anyone worried about US borders wrt ebooks?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

I would have to disagree - while there is a lot of publicly-available information about me, all of it is information that I choose to make public. With massive bribes and power you might dig a little deeper, but even that will only get you so far. Privacy is very much alive, but I agree that we must guard it fiercely, lest it disappear or be taken from us. And it is much harder to regain once lost. Which is why I argue that you should not give it up so easily for the feeling/illusion of security.

Also, I don't think you send any money to the Netherlands, but I might be wrong. We don't need handouts-with-an-agenda (or without, for that matter), and if the dollar keeps heading south, you might need ours in the future. Looking at the USD vs EUR for the last few years, whoever runs your country has much to account for (click on the 5-year view).

I (and any semi-intelligent person) am well aware of the problems we face. Believe me, there are no 'fat dumb and happy' people in my house.
And unless you are living a completely paper free existance, (ever go to school, have a birth certificate, buy a house, use a credit card, sign up for utilites, (electric, water, etc?) you are 'on the grid'.......

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Again you seem to imply I have something to worry about (I don't), and again you miss the point that this will have almost zero impact on those who DO have something to worry about and will have a definite impact on people who have nothing to worry about but who are unfortunate enough to cross US borders and meet a disgruntled border guard (you estimate 1% of people, which is how many people who enter/leave the US daily? and how much government resources will this tie up?).

I'm a little amazed at the lengths you will go to to discredit an author and an article which you have not read, I was merely suggesting it as interesting reading material relevant to the discussion, not as an authoritative source, and I certainly did not quote from it. I think I mentioned that several times. This law stuff must be really competitive, huh?

I said nothing to "discredit" the author. Just noted that his credentials (for writing about anything other than his opinion) are somewhat lacking.

Of course the law is competetive. The bottom line of being an attorney is the ability to argue a point. That by its very nature is a competition.

As mentioned ... most of the searches are going to be so cursory as to be almost laughable. Naturally, that's a prediction on my part ... but since the original post was whether people were "worried" about Customs ability to search digital media, I would still have to say ... no. Not worried. Don't think it is going to amount to all that much.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by silencer

This person is no attorney. Judging by the statements here, this person couldn't pass the LSAT.

Well, let's see ... according to my LSAT scores, I was in the top 1% in the nation. I missed a total of six questions on the entire exam. However, in my defense, I was very ill that day, and so probably wasn't performing at my peak.

If you would like, I can post my law degree. Graduated in the top 5% of my class, cum laude, and was an editor on the International Law Journal.

So, judging by your statements here, I would say that you are really really walking into slander and libel territory. Or, I could be kind and just say that you must be an idiot.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by silencer

The thing about this entire 'new' argument that has popped up overnight, is that it demonstrates the American attitude that "If you ain't got nothin to hide, then you aint gonna mind if we's just gonna do what we feel is best fur da country". The forum is also being flooded with inaccurate information by a few people with an agenda.

American civil liberties were suspended in 2001 to a large degree, and power to law enforcement agencies became a game of how much before people say no.

The earlier suggestion that the world wants 'American charter rights' extended to them is laughable because when the US government disembowels a legendary document like the US Constitution, why would anyone suggest others want to fall under it?
Canadian law and UN law has far more civil protection built in than anything the US may want to force on you in the last 8 years.
It is important to note that when I pass into the USA, I lose the protection and freedom I enjoy under the Canadian constitution and therefor have to rely on the recently hobbled US legislation.

I was at an international computer law convention in Washington in 2005 or 06, I can't recall. As I walked down the street I was arbitrarily detained 4 times by plain clothes officers. Being a blond Scottish Canadian, I was on my way usually in 5 minutes or so. Why did they stop me? I had a digital camera and was walking down the street. Thats freedom.
One officer was kind enough to tell me that I couldn't walk on the left side (where everyone was walking) of the street because I had a camera, and men would be ordered to come out and smash it. It is important to note, I wasn't taking pictures, I just had a camera. So I asked if I could continue walking down the right side, through the park were there was no sidewalk. He said "Sure, you can do anything you want. This is America".

After that, I started asking a lawyer from Cypress to walk with me because she was an expert in international law. It came in handy.

