda to disarm us.

    As the leader of the American people Obama is duty bound whether voted for or not to up-hold American values. I know after serving in the military what they are. I know that no one represents them anymore. Anyway, I really hope that our new gun free (in random decades) land will be peaceful and people will be able to defend themselves through non-violent means just like they do today. But I have a feeling more "I have all the power and you don't" situations will arise, more and more. From criminals to legitimately elected officials, to people specifically trained and audited to hold such power by our loving and caring overlords (sarcasm).

  325. Re:so what? by garyebickford · · Score: 1

    :D
    There is something magical about speeding along (probably only 6 knots, but it feels like more!), transported by nothing but wind and water. Instead of pushing our way through the world, we are sensibly using what's available to sliver our way along the desired path. Between wind and water we have a duality of countervailing forces, and can take (almost) any direction.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  326. Re:Only if it isn't newsworthy happening to a "ple by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    You're digging yourself deeper.

    You think it's newsworthy if applied to some ordinary Joe or Jane? Really? So why aren't you ringing up the papers demanding more coverage? There's an article every year or two about some TSA agent being arrested after laptops etc mysteriously disappeared after being confiscated, but for some reason the stories associated with each theft never get reported at the time.

    Wonder why? Oh, I know, because this stuff doesn't matter if it's happening to you or me. Even if it's our livelihoods.

    Why bring up the wealth? Because that's why we're getting the story. And we're not getting a newsworthy story about widespread corruption or abuse of power or anything like that, but "Zillionaire upset after pissed off govt official holds imported luxury goods awaiting paperwork. Hear his spin on it at 11"

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  327. "The People" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't think the definition of people has changed in the last 220+ years of the Constitution, you should go back to history class. Just because we've used the amendment process most times to expand individual rights (and the definition of which people gets those rights) doesn't mean that's the only way it can be used.

  328. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work many hours to get paid what I do.
    I spend even more hours trying to build my own business.
    That is what will get me my boat if I do well and have a bit o luck.

  329. Re:so what? by Smauler · · Score: 1

    Nothing to do with pedantry I see there.... You mentioned slavery, which wasn't what the war of independence was about. It looked like you'd got confused.

    The US abolished slavery decades after most of the world, including such forward thinking countries as South Africa. That's not something to be proud of.

  330. one side of the story by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    Arrington suggested to the agent that they correct the error. She responded by seizing the boat.

    sounds like one side of the story to me. as with most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

    1. Re:one side of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She works for the government. She lied. He is a lawyer therefore he lied. There has to ber something more interesting.

  331. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they had the authority to fill out the paperwork, they damned well better have the authority to amend it when they make a clericial mistake!

  332. Well thank god by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

    you didn't sign the paperwork. I bet she would have done an about-face and detained you instead of the boat.

    --
    Howdy howdy howdy
  333. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we are to believe Slashdot groupthink, rich people control the government, so they're one and the same.

  334. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

    Even if the case is dismissed, you lost.

    Oh so woefully true.

    --
    Howdy howdy howdy
  335. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

    Rich != member_of_power_elite;

  336. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they only put the assholes at the border so the rest of the population seems really nice by comparison?

  337. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

    Ie., just another version of "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

    This is false. As an example (sorry I can't cite), the ATF sent a package containing a firearm component which can be used to manufacture a machine gun to someone they didn't like. When he signed for the package before learning what was inside, they arrested and charged him with some felony firearm law violation.

    The fact of the matter is, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have a great deal to worry about. If you are law abiding, you are much more likely to victimized by the government today than by criminals.

  338. Were going to have to have an armed insurrection by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    We have got to hunt these people down and kill them all leaving no room unturned and none of them alive or you are as under hitlerism if they can take your property without a judges order. It is not an America I want to live in. Fight now or die later.

  339. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I can't find that "reasoning" anywhere in the post above, just a message delivered about current problems in a system. You appear to be building a strawman from something in your own head and arguing with that. While it's OK for a cocaine addled ex-DJ to do such shit on Fox the objective there is to get paid for entertainment and not a serious attempt at communication.

  340. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    congrats. I snorted out my milk on this one.

  341. Re:so what? by gknoy · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that signing that would effectively be perjury, which could very well come bite him later when a DIFFERENT bureaucrat looks over the papers.

  342. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes the gov is out to get any little tiny thing they can get.. the DHS is a perfect example of this tenfold.

    I've rounded numbers on my 1040 and NEVER got an audit.. I don't believe your story on iota... Another liberal who constantly needs to pat the gov on the back and tries to justify it's own existence.

  343. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After being selected as a juror and then being given instructions by the judge about what things mean and then you listen to the, for law, for order, and for the nation, prosecutor, and you see him in his suit day after day, you will agree that anything that was done was for the best and that no wrong-doing occurred.

