They could detain the guy, but to what end? The phone was wiped, there's nothing else to pursue. It's not actionable because he wasn't suspected of a crime, it wasn't evidence.
Border control doesn't have to prove a crime; there is no innocent until proven guilty or due process. Admission for non-citizens to the US is not a right, it's a privilege. If you wipe your phone when they ask to inspect it, that is likely more than enough justification for them to exclude you.
In my opinion the modern politics turned into a jar of spiders.
Modern politics... same as the old politics.
I begin to wonder if Mikhail Bakunin's ideas were really that much farfetched, if the state as an institution is necessary at all. Or is it just turned into a source of mutual misunderstanding and hostility.
If misunderstanding and hostility was all it was, that wouldn't be a big deal. But what the state usually turns into after a while is an institution that helps an oligarchy to enrich themselves and to commit violence against the people on a massive scale. And contrary to what socialists and progressives tell you, the usual path by which that happens is through democratic socialism and/or progressivism; their motto is "we need to destroy your liberties in order to save them".
Bakunin, however, is a flawed messenger for the dangers of statism; far better ar the classical liberal political philosophers (that sense of "liberal" having nothing to do with the modern US sense of "liberal").
I didn't vote for Trump, but so far, I have no complaints.
Given that it took less than week for him to violate the Constitution how do you rate your chances on getting to vote again?
I see, still following the advice of your hero: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
"Had she been in another vehicle, she would have been alive for me to yell at her for driving after drinking," Speckman told The Indianapolis Star in an interview at his attorney's office. "This is a vehicle that travels from 0 to 60 in 3.1 seconds"
It is of course totally evil how Tesla forces wealthy 27-year-olds to buy massively overpowered cars for $100000, then forces them to get completely drunk, and then forces them to get behind the wheel and endanger other drivers! The humanity! There ought to be a law to protect the people from such evil corporations!/sarc
The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.
Immigrant communities does not mean illegal immigrant communities,
Precisely, but the EO only applies to illegal aliens within the US, yet Markey and Wyden misrepresent it as if it applied to "immigrants", and then they misrepresented it again as if it applied to Europeans. These senators are a bunch of dishonest pricks.
I'm not a lawyer, personally, so I'll leave it to the legal system.
We're not talking about the legality of the EO here, we're talking about the fact that Markey and Wyden are misrepresenting what the EO actually says.
A picture of Trump/famous-person-of-your-choice on your t-shirt is going to make life difficult for facial recognition systems.
No, not at all. Facial recognition systems are perfectly capable of distinguishing heads-on-T-shirts from actual heads, to perform liveness detection, and to distinguish flat heads from 3D heads.
Mind you, being identified as Trump is somewhat belittling.....
Are you kidding? I'd be happy if I look like that and have that level of energy and success at age 70. Anyway, how is that relevant?
But the employer has to be the one to sponsor it, and they are almost certain that the person being hired will want to start the process
Please pay attention. Let me paraphrase TFA:
"Employers can turn their H-1B employees into de facto indentured servants by sponsoring their EB application."
Being an indentured servant is not fun. Do you think if you had a choice, you'd let someone turn you into an indentured servant? No. Well, guess what, employees are perfectly free to choose when or even if to start an EB application; the employer has no control over it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You don't need to quote Wikipedia at me, I went through this process as a legal immigrant. The idea that H-1B holders or green card holders are "indentured servants" is ludicrous; it's a political lie.
Face recognition isn't reliable enough for mass surveillance; that is, unless you have context or additional information, you'll get thousands of false hits for every face you try to look up in a national database even under the best of circumstances. With people actively trying to fool the system and the kind of poor quality you get from wearable cameras, it's even worse.
So while yes, H1B are more flexible that people think, they are not as flexible as would be useful to level the playing field.
You're shifting the goalposts here. The claim was that H-1B workers are indentured servants; they clearly are not since they can change jobs and usually many employers are happy to take them.
While you are in this waiting period you will work hard and I have seen people pretty much live at work. This is pretty much indentured servitude.
How does that make you an "indentured servant"? You are free to change jobs while you are on an H-1B (what you erroneously call a "waiting period"); if you think your old employer is too slow applying for a green card for you, switch to a new employer.
Forget about the constitutionality for a second, do you not think that it's a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention to ban people from entering this country on the basis that they live in the kind of country that people would need to flee from?