The US Constitution's amendment 4 states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This has been established to mean ''...where practical, a governmental search and seizure should represent both the efforts of the officer to gather evidence of wrongful acts and the judgment of the magistrate that the collected evidence is sufficient to justify invasion of a citizen's private premises or conversation.'' - United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297

You have the constitutional right to secure your "papers" and "effects". You have the right to be protected against groundless warrants. You POSITIVELY have the right to protect yourself against searches WITHOUT warrant.

Despite "if you ain't got nothing to hide" mentality, the US government has violated constitutional law with this particular measure of searching laptops.

Stand up for the constitution and stop letting people tell you that 'we' have to violate it and your rights because - what is it you said? A plane full of people decide to fly it into a building? Some might call that treasonous talk.

Well, being a Canadian, I don't really care much if you folks are ok with betraying the US constitution, even though you swear oaths to uphold and protect it. I DO care though when you treat our border like something you own. My computer is not legally searchable under the rights and freedoms of the US Constitution (no matter what the current thinking is). The constitution trumps all other US laws. Any regulation or law that violates constitutional guarantees is illegal. Therefor I would simply mail my documentation and data if for no other reason than to not be complicit in illegal government actions. We don't have to deal with that stuff in Canada, and I feel bad for you. Perhaps Mr. Obama will remove any Bush administration laws, and re-empower the people of the USA.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

Clarify?? It demonstrates that you have little or no knowledge of the Constitution. A citizen's right regarding search and seizure does not, and has never extended to international border searches and seizures of illegal goods.

You mean your international attorney friend didn't tell you that??? Oh gee. So sorry. Take a few classes in Constitutional Law and then ... maybe ... probably not, but maybe, you'll be able to discuss the law intelligently.

Oh, and there are a lot of Federal properties on which cameras are absolutely prohibited. Not allowed at all .... doesn't matter if you are taking pictures or not. The camera itself is not allowed. My assumption would be that you wandered onto such an area. And, considering the type of person you seem to be (I'll admit this is based on a very tenuous acquaintence), I'll bet you behaved like a perfect twit. You are lucky they just told you to take it to the other side of the street.

You know .... there is only one country on the entire earth that has an almost completely unblemished record towards the rights of its citizens. You know what else??? It's not the United States, it's not Canada and it's not the Netherlands. They aren't even particularly near the top of the list.

So, pardon me if I don't wrap myself up in red, white and blue cloth and start singing the National Anthem. I'm not the National Anthem, flag waving sort. I don't believe in "my country right or wrong." Actually, I don't believe in ANY country "right or wrong." However, I do believe that US Customs and Immigration have a perfect right to make border searches ... and that includes digital media.

So, while you are "clarifying" things ... first, do (please) try to become a little better versed in the topic. Second, please don't equate your wandering onto US Federal grounds where cameras are prohibited with some sort of weird evil plot on the part of the US Government to deprive you of your personal camera. Third, don't even think about quoting the Fourth Amendment when it DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Of course the law is competetive. The bottom line of being an attorney is the ability to argue a point. That by its very nature is a competition.

I just remembered why I am so happy we don't follow the US 'circus' model in our justice system. Thanks. Okay, I'm more than done with this discussion.

Can you appreciate the irony in claiming you don't want to waste time reading an article written "by some idiot on the internet" while being perfectly content to argue at length on some random internet forum thread with a couple of idiots like me?

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

I would have to disagree - while there is a lot of publicly-available information about me, all of it is information that I choose to make public. With massive bribes and power you might dig a little deeper, but even that will only get you so far. Privacy is very much alive, but I agree that we must guard it fiercely, lest it disappear or be taken from us. And it is much harder to regain once lost. Which is why I argue that you should not give it up so easily for the feeling/illusion of security.

Also, I don't think you send any money to the Netherlands, but I might be wrong. We don't need handouts-with-an-agenda (or without, for that matter), and if the dollar keeps heading south, you might need ours in the future. Looking at the USD vs EUR for the last few years, whoever runs your country has much to account for (click on the 5-year view).

Hey .... George Bush is a moron. Oh, what .... you expected me to say something different?? Do I agree with EVERYTHING the Republican Right has done in the past eight years .... ??? .... HELL NO!!

