11 ms·

The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today

289 points by shill 14y ago

tylerlh 14y ago
Sounds like Mike had a pretty crappy day. Interested in seeing how this unfolds.
homosaur 14y ago
DHS honestly makes me embarrassed to be an American. We could kill the whole thing tomorrow and it would make zero difference to public safety.
- tptacek 14y ago
  This doesn't make too much sense. DHS isn't one thing; it's many things glommed into one, including INS, CBP, FPS, TSA, APHIS, FEMA, the strategic medical stockpile, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service, among others. I don't like the TSA any more than you do, but can we hold on to the Coast Guard?
  - homosaur 14y ago
    The Coast Guard was placed there for financial gerrymandering. The idea that they are part of DHS is a horrible joke. Same with most of what you mentioned. Bush/Obama has shoved everything in there to create a psuedo military branch so it can't be declined in the future. Disgusting actions, honestly.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      USCG isn't part of TSA; they just happen to report to the same cabinet secretary. I'd guess that the boating run-in here was with CBP.
      - homosaur 14y ago
        Perhaps my understanding of the USCG is underinformed then, I was under the impression that they were moved from the command of the Marines into DHS years ago. Are they simply an independent police organization then?
        tptacek 14y ago
        Yes, more or less. Remember: DHS exists because after 9/11, politicians got a bug up their ass about how many different federal agencies there were with missions that involved interior security, and decided there should be one cabinet-level authority managing all of those functions. It was not a well-thought-out thing; it is literally a meatball of different security, law enforcement, safety, military, and even scientific agencies. Which makes it an odd subject for directed contempt.
        homosaur 14y ago
        Makes that they did that instead of addressing the actual security issue of 9/11 which was lack of intelligence sharing between FBI/CIA/etc I guess. Or maybe that's what the de facto merger of military and CIA is supposed to accomplish.
        tptacek 14y ago
        Intelligence sharing was indeed one of the key reasons they thought it would be smart to make the DHS meatball.
        yukoncornelius 14y ago
        Not even close the USCG was under the Dept of Transportation not the Marines before being merged into DHS in 2002. Also, in time of war the Navy can annex the USCG.
    - ajross 14y ago
      The Coast Guard is part of DHS, not the TSA. The point is that DHS is a big organization with many parts that have long-existing structure and control systems. It's not just the yahoos looking at full body scans at airports.
      - homosaur 14y ago
        That was just a mistype from looking at previous post, I'm halfway through a bottle of whiskey here after being snowed in the house all day, so be lenient.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Bush/Obama shoved everything in there because people it was a national outrage after 9/11 that we had different departments for these things. We got what we goddamned asked for. It's not Bush's fault, or Obama's fault, but your fault and my fault.
      - adventured 14y ago
        Speak for yourself. I didn't ask for that.
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        Why should everyone accept collective blame for decisions they didn't make or support in any way?
        rayiner 14y ago
        Because we live in a society where we've empowered the majority to make decisions like this. We reap the benefits when it turns out well, we should share the blame when it turns out poorly.
        nitrogen 14y ago
        That seems like a non sequitur. There is a linguistic symmetry to your suggestion, but I don't think that is a good argument for agreeing with it. Basically, I don't see any practical value to feeling like it's my fault that a bunch of other people made a decision that affects me negatively, nor would I take credit for other people's decisions that affect me positively when I originally disagreed with them.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    Well, when you build a bureaucratic monster there are all sorts of costs. Completely unrelated agencies having to carry the ill will engendered by the ones that suck is one of those costs. Perhaps they should have considered that.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      You think CBP was sunshine and roses before it got folded into DHS?
  - rdl 14y ago
    USCG's role in the drug war is IMO fairly unconscionable as well. It's horrible that they take what would otherwise be an essentially purely good and morally unquestionable agency (saving people's lives on the water, navigation, environmental protection, defense of the coast during wartime) and turn it into one of the leading edges on the war on freedom.
- 3327 14y ago
  This is outrageous. Its police state behavior. "Confiscating" property should require documented probably cause and something like a warrant. What if the boat was your house? What if you were living in it with a family which my parents do? What then? One agent has the power and authority to do that? Ever read the comic strip or seen the movie Judge Dread?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Confiscating boats has never required the same procedures as confiscating real property. It's a distinction literally older than the republic.
    - 3327 14y ago
      I think the term is ehm, piracy?