  344. Re:so what? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    You're an idiot.

    Ah yes, you've now proven your intellectual inferiority. Please try again when you can learn to hold a civil conversation.
     

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  345. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when is it legal to confiscate the property of jerks?

  346. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    99% of the time these issue arise from officers attempting to directly punish uncooperative citizens, not investigate suspicous ones.

  347. Re:so what? by Raenex · · Score: 2

    Not to be an Internet Tough Guy,

    Yet that's exactly what you are. More like you'd piss your pants if somebody pulled a gun on you. Either that or you'd deserve the Darwin Award when you cursed at the guy with the gun and kept walking toward him.

  348. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You make a decent point, but for some reason I don't think many poor people get their boats seized by customs.

  349. Re:so what? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    That was not my point.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  350. Re:The majority of americans want more gun control by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Those darn guns. I hate it when they jump up of their own accord, aim, and fire at unarmed people.

  351. Re:An ignorant public and misrepresented legislati by drnb · · Score: 1

    Uh, no.

    Colorado's proposed legislation is limiting magazines to 15 for rifles, 8 for shotguns. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/us/gun-control-laws-clear-initial-hurdle-in-colorado.html?_r=0 Maybe it's you who needs to stop misrepresenting?

    I'm referring to the proposed federal legislation. The various references to the President in this thread should have given you a clue.

  352. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by White+Flame · · Score: 1

    It was exactly correct from the manufacturer. The manufacturer's information listed the price in CAD. The DHS filled out the form for him to sign which had the manufacturer's stated CAD price copied as the USD purchase price.

  353. Re:so what? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    Having crossed a few borders in my life... There are assholes everywhere, just like there are nice and friendly people everywhere.The last few years coming back into the US has been fairly easy, in fact most border crossings have been nice. Security lines (and NOT just TSA) is another story.

  354. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looked like you'd got confused.

    I think if you go re-read OP, you'll find he was actually pointing out that the country was created by those with the courage of their convictions to execute the slaves that wanted to be free.

  355. Re:so what? by bbelt16ag · · Score: 1

    cause she was a B? or a C?

    --
    NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
  356. $US v. $Cdn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would have been so simple to strike out $US and replace it with $Cdn...and initial it...
    I'm thinking we might have two attitude problems going on here...

  357. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but most of the boats were bought used for $10,000 to $100,000. These folks are just everyday folks.

    No, I think you need to see more of society. Everyday folks are fortunate to have $100 in their pocket at the end of the month after paying bills.

  358. Re:so what? by rseuhs · · Score: 1
    no one ever said that Karl Marx lacked a conscience

    Marx let three of his children starve (while he himself enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle) and drove two more into suicide. In his letters to Engels he expresses hatred for pretty much every ethnic group he has ever known and was described be everybody who knew him as posessing a deep hatred for all humans.

    I guess it is not an accident that the left has chosen him as their moral guide.

  359. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

    The example you gave regarding the speeding ticket is actually the mathematical and ethical opposite of the situation described in TFA. I have no idea how much the boat cost, but for the sake of example let's just say he spent USD $200K on it. At today's exchange rate, USD $200,000 = CAD $204,100. Does the difference between those numbers seem unimportant to you? I'm pretty sure autism doesn't have much to do with a commonplace observation that pretty much boils down to "one of these things is not like the other."

    You seem to be encouraging lying for the sake of convenience. I imagine that pattern of behavior will catch up with you at some point in your life, if it hasn't already.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  360. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The second amendment is a collective, not an individual right. Insurrectionalist theory is about as recent and manufactured as the 1950s introduction of "in god we trust" as justification for saying "this has always been a christian nation."

    It's a long read, but please see http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm for an enlightening look on the origins and intent of the 2nd.

    TL;DNR version: Southerners were afraid of the federal government using disarmament of organized anti-slave patrols as a means of abolition.

  361. Re:so what? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    ...and with the vested interest that the landed aristocracy had (and continues to have) in tarnishing his reputation, how do we know any of that wasn't a complete and utter fabrication? Regardless, it definitely serves as a strawman, since it doesn't address any of his points.

    Frankly, I would've expected more from a supposed "critical-thinking fellow conservative" but then again, you distinctly come across as a privileged "European-type" conservative, as opposed to a conservative in the Jeffersonian sense...

  362. Re:so what? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    (...the moral of the story here, I believe, is "don't bring a knife to a gunfight...") ;)

  363. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Thanks to plea bargaining, the Los Angeles County prosecutor's office has (as of about 2 years ago) a 96% conviction rate.

    Do you really believe 96% of all cases were from good arrests??

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  364. Shit cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fucked a rabbit.

  365. wont find much support here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For one, you are a rich one percenter. For another, you and your friends all love President Obama, so must love his policies. What are you whining about? You got exactly what you voted for: Bush 3.0.

