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.

Comments

America

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:America

[rubycodez]

the real war of terror is waged by the United States Government, against the citizens. It is a success, fear being the motivator for giving up rights, privacy, freedom.

Re:America

[rubycodez]

the war is psychological and the weapons are not physical, nor would the solution be

Re:America

[The Real Dr John]

You got that right. The solution is to stop voting for psychopaths and sociopaths because this is what they do when they are in charge. Bernie is sounding better all the time.

Re: America

[Lokni]

Well yeah. Because he is actually consistent on his positions. What he is saying today is the same thing he has been saying for 40 years. What politician does that? Could it be an honest one? Considering that Bernie Sanders does not fit into any of the patterns that typical politicians do (flip-flopping positions with the wind, lots of corporate donation dollars, questionable positions) i do actually see him as being different than all the other people who spent their lives being professional politicians.

Re: America

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that this person who has spent most of his life being a professional politician, will save us! He's totally different from all the other people who spent most of their lives being professional politicians. He said so on Twacegram+!

Actually, one of these days, it will. A mayor isn't important enough, but a nominee for a Justice of the Supreme Court Justice. The Video Privacy Protection Act specifically protects video tape rental/sale records at a higher level of confidentiality than other rental records. The sole reason it exists is that when Robert Bork's totally boring video rental history was leaked during his 1987 nomination hearings, Congress realized that by extension, its porn habits, VHS being pretty much the only way porn could be accessed at the time, could also be just as easily bought and sold.

The surest way to gain privacy protections is to wait for the privacy of a high-ranking politician to be invaded. When it becomes a problem that makes our rulers' careers more difficult to manage, it becomes worthy of protection.

Re:America

[Stormwatch]

The war is over. The terrorists won.

Re: America

[ShanghaiBill]

Well yeah. Because he is actually consistent on his positions. What he is saying today is the same thing he has been saying for 40 years.

Indeed. Bernie voted against the Patriot Act, against the DMCA, against the Iraq War, etc. He has taken principled stands against the legislation that has led to the erosion of civil liberties. Hillary was on the opposite side on all these issues, and only flip-flopped after it became clear that her earlier stance was unpopular.

I don't plan to vote for Bernie, because I think he would lead the economy off a cliff, but nonetheless, I admire his integrity.

Re: America

[kilodelta]

Vis a vis leading the economy off a cliff - there are Presidents who know how to inspire the economy. I suspect Bernie Sanders would be one of them. I mean do you actually think Hillary Clinton or any of the clown car posse of Republicans would do a better job?

Re:America

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting as an AC here, because I know some will view this as troll bait, but it is relevant:

With $100,000 in costs, a few men willing to lose their lives, and some planning, bin Laden managed to bring down the most successful and respected nation on the planet. Self-hatred, fear, paranoid, witch hunts, and general lunacy have taken the US from its pinnacle to a country that is a laughingstock among nations.

With this in mind, as a general, bin Laden can be argued to be the best general in two centuries. Russia couldn't drive wedges between the US and Europe, even when the Bear had troops on every continent. Germany couldn't do this during WWII, even though for a few years, they actually brought peace to the Middle East. bin Laden broke the spirit of the US people, and now they are cowed and bickering with politicians taking advantage of their fears.

The sad thing? Now, because the paths are in place to disseminate propaganda of fear, this mechanism is still in place. Bad guys are after you, the US people suck and don't deserve jobs, day after day. In reality, we have a impotent President, a Congress that needs the pope to not just give a blessing, but an exorcism, and absolutely no solutions for any issues other than "blame the left/right, blame the gun-grabbers/ammosexuals, vote dem/rep next time." Blame doesn't solve jack shit, and pissing contests like this only leave both sides smelling horrifically.

I pray that the US gets a Churchill next election and not another Chamberlain.

Re:America

[houstonbofh]

What is the point of very good karma, if you do not risk it occasionally saying what needs to be said? I do that often. I have a few -1s, and if you read them, thay are just against the popular view. But sometimes, it actually makes it through like your post did. Well said.

Re:America

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try. No cigar.

The elites, formerly known in Europe as the Aristocracy, are reasserting their dominance over society. Your Bin Laden story is but a diversion, one of many, the story is Globilization. The American, Russian, South American, European and Asian elites are becoming one World elite. Nations, like religions, have become only useful for controlling little people. Free trade agreements have removed borders for money. TTIP is supposed to be the next step in putting the nation states out of power, and corporate tribunals (and their overlords) into power.

You're focusing on the wrong game.

Re: America

[DanielRavenNest]

> IMHO I think "Star Wars" was actually more for defense from an invasion than to knock down missiles. I doubt it would have worked to do either goal; it's only now that we are developing lasers powerful enough to do anything to a distant flying object.

