6 ms·

> The ACLU has become much more active in trying to protect the rights of travelers during the Trump era > in 2016, “the number of people asked to hand over th

> The ACLU has become much more active in trying to protect the rights of travelers during the Trump era > in 2016, “the number of people asked to hand over their cell phones and passwords by Customs and Border Protection agents increased almost threefold over the year before.” I mean, it's great and all that the ACLU is working on this, but the repeated attempts to tie this all to Trump is becoming kind of maddening. Pretty soon all this stuff will start being referred to as "Trump-era security measures" in the press and most will forget who actually started most of it (the last two presidents).

mythrwy 9y ago
Maybe at this point we can't really blame presidents at all. Perhaps presidents are mainly there to make speeches and slightly tweek a few policy decisions important to constituents, but government itself is pretty large and goes right on between administrations. (Which isn't always a bad thing either).
- ItendToDisagree 9y ago
  Perhaps. But stuff has gotten pretty nutty recently...
- nostrademons 9y ago
  My working model is that the President is there to be America's punching bag. Lots of Americans have things wrong with their life or feel they aren't getting their due; rather than fix this (which is hard, and often requires leaps of faith & commitment where you can't be sure of the outcome), they look for someone to blame. Who better to blame than the guy who is nominally in charge of it all? The actual "government", in the sense of who determines how life actually goes on in America, is distributed across a web of key employees in major corporations and governments of all levels. These are not necessarily the CEO (who is often the shareholder's & employee's punching bag); rather, it's the anonymous guy who has been there his whole life, has a huge network of connections within the company, has developed a large degree of expertise in the business, and holds the trust of both the nominal decision-makers and the line-workers who do the work. Witness how we've had 18 government shutdowns since 1976 [1], and life generally goes on during them. (Interestingly, most of them were during the Carter/Reagan years, lest people think government has gotten more dysfunctional recently.) Also observe how the President usually gets blamed or credited for the condition of the economy, which he really has very little control over. People want a figurehead that they can point fingers at; it's usually not the guy who actually holds the reins. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_Uni...
  - drvdevd 9y ago
    Though I agree with your points for the most part, let's not forget that the president does have real power to directly affect policy in this country, as well as shape key parts of government, as we are all being constantly reminded of lately. But let's also step back and recognize that "the president" has always been at least the president himself and his adminstration. Of course the network expands from there and the key employees that you mention in important companies include individuals capable of weilding considerable 'asymmetric' power. Lately, I can't help but think of Cigarette Smoking Man.
  - alpsgolden 9y ago
    You might enjoy this piece which takes your point much further: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-proletarian-candidate.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-p...
r00fus 9y ago
While Obama is no saint there has been a very strong ramp-up this year alone. What used to be miserable is now terrifying for some.
- bhhaskin 9y ago
  A strong ramp-up takes time to plan and implement. Especially in a large organization such as the TSA or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
  - cavanasm 9y ago
    Unless the ramp-up isn't actually planned or policy oriented. It could very well be simply related to feelings among agents that they're allowed to do more. I will grant that ramp down takes immense work, considering the head of CBP hired by Obama last year to reform the organization resigned after the Border Patrol Union went after him.
  - Florin_Andrei 9y ago
    Give me a break. It doesn't require a Manhattan Project to ask more people to unlock their phones. The spin you're putting on this thing is stealing angular momentum from the whole goddamn galaxy. This could be (and likely was) as simple as a phone call from the powers that be, demanding that "you do this NOW or else". You do know that such things do happen in hierarchies, don't you?
    - cryptarch 9y ago
      It's not like the TSA has publicly visible and strict guidelines they are held to. All it takes is the word to spread through the DMZ.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Not true. The muslim ban for example, was uncoordinated and unclear at first - with lots of TSA confusion. An indicator that planning took backseat to "decisiveness".
- 9y ago
Retric 9y ago
I don't actually mind targeted cellphone checking at borders, but mindlessly ramping it up is a very bad sign.
- snarf21 9y ago
  Not being a jerk, but why do you not mind? I don't break any laws and I mind enormously.
  - Retric 9y ago
    I assume there are probably a 1,000 people that cross the US border a year where there is a very compelling case to check a phone. The same argument does not work for 10,000,000 people. So, I assume when you ramp up the people your adding have a much lower threshold than the old group. Further there is a long history of random inspections as people cross borders without a warrants meaning it's simply doing the same things with different means. Basically, border security is one of the core functions of government and the expectation of privacy is minimal. Or put another way, if you are going to open 1,000 laptops a year then I assume that getting a warrant would not be difficult. If you want to open 100,000,000 laptops a year then your not acting on any kind of evidence just going fishing. But, that kind of fishing tends to be ineffective and expensive both directly and by discouraging people from visiting the US. PS: The same argument exists in other areas. Having 100 H-Bombs on ICBMs is a very powerful threat. Having 10,000 H-Bombs on ICBMs is just more expense without really changing the threat. You increase the risk of bad things happening, spend ~100x the money and gain what exactly?
  - SN76477 9y ago
    Yes! If they do not know what you are looking for, they shouldnt be looking.
- jqueryin 9y ago
  Maybe you don't mind about this specific invasion of privacy, but you should be extremely mindful of setting a precedent for future laws. When does it end? What will they be forcing you to do in the next couple of years? What will our children have to endure?
eeeeeeeeeeeee 9y ago
Ah yes, again with the "democrats are no different than republicans" trope. The exact kind of wrongheaded and ignorant belief from the left that delivered Trump into the executive branch in the first place. Yes, Obama was not perfect on civil liberties, but there has absolutely been an uptick in these kind of instances since Trump took over. Obama had no Muslim ban. And in general, Trump has given more delegated authority to CBP/DHS and other departments. Maybe try to put things into perspective? We will never get 100% "pure" politicians and if the left keep staying home or voting for people like Jill Stein, then Republicans will continue to dominate. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-border-patrol-was-primed-for-president-trump http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-border-patrol-wa... http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/02/21/dhs-removes-obamas-handcuffs-border-patrol-agents/ http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/02/21/dhs-removes-obamas... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/ice-immigrant-deportations-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/ice-immigrant-deportat... https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0220_S1_Enforcement-of-the-Immigration-Laws-to-Serve-the-National-Interest.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0220...
- travmatt 9y ago
  My favorite are the people who shilled for Jill stein all campaign, saying democrats are no different than republicans - then blamed democrats for republicans stripping the ahca, saying they should have stopped them. Rania Khalek is a prime example of this type of non ironic hot take.
dvtv75 9y ago
Just as with children, who started it isn't particularly relevant. What is most important is that the person running things now is responsible for it. Last year, Obama was responsible for it. This year, right on through to the end of his presidency, Trump is responsible for it.