No. Most of the people fleeing those countries don't even seem to meet the definition of "refugee" under the convention. Refugee status is for persecuted minorities, not merely people who leave their countries because they are violent shitholes. Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany were refugees; regular Germans fleeing from Nazi Germany were not. I also see no obligation under the Convention to actively transport refugees to the US.
The US currently has about 20 million people illegally present in the country, many of whom fled poverty and violence in Mexico, plus at least another 20 million legal immigrants and about 3 million refugees (since 1980). I think we are pulling our weight when it comes to helping the downtrodden masses. There is a practical limit to how many people voters are willing to let into the country, treaty or not.
Finally, if push comes to shove, the president can likely simply suspend or abrogate the treaty; it is poorly written, ambiguous, and ultimately unworkable.
Green card is not tied to employer, but usually need an employer to sponsor it. Employers are usually reluctant to sponsor because the employee is the free to leave.
Stop repeating that obsolete nonsense. Employees on H-1Bs can easily change employers (I've done it); the old employer won't even find out until you have your new job. That's been the law of the land for a long time.
The vast majority of H1Bs work as cheap contractor labor doing day to day benign IT tasks.
Did you read anything I wrote? Trump's changes to the H-1B program are intended to change that, so that the visas go to the most high paying, most specialized jobs.
I so tire of SV trying to set policy when they aren't the norm.
SV isn't "setting policy"; SV backed Clinton, who generally has supported the current lottery program combined with increases in the number of visas. Trump is proposing to decrease the number of visas but allocate them to the most well-paying jobs. That's probably a good thing for SV, but it's not what SV was lobbying for.
To see how this works, note that most Silicon Valley firms sponsor their H-1B workers, who hold a temporary visa, for U.S. permanent residency (green card) under the employment-based program in immigration law. EB sponsorship renders the workers de facto indentured servants; though they have the right to move to another employer, they do not dare do so, as it would mean starting the lengthy green card process all over again.
I guess people have caught on to the fact that H-1B visas became portable long ago and Matloff's "H-1B visa holders are indentured servants" was nonsense, so he had to come up with a new myth. First of all, when you get hired as an H-1B, your employer has no idea whether you will start the green card process, so they have to regard you as someone who can leave at any time, just like any American worker. Furthermore, since 2000, you can usually change employers even while your green card process is pending.
Slashdot Mirror
Border control doesn't have to prove a crime; there is no innocent until proven guilty or due process. Admission for non-citizens to the US is not a right, it's a privilege. If you wipe your phone when they ask to inspect it, that is likely more than enough justification for them to exclude you.
Markey/Wyden: "These Privacy Act exclusions could have a devastating impact on immigrant communities"
Me: No, it only applies to illegal immigrants/aliens.
That is, my comment was within the context of Markey/Wyden's lies.
The privacy situation for non-immigrant visa holders is a separate issue; it's an issue Markey and Wyden didn't comment on at all.
I wouldn't know. You tell me.
Modern politics... same as the old politics.
If misunderstanding and hostility was all it was, that wouldn't be a big deal. But what the state usually turns into after a while is an institution that helps an oligarchy to enrich themselves and to commit violence against the people on a massive scale. And contrary to what socialists and progressives tell you, the usual path by which that happens is through democratic socialism and/or progressivism; their motto is "we need to destroy your liberties in order to save them".
Bakunin, however, is a flawed messenger for the dangers of statism; far better ar the classical liberal political philosophers (that sense of "liberal" having nothing to do with the modern US sense of "liberal").
I didn't vote for Trump, but so far, I have no complaints.
I see, still following the advice of your hero: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
It is of course totally evil how Tesla forces wealthy 27-year-olds to buy massively overpowered cars for $100000, then forces them to get completely drunk, and then forces them to get behind the wheel and endanger other drivers! The humanity! There ought to be a law to protect the people from such evil corporations! /sarc
So, your answer is "it conforms to the scientific method because it's done by scientists". Well, science doesn't work that way.
Science requires falsifiability, predictions, experimental testing, reproducibility, and independent verification. Try establishing those criteria for climate change research.
The crime/probable cause that justifies them unlocking your phone.
If you pull this stunt at the border, they'll likely refuse admission.
If you pull this stunt with a court, they'll charge you with destruction of evidence.