- CoachRufus87 14y ago
  It isn't about public safety but about politics. Who wants to be the presiding politician when something does hit the fan right after that government security program was shelved? The politician who doesn't want to get re-elected.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- mindcrime 14y ago
  There's a pretty big difference between government seizure and stealing. There is? Coulda fooled me. If an individual took your boat without your permission, it's stealing. How is it different just because a large group of individuals got together and did it? Just because they give themselves fancy names like "government" and "State" and "DHS" doesn't mean they actually have any authority to take your property. I'm reminded of what Bastiat said in The Law[1]: Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective force — which is only the organized combination of the individual forces — may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose. Personally I think he hit the nail right on the head. [1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html Edit: OK, please don't upvote this. It doesn't deserve it, and it doesn't even really belong on HN at all. Neither does this article, really. I just realized that I let myself get drawn into a politics discussion by an inflammatory post, and I regret it. I mean, I stand by what I said, this just isn't really the place for it.
  - bd_at_rivenhill 14y ago
    Not sure why it doesn't belong on HN; it's part and parcel of the same institutional culture that gave us the prosecution of Aaron Swartz. Check out the details on one of the most infamous civil forfeiture cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U..... This looks like either outright stealing or extra-judicial conviction of someone for the crime of "being a Mexican in possession of a large amount of cash." Either way, it looks pretty bad to me and shows how far the US legal system has moved away protecting property rights.
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      Not sure why it doesn't belong on HN; it's part and parcel of the same institutional culture that gave us the prosecution of Aaron Swartz. Yeah, but it's still basically just politics. If this wasn't Arrington, it wouldn't be on here, most likely. But we all got suckered into discussing it because of the personality involved. Aaron's case was a bit different, in that it involved more issues that are specifically of interest to hackers, AND some actual hacking (of a sort) was involved AND somebody died. Either way, it looks pretty bad to me and shows how far the US legal system has moved away protecting property rights. Absolutely, I agree. I just think this whole discussion is more suited for Reddit than HN. I wish I'd bit my tongue now. But, sadly, my comment above has gotten WAY more upvotes than a comment[1] I made around the same time, which I think is far more valuable and on topic (on a completely different thread). I find that discouraging. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5262488 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5262488
yukoncornelius 14y ago
If this story went down exactly as Mike suggests the agent will lose her job or at least her federal law enforcement qualification. On the other hand, Mike is pleading his case in the court of public opinion, and his reputation is likely going to get him a lot of popular support either warranted or unwarranted.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  One can certainly hope so. But I don't hold high expectations. A note in her personnel file perhaps.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - michaelhoffman 14y ago
    That is rather a specific prediction. It seems we will know by Monday whether you are right.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- YokoZar 14y ago
  What on earth makes you think the agency wouldn't cover for her even if it knew everything was true as stated?
  - yukoncornelius 14y ago
    If she acted as Mike suggests she likely has a history of being an idiot and CBP will be happy to reprimand/release her.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
javajosh 14y ago
Ah, procedure. I'm particularly fond of situations like this where the procedure is, for the normal person, a once-in-a-lifetime event. But the flunky on the other side of the desk does it every day. And they think you are yet another stupid person who doesn't understand the simple procedure, and they have nothing but contempt for those who don't understand the procedure as deeply as they do (especially which parts of the paperwork are important, and which really are not.) Nestled deep within this fucked up situation is an asymmetry of information that gives the flunky incredible power over someone who is, in almost every other context, perceived to be better than they are (especially in this case involving a young rich kid with an expensive toy). Most human beings, when confronted with such an imbalance of power, are not going to be able to resist abusing their power. In practical terms, there are only two solutions to this problem that I know of. You can learn the procedure better than they do, and beat them on details. This can be effective, but it's boring and the payoff isn't very good. The other solution is to be really, really nice. To be incredibly accommodating. To engender a spirit of goodwill, joviality and kindness such that the flunky wants to help you. CHP officers call this the "personality test" - and they administer it every time you get pulled over, BTW. It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery. It's like they are saying, "If you can at least pretend that I'm a good person, just doing my job, then you won't have to suffer. However, if you annoy me, disrespect me, I will make you suffer like you've never known. Remember: I can check a box that will consume months of your life and untold amounts of treasure." God bless the USA.
- Cushman 14y ago
  > It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery. That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you.
