4 ms·
We really need a definitive SCOTUS ruling that searches of electronic devices violate the Constitution but if course we will never get that far. The intent of b
by coldcode 9y ago
We really need a definitive SCOTUS ruling that searches of electronic devices violate the Constitution but if course we will never get that far. The intent of border searches originally was to identify goods being brought into the country to avoid paying duties or fees or being brought in illegally. Searching an electronic device is more akin to demanding to see what words are on a piece of paper you have in your pocket. Obviously the reason to search electronic devices is for political purposes like finding terrorists or illegal porn which is not what the Constitution is talking about.
- meri_dian 9y agoExcept finding terrorists isn't a "political purpose" it's a matter of life and death.
- krapp 9y agoIt is a political purpose, because "terrorist" is a politically charged definition whose application changes with the political climate.
- meri_dian 9y agoThe definition of 'criminal' changes over time too but that doesn't prevent us from prosecuting those who we determine to be criminals today. Regardless of how the subtleties of politics shift over time, someone who enters a country seeking to kill and destroy should not be a allowed inside regardless of what they're called.
- CaptSpify 9y agoThe percentage of 'terrorists' we are talking about is so small, it's hardly worth considering. It's a waste of everyone's time, and privacy to spend looking through anyone's phone at an airport
- QAPereo 9y agoThe major crimes we still recognize haven’t changed since humans started scratching on clay tablets. Murder, theft, rape, assault/battery, etc. Who was counted as a person and who the manner of gaining justice has changed, but not the crimes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
- andrewflnr 9y agoYou could say the same thing about the word "murderer". While technically correct, that doesn't make it any less a matter of life and death.
- jwatte 9y agoThere are a number of abortion deniers whoop would disagree with you on "murder" and "death."
- krapp 9y agoThen let's stop talking about finding "terrorists" and call it finding "murderers" or "criminals." "Terrorist" is a just word governments use to scare their citizens into giving up their civil liberties in exchange for security theater and authoritarianism.
- andrewflnr 9y agoAgreed. "Mass murderer" would be more to the point, albeit still somewhat subjective. The point is, the conversation should be about effective tactics/policies for saving lives. Disputes over terminology are mostly a distraction from that.
- forapurpose 9y ago> finding terrorists isn't a "political purpose" it's a matter of life and death If you believe that these actions are necessary to meaningfully reduce harm from terrorists, then the government's claim about life and death holds up. The concern is that these actions do not meet those conditions (necessary, meaningful reduction), and that the government is using the argument to cover for actions it wants to take for other reasons, including political ones. Also, even those conditions are not sufficient to justify it. The actions must be lawful, of course, and the loss of liberty must be worth the gains in security; the U.S. (generally) has valued liberty very highly.
- pas 9y agoTaxes, levies, excises, duties, substance schedules and a lot of other things are just implementations of political purposes/ideas. Of course the difference between search for economic (tax evasion) control vs search for security (written/recorded "thought crime") control is the important difference here.