4 ms·

Yes, CBP should be (is?) required to have a warrant. The crazy part is that, if the law were being respected, there would be a higher standard of behaviour for

Yes, CBP should be (is?) required to have a warrant. The crazy part is that, if the law were being respected, there would be a higher standard of behaviour for a government agency than for private companies. Dragnet surveillance is wrong and needs to be illegal no matter who the buyer is.

comeonseriously 6y ago
Warrant issue aside, CBP should not be above the scrutiny of Congress. They should never be allowed to tell Congress to piss off.
- coldcode 6y ago
  No government agency should be above Congress. If it consider's itself so, it should be defunded which is for sure the purview of Congress.
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    This is a very important point. Congress is complicit in allowing this, because they have the authority to shut these agencies down.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      This is kind of a moot point if the portion of Congress which disagrees with this doesn't have control of both houses. Which is how Congress is supposed to work (it's not supposed to be very fast) but I don't think the founders had Congress delegating rulemaking powers to executive authorities in mind.
      - pessimizer 6y ago
        The portion of Congress which disagrees with this doesn't have control of anything. One of them is Warren, and Pelosi was campaigning against Markey just a month ago.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      Their authority to shut down intelligence agencies is purely theoretical. Not only would they be able to discover any effort to do that while it was in progress, but they could threaten or destroy the congresspeople who were most indispensable to that effort. It's slightly scary to think about how total surveillance works on the populace in general, but nobody has any interest in most people (and knowing surveillance is in operation is enough motivation to make people intentionally less interesting.) Politicians and corporate decisionmakers are and will be the most subject to surveillance and control through that surveillance.
      - salawat 6y ago
        Here's the thing though: blackmail only works if you let it. Not everything a Congressperson could have in the closet is going to get them in any way removed from office. Once the intelligence community actually makes any good on any type of threat, congressional representatives no longer have any reason to play ball. In short, blackmail doesn't work on the shameless.
        newen 6y ago
        What? Blackmail doesn’t reveal itself as some news report saying “CIA reports that Congressman X did blah blah blah, therefore the CIA recommends that you should not vote for him in the next election and other Congressmen should not work with him”. It appears as something like “Leaked photographs reveal scandalous behavior by Congressman X. This scandal destroyed his reputation in Congress leading to him being ineffective in Congress, and made him deeply unpopular with voters, which will lead to him losing his next election”. Blackmail works on anybody.
  - sieabahlpark 6y ago
    False, Congress is not the single godlike power that reins over everything else. It is one of three branches of separate but equal power. Congress has no teeth unless executive enforcement is used.
- akira2501 6y ago
  If Congress wants to effect change, they can literally write new laws. I'm far less convinced that their investigative and committee powers should be held in that high of a regard, they're too easily hijacked by partisan politics and often fail to have any meaningful impact. If they're truly that concerned about the problem, then make it illegal for federal law enforcement agencies to buy data on suspects or investigative targets from third-party sources. If you don't definitively kill the market, then I suspect you might just be looking for a political hand out.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    Surely Congress needs to be able to investigate these matters before writing new laws? I'm finding it hard to understand why you wouldn't want congressional committees (i.e. the people who regulate the country) to have the power to investigate bodies established and funded by Congress. Can you clarify?
    - will4274 6y ago
      He clarified in his original post. He said: > they're too easily hijacked by partisan politics and often fail to have any meaningful impact. When somebody says "I think X because Y", please don't fire back with "I finding it hard to understand why you think X, can you clarify?"
      - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        That doesn't really tell me anything. If I had some examples of this then it would be easy to determine how serious a problem this is. His/her statement is relatively vacuous without further clarification, which is why I asked for it.
        will4274 6y ago
        I mean. The endless hearings about Clinton's emails? The endless hearing about Benghazi? Obamacare? The endless hearings about Trump and Russia and election interference? Going futher back - McCarthy and communism, Howard Hughes and airlines. MLB and steroids? Virtually all Americans believe that some congessional hearings were just useless partisan exercise - they just differ on which ones. I think the examples are self evident to most people who follow American politics. If you had indicated that you were a foreigner and indicated that you were asking for an example, not a clarification, I might have given a kinder response.
mattnewton 6y ago
Perhaps an unpopular opinion: the government should have a higher standard than many private companies here, since they have a monopoly on physical force. Amazon isn’t going to arrest and deport me.
- dtech 6y ago
  Agreed in principle - although the standard can also be equal - but that doesn't change the fact that the rules are way to lax for private companies.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  > Amazon isn’t going to arrest and deport me. They may however take away some people's livelihood capriciously and without due process.
  - mattnewton 6y ago
    To the extent that your livelihood is dependent on Amazon, sure; it’s analogous to how you can be fired from any private company for almost anything in most states. But they won’t garnish your wages regardless of where you find employment next or put you in jail and force you to work for pennies an hour though. It’s an entirely different magnitude.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      I wasn't thinking of employees, but rather people running businesses selling things on Amazon or otherwise using their services. Insofar as Amazon can fire you, they're no different from any small business. Well, not quite. If Amazon fires you in the first few years of working there they'll demand part of the signing bonus back. That may not be wage garnishment but I know firsthand that it feels coercive to people in that situation; a fine for quitting a job is awfully close to indentured servitude. I quit as soon as that period had past but I would have quit a year earlier if not for that policy. And speaking of indentured servitude, H1B workers have it even worse since quiting or getting fired might get them deported, not merely fined.

