Slashdot Mirror
DHS Detains Mayor of Stockton, CA, Forces Him To Hand Over His Passwords
schwit1 writes: Anthony Silva, the mayor of Stockton, California, recently went to China for a mayor's conference. On his return to San Francisco airport he was detained by Homeland Security, and then had his two laptops and his mobile phone confiscated. They refused to show him any sort of warrant (of course) and then refused to let him leave until he agreed to hand over his password.
still has not won the *real* war on terror. The terror on 9/11 still inspires fear on the mind of Americans. So the real war is yet to be won.
Way to go, murica.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
I think that this is a good thing. Not the idea of people being searched without warrants. I think it's good that a government official, even a lowly one like the mayor of Stockton, suffered this. It is only when government officials are subjected to this outrageous breach of The Constitution, that there is any real hope of it being changed.
So long as it's only the sheeple complaining, illegal searches will continue to be "permissible". When congress critters start getting inconvenienced and their predilection for gay porn starts being made public, then things will change, for our safety.
I hope that many more government officials will be forced to endure these absurd detainments and searches.
What's really scary is that "the border" actually extends 100 into the US.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
I'm not a huge fan of the border search exception. Technically DHS and CBP can demand access to laptops or cell phones as part of entry into the country. They don't have the right to detain for passwords. They can hold the equipment and return it later.
A US citizen has an absolute right to re-enter the country.
The only three lines you need to learn:
"Am I being detained?"
"I would like my lawyer present."
"No comment."
Isn't their some law that gives border agents essentially unlimited rights to search and confiscate (no warrant required) so long as they are within 100 miles of any US border? I remember seeing something like that a few years ago and thought, gee, I wonder how many people live in houses that are within 100 miles of the border....
The recent rulings have been that laptop searches are unconstitutional. The courts have said this is so because a ) laptops and phones contain highly personal information, much more so that suitcases normally do, and b) customs is to be searching for things like products being smuggled in, or drugs. Hard drives can't contain drugs and wouldn't contain smuggled products. Two recent examples include:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
The Obama administration has argued that they don't need a warrant, but the courts have ruled against them.
Despite my general distaste for the tactics of the TSA, I understand; I find politicians suspicious, too.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
SCOTUS ruled against Dred Scott, Japanese Americans and all motorists too (/Sitz/). They're still wrong and defending illegal actions. Remember, the People hold the supreme power and give the government limited powers through the Constitution. That government may claim exceptions to those limits, but that's no different than a five-year-old claiming he has no bed time. It's only true if you let him get away with it. Where theory and practice diverge is when the five year old has no problem shooting you in the face to enable his My Little Pony marathon.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
people would have missed a mayor. job blow of course not but when a day or 2 passes and the mayor hasnt made contact people will start searching. FBI most likely would have been called. Fox"News" would have reported it and it would have shed some light on the practice. he should have just sit still.
The rest of us keep being treated routinely like criminals without the media getting interested, because we aren't the mayor of Stockton.
Why should this guy get special treatment (by the TSA or by the press) just because he's a minor elected politico?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
surrenders them to Chinese authorities without a peep of complaint, and brings them back to the US and is surprised when federal spooks demand to have a look at the physical and software surveillance devices that have been installed into it, isn't paying any attention to the world and has zero grounds to complain TLDR if you're important or powerful, don't willingly allow yourself to become an espionage attack vector for our first or second most powerful enemy
"Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
Try to yank a drive from any recent macbook pro....
was politely decline to give passwords without a warrant. Then, if he was not released in a timely manner, make life as difficult as possible for the bureaucrats in question. And if his devices are not returned in a timely manner, make life even more difficult for them. There are devious and not so devious ways to do this, and mostly it isn't difficult. Bureaucrats rely on cooperation from the sheep, and the sheep need to stop being cooperative.
It is a good thing when high profile and medium profile people get caught in these stupid things.
When celebrities, including political celebrities, get caught by government aggression it draws a spotlight on the programs that are harassing millions. With the spotlight on them, they tend to withdraw or become legally curtailed.