  366. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The value has to be exact to the dollar. That is the law. You can't approximate or guess, because if you do, another goverment flunky will find that and mindlessly follow their orders and you will end up with the IRS "confiscating" everything you own because you lied on an official document.

  367. Re:so what? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand is why he didn't just make a note on the document then sign it.

    Probably because this isn't fantasy land; out in the real world, you can't magically fuck with government forms and giggle like a simpering idiot after the fact.

    As a professional engineer, that's exactly what I do to get moenys.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  368. Fire with fire?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it just a little bit strange that we have an agency dedicated to fighting terror which does little more than offer it up to visitors?

  369. First world problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hold on while I work up some tears.

  370. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    close your parenthesis next time

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  371. Re:Cry me a river by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

    Because I'm sure that no one would ever become more equal than others in your reality.

  372. Re:so what? by honorable_man · · Score: 1

    Okay all, the rest of the story(I was there). 1. The amount on both invoice and CBP form were in U.S dollars correctly completed on the form. 2. Just because someone has $$$ and posts something first on the web, doesn't make them true. 3. The officer in question did not act gleefully, in fact SHE called back to the office and vessel manufacturer several times to verify the stated value. 4. The officer in question vilified by this rich individual now has to endure all the grief posted here and elsewhere by Mr rich guy and explain why she followed the LEGAL document value and wouldn't cow to his brow beating. 5. Coastal Craft ended up paying for a broker to perform what should have been a personal importation and guess what The value on that entry was EXACTLY the same as on the CBP presented form. 6. Mr. Rich guy will probably post everywhere now that HE was right due to the fact that he has his boat and did not sign anything, but the fact is that the company took the high moral ground and due to ALL the false posting by Arrington, they paid for the paperwork to be processed. 7. We are all at the mercy of individuals who feel (right or wrong) that they can put out whatever they feel and get hundreds of all of you all worked up about the big bad government, fact is the is/was correct and all of us had to jump thru hoops due to arrington's posts and written falsehoods. 8. I am proud to work with this office/officer and all of you should be ashamed for vilifying her/DHS without knowing the facts.

  373. The truth comes out! by honorable_man · · Score: 1

    Okay all, the rest of the story(I was there). 1. The amount on both invoice and CBP form were in U.S dollars correctly completed on the form. 2. Just because someone has $$$ and posts something first on the web, doesn't make them true. 3. The officer in question did not act gleefully, in fact SHE called back to the office and vessel manufacturer several times to verify the stated value. 4. The officer in question vilified by this rich individual now has to endure all the grief posted here and elsewhere by Mr rich guy and explain why she followed the LEGAL document value and wouldn't cow to his brow beating. 5. Coastal Craft ended up paying for a broker to perform what should have been a personal importation and guess what The value on that entry was EXACTLY the same as on the CBP presented form. 6. Mr. Rich guy will probably post everywhere now that HE was right due to the fact that he has his boat and did not sign anything, but the fact is that the company took the high moral ground and due to ALL the false posting by Arrington, they paid for the paperwork to be processed. 7. We are all at the mercy of individuals who feel (right or wrong) that they can put out whatever they feel and get hundreds of all of you all worked up about the big bad government, fact is the is/was correct and all of us had to jump thru hoops due to arrington's posts and written falsehoods. 8. I am proud to work with this office/officer and all of you should be ashamed for vilifying her/DHS without knowing the facts. 9. Most working folds have bosses and we are no exception sadly we had to answer many questions for correctly performing our sworn duties due to all the bad press put out by someone who feels entitled or above the public servant. Shame on you.

    1. Re:The truth comes out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Arrington is a lawyer, an honest and upright citizen......why would he vilify Granny unless she was a very mean Granny? He told her what to do and darn her she disobeyed him.....she deserves to be vilified for refusing to take orders from a rich white lawyer.

  374. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by quantaman · · Score: 1

    Normally I'm suspicious of articles like this where we get one side of the story about some US law enforcement agency doing something bad, but in cases of seizing assets US law enforcement has an absolutely horrendous record.

    And as for your claim that he should have just signed the form another case where someone took your advice led to the DHS seizing $35,000, I sure as hell wouldn't sign anything the DHS told me to if I knew there was an error.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  375. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The numbers was Canadian dollars, but marked as USD. (ex. 100 USD is NOT the same as 100 Canadian dollars)

  376. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otherwise you wouldn't have been an asshole about the whole thing. Make the correction, initial it, and sign the bottom. Ask to have the paperwork re-done and make an appointment to come back when it's ready.

    Did you read the whole article?

    The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.

    It has language at the bottom with serious sounding statements that the information is true and correct, and a signature block.

    I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.

    I thought this was important because I was signing it and swearing that the information, and specifically the price, was correct.

