ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders

    News
    ars technica
    5
    23
    1.8k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
      last edited by

      @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

      My point is if there is no US Law that is in effect inside the border area, there is no reason to neither stop for border patrol (besides to avoid being shot at).

      But that's the WHOLE reason.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
        last edited by

        @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

        And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.

        You've really not understood.

        DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • DustinB3403D
          DustinB3403 @scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          @scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

          @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

          And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.

          You've really not understood.

          You're statement here essentially says it's legal for them to just murder you in the border area because you refuse to allow them access to your device.

          It's not that I'm not understanding, it's that I'm trolling.

          scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • scottalanmillerS
            scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
            last edited by

            @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

            @scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

            @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

            And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.

            You've really not understood.

            You're statement here essentially says it's legal for them to just murder you in the border area because you refuse to allow them access to your device.

            Um, duh. They CAN shoot you for that. And they've been known to do so for far less. You are acting as if you think this is not true, when it should be obvious that it IS true.

            DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • DustinB3403D
              DustinB3403 @scottalanmiller
              last edited by

              @scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

              @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

              @scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

              @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

              And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.

              You've really not understood.

              You're statement here essentially says it's legal for them to just murder you in the border area because you refuse to allow them access to your device.

              Um, duh. They CAN shoot you for that. And they've been known to do so for far less. You are acting as if you think this is not true, when it should be obvious that it IS true.

              Why do you think it should be obvious that it IS true? I've not traveled the mexico / us border and likely never will. Why should something you believe as obvious, should be obvious to me?

              Have you seen people shot because the security officer didn't like it that someone was chewing bubble gum. Cause that is less!

              scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • scottalanmillerS
                scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
                last edited by

                @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                @scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                @scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.

                You've really not understood.

                You're statement here essentially says it's legal for them to just murder you in the border area because you refuse to allow them access to your device.

                Um, duh. They CAN shoot you for that. And they've been known to do so for far less. You are acting as if you think this is not true, when it should be obvious that it IS true.

                Why do you think it should be obvious that it IS true? I've not traveled the mexico / us border and likely never will. Why should something you believe as obvious, should be obvious to me?

                It's obvious because we already established that you have NO rights in the border zone. None. There is no law. So given that we had established that and that you had acknowledged it would you then think that this one law would exist in the absence of all others?

                DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
                  last edited by

                  @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                  Have you seen people shot because the security officer didn't like it that someone was chewing bubble gum. Cause that is less!

                  Of course not, the repercussions of doing so is what keeps them from doing it. If you start shooting people for no reason, all travel stops and foreign countries start embargoes or declaring war. But it is not law that stops it, it is common sense. And common sense has not always prevailed, like when the US border patrol has used the lawless no man's land to shoot that Mexican kid IN MEXICO.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • DustinB3403D
                    DustinB3403 @scottalanmiller
                    last edited by

                    @scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                    @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                    @scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                    @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                    @scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                    @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                    And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.

                    You've really not understood.

                    You're statement here essentially says it's legal for them to just murder you in the border area because you refuse to allow them access to your device.

                    Um, duh. They CAN shoot you for that. And they've been known to do so for far less. You are acting as if you think this is not true, when it should be obvious that it IS true.

                    Why do you think it should be obvious that it IS true? I've not traveled the mexico / us border and likely never will. Why should something you believe as obvious, should be obvious to me?

                    It's obvious because we already established that you have NO rights in the border zone. None. There is no law. So given that we had established that and that you had acknowledged it would you then think that this one law would exist in the absence of all others?

                    But you are missing the fact that this is a lawless land! Why would a new law requiring a warrant some how be supported in a place where no law prevails?

                    scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
                      last edited by

                      @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                      But you are missing the fact that this is a lawless land! Why would a new law requiring a warrant some how be supported in a place where no law prevails?

                      Because the people with the guns there are on the job and don't want to be barred from re-entry to the US. Their co-workers would shoot them or arrest them. And once dragged back across a border, would go to jail.

                      This really is just basic border stuff. Think about who has the guns, how they got there and where they will go. There is no food, shelter, water or anything in the border zone. It's just several feet of distance in many cases. So laws applying to people that will take effect on re-entry are a big deal.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        And the point of the new legislation is that the law will be extended into the border zone, changing the lawless state.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • DustinB3403D
                          DustinB3403
                          last edited by

                          I disagree, I think this no-mans-land should be a free for all.

                          No reason to need to warrant to get people to unlock any electronics in their possession.

                          Just shoot em in the face if they don't unlock the device at request. Nuff said. And if they shoot back we get a new "western movie" out of it.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • momurdaM
                            momurda
                            last edited by

                            The 'border zone' is currently 100 or 200(cant remember) miles from the border. So most americans can be searched without warrant. That is why a law like this should be passed.

                            JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • JaredBuschJ
                              JaredBusch @momurda
                              last edited by

                              @momurda said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                              The 'border zone' is currently 100 or 200(cant remember) miles from the border. So most americans can be searched without warrant. That is why a law like this should be passed.

                              It is 100 miles, assuming you are referring to this.
                              https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone?redirect=constitution-100-mile-border-zone

                              0_1491425205015_upload-b6eea92f-6233-4b66-ab93-a23c4085f366

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • JaredBuschJ
                                JaredBusch
                                last edited by JaredBusch

                                But what the originally linked article is talking about is the port of entry and border crossings. not the border zone.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • DustinB3403D
                                  DustinB3403
                                  last edited by

                                  All of Rochester would be considered in the border zone according to that map.

                                  I guess I get to deal with random search and seizures by CBP agents.

                                  JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • JaredBuschJ
                                    JaredBusch @DustinB3403
                                    last edited by

                                    @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                                    All of Rochester would be considered in the border zone according to that map.

                                    I guess I get to deal with random search and seizures by CBP agents.

                                    Not legally.

                                    DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • DustinB3403D
                                      DustinB3403 @JaredBusch
                                      last edited by

                                      @JaredBusch said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                                      @DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:

                                      All of Rochester would be considered in the border zone according to that map.

                                      I guess I get to deal with random search and seizures by CBP agents.

                                      Not legally.

                                      I know, just in regards to the way that CBP agents are portrayed.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • 1
                                      • 2
                                      • 1 / 2
                                      • First post
                                        Last post