mythrwy 9y ago

Maybe at this point we can't really blame presidents at all. Perhaps presidents are mainly there to make speeches and slightly tweek a few policy decisions important to constituents, but government itself is pretty large and goes right on between administrations. (Which isn't always a bad thing either).

ItendToDisagree 9y ago
Perhaps. But stuff has gotten pretty nutty recently...
nostrademons 9y ago
My working model is that the President is there to be America's punching bag. Lots of Americans have things wrong with their life or feel they aren't getting their due; rather than fix this (which is hard, and often requires leaps of faith & commitment where you can't be sure of the outcome), they look for someone to blame. Who better to blame than the guy who is nominally in charge of it all? The actual "government", in the sense of who determines how life actually goes on in America, is distributed across a web of key employees in major corporations and governments of all levels. These are not necessarily the CEO (who is often the shareholder's & employee's punching bag); rather, it's the anonymous guy who has been there his whole life, has a huge network of connections within the company, has developed a large degree of expertise in the business, and holds the trust of both the nominal decision-makers and the line-workers who do the work. Witness how we've had 18 government shutdowns since 1976 [1], and life generally goes on during them. (Interestingly, most of them were during the Carter/Reagan years, lest people think government has gotten more dysfunctional recently.) Also observe how the President usually gets blamed or credited for the condition of the economy, which he really has very little control over. People want a figurehead that they can point fingers at; it's usually not the guy who actually holds the reins. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_Uni...
- drvdevd 9y ago
  Though I agree with your points for the most part, let's not forget that the president does have real power to directly affect policy in this country, as well as shape key parts of government, as we are all being constantly reminded of lately. But let's also step back and recognize that "the president" has always been at least the president himself and his adminstration. Of course the network expands from there and the key employees that you mention in important companies include individuals capable of weilding considerable 'asymmetric' power. Lately, I can't help but think of Cigarette Smoking Man.
- alpsgolden 9y ago
  You might enjoy this piece which takes your point much further: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-proletarian-candidate.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-p...