    The DHS agent didnâ(TM)t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. "It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter," she said. I declined.

    He did try to fix it, and the DHS agents acted like morons.

    if he is telling the truth....somehow i bet there is more to the story. Remember this guy is so upset he was going to quit america if he could....such a sweet kind sensitive man wouldn't lie now would he? Something smells here....

  377. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes but who gave her the invoice with the price did she make it up or was there some kind of receipt and was it in usd or cad?

  378. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are six four and you let an old lady with a badge push you around?

  379. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if this guy is being straight up ....but is he? sounds damned convenient that she would be te one who screwed up the paperwork then seize the boat.

  380. Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are absolutely right. But take a look at the comments on Gawker. Lots of giddy comments about "the rich asshole" losing his boat. All these people so blinded by their pathetic wealth envy that they can't see they could easily be in an analogous situation regarding their own property, be it a boat or their double wide.

  381. Re:hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the Stalin-ist USSR it was Motherland, for Nazi Germany it was Fatherland, now for modern US it s Homeland... I've always found that trend a little disturbing.

  382. Re:so what? by Techman83 · · Score: 1

    Disparity in wealth is a 'Good Thing'. I always pondered if it was the case, but Paul Graham wrote a particularly insightful essay about it. Article here.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
    Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  383. by Anonymous Coward == LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WOW .. is this the democracy that the USA is dying to spread world wide ?!?!?!?.... where I live, I'd kill her if she do it ... and yeah I am terrorist ... sheesh what a shame !!

  384. Re:so what? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Nothing to do with pedantry I see there.... You mentioned slavery, which wasn't what the war of independence was about. It looked like you'd got confused.

    One does not have to be in literal chains in order to be a slave.

    If you can't figure out the definition of a simile without having your hand held, I cannot be of service to you.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  385. DHS and bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are shocked that government is full of unaccountable, untouchable, corrupt, even criminal elements? Schools not teaching history anymore (I gather they are teaching something that they say "passes" as history).

    And anyone point out yet that the DHS in the past year or so has bought more than 1.4 billion rounds of anti-civilian ammunition (not geneva convention legal). With that much ammo the US military could have run wars in afghanistan and iraq for decades.

    You got yourself a corrupt, even criminal organization with government backing to do whatever they want with enough ammunition to kill you, your family and your associates many many times over. Anyone see a problem with this?

  386. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One does not have to be in literal chains in order to be a slave.

    Exactly, and the US has consistently ignored if not perpetuated other forms of slavery where no literal chains were involved

    Take off the nostalgia goggles. The US and its people were not that much nobler and freedom loving (if at all) in the good old days.

    If you can't figure out the definition of a simile without having your hand held, I cannot be of service to you.

    I think the GP is more about pointing out how bad your simile is.

  387. Re:so what? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    I'd be satisfied if they would just reinstate the Congressional Cane Fights.

    Do that, then make C-SPAN pay-per-view, and we can say buh-bye to the debt crisis!

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  388. Re:so what? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    I think the GP is more about pointing out how bad your simile is.

    Then he (and you) should take an English class - as far as simile's go, that one (die standing free > live kneeling enslaved) is time-tested.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  389. So perhaps he should have just signed by phrackthat · · Score: 1

    so our wonderful overlords at the Justice Department could threaten his ass with 5 years in PMITA prison for violating 18 USC 1001 (false statements to the government). Oh, yeah, he'd also be a felon, lose his right to vote and his right to own or bear arms and his right to serve on a jury (ok, he might not mind losing that one) and have his future career prospects drastically diminished because of his status as a convicted felon. However, he may still have a bright future as a politician.

  390. So lets put these people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in charge of healthcare.

  391. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the hell do the border officials even carry pistols? It's not like they are actually going to shoot anyone anyways, or are they allowed to kill someone who just walks past the security? If you want to get to the US illegally it shouldn't be too hard, thousands(tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?) do so every year.

  392. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by mgcarley · · Score: 1

    I'm told Mexican mothers work equally well.

    --
    Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  393. Re:so what? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

    There's not reason to let it fade into oblivion without making a lot of noise. We can't make it too easy for the bastards.

    If you are difficult to oppress, do you get a higher quality dictator?

  394. Re:Would you like some cheese with that? by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

    > The exact value on the paperwork doesn't matter, but the paperwork being filled out and signed does matter.

    You clicked the button that said you had read the EULA, therefore you have no grounds.... Signing a document is a statement.

    > With an acknowledgement of the error and an attempt to correct it, ...
    The attempt to correct was one sided.

    > Using fighting tactics looking for an easy way to "win" is a pretty good indicator that you have something else you're hiding... that's when you'll get more investigations.

    You're right, of course. That's why the issue is worth public scrutiny. Or are you claiming that the agent was not (perhaps: also) using fighting tactics?