7 ms·

On one hand I agree that it's important to stand up for your rights, even it might seem like a trivial thing to argue at the time. Especially with how the TSA/

by acabal 16y ago

On one hand I agree that it's important to stand up for your rights, even it might seem like a trivial thing to argue at the time. Especially with how the TSA/Border control is evolving into less of a means of security than into an interrogation theater, it's important for us to know just how far an officer can legally question/search us and not to let them overstep those bounds. Once those bounds are crossed, it's hard (impossible?) to go back. On the other hand, the guy kind of acted like a jerk. He could have done the same thing without seeming so short and unfriendly. Even the most power-mad officers are still people with a basic job to do. Edit: having read his follow-up post, he makes some good points on the politeness issue. I guess I'm just happy there are people like him to have to the balls (and time to spare) to remind enforcers that they too must follow the law, even if it means a huge inconvenience for him.

mjgoins 16y ago
He addresses the politeness issue in the follow up by saying, quite rightly: To the authoritarian mind, there are only two responses to a demand: submission or defiance, and anything less than total submission is defiance.
- bonaldi 16y ago
  Nonetheless, to the human mind, there are plenty of shades of grey. If you're trying to convince (both them and the blog-reading public), you'd do well not to act as if everything's black and white. see also: Stallman.
  - thaumaturgy 16y ago
    One of my favorite quotes: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw) Stallman's complete and total unwillingness to bend at all occasionally grates on my nerves. I am also grateful for it.
- acabal 16y ago
  I guess politeness can be one of those grey area kinds of things, but when somebody replies "none of your business" to a question of mine, I usually find it a little rude. Alternatively he could have explained his reasoning for remaining silent instead of just doing so; that might have educated (sadly) some of the officers as to why he was acting that way while appearing polite and retaining his rights.
- patio11 16y ago
  The pragmatic civil libertarian might choose to open with something like "Respectfully, I don't believe I have to answer that one. We can discuss it with my attorney present if you disagree."
  - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
    This has additional value in that the person you are speaking to is taught something and doesn't leave the encounter just thinking you are an ass.
- tptacek 16y ago
  You realize that just because he says that doesn't mean it's actually true, right? In fact, his argument for being brusque doesn't square with his argument for the inalienability of his rights to silent re-entry. If he's right about the latter, he has no reason to "assert the fact that he won't be pushed around"; he won't be pushed around either way. I'm left with the conclusion that I'm reading about a major-league douchebag... one who I'm glad is defining the frontiers of our rights as citizens, but a douchebag nonetheless.
  - asmithmd1 16y ago
    Here is well researched 24 page report on what courts have found to be what your rights are at a border crossing http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf Some surprises to me are that you can be detained for 4 to 6 hours as part of routine screening and body cavity searched without a warrant if you simply match a profile.
    - kreneskyp 16y ago
      It is well researched by I find the logic justifying warrant-less search specious: "It has long been established that border crossers’ reasonable expectation of privacy is lower at the border because they generally expect border guards to search persons and property for contraband. Because this is common knowledge, border crossers are put on notice when approaching a border that a search may be imminent, and thus their privacy is “less invaded by [border] searches” when they occur." More generally that means: We blatantly violate so many people's rights that they're not really being violated.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        I don't love the logic at play here either but feel compelled to note that, like it or not, it is the logic that every court in the land will use. Your rights at our country's borders are limited. The Supreme Court has held these limitations to be constitutional. Disagree or not, your only recourse may involve a constitutional amendment.
