6 ms·

And considering that something like 0.01% of travelers into the US are ever affected by this, you could say in a practical sense there is no concern here either

by gph 10y ago

And considering that something like 0.01% of travelers into the US are ever affected by this, you could say in a practical sense there is no concern here either. That's basically a rounding error worth away from 0%. In fact it sounds more like they generally target specific individuals based on their politics or whatever red flag gets thrown on them from the system. That's certainly dangerous in a way, but in essence harmless to the vast majority of us.

Zak 10y ago
It doesn't appear that most countries are using this kind of search as a tool of political harassment or intimidation, while there's enough evidence that the US is for people to be concerned.
anon2264 10y ago
"First they came for a few people for their political beliefs, and I did not speak out because I was not one of those people..." Do you know how that one ended?
- gph 10y ago
  Yea, nice. The Government/Law enforcement harassing dissidents at the border is definitely equivalent to the Nazis rounding up and executing political and religious minorities. /s Not to make light of this issue, it's a serious matter, but don't be ridiculous.
  - anon2264 10y ago
    Hah. As a matter of fact, the Nazi movement did get started by harassing political dissidents, not by executing minorities. Although this took the form more akin to the AntiFa riots (the Nazi Brownshirts) than border inspections, but the targeted abuse to political dissidents was the same
  - Zak 10y ago
    I'm not sure it's ridiculous to suggest that failing to stop law the misuse of law enforcement tools to harass dissidents early invites worse oppression later. These things have a way of ratcheting up until they get significant push back.
    - gph 10y ago
      Maybe. Seems like the FBI and federal agencies were harassing dissidents a lot worse in the 60s and 70s through COINTELPRO than they are now. I don't know if it's really worse now so much as different with new avenues of harassment into our digital lives. You think dissidents weren't harassed at the border before everyone carried a cell phone? The post I was replying to was basically a vague reference to creeping fascism/nazism, and then implying that the same is happening in the US and that we're on the brink of descending into nazism. It's stupid sophomoric comparison to make. Yea we should fight back against this type of legal harassment. Sure it's similar to how nazis once operated. But what does that comparison really provide in this situation other than throwing FUD onto it. Do you really think the US is about to rise into the Fourth Reich? I mean seriously... even if you feel like Trump is the antichrist, this policy undoubtedly came into effect during the Bush/Obama years when laptops and cell phones became ubiquitous.
      - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
        I think a lot of it is that there's so much more digital paper trail and so much more stuff is done electronically nowadays you can't as easily stop being a thorn in their side (i.e activist for some cause) without them continuing to treat you like one. In the 1960s you could decide that you'd done enough and move to a new city across the country and get a fairly fresh start. Now any trivial interaction with "the system" would get you red flagged at every subsequent interaction. The cops "randomly" stop an acquaintance of mine fairly regularly and give him much more crap ever since one of his kids got a misdemeanor speeding ticket (threshold is 20-over which is typical traffic speed in some places) in that vehicle with those plates. >think the US is about to rise into the Fourth Reich? Not literally but people have diverse sets of political beliefs. It's not a stretch to imagine individual groups that are for/against something being persecuted. Imagine how civil rights activists or the pro-socialist hippies would be treated today.
  - appleflaxen 10y ago
    That's not the point. The point is that when you say "the ends justify the means", you are putting the rule of law below what is personally convenient for you. And if you can do that, then anyone can do that. And when anyone can do that, then you have a clear path towards authoritarianism.
appleflaxen 10y ago
Saying that a breach of due process is ok because it's not very frequent is a really short-sighted position.
rlpb 10y ago
> 0.01% The same could be said about the proportion of innocent people who would be jailed without the presumption of innocence. Yet I still support the presumption of innocence, even though I personally have never needed it. It makes me feel safer and allows me to trust and cooperate with the authorities.

by gph 10y ago

Zak 10y ago

It doesn't appear that most countries are using this kind of search as a tool of political harassment or intimidation, while there's enough evidence that the US is for people to be concerned.

anon2264 10y ago

"First they came for a few people for their political beliefs, and I did not speak out because I was not one of those people..." Do you know how that one ended?

gph 10y ago
Yea, nice. The Government/Law enforcement harassing dissidents at the border is definitely equivalent to the Nazis rounding up and executing political and religious minorities. /s Not to make light of this issue, it's a serious matter, but don't be ridiculous.
- anon2264 10y ago
  Hah. As a matter of fact, the Nazi movement did get started by harassing political dissidents, not by executing minorities. Although this took the form more akin to the AntiFa riots (the Nazi Brownshirts) than border inspections, but the targeted abuse to political dissidents was the same
- Zak 10y ago
  I'm not sure it's ridiculous to suggest that failing to stop law the misuse of law enforcement tools to harass dissidents early invites worse oppression later. These things have a way of ratcheting up until they get significant push back.
  - gph 10y ago
    Maybe. Seems like the FBI and federal agencies were harassing dissidents a lot worse in the 60s and 70s through COINTELPRO than they are now. I don't know if it's really worse now so much as different with new avenues of harassment into our digital lives. You think dissidents weren't harassed at the border before everyone carried a cell phone? The post I was replying to was basically a vague reference to creeping fascism/nazism, and then implying that the same is happening in the US and that we're on the brink of descending into nazism. It's stupid sophomoric comparison to make. Yea we should fight back against this type of legal harassment. Sure it's similar to how nazis once operated. But what does that comparison really provide in this situation other than throwing FUD onto it. Do you really think the US is about to rise into the Fourth Reich? I mean seriously... even if you feel like Trump is the antichrist, this policy undoubtedly came into effect during the Bush/Obama years when laptops and cell phones became ubiquitous.
    - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
      I think a lot of it is that there's so much more digital paper trail and so much more stuff is done electronically nowadays you can't as easily stop being a thorn in their side (i.e activist for some cause) without them continuing to treat you like one. In the 1960s you could decide that you'd done enough and move to a new city across the country and get a fairly fresh start. Now any trivial interaction with "the system" would get you red flagged at every subsequent interaction. The cops "randomly" stop an acquaintance of mine fairly regularly and give him much more crap ever since one of his kids got a misdemeanor speeding ticket (threshold is 20-over which is typical traffic speed in some places) in that vehicle with those plates. >think the US is about to rise into the Fourth Reich? Not literally but people have diverse sets of political beliefs. It's not a stretch to imagine individual groups that are for/against something being persecuted. Imagine how civil rights activists or the pro-socialist hippies would be treated today.
- appleflaxen 10y ago
  That's not the point. The point is that when you say "the ends justify the means", you are putting the rule of law below what is personally convenient for you. And if you can do that, then anyone can do that. And when anyone can do that, then you have a clear path towards authoritarianism.

appleflaxen 10y ago

Saying that a breach of due process is ok because it's not very frequent is a really short-sighted position.

rlpb 10y ago

> 0.01% The same could be said about the proportion of innocent people who would be jailed without the presumption of innocence. Yet I still support the presumption of innocence, even though I personally have never needed it. It makes me feel safer and allows me to trust and cooperate with the authorities.