Sadly many of the abuses committed by government are against the dregs of society, the people already in trouble with the law, the despicable criminals, drug dealers, child abusers, rapists, murderers, and more. Most of society doesn't care when government abuses these people, which is why so many lawsuits are filed against agencies and officers that people dismiss as just another attempt to get out of being caught. If those same abuses were publicly made against people of celebrity status the programs would be quickly curtailed, or pushed further into the darkness of secrecy.
Good job DHS, keep targeting popular people. Best thing you can do for the country.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Coercing passwords where the law says you can't require the person to give up the passwords is un-American and may even be illegal (I am not a lawyer).
Coercing them instead of getting a court order requiring the owner to divulge the password when the law says you can get a court order is also un-American - use the courts, that's what they are there for (recent court rulings make me wonder if this sentence even applies anymore if the owner is an US citizen and the request is on US soil or made by US officials at a port of entry as the person is returning to US soil).
If you, as the front-line Homeland Security guys in the airport - have a legal justification to seize the laptop and your professional training and professional judgment says that there is really a problem that requires seizing it, just seize the laptop, but don't coerce the person to give up his passwords.
Ideally, you would go to a judge within 24 hours (or in a busy international airport, within 1 hour) of seizing it and explain why you need to keep it. If the judge rejects your argument give it back. If he accepts your argument, the owner should get a "de novo/start-from-scratch" second hearing as soon as his lawyer has had time to prepare a counter-argument.
By doing it this way, not only would you avoid coercing people, but your bosses would be under political pressure to make sure you, the front-line guys at Homeland Security, didn't abuse their discretion on seizing equipment because they - the bosses that is - know that too may unjustified seizures would eventually make the papers - and not in a good way. They also know that if the political winds turn a certain way, they or their bosses might be hauled in front of Congress to explain things just because some politician wants to score political points in front of the cameras.
Yes, I know this isn't going to happen this way any time soon. That's why I said "ideally." The closest we can expect any time soon is that law enforcement will stop asking for passwords but that the delays will be so long and the process to get the seized equipment back so onerous that most owners who think they have nothing to hide (and more than a few who naively believe they don't or who stupidly believe that law enforcement won't abuse the password to trawl for crimes unrelated to their initial suspicions) will offer to give them the password just to be on their merry way. Some or even most of them will be let go with their equipment once law enforcement determines that 1) the person is being cooperative and 2) their initial suspicions were unfounded. Word will get around "if they ask for your password, don't fight it, just give it to them."
Unfortunately (or fortunately, if you value "law and order" and "public safety" more than civil liberties) my hunch is that authorities know that this state of affairs - where the person they have inconvenienced knows that if they really are innocent it's very likely in their best short-term interests to "volunteer information without being asked to do so" - serves the interest of law enforcement in a way that makes it very, very difficult for the person to later claim they weren't acting completely voluntarily.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
if you're prepared to spend a night in jail to make your point!
My hope is that every American who loves our Constitution would be prepared to do just that.
My fear is that I, myself, am not.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The funny part of that is if they did actually push a christian agenda (Christ's agenda), then it wouldn't be terrible. We'd be fighting wars against starvation and poverty and mental illness. They'd accept people as the come and love them regardless of religion or sexual orientation or other beliefs.
Instead they want to use their "Christian" beliefs to hate on others and push a decidedly not Christ like agenda.
As you say, your case has flaws. The glaring one is:
> Also, assume the cops have a reputation for being
> professionals who act professionally
That's a pretty massive assumption. And I don't see how anybody paying attention to the news could miss the rampant police abuse and misconduct. Perhaps twenty years ago, before cellphone cameras, dash cameras, and body cams; you might be able to make that assumption, simply out of ignorance. But now? You'd be pretty daft to do so. And in your example, I'd operate under the assumption that any questioning of me is an attempt to railroad me into a false charge of drunk & disorderly or disturbing the peace or some such. It's just safer that way. My employer gives paid time off for jury duty or to bear witness in court; so doing so would be no inconvenience to me. And being arrested on a fabricated charge, even if it is minor and quickly dismissed, would be a bigger problem than missing out on a couple hours of sleep.
