9 ms·
Respectfully, how would they be able to verify that a) you are being truthful, and b) that only part of the shipment is real, when once part has been shown not
by kop316 6y ago
Respectfully, how would they be able to verify that a) you are being truthful, and b) that only part of the shipment is real, when once part has been shown not to be?
- snissn 6y agoby your logic shouldn't they also seize all future shipments sent to and/or from the shipper?
- tyingq 6y agoThe main part was not a "branded" item at all. It was an LED thing where no part of the item would be listed, branded, etc. They saw them because they unboxed quite a few of them to find the adapters with the fake UL mark.
- kop316 6y agoYou seem assume that CBP will just trust you on your word alone. That's my entire point. They don't know what your intentions with this are, nor if you are being truthful.
- true_religion 6y agoIf that's true... then they should investigate, not make an assumption and simply capture all of someones valuable property. OP is inside of the US, and probably lives here as well. He's not a flight risk, and its totally reasonable to ask them to go through slow bureaucratic means to make sure they get it right. CBP acts like they are the first line in a war when really they ought to be helping people come into compliance, and track down bad suppliers.
- jacquesm 6y ago> CBP acts like they are the first line in a war Taped to the wall on the Sault Ste. Marie crossing CBP station: "We Are The First Line Of Defense"
- kop316 6y agoI think there is more to the story here than being told really. I bet they did investigate, and the poster didn't have documentation. Why are we assuming the commenter is being totally.honest?
- tyingq 6y agoNo, I'm saying they saw the main item with their own eyes.
- nfjfk9393 6y agoThe only issue you’ve really highlighted is that criminals should be sure to buy properly UL labeled electronics. They don’t know what anyone’s intentions are except to apply electrical components to solving a problem. Should they stop all electronics shipments? Except for the Apples of the world? Would that make you feel safer? The occasional irrational actor isn’t as real a threat to me as my constantly paranoid neighbors and government.
- ashtonkem 6y agoI have absolutely no idea why “trust” and “intentions” are relevant here. Why should CBP siege all the electronics if just the adapters are not legal? Sure, if the main electronics also have counterfeit UL marks then they also should be seized, but if the main electronics aren’t counterfeit why should invalid adapters be the grounds for seizing everything else?
- kop316 6y agoSo how do you know everything is legit and not just the adaptors? You are "trusting" the poster here and assuming there "intentions" are good.
- ashtonkem 6y agoI don’t know if the rest of the electronics were legit or not, but I sure hope CBP would be able to tell the difference rather than just asking. Seems like it’s literally their job to determine this kind of thing. If they can’t determine whether or not the rest of the shipment was valid and had to try and determine OP’s intentions, then I genuinely doubt if they should even be seizing anything at all. As far as me “trusting” OP on the story, well yeah, it’s a random HN comment. Literally nothing is at stake here. If you’re going to start assuming that OP is lying for HN cred then be my guest, but it seems needlessly paranoid to me.
- jetru 6y agoYou can say that about pretty much anything and anyone. What is truth anyway?
- Navarr 6y agoIt doesn't matter. The burden of truth is supposed to be on the accuser. Consider if you will - a robber is caught by police in his own house. In this house, they found the items the robber stole. Should they: a) take the items the robber stole b) take everything
- relaxing 6y agoThanks to civil asset forfeiture laws, the police will in fact b) take everything.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoThat's probably covered by criminal forfeiture if the robber is convicted.
- kop316 6y agoIn a civil case like the one above, its based on a preponderance of evidence. Are you saying that when one device is fake, I should give the benefit of the doubt and assume no other is?
- srtjstjsj 6y agoAll the adapters were fake. Not the computers.