I'll let you in on a little secret. Those song lyrics about "land of the free?" They have to do with .... are you ready for this ... free speech. They do not mean (and I do mean emphatically NOT) that everyone in this country is free to do whatever the hell they want. Get real.

And, another point that probably should be made, even if it is off topic, there are times that the United States has treated large numbers of its citizenry in a manner that is beyond shameful. You want a real shock ... read up on the experiments at the Tuskeegee Institute. That will knock your socks off. The United States is far from perfect .... we are a VERY diverse group of something like 270,000,000 people, and who knows how many cultures, who for the most part try very hard to get along together. Sometimes we fail miserably. Sometimes we do pretty damn well. It is at those times that I am proud to be an American ... not so much at the other times.

I happen to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That's my personal stance ... I happen to like that social and political view and I'm sticking with it. Even speaking as a social liberal, I see the need for appropriate searches at the border. I'm amazed that in the post 9/11 paranoia (justified or not) that the policy is as sanely written as it is.

So, there you have it. I would be so pleased (and somewhat amazed actually) if people posting would stop using words like "confiscation" ... or "unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant" ... when those terms and concepts simply do not apply to border searches. They just DON'T.

Simply because you (or any other poster .... US Citizen or not) decides to say that they do .... doesn't mean they actually do.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people who have had absolutely no legal education and don't happen to live in the US are suddenly Constitutional scholars on the internet. Good freaking grief.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

I just remembered why I am so happy we don't follow the US 'circus' model in our justice system. Thanks. Okay, I'm more than done with this discussion.

Can you appreciate the irony in claiming you don't want to waste time reading an article written "by some idiot on the internet" while being perfectly content to argue at length on some random internet forum thread with a couple of idiots like me?

Hey ... you are the idiot I'm talking to right now. You are the idiot that, for the most part, I like. I do not know, or like, the idiot who wrote the article. The discussion I am having is with you. Not him. His personal views do not interest me in the least. Perhaps they would ... if I was discussing the matter with him. Other than that ... they just plain don't.

I'm happy you are happy with whatever system they have in your country. That's why you live there .... and you should keep living there ... and go on being happy. I will do the same in my country ... and when I think there's a problem with the legal system here ... I will do something to try to change it.

OK with you??

[rcr62]

Can I suggest we step back and take a breather from this topic? How about this one instead.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by rcr62

Can I suggest we step back and take a breather from this topic? How about this one instead.

Why?? This one is just starting to get really interesting. You don't like a good debate??

[acidzebra]

Well, as a self-confessed idiot, I must again recommend reading the article of the other idiot over wasting time on this thread.

As for stepping back and taking a breather, I think we are doing just fine, rcr62, but thanks anyway.

Coming back to free speech, I wonder how 9/11 has affected that in the USA. Would you contend that there has been zero effect?

edit: sorry if we annoy you. It is after 0:30 in my timezone and definitely after a few drinks.

[rcr62]

Being a former college debater and high school debate coach, yes I enjoy good debates. When it devolves down to name calling, and digitally sticking your tongue out, it serves little useful purpose other than to anger people.

However, you want to keep going more power to you. I am heading over to the other thread and will ignore this one.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by rcr62

Being a former college debater and high school debate coach, yes I enjoy good debates. When it devolves down to name calling, and digitally sticking your tongue out, it serves little useful purpose other than to anger people.

However, you want to keep going more power to you. I am heading over to the other thread and will ignore this one.

Go for it. If you are not interested in the topic ... then no point sticking around. Do let us know if you ever take up debate as a profession.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Coming back to free speech, I wonder how 9/11 has affected that in the USA. Would you contend that there has been zero effect?

If anything, I think it might have made it freer.

9/11 was a national trauma, and a wake up call for many people. But such disasters always produce divided opinions on how to deal with them, and how to insure they don't recur.

There is an awful lot of rhetoric being tossed around over here on the topic. I know many people with strong opinions. I know of very few reluctant to express them.

I have run into a few folks who fear that saying what they honestly think will bring The Powers That Be down upon them, and are afraid of their mail being snooped on and their conversations in public forums monitored. For the most part, my response is "You wish you were important enough that anyone in power could be bothered to do that!"