The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.
Precisely, but the EO only applies to illegal aliens within the US, yet Markey and Wyden misrepresent it as if it applied to "immigrants", and then they misrepresented it again as if it applied to Europeans. These senators are a bunch of dishonest pricks.
We're not talking about the legality of the EO here, we're talking about the fact that Markey and Wyden are misrepresenting what the EO actually says.
No, not at all. Facial recognition systems are perfectly capable of distinguishing heads-on-T-shirts from actual heads, to perform liveness detection, and to distinguish flat heads from 3D heads.
Are you kidding? I'd be happy if I look like that and have that level of energy and success at age 70. Anyway, how is that relevant?
Please pay attention. Let me paraphrase TFA:
"Employers can turn their H-1B employees into de facto indentured servants by sponsoring their EB application."
Being an indentured servant is not fun. Do you think if you had a choice, you'd let someone turn you into an indentured servant? No. Well, guess what, employees are perfectly free to choose when or even if to start an EB application; the employer has no control over it.
You don't need to quote Wikipedia at me, I went through this process as a legal immigrant. The idea that H-1B holders or green card holders are "indentured servants" is ludicrous; it's a political lie.
That may seem clever, but it may well subject you to criminal penalties (destruction of evidence).
Key disclosure laws are common around the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Here is the EFF advice for crossing borders with digital devices, from 2011:
https://www.eff.org/wp/defendi...
I didn't say it was YOUR idea, I made a point about progressives IN GENERAL.
Face recognition isn't reliable enough for mass surveillance; that is, unless you have context or additional information, you'll get thousands of false hits for every face you try to look up in a national database even under the best of circumstances. With people actively trying to fool the system and the kind of poor quality you get from wearable cameras, it's even worse.
Foreign countries try to hack the computers of US citizens all the time.
Well, and that's just the kind of "professional airport security that is done in Israel." Isn't that what you wanted?
Note that it's also legal and nothing particularly new under US law, as even the EFF realizes:
https://www.eff.org/wp/defendi...
Isn't it funny how all this crap was acceptable to progressives under Obama but isn't anymore under Trump?
If you want to change this, change the law; stop using it for partisan purposes?
You're shifting the goalposts here. The claim was that H-1B workers are indentured servants; they clearly are not since they can change jobs and usually many employers are happy to take them.
How does that make you an "indentured servant"? You are free to change jobs while you are on an H-1B (what you erroneously call a "waiting period"); if you think your old employer is too slow applying for a green card for you, switch to a new employer.
No. Most of the people fleeing those countries don't even seem to meet the definition of "refugee" under the convention. Refugee status is for persecuted minorities, not merely people who leave their countries because they are violent shitholes. Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany were refugees; regular Germans fleeing from Nazi Germany were not. I also see no obligation under the Convention to actively transport refugees to the US.
The US currently has about 20 million people illegally present in the country, many of whom fled poverty and violence in Mexico, plus at least another 20 million legal immigrants and about 3 million refugees (since 1980). I think we are pulling our weight when it comes to helping the downtrodden masses. There is a practical limit to how many people voters are willing to let into the country, treaty or not.
Finally, if push comes to shove, the president can likely simply suspend or abrogate the treaty; it is poorly written, ambiguous, and ultimately unworkable.
Stop repeating that obsolete nonsense. Employees on H-1Bs can easily change employers (I've done it); the old employer won't even find out until you have your new job. That's been the law of the land for a long time.
H-1Bs can already change companies easily. People can also change companies easily while waiting for their green card.
Did you read anything I wrote? Trump's changes to the H-1B program are intended to change that, so that the visas go to the most high paying, most specialized jobs.
SV isn't "setting policy"; SV backed Clinton, who generally has supported the current lottery program combined with increases in the number of visas. Trump is proposing to decrease the number of visas but allocate them to the most well-paying jobs. That's probably a good thing for SV, but it's not what SV was lobbying for.
I guess people have caught on to the fact that H-1B visas became portable long ago and Matloff's "H-1B visa holders are indentured servants" was nonsense, so he had to come up with a new myth. First of all, when you get hired as an H-1B, your employer has no idea whether you will start the green card process, so they have to regard you as someone who can leave at any time, just like any American worker. Furthermore, since 2000, you can usually change employers even while your green card process is pending.