comeonseriously 6y ago

Warrant issue aside, CBP should not be above the scrutiny of Congress. They should never be allowed to tell Congress to piss off.

coldcode 6y ago
No government agency should be above Congress. If it consider's itself so, it should be defunded which is for sure the purview of Congress.
- jaywalk 6y ago
  This is a very important point. Congress is complicit in allowing this, because they have the authority to shut these agencies down.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    This is kind of a moot point if the portion of Congress which disagrees with this doesn't have control of both houses. Which is how Congress is supposed to work (it's not supposed to be very fast) but I don't think the founders had Congress delegating rulemaking powers to executive authorities in mind.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      The portion of Congress which disagrees with this doesn't have control of anything. One of them is Warren, and Pelosi was campaigning against Markey just a month ago.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    Their authority to shut down intelligence agencies is purely theoretical. Not only would they be able to discover any effort to do that while it was in progress, but they could threaten or destroy the congresspeople who were most indispensable to that effort. It's slightly scary to think about how total surveillance works on the populace in general, but nobody has any interest in most people (and knowing surveillance is in operation is enough motivation to make people intentionally less interesting.) Politicians and corporate decisionmakers are and will be the most subject to surveillance and control through that surveillance.
    - salawat 6y ago
      Here's the thing though: blackmail only works if you let it. Not everything a Congressperson could have in the closet is going to get them in any way removed from office. Once the intelligence community actually makes any good on any type of threat, congressional representatives no longer have any reason to play ball. In short, blackmail doesn't work on the shameless.
      - newen 6y ago
        What? Blackmail doesn’t reveal itself as some news report saying “CIA reports that Congressman X did blah blah blah, therefore the CIA recommends that you should not vote for him in the next election and other Congressmen should not work with him”. It appears as something like “Leaked photographs reveal scandalous behavior by Congressman X. This scandal destroyed his reputation in Congress leading to him being ineffective in Congress, and made him deeply unpopular with voters, which will lead to him losing his next election”. Blackmail works on anybody.
- sieabahlpark 6y ago
  False, Congress is not the single godlike power that reins over everything else. It is one of three branches of separate but equal power. Congress has no teeth unless executive enforcement is used.
akira2501 6y ago
If Congress wants to effect change, they can literally write new laws. I'm far less convinced that their investigative and committee powers should be held in that high of a regard, they're too easily hijacked by partisan politics and often fail to have any meaningful impact. If they're truly that concerned about the problem, then make it illegal for federal law enforcement agencies to buy data on suspects or investigative targets from third-party sources. If you don't definitively kill the market, then I suspect you might just be looking for a political hand out.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  Surely Congress needs to be able to investigate these matters before writing new laws? I'm finding it hard to understand why you wouldn't want congressional committees (i.e. the people who regulate the country) to have the power to investigate bodies established and funded by Congress. Can you clarify?
  - will4274 6y ago
    He clarified in his original post. He said: > they're too easily hijacked by partisan politics and often fail to have any meaningful impact. When somebody says "I think X because Y", please don't fire back with "I finding it hard to understand why you think X, can you clarify?"
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      That doesn't really tell me anything. If I had some examples of this then it would be easy to determine how serious a problem this is. His/her statement is relatively vacuous without further clarification, which is why I asked for it.
      - will4274 6y ago
        I mean. The endless hearings about Clinton's emails? The endless hearing about Benghazi? Obamacare? The endless hearings about Trump and Russia and election interference? Going futher back - McCarthy and communism, Howard Hughes and airlines. MLB and steroids? Virtually all Americans believe that some congessional hearings were just useless partisan exercise - they just differ on which ones. I think the examples are self evident to most people who follow American politics. If you had indicated that you were a foreigner and indicated that you were asking for an example, not a clarification, I might have given a kinder response.

mattnewton 6y ago

Perhaps an unpopular opinion: the government should have a higher standard than many private companies here, since they have a monopoly on physical force. Amazon isn’t going to arrest and deport me.

dtech 6y ago
Agreed in principle - although the standard can also be equal - but that doesn't change the fact that the rules are way to lax for private companies.
bigbubba 6y ago
> Amazon isn’t going to arrest and deport me. They may however take away some people's livelihood capriciously and without due process.
- mattnewton 6y ago
  To the extent that your livelihood is dependent on Amazon, sure; it’s analogous to how you can be fired from any private company for almost anything in most states. But they won’t garnish your wages regardless of where you find employment next or put you in jail and force you to work for pennies an hour though. It’s an entirely different magnitude.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    I wasn't thinking of employees, but rather people running businesses selling things on Amazon or otherwise using their services. Insofar as Amazon can fire you, they're no different from any small business. Well, not quite. If Amazon fires you in the first few years of working there they'll demand part of the signing bonus back. That may not be wage garnishment but I know firsthand that it feels coercive to people in that situation; a fine for quitting a job is awfully close to indentured servitude. I quit as soon as that period had past but I would have quit a year earlier if not for that policy. And speaking of indentured servitude, H1B workers have it even worse since quiting or getting fired might get them deported, not merely fined.