Slashdot Mirror
UK Group Fights Arrest Over Refusing To Surrender Passwords At The Border (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes The Guardian:
The human rights group Cage is preparing to mount a legal challenge to UK anti-terrorism legislation over a refusal to hand over mobile and laptop passwords to border control officials at air terminals, ports and international rail stations... The move comes after its international director, Muhammad Rabbani, a UK citizen, was arrested at Heathrow airport in November for refusing to hand over passwords. Rabbani, 35, has been detained at least 20 times over the past decade when entering the UK, under schedule 7 of terrorism legislation that provides broad search powers, but this was the first time he had been arrested... On previous occasions, when asked for his passwords, he said he had refused and eventually his devices were returned to him and he was allowed to go. But there was a new twist this time: when he refused to reveal his passwords, he was arrested under schedule 7 provisions of the terrorism act and held overnight at Heathrow Polar Park police station before being released on bail. He expects to be charged on Wednesday.
Rabbani "argues that the real objective...is not stopping terrorists entering the UK, but as a tool to build up a huge data bank on thousands of UK citizens." And his position drew support from Jim Killock, executive director of the UK-based Open Rights Group. "Investigations should take place when there is actual suspicion, and the police should be able to justify their actions on that basis, rather than using wide-ranging powers designed for border searches."
Rabbani "argues that the real objective...is not stopping terrorists entering the UK, but as a tool to build up a huge data bank on thousands of UK citizens." And his position drew support from Jim Killock, executive director of the UK-based Open Rights Group. "Investigations should take place when there is actual suspicion, and the police should be able to justify their actions on that basis, rather than using wide-ranging powers designed for border searches."
Yeah, that's how we catch the terrorists, keep detaining the same guy 20 times.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
In our defence, we did manage to imprison Anjem Choudary. (He's a slimy ISIS supporter who always tried to stay just within the law. He screwed up. I find this awfully satisfying.)
Only Shia Muslims (a minority of Muslims worldwide; most are Sunni, although a few countries like Iraq are mostly Shia) care what Imams have to say. They're like Catholic Bishops in that few non-Catholics give much weight to what they say, but are different in that anyone can declare themselves an Imam with no centralized authority/hierarchy. The ISIS (supposed) caliphate probably could effectively be that central authority... but its leader is Sunni so they wouldn't endorse Imams anyhow. Given ISIS' wholesale excommunication and slaughter of Muslims who don't follow their rules, they'd probably put the Imams' heads on pikes instead.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
In response to your sig: "Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue"
If the two wolves eat the sheep, what are they going to eat next? They're going to starve because all they know is how to take from others, and the others no longer have anything to give. This is why it takes a large population of prey to support a small number of apex predators, or else the predators starve to death. Note that the prey outnumber the predators by a large number, the 'two wolves and a sheep' is the endgame. The sheep would've had plenty of time to vote the wolves off the island.
Ok, time for less metaphor. The majority hate the minority, and want them to be miserable to their own benefit. Easy solution: slavery. In practice this usually just meant 'less-favorable terms for cost of labor, goods etc.' and law enforcement looks the other way to this. A better option than systematically taking people's stuff and killing them turns out to be to get them to make stuff for you. However, what'd be ideal is if you (as part of the elite) don't have to work at all, just have a stable of untouchables doing the drudgery. That means you need a large number of the minority (sheep) relative to the elite (wolves). In a representative democracy, they can vote you out of power, and vote themselves into power. But of course, they don't want the wrong lizard (wolf (elite)) to win, so they keep voting in lizards (wolves (elites)). In contrast, in a direct democracy, the minority can present a bill that prevents discrimination and requires equal pay for their minority, fines for businesses that exploit them etc. and the (power) majority can't outvote them because the (power) minority has a numerical majority. Assuming the voting isn't rigged.
However, there's a wrinkle: propaganda. The elite will spend LOTS of money to maintain their position, and aren't above using propaganda to control the sheeple. TV advertisements are the most obvious modern incarnation, as well as paying news media to run articles/columns that parrot your talking points or happen to only consult with sources friendly to your position. Factionalization, turning the masses against one another, agents provocateur, organization infiltrators, Uncle Toms, and straight-up soapboxing are less-obvious examples. Think about how many people are against minimum wage increases, saying it'll harm the people it's intended to help, if you want an example of all this (whether or not you think it's true). It's easy to invoke learned helplessness on people raised on the idea that they're inferior and can't do anything except keep their heads down.
Direct democracy is theoretically more liberating to the masses, but undermined by the vastly increased ability of the elites to push propaganda upon them. Wage slavery is pretty much guaranteed in all scenarios, at least for the underclass. Direct democracy has a similar problem with poor laws as representative democracy.
Alice: "You voted AGAINST the Terrorist Disemboweling Act 2018? You disgust me!"
Bob: "It had all the same language and provisions as the Terrorist Disemboweling Act 2017 so I saw no need for it."
Alice: "It's a matter of principle! Have to show we're still tough on terrorism!"
And of course the 2018 version had a rider snuck into the 900-page bill requiring disemboweling of those who hang toilet paper towards the wall, but almost noone noticed until the Great TP Pogrom started.
Almost forgot to address the 'armed sheep will contest the vote' idea. The general sentiment would be 'crazy loose cannons terrorizing normal folks' rather than 'freedom fighters'. Propaganda wins this fight, hands down. Now, a potential alternative way that can go is Hutu vs. Tutsis, and there's no telling which side of the genocide you'd be on.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
You do know that almost a quarter of the world's population is Muslim, don't you? It is the second largest religion and the fastest growing. There are many denominations.
