Quote:
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.