I have a web based GMail account, and prefer the web interface and leaving the mail on Google's servers. Sure, google or someone could theoretically read my mail. I don't care. "What" Thou woulds't go through two gigabytes of archived email? Go to, my bucko!" Unless you're me, with my particular set of interests, you're be mystified or terminally bored. I've never considered email a secure medium, and I don't say things in email I'd be all that unhappy about were they to become public. The same goes for what I say in any other public forum.

There are only so many people in <pick whichever three letter acronym Federal agency you prefer> that do that, and all have far more important uses for their time than paying attention to me. I don't matter. I'm not important. They don't care what I think. That suits me just fine.
______
Dennis

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

If anything, I think it might have made it freer.

9/11 was a national trauma, and a wake up call for many people. But such disasters always produce divided opinions on how to deal with them, and how to insure they don't recur.

There is an awful lot of rhetoric being tossed around over here on the topic. I know many people with strong opinions. I know of very few reluctant to express them.

I have run into a few folks who fear that saying what they honestly think will bring The Powers That Be down upon them, and are afraid of their mail being snooped on and their conversations in public forums monitored. For the most part, my response is "You wish you were important enough that anyone in power could be bothered to do that!"

I have a web based GMail account, and prefer the web interface and leaving the mail on Google's servers. Sure, google or someone could theoretically read my mail. I don't care. "What" Thou woulds't go through two gigabytes of archived email? Go to, my bucko!" Unless you're me, with my particular set of interests, you're be mystified or terminally bored. I've never considered email a secure medium, and I don't say things in email I'd be all that unhappy about were they to become public. The same goes for what I say in any other public forum.

There are only so many people in <pick whichever three letter acronym Federal agency you prefer> that do that, and all have far more important uses for their time than paying attention to me. I don't matter. I'm not important. They don't care what I think. That suits me just fine.
______
Dennis

Agree completely with what you just said, Dennis. I really seriously doubt that the govenment of the United States gives one stale twinkie about what I think. If they were to ask me outright, I would be more than willing to give them the whole run down on my beliefs. And ... if they feel the need to go through a ton of corporate paperwork and trust instruments, or emails instructing me to cut some drug addicted nimrod out of his parents 15 billion dollar estate in order to find out that I'm not doing anything illegal ... well, whoop te do.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Agree completely with what you just said, Dennis. I really seriously doubt that the govenment of the United States gives one stale twinkie about what I think. If they were to ask me outright, I would be more than willing to give them the whole run down on my beliefs. And ... if they feel the need to go through a ton of corporate paperwork and trust instruments, or emails instructing me to cut some drug addicted nimrod out of his parents 15 billion dollar estate in order to find out that I'm not doing anything illegal ... well, whoop te do.

There was a discussion on a mailing list I'm on a while. A list member had a friend with a Live Journal account. She had put up a satirical website poking fun at George W. Bush, and mentioned it in her LJ. Someone reading her Live Journal made an anonymous complaint to the Secret Service that she was threatening the President, and she got a visit from a couple of Secret Service agents. The agents were very professional and polite, had tea, looked at the site, agreed she was not illegal and no threat, and left.

She was a teenage girl, living at home with her family, about to graduate high school and go to college. Everyone was very freaked out about the visit.

I wondered what anyone expected. One of the jobs of the Secret Service is to protect the President. They are required to follow up on allegations like that, and to document the followup. They are paid to be paranoid and leave their sense of humor at home when they go to work. I felt constrained to point this out, and to make clear that it had nothing to do with the current administration. They would do the same on behalf of any seated President, because it was their job.

I didn't share the concern that the Secret Service visit was now on her record and would influence things like whether she got into the college of her choice. What record? Kept by whom? And looked at under what circumstances?

And I mourned the declining quality of education in the US. I knew the function of the Secret Service from Civics classes in Jr. High School, and could predict what would happen when a complaint was received. I was amazed at the folks who were surprised, and reserved my scorn for the idiot who made the complaint against her.

I have no use for the current administration, will cheer when they leave office, and will cross fingers the next one will do a better job (hard to imagine them doing a worse one), but I keep a sense of perspective about it all. People have, are, and will do all manner of things to get and hold power, but we aren't just this side of a police state yet.
______
Dennis