- kelnos 16y ago
  That's an opinion, not demonstrated fact, and one I don't agree with. Customs officials may be in some position of authority, but they are still people. People generally prefer to be treated with respect, politeness, and civility. Your every interaction with someone in authority is not an alpha-male/top-dog struggle for dominance. Regardless of that, there's a difference between polite defiance and rude defiance, often a big one. Odds are you'll get a better response from the former, one that allows you to exercise your rights without coming off as a dick. At the very least it's easier to earn sympathy if you're still mistreated.
asmithmd1 16y ago
I agree, would it have killed him to just say "business" when asked about his trip -- he reveals exactly nothing by saying that. He got away with this only because he is a white, native English speaker. You have remarkably few rights at a border crossing. Four to six hours detentions have been ruled by courts as ok as routine searches, and invasive body cavity searches can be performed without a warrant with the vaguest suspicion. Here is a well researched report on what courts have ruled are your rights when crossing the border. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf
- ichverstehe 16y ago
  See point 4 in his follow-up post (http://knifetricks.blogspot.com/2010/09/10-brief-responses-to-700-comments.html http://knifetricks.blogspot.com/2010/09/10-brief-responses-t...) "You say “business” (because you were at a conference) but the stamps in your passport indicate that you’re returning from a tourist destination like Bali. Now the officer can argue that you have made a false statement, have engaged in an attempt to claim improper business deductions under the Internal Revenue Code and have broken any other federal criminal law -- there are more than 10,000 -- which he can mold around the circumstances."
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  > I agree, would it have killed him to just say "business" when asked about his trip... ...and, again, answered specifically this point in the follow-up post, which was prominently linked to the top of the post submitted here. That makes at least three HN commenters that weren't bothered to read the second post, so far. As for, > ...and invasive body cavity searches can be performed without a warrant with the vaguest suspicion. I followed your link and read portions of it. I especially found this section chilling: "For example, in United States v. Forbicetta, the court found reasonable suspicion to exist where Customs officials acted on the following objective facts: the suspect (1) arrived from Bogota, Colombia, (2) was traveling alone, (3) had only one suitcase and no items requiring Customs inspection, (4) was young, clean-looking, and attractive, and (5) was wearing a loose-fitting dress. These factors taken together matched the “smuggling profile” for narcotic carriers in that area, and thus, the court concluded there was a sufficient basis to conduct the search." I looked up the case. In this case, Forbicetta was indeed smuggling an appreciable amount of cocaine under her dress. I will also grant that in this case the CBP showed a high degree of professional training and accurately profiled her. However, I am extremely unsettled that the factors listed, taken together, represent a legal basis for invasive search. As a more practical matter, whenever articles from guys like Paul Lukacs come along, and some part of my brain says to me, "this guy is tilting at windmills", I find myself soon reading something else that supports their crusade altogether.