r00fus 9y ago

While Obama is no saint there has been a very strong ramp-up this year alone. What used to be miserable is now terrifying for some.

bhhaskin 9y ago
A strong ramp-up takes time to plan and implement. Especially in a large organization such as the TSA or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
- cavanasm 9y ago
  Unless the ramp-up isn't actually planned or policy oriented. It could very well be simply related to feelings among agents that they're allowed to do more. I will grant that ramp down takes immense work, considering the head of CBP hired by Obama last year to reform the organization resigned after the Border Patrol Union went after him.
- Florin_Andrei 9y ago
  Give me a break. It doesn't require a Manhattan Project to ask more people to unlock their phones. The spin you're putting on this thing is stealing angular momentum from the whole goddamn galaxy. This could be (and likely was) as simple as a phone call from the powers that be, demanding that "you do this NOW or else". You do know that such things do happen in hierarchies, don't you?
  - cryptarch 9y ago
    It's not like the TSA has publicly visible and strict guidelines they are held to. All it takes is the word to spread through the DMZ.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Not true. The muslim ban for example, was uncoordinated and unclear at first - with lots of TSA confusion. An indicator that planning took backseat to "decisiveness".
9y ago

Retric 9y ago

I don't actually mind targeted cellphone checking at borders, but mindlessly ramping it up is a very bad sign.

snarf21 9y ago
Not being a jerk, but why do you not mind? I don't break any laws and I mind enormously.
- Retric 9y ago
  I assume there are probably a 1,000 people that cross the US border a year where there is a very compelling case to check a phone. The same argument does not work for 10,000,000 people. So, I assume when you ramp up the people your adding have a much lower threshold than the old group. Further there is a long history of random inspections as people cross borders without a warrants meaning it's simply doing the same things with different means. Basically, border security is one of the core functions of government and the expectation of privacy is minimal. Or put another way, if you are going to open 1,000 laptops a year then I assume that getting a warrant would not be difficult. If you want to open 100,000,000 laptops a year then your not acting on any kind of evidence just going fishing. But, that kind of fishing tends to be ineffective and expensive both directly and by discouraging people from visiting the US. PS: The same argument exists in other areas. Having 100 H-Bombs on ICBMs is a very powerful threat. Having 10,000 H-Bombs on ICBMs is just more expense without really changing the threat. You increase the risk of bad things happening, spend ~100x the money and gain what exactly?
- SN76477 9y ago
  Yes! If they do not know what you are looking for, they shouldnt be looking.
jqueryin 9y ago
Maybe you don't mind about this specific invasion of privacy, but you should be extremely mindful of setting a precedent for future laws. When does it end? What will they be forcing you to do in the next couple of years? What will our children have to endure?

eeeeeeeeeeeee 9y ago

Ah yes, again with the "democrats are no different than republicans" trope. The exact kind of wrongheaded and ignorant belief from the left that delivered Trump into the executive branch in the first place. Yes, Obama was not perfect on civil liberties, but there has absolutely been an uptick in these kind of instances since Trump took over. Obama had no Muslim ban. And in general, Trump has given more delegated authority to CBP/DHS and other departments. Maybe try to put things into perspective? We will never get 100% "pure" politicians and if the left keep staying home or voting for people like Jill Stein, then Republicans will continue to dominate. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-border-patrol-was-primed-for-president-trump http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-border-patrol-wa... http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/02/21/dhs-removes-obamas-handcuffs-border-patrol-agents/ http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/02/21/dhs-removes-obamas... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/ice-immigrant-deportations-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/ice-immigrant-deportat... https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0220_S1_Enforcement-of-the-Immigration-Laws-to-Serve-the-National-Interest.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0220...

travmatt 9y ago
My favorite are the people who shilled for Jill stein all campaign, saying democrats are no different than republicans - then blamed democrats for republicans stripping the ahca, saying they should have stopped them. Rania Khalek is a prime example of this type of non ironic hot take.

dvtv75 9y ago

Just as with children, who started it isn't particularly relevant. What is most important is that the person running things now is responsible for it. Last year, Obama was responsible for it. This year, right on through to the end of his presidency, Trump is responsible for it.