Best to treat them like poisonous snakes: Avoid them when possible. Keep any interaction as brief and minimal as possible. And don't try to handle them yourself... leave it to the trained professionals (ie. your lawyer).
Imagine all the people...
They can, but what kind of idiot would be bringing those things into the US that way? We have this thing called the internet that can bring things like that into the US a virtually undetectable way. They might occasionally catch somebody, but is it really worth invading the privacy of thousands more to do it?
Not in literal terms.
But the summary specifically mentions no warrant, which means that the first reaction upon reading it is "What the fuck? That is so unconstitutional," when it should be "Why would they need a warrant at the border?" Silva does not seem to understand that searches at the border are, by definition, reasonable and therefore exempt from the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
What's interesting is the passwords bit. Mayor Silva can't be forced to testify against himself in Court, so no data they get from the devices could be used against him in Court; and he can't be the guy they're investigating.
Stockton has a port. Getting cargo shipped to said port generates revenue from dock fees, import fees, transship fees, fees for trucks coming into the port not to mention all the working types. China is one of the worlds largest exporters - so yes, the mayor of Stockton has a reason to be in China, drumming up business.
As long as they make Obama drag out his laptops and his Blackberry every time he re-enters the country, then I am fine with them doing that to mayors and to us, too. After all, a leader must lead by example, or he is no leader at all.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
No, it's based on making sure the many other people who labored to create those things get their fair share. Otherwise you'll have libertarian pseudo-heroes acting as if their 'great works' were accomplished single handed.
Or he (and many here) disagree with the Supreme court on that.
Silva does not seem to understand that searches at the border are, by definition, reasonable and therefore exempt from the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
What kind of totalitarian fascist drivel are you spouting there, man? Reasonable? Are you insane? The US Constitution as Amended is perfectly clear that you need a specific reason that a specific person might be guilty of something, as reviewed by a judge, before you can search them. There's no "unless we're scared" exception in there. I checked. Twice.
* Border checks are usually an unconstitutional search.
* TSA searches are clearly unconstitutional
* Searches required before entering a courthouse: blatantly unconstitutional
The only argument for any of these obviously unconstitutional searches is "but we're scared!" Tough shit: no such exception.
But there I go again, pretending the UC Constitution is somehow relevant to the 21st century US. Silly me.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
well, then it's lucky for all of us Bernie isn't pushing an actual "socialist" platform. He's an anti-corporatism all the way, to the point ALEC has been attacking him for several months already. By the logic of your post, I'd add "corporatism is financial psychopathy" as we're moving towards a corporate oligarchy here in the US quite quickly.
And corporations aren't "peaceful" in their actions by any means. They start wars to get to resources, have "accidents" all the time that kill hundreds (if not thousands) of people because they cheaped out somewhere. Outsourcing 10+ percent of your workforce every six months overseas is only "peaceful" to people (and their employees are people too) if your definition of peace is "!=personal physical violence". They poison entire ecosystems, poison their own employees, run entire countries...and it appears the WORST that ever happens is some fines.
The laborer agrees to a wage under the gun though. They can't afford to just withdraw from the job market nor can they import new employers from overseas if they don't like the jobs on offer. The playing field is consistently slanted through political manipulation.
Fundamentally, money attracts money, it's an unstable system that without correction tends to leave a few holding the bulk of it while the rest starve. The next step, of course is all the money loses it's value and the whole thing starts over. Really, that's not good for anyone concerned.
... still has not won the *real* war on terror ...
Where the hell have you been??
America has _won_ the war on terror hands down, so much so that all of us are goddamn ***TERRIFIED BY OUR OWN FUCKING GOVERNMENT*** !!!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
If you are regularly working 120 hours a week and getting 4 hours of sleep a night, you are not performing at anywhere near your best for most of the time.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it