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.
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)
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
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...
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.
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.
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.