I worked on the Strategic Defense Initiative (the proper name for the project) in the 1980's. It was most certainly for knocking down missiles, all the math depended on it. As far as working or not, very few people understand the concept of "layered defense". SDI had 7 layers: two Boost Phase intercepts, three Midcourse intercepts, and High and Low terminal intercepts. Each layer only has to deal with what the previous layer missed. Assume, because the actual numbers were classified and I don't remember them after 30 years, that each layer is 60% effective, meaning 40% of warheads get through to the next layer. With 7 layers, only one in 610 warheads hits their targets. That kind of number is "survivable". Japan survived two warheads, and the US could survive about 15 or 20, due to being a larger country. This breaks the "Mutually Assured Destruction" concept, because the US would have plenty of undamaged assets to shoot back with.

But you don't need a fully functioning missile defense to apply leverage to the Russians. If you have only two functioning layers, and they are only 40% effective each, only 36% of Russian warheads get through. They have to build 2.78 times as many warheads to destroy their priority target list. The more functioning layers, and the higher their effectiveness, the worse their targeting problem gets, rapidly. The Russians may be deficient in some ways, but they had plenty of good mathematicians. They could see the threat of a layered defense, and they could not afford to build enough missiles to counter it. They could also not build their own SDI system, because Western technology was generally more advanced. So coming to the negotiating table to reduce missile counts was the only viable option, which is exactly what they did in 1991. In that sense, the SDI program helped win the Cold War.

Whether Reagan himself had a technical understanding of the project was irrelevant. That was between DARPA, Congress, and the defense contractors. As a former actor who did westerns, his job was making speeches other people wrote, and looking tough to the Russians. He was a figurehead for the nation. Tons of smart people did the real work.

Getting back to your lasers, we had two kinds as *advanced options* in SDI, airborne and space-based. Airborne were a boost phase system, designed to shoot at ICBMs while the rocket was still firing. That makes them an easy target, rockets have huge thermal signatures for targeting. But also they are fragile. Heat the nozzle of a rocket a few hundred degrees while operating, and it can easily fail, same for shock heating part of the fuel tanks. You don't have to melt them, just cause a gas explosion as the fuel boils, it does the rest. Space-based lasers were upper boost phase or early midcourse. They could get a clearer shot when the rocket was in the upper atmosphere, or starting on the ballistic trajectory. Physically the rocket was approaching the same altitude as the laser, so the distance was smaller. Both involved megawatt class lasers based on chemical combustion energy.

But remember, these were not the baseline, they were advanced options. And the US was making credible progress in laser technology. So it was not a matter of having them ready to use. It was a matter of the Russians believing the nation that beat them to the Moon could develop high powered laser weapons if they put their minds to it. After the Strategic Arms treaties were signed, the push to develop SDI technologies ended, so they have piddled along for the last few decades, and battlefield lasers and railguns are now entering field use. There was no rush because there was no enemy threatening enough.

The Gestapo would be proud

[fisted]

Way to go, murica.

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good!

[onepoint]

Stuff like this makes me nervous about my rights and about my family's right. someone once said something like this, " Then they came after me and because I did not defend the others they we gone and no one was their to help me when I needed help "

Re:Summary is flat out WRONG

[Gryle]

What's really scary is that "the border" actually extends 100 into the US.

Well now, not surprising

[redmid17]

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.

Re:Well now, not surprising

[v1]

A US citizen has an absolute right to re-enter the country.

A sovereign country has an absolute right to defend its borders. I'm pretty sure the contradiction that arises from these two conflicting statements ends up in a loss for the citizen.

Them: "You're not leaving here until you give us your passwords."

Me: "go to hell. and while you're there, tell my lawyer to get over here pronto."

Re:Well now, not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Silva was under separate investigations in 2012 and 2013 for sexual battery. He was also alleged to have secretly taped female juveniles changing clothes at his residence. However, no charges were brought due to the prosecutor's decision that there wasn't hard evidence of the allege crimes. My guess is that the authorities are looking for evidence of those crimes as well as any crimes committed while in China.

Within 100 miles of a border...

[QuietLagoon]

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....

Re:Within 100 miles of a border...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask and you shall receive, about 200 Million people, including several entire states.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your...

Actually you are flat out WRONG

[raymorris]

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.

I understand

[phantomfive]

Despite my general distaste for the tactics of the TSA, I understand; I find politicians suspicious, too.

Re:I understand

[fisted]

You forgot the "Despite my general distaste for the tactics of the TSA, I understand;"

Re:Why did they need his passwords?

[ruir]

Try to yank a drive from any recent macbook pro....

What he should have done ...

[mikein08]

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.

Good, kinda.

[Frobnicator]

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.

Spending a night in jail

[davidwr]

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.

Re:What's the mayor of Stockton doing in China?

[Eristone]

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.

Re:Summary is flat out WRONG

[lgw]

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.