Absolutely true. One could always take those customer "loyalty" cards and get a few (6-10) friends to get one as well and meet once a month or so and toss them all in a hat, draw one and use it for the month. I suppose you could do somewhat of the same thing with a shared gmail or yahoo account. It's easy enough to set up a fake identity on Google, I did it just to see if I could. Same for whatever came after hotmail. Yeah if you're caught you've violated their terms of service, but as far as I know they can't lock you up, all they can do is shut down your account. Not so with our Federal Masters who can lock you up without even allowing you to contact an attorney.
Have you even read the Constitution? It lists very specific things that are under the Federal government. All things not specifically listed are left to the states and the people. The only real qualifier for that is that the states cannot enact laws that do not follow the Constitution. Over the years the Feds have grabbed off more and more and the SCOTUS has twisted and bent the Constitution in ways it was never intended to go, so now we have this Nanny Federal Government.
It's time this was completely demolished. Originally designed to catch tax evaders and money laundrying, it's been expanded past all reasonable use. This and the so called Patriot Act should be repealed. Let the NSA go through regular courts and get warrants just like all LEO organizations should. The same for the FBI. It's way past time we got back to due process in this country just as is stated in the Bill of Rights.
I must say this has been a very interesting discussion. Insightful questions and some well considered and stated beliefs. Not good enough to convince me mine is wrong, however.
I do have a rather unique view .. If it were up to me I'd do away with anything at airports other than screening for explosives .. and I'd spend some time doing that to cargo not just passengers. It's my opinion that 9/11 happened because too many people listened to the government too much. The government said not to worry if you got hijacked just do whatever they say and we will negotiate you out of it. Well that works when all the want is a ride somewhere. But as we found out sometimes that's not all they want. It's my belief that there will never be another plane flown into a building. As long as they can be kept out of the cockpit, they will be buried in bodies both living, dead and wounded. It will not happen in a plane I'm on.
The constitution was going to bring into existence a standing army. this made a lot of the people including patriots very uncomfortable since they had just finished a war of rebellion against a legal standing army. In fact Thomas Jefferson was one of those against having a standing army. James Madison was for having one if I recollect what I read of the federalist papers. The second amendment was to answer those fears. Today what do things look like? Do all of those invasive practices at airports and the cops showing up in riot gear an a peaceful demonstration seeking redress from the government make you feel safer and more secure in your person?
I do feel like the average citizen should be able to purchase any weapon commonly used by any domestic law enforcement group/unit. Since most of those SWAT teams do have some weapons that are selectable between semi-automatic and fully automatic then that would mean I do believe that act is an infringement. Personally in a real fire fight to me all a fully automatic weapon would be good for is to make the other side keep their heads down at too high a price in ammo. I'd much rather depend on aimed fire.
In my opinion and I think in the opinion of the SCOUS right now the 2nd amendment hinges on 2 words, militia and people.
In the body of the constitution it defines a militia as an armed body of troops. Anywhere else it uses the word people in the other amendments it is talking about the entire body of citizens and the meaning is that the citizens might need those arms to protect themselves from government run amok along with from thieves and other dangers.
If you read the Federalist papers it's quite obvious that protection from government was one of the reasons.
In the above document:
ICE and CBP exercise longstanding constitutional and statutory authority permitting suspicionless and warrantless searches of merchandise at the border and its functional equivalent. Two public Directives issued in 2009 (CBP Directive No. 3340-049 “Border Search of Electronic Devices Containing Information” and ICE Directive No. 7-6.1 “Border Searches of Electronic Devices”) impose requirements governing use of this authority in searching, reviewing, retaining, and sharing information contained in electronic devices.
I believe the operative phrase is "warrantless searches of merchandise at the border and its functional equivalent."
Functional equivalent I'd say is their 100 mile zone and airport check points.
also in the next section:
Fourth Amendment
The overall authority to conduct border searches without suspicion or warrant is clear and long-standing, and courts have not treated searches of electronic devices any differently than searches of other objects. We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment. We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits. However, we do think that recording more information about why searches are performed would help managers and leadership supervise the use of border search authority, and this is what we recommended; CBP has agreed and has implemented this change beginning in FY2012.
Here this is the next step they take thinking they are acting in a manor that doesn't not help our civil rights. If you can parse out that crap you are better at English than I am.
We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits.
Well after they have slapped you up the side of the head a few times with those batons they have prying it from your well manicured hands won't be a problem.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by LookingOverMyShoulder.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fisa a failed and unconstitutional program
(untitled comment)
cyber security threat?
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the body of the constitution it defines a militia as an armed body of troops. Anywhere else it uses the word people in the other amendments it is talking about the entire body of citizens and the meaning is that the citizens might need those arms to protect themselves from government run amok along with from thieves and other dangers.
If you read the Federalist papers it's quite obvious that protection from government was one of the reasons.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ICE and CBP exercise longstanding constitutional and statutory authority permitting suspicionless and warrantless searches of merchandise at the border and its functional equivalent. Two public Directives issued in 2009 (CBP Directive No. 3340-049 “Border Search of Electronic Devices Containing Information” and ICE Directive No. 7-6.1 “Border Searches of Electronic Devices”) impose requirements governing use of this authority in searching, reviewing, retaining, and sharing information contained in electronic devices.
I believe the operative phrase is "warrantless searches of merchandise at the border and its functional equivalent."
Functional equivalent I'd say is their 100 mile zone and airport check points.
also in the next section:
Fourth Amendment
The overall authority to conduct border searches without suspicion or warrant is clear and long-standing, and courts have not treated searches of electronic devices any differently than searches of other objects. We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment. We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits. However, we do think that recording more information about why searches are performed would help managers and leadership supervise the use of border search authority, and this is what we recommended; CBP has agreed and has implemented this change beginning in FY2012.
Here this is the next step they take thinking they are acting in a manor that doesn't not help our civil rights. If you can parse out that crap you are better at English than I am.
We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits.
Re:
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by LookingOverMyShoulder.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt