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.'"
in the years that I imported horse manure.
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
"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.
Ask to have the paperwork re-done
Isn't that what got his boat confiscated?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Did you read the whole article?
He did try to fix it, and the DHS agents acted like morons.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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
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!
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.
Futurist Traditionalism
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
They told me if I voted for Romney, we'd see DHS continue with abuse power... and they were right.
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.
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."
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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:
 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]
 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.
 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]
 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:
 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
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.