Only a tiny portion of that would be considered radical fundamentalists. Otherwise there would be a constant war between countries with different religions, which there aren't - there are isolated incidents now and then.
What fucking planet do you live on?
Mankind has been warmongering over differences in belief systems for thousands of years. Religion is the deadliest concept humans have ever created. Fighting has never stopped, and will never stop.
Have you read about this Cage group? There seem to be many shadows around them http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... For Cage is no collection of isolated loonies. As The Telegraph will describe here, it is part of a closely connected network of extremists relentlessly — and successfully — lying to young British Muslims that they are hated and persecuted by their fellow citizens in order to make them into supporters of terror. Cage has an active outreach programme in mosques, universities and community groups. Even more disturbingly, it continues to be treated as a credible partner by respected and respectable organisations, including Liberty and Amnesty International.
I hope you're not referring to "Muhammad"? That's an insanely popular name in Muslim communities around the globe, the #1 most common first name on the planet iirc? Basically a religious variation on racial profiling, where you can't identify by skin color so you're going to go by name instead.
But putting that aside... this travel ban thing has gotten soooo silly. I live in a somewhat racially polarized city (black vs white) and am familiar with the idea of getting pulled over for "OWB" (Operating While Black, as opposed to OWI, Operating While Intoxicated) where driving a car (even a nice one) in "the wrong neighborhood" (and especially if you have a carload full) can easily get you pulled over for a tail light check or some other such nonsense. This looks so similar I'm amazed they don't have a nice short name for this excuse for detention/arrest by now. Maybe call it "TWM"? (Traveling While Muslim?) So many people with names like that which get continuously hit with (such massive air-quotes here...) "Excuse me, you have been selected for a random *enhanced security check(, please come with me".
I get why a country has a legal and logical right to have some sort of travel security and screening at their border for foreigners, but if you are either a citizen of the country or the country has already issued you a passport, that shouldn't be as much of an issue. Why are you issuing them a passport or granting them citizenship if you feel you need to search them at the border??
And this whole "we want to search everyone's mobile device" thing in general is rather disgusting. Eventually what you know and what you have stored electronically are going to have to be treated more equally, it's just a matter of whether our thoughts get more public or our gear gets more private, and I think we know which way that's going to go. The only reason they're trying to search your phone is because they can, because it's technologically possible. (though encryption is making them now require your password in many instances) You can bet your last dollar that if they had a way to search your head at the border, they'd already be doing it everywhere. Having to surrender your password at the border is just their finally coming right out and admitting they are demanding to search your thoughts.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Original a/c's link:
"Trump : According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted for terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country...It is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur,,”
The article: "Trump mentions Boston, San Bernardino, the Pentagon & the World Trade Center. None of those attackers were from countries in his travel ban...".
Yeh, so basic logic fail.
"As the Washington Post reported, “more than half of the 82 people who died in the pursuit of or were convicted of any terrorism-related offense inspired by a foreign terrorist organization, slightly more than half were native-born U.S. citizens.”"
i.e. even the ones claimed to be inspired by a foreign terrorist organization didn't come from abroad, they were Americans.
" In a 2015 New York Times article, University of North Carolina Professor Charles Kurzman and Duke Professor David Schanzer found that Islam-inspired terror attacks accounted for 50 deaths since 9/11, but that “right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities.”"
Your claim: "Oops, maybe Trump was right if you look at the number of times someone (excerpting the attacker) got killed.". The logic is all over the place here. "you find that jihadist attacks accounted for 26 of 65 fatalities " Jihadists from these countries? You don't make that claim. Jihadists from abroad even? You don't make that claim. Jihadists even? You don't cite a source. So how would banning people from the wrong country for a wrong claim be right?
"Go read the NYT article before you decide whether I accurately characterized it and it's sources. I'll wait."
OK, quoting it:
"THIS month, the headlines were about a Muslim man in Boston who was accused of threatening police officers with a knife. Last month, two Muslims attacked an anti-Islamic conference in Garland, Tex. The month before, a Muslim man was charged with plotting to drive a truck bomb onto a military installation in Kansas. If you keep up with the news, you know that a small but steady stream of American Muslims, radicalized by overseas extremists, are engaging in violence here in the United States. But headlines can mislead. "
"In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism."
"An officer from a large metropolitan area said that “militias, neo-Nazis and sovereign citizens” are the biggest threat we face in regard to extremism. "
"In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012."
OK read it, I don't see your point, original AC was correct, so was medium, you are wrong.
"While you're doing that, consider where the basic logic fail is when Trump says "
Zero of those were from the countries named in the Trump ban. None, fatalities or otherwise, zero. So how can Trump be right in his ban if is of logic: "Terrorism is bad / terrorists are foreign/ these countries are foreign"?
And blanket bans like this are illegal under Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin.
Trump needs to get Congress and Senate to change the law to have the power to issue that ban. They're both Republican controlled, so that shouldn't be an issue. The court ruled correctly, the law says this, he is subject to that law. Instead he said to DHS "do it anyway", so the court enjoined all staff involved in enforcing the rule into the injunction. i.e. US law stands, Congress makes law, if you want to follow Trump's illegal order, then you can be sued and lose all your stuff.
So Trump was wrong, both in logic, and in method and his grabbed for power failed.