3 ms·
I saw the "within 100 miles of a border" graphic in the following article (which is linked in the OP article), earlier today. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/
by pasbesoin 14y ago
I saw the "within 100 miles of a border" graphic in the following article (which is linked in the OP article), earlier today.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/
I thought at the time and still wonder whether it must be wrong. It defines the entire shore of Lake Michigan as a border -- as drawn.
If that is indeed the case, it extends CBP authority over Chicago and the Chicagoland area (and Milwaukee, for that matter).
It's a bit stunning to consider all the major cities and population areas this applies to. That's a big chunk of the U.S.'s population and economic activity, where "the 4th Amendment can go hang".
This is undoubtedly a simplistic interpretation. Nonetheless, when I add the electronics searches to the license plate scanners (also a CBP initiative, for example in areas throughout upstate New York), the TSA moving into train and bus stations and vehicles, and sports venues, and...
It seems we are ever more at the mercy of policy and government self-restraint, rather than the protection of law, with regard to rights and freedoms many of us (although certainly not all, such as some "ethnic minorities" depending upon definition and timeframe) have long more or less taken for granted.
Neat trick, that: Using CBP to backdoor the Fourth Amendment.
Are they doing it? Probably in at least minimal fashion. How much, and under what cases? A lot of that seems to remain a "secret" that they "dare not divulge". Given recent history, I'm not optimistic about where this goes in the future.
P.S. I'm too tired to work it into what I've said in a better fashion, but, "Oh, also, domestic drones!"
- tptacek 14y agoIt's wrong. It's an interpretation of the border search exception that has been explicitly rejected by SCOTUS.
- pasbesoin 14y agoWell, thanks for that clarification. Do you happen to recall (I don't know) how it ended up before SCOTUS? (I'm assuming that someone was therefore pushing for that interpretation. And I wonder, to what end -- or what they expressed as their need and reasoning.) P.S. Rereading, I'm a bit worried, so let me clarify in case the above reads wrong or so: I didn't intend any snark. Honest thanks and follow-up question. Also, I guess I should enable and read through the Wired comments for that article, in case they address this. P.P.S. Looking further, myself, the map in question appears to have originated with the ACLU. It's mentioned in a couple of their articles/posts on or around 10/22/2008. http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland-security-assuming-broad-powers-turning-vast-swaths-us http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland-sec... http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-con... However, it also appears to be cited as an "interactive map" back on December 15, 2006. http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty... I haven't found their explanation for including and ranging out from the shore of Lake Michigan. This Slashdot article, for lack of anything better that I've found so far, provides various and differing explanations, or opinions, for the source and nature of the definition of this zone. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/02/09/0054212/dhs-can-seize-your-electronics-within-100-miof-us-border-says-dhs http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/02/09/0054212/dhs-can-seize... Amongst other things, this Wikipedia article is mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception I've about reached the limit of what I can search/read/skim, for tonight.
- tptacek 14y agoI think ACLU was basically protesting the absurdity of DHS's claim.