by acabal 16y ago

mjgoins 16y ago

He addresses the politeness issue in the follow up by saying, quite rightly: To the authoritarian mind, there are only two responses to a demand: submission or defiance, and anything less than total submission is defiance.

bonaldi 16y ago
Nonetheless, to the human mind, there are plenty of shades of grey. If you're trying to convince (both them and the blog-reading public), you'd do well not to act as if everything's black and white. see also: Stallman.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  One of my favorite quotes: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw) Stallman's complete and total unwillingness to bend at all occasionally grates on my nerves. I am also grateful for it.
acabal 16y ago
I guess politeness can be one of those grey area kinds of things, but when somebody replies "none of your business" to a question of mine, I usually find it a little rude. Alternatively he could have explained his reasoning for remaining silent instead of just doing so; that might have educated (sadly) some of the officers as to why he was acting that way while appearing polite and retaining his rights.
patio11 16y ago
The pragmatic civil libertarian might choose to open with something like "Respectfully, I don't believe I have to answer that one. We can discuss it with my attorney present if you disagree."
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  This has additional value in that the person you are speaking to is taught something and doesn't leave the encounter just thinking you are an ass.
tptacek 16y ago
You realize that just because he says that doesn't mean it's actually true, right? In fact, his argument for being brusque doesn't square with his argument for the inalienability of his rights to silent re-entry. If he's right about the latter, he has no reason to "assert the fact that he won't be pushed around"; he won't be pushed around either way. I'm left with the conclusion that I'm reading about a major-league douchebag... one who I'm glad is defining the frontiers of our rights as citizens, but a douchebag nonetheless.
- asmithmd1 16y ago
  Here is well researched 24 page report on what courts have found to be what your rights are at a border crossing http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf Some surprises to me are that you can be detained for 4 to 6 hours as part of routine screening and body cavity searched without a warrant if you simply match a profile.
  - kreneskyp 16y ago
    It is well researched by I find the logic justifying warrant-less search specious: "It has long been established that border crossers’ reasonable expectation of privacy is lower at the border because they generally expect border guards to search persons and property for contraband. Because this is common knowledge, border crossers are put on notice when approaching a border that a search may be imminent, and thus their privacy is “less invaded by [border] searches” when they occur." More generally that means: We blatantly violate so many people's rights that they're not really being violated.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I don't love the logic at play here either but feel compelled to note that, like it or not, it is the logic that every court in the land will use. Your rights at our country's borders are limited. The Supreme Court has held these limitations to be constitutional. Disagree or not, your only recourse may involve a constitutional amendment.
kelnos 16y ago
That's an opinion, not demonstrated fact, and one I don't agree with. Customs officials may be in some position of authority, but they are still people. People generally prefer to be treated with respect, politeness, and civility. Your every interaction with someone in authority is not an alpha-male/top-dog struggle for dominance. Regardless of that, there's a difference between polite defiance and rude defiance, often a big one. Odds are you'll get a better response from the former, one that allows you to exercise your rights without coming off as a dick. At the very least it's easier to earn sympathy if you're still mistreated.

asmithmd1 16y ago

I agree, would it have killed him to just say "business" when asked about his trip -- he reveals exactly nothing by saying that. He got away with this only because he is a white, native English speaker. You have remarkably few rights at a border crossing. Four to six hours detentions have been ruled by courts as ok as routine searches, and invasive body cavity searches can be performed without a warrant with the vaguest suspicion. Here is a well researched report on what courts have ruled are your rights when crossing the border. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf

ichverstehe 16y ago
See point 4 in his follow-up post (http://knifetricks.blogspot.com/2010/09/10-brief-responses-to-700-comments.html http://knifetricks.blogspot.com/2010/09/10-brief-responses-t...) "You say “business” (because you were at a conference) but the stamps in your passport indicate that you’re returning from a tourist destination like Bali. Now the officer can argue that you have made a false statement, have engaged in an attempt to claim improper business deductions under the Internal Revenue Code and have broken any other federal criminal law -- there are more than 10,000 -- which he can mold around the circumstances."
thaumaturgy 16y ago
> I agree, would it have killed him to just say "business" when asked about his trip... ...and, again, answered specifically this point in the follow-up post, which was prominently linked to the top of the post submitted here. That makes at least three HN commenters that weren't bothered to read the second post, so far. As for, > ...and invasive body cavity searches can be performed without a warrant with the vaguest suspicion. I followed your link and read portions of it. I especially found this section chilling: "For example, in United States v. Forbicetta, the court found reasonable suspicion to exist where Customs officials acted on the following objective facts: the suspect (1) arrived from Bogota, Colombia, (2) was traveling alone, (3) had only one suitcase and no items requiring Customs inspection, (4) was young, clean-looking, and attractive, and (5) was wearing a loose-fitting dress. These factors taken together matched the “smuggling profile” for narcotic carriers in that area, and thus, the court concluded there was a sufficient basis to conduct the search." I looked up the case. In this case, Forbicetta was indeed smuggling an appreciable amount of cocaine under her dress. I will also grant that in this case the CBP showed a high degree of professional training and accurately profiled her. However, I am extremely unsettled that the factors listed, taken together, represent a legal basis for invasive search. As a more practical matter, whenever articles from guys like Paul Lukacs come along, and some part of my brain says to me, "this guy is tilting at windmills", I find myself soon reading something else that supports their crusade altogether.