5 ms·

The distinction I would suggest is that CBP should have the power to search the effects of entering travelers looking for physical contraband; so, for instance,

The distinction I would suggest is that CBP should have the power to search the effects of entering travelers looking for physical contraband; so, for instance, to examine a laptop and cell phone to make sure they're not fakes full of cocaine or fentanyl or something. They should have no jurisdiction over information. They don't get to examine all the bits coming into the country over the Internet, and we certainly don't want to give them that power! The idea that the CBP can make a meaningful difference to the security of this country by searching the informational effects of .1% of incoming travelers, when there's I-don't-know-how-many gigabits/sec of connectivity to other countries that anyone in the US can use by firing up their smartphone, is ludicrous on its face. The idea that they can accurately select the .1% of travelers that might be carrying evidence of a crime just by looking at them is equally ludicrous.

tonyztan 9y ago
The proposed "Protecting Data at the Border Act" makes the distinction between physical vs. digital examination that you mention. https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s823/BILLS-115s823is.pdf https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s823/BILLS-115s823is.pdf
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  Aha, so it does! The corresponding House bill is HR 1899.
24gttghh 9y ago
>They don't get to examine all the bits coming into the country over the Internet, and we certainly don't want to give them that power! I believe the NSA already does this or it is within their 'jurisdiction'.
- alreadyhere 9y ago
  Yea, but the NSA doesn't man the borders, and nothing gives them the right to do that (as of now).
  - cma 9y ago
    Without a court order: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Without_a_court_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... They can do much more with a court order, and the court orders almost never get turned down.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
>> They should have no jurisdiction over information. Devils'a advocate: But some information is illegal in USA, like kiddie pron, terrorist stuff, stolen trade secrets etc...so we have to make sure it doesn't enter USA. On the other hand, they can send it via the internet, making border searches less effective. And since they're really burdensome and affect privacy of everyone the court might do away with them. Hopefully
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  > like kiddie pron Including, I believe, a rather massive body of drawings and animation films from Japan (I'm thinking of Hentai involving underage schoolgirls). One does not simply forbids those "to protect the children" (no one under 18 is actually involved in the making of such… art), so there must be some harder to justify reason (like good old puritanism, or priming effects).
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Cartoons and drawings aren't illegal, as pornography, in the US. They may still be considered under obscenity laws in some local jurisdictions.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    >Including, I believe, a rather massive body of drawings and animation films from Japan (I'm thinking of Hentai involving underage schoolgirls). This is not illegal at the country-level in the US, however such laws do, hideously in my opinion, exist in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada among other places. They also exist as "oscene" at the state level and thus you may be liable depending on state law. There was recently a case in Austrila in which a prisoner was brought before a court on the charge of producing child pornography, while in prison -- how? He wrote short fiction stories and they were found by a prison guard. Similarly longer ago a case in Australia decided that children in the Simpsons do indeed qualify as children, beacuse although they do not share many bodily features of real humans, the genitals as depicted in the pornography did share characteristics to those of real humans, which was apparently enough to secure a conviction under the charge of possession of child pornography. Canada similarly has illegalised possession, even of story material depicting sexual acts involving a minor. To me at least it is ridiculous to think that one may be libable under the law for prison time of up to three years for possession of a drawing.
nebabyte 9y ago
> They don't get to examine all the bits coming into the country over the Internet, You sure about that?

tonyztan 9y ago

The proposed "Protecting Data at the Border Act" makes the distinction between physical vs. digital examination that you mention. https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s823/BILLS-115s823is.pdf https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s823/BILLS-115s823is.pdf

ScottBurson 9y ago
Aha, so it does! The corresponding House bill is HR 1899.

24gttghh 9y ago

>They don't get to examine all the bits coming into the country over the Internet, and we certainly don't want to give them that power! I believe the NSA already does this or it is within their 'jurisdiction'.

alreadyhere 9y ago
Yea, but the NSA doesn't man the borders, and nothing gives them the right to do that (as of now).
- cma 9y ago
  Without a court order: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Without_a_court_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... They can do much more with a court order, and the court orders almost never get turned down.

tryingagainbro 9y ago

>> They should have no jurisdiction over information. Devils'a advocate: But some information is illegal in USA, like kiddie pron, terrorist stuff, stolen trade secrets etc...so we have to make sure it doesn't enter USA. On the other hand, they can send it via the internet, making border searches less effective. And since they're really burdensome and affect privacy of everyone the court might do away with them. Hopefully

loup-vaillant 9y ago
> like kiddie pron Including, I believe, a rather massive body of drawings and animation films from Japan (I'm thinking of Hentai involving underage schoolgirls). One does not simply forbids those "to protect the children" (no one under 18 is actually involved in the making of such… art), so there must be some harder to justify reason (like good old puritanism, or priming effects).
- KGIII 9y ago
  Cartoons and drawings aren't illegal, as pornography, in the US. They may still be considered under obscenity laws in some local jurisdictions.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >Including, I believe, a rather massive body of drawings and animation films from Japan (I'm thinking of Hentai involving underage schoolgirls). This is not illegal at the country-level in the US, however such laws do, hideously in my opinion, exist in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada among other places. They also exist as "oscene" at the state level and thus you may be liable depending on state law. There was recently a case in Austrila in which a prisoner was brought before a court on the charge of producing child pornography, while in prison -- how? He wrote short fiction stories and they were found by a prison guard. Similarly longer ago a case in Australia decided that children in the Simpsons do indeed qualify as children, beacuse although they do not share many bodily features of real humans, the genitals as depicted in the pornography did share characteristics to those of real humans, which was apparently enough to secure a conviction under the charge of possession of child pornography. Canada similarly has illegalised possession, even of story material depicting sexual acts involving a minor. To me at least it is ridiculous to think that one may be libable under the law for prison time of up to three years for possession of a drawing.

nebabyte 9y ago

> They don't get to examine all the bits coming into the country over the Internet, You sure about that?