  - javajosh 14y ago
    >That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you. I'm saying that if you're nice to someone who wants nothing more than an excuse to hurt you, and who has no compunction about doing so, then perhaps you won't get hurt. The end goal is not for them to be nice to you. The goal is for them to refrain from making your life a living hell.
sivers 14y ago
A guy I know was in a similar situation when trying to enter Australia. 20+ years ago, when he was 18, he was arrested for the afternoon because of a student protest. So now on the visa forms, when entering Australia on vacation, he was asked if he had ever been arrested. He checked yes. The border control people in Australia denied him entry, and put him on the next plane back home. When he told the border guy the full situation, the border guy said, "Next time, just check NO." Then, this interesting quote: "You give us the papers we want. We give you the papers you want." Meaning: make the papers (visa forms) look the way we want them to look, and we'll give you the papers (tourist visa) you want. I remember that rule of thumb when crossing borders, or filling out paperwork to open a new bank account in a foreign country. Luckily, I've never had to lie, but it sure helps to make the forms look the way they want them to look, instead of treating them as an opportunity to express your individual quirks.
- noarchy 14y ago
  Being arrested is way different from having been convicted of a crime, but it seems that border agents across the world don't want this pointed out. I've been asked a similar question often enough at the US-Canadian border("Have you ever been in front of a judge?"). Unfortunately, you do have to treat these encounters like you would police questioning. Don't volunteer information, and give very simple (yes/no) answers if you really need to answer.
- justin66 14y ago
  This highlights a problem which isn't unique to Australia. For example, if a potential employer (or whoever) asks you if you've ever been arrested and your record has been expunged or you've been pardoned, you are expected to lie and say "no". That is how the system works. It sucks, but learning how to deal with these sorts of things is part of the price one has to pay when they have a run-in with the law. I'm not sure it's analogous to the boat thing. The agent really was wrong to insist on processing the boat with the incorrect information.
  - vacri 14y ago
    If the employer wants that information, they can stump for a police background check. My private life is my private life, and there's no way that a checkbox on a form photocopied by the hundreds is going to give a balanced view of any arrest of mine. I have never been arrested, but if the employer actually needs that level of employee security - perhaps handling client money? - then it's the employer's duty to protect themselves with more than a volunteered checkbox.
dev360 14y ago
The revolution will not be televised.
jimrandomh 14y ago
If you refuse to sign a form because it has an error on it, it's your problem. If that form is what enables you to take custody of a boat, then you don't get to take custody of the boat. On the other hand, if the form that you signed has handwritten errata on it near the signature, and you weren't sneaky about it, then it's the bureacrats' problem instead of yours.
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  and you weren't sneaky about it, then it's the bureacrats' problem instead of yours. Actually it's your problem. They took his boat, ruined his week and it might cost him tens of thousands in lawyer fees. Other can miss flights to important meeting, bury their mom etc etc. Either way, you lose. Do you think the agent will be punished? I doubt it, blue wall of silence, union protection and all.
  - __david__ 14y ago
    I think you misunderstand. He's saying this could have possibly been avoided by manually crossing out amount and correcting it, initialing it and then signing the page. Now you haven't lied and the it's up to someone else to fix it officially.
    - vacri 14y ago
      He should have just amended it himself - "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission"
- vacri 14y ago
  I'm not sure why he didn't just amend the form himself and initial the change. If the customs official didn't like that, well, he ends up in the same place as 'not signing'. If the customs official didn't care, he gets what he wants.
lubujackson 14y ago
WTF does this have to do with tech news, in any way?
- wilfra 14y ago
  it was written by michael arrington, founder of techcrunch
- gdc 14y ago
  Some vague connection to a liquidity event.
- antman 14y ago
  You might need to import servers.
riggins 14y ago
This is why the founders wrote a constitution circumscribing the powers of government. This is man bites dog. Person in power (cop, bouncer, immigration officer, DHS, whatever) abuses power. It's as typical as it gets.
- unimpressive 14y ago
  >This is man bites dog. I'm sorry, but you have it backwards, the point of that aphorism is that the event is unusual. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_%28journalism%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_%28journalism%29
  - riggins 14y ago
    doh! yes, I meant 'dog bites man'
GiraffeNecktie 14y ago
No, DHS did not "steal" your boat. They confiscated it and you'll get it back by following some lengthy and convoluted appeal process. But I seriously don't understand Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and why they have to be such utter dickheads on the Canadian border. Their Canadian counterparts (CBSA) are just as effective and efficient and somehow manage to be generally sane and rational.
- RawData 14y ago
  Of course they stole it...
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    "When the pres^H^H^H^Hgovernment does it, that means it is not illegal." Or something like that...
- Strang 14y ago
  They absolutely did "steal" his boat, for some definition of the word "steal." The DHS agent will not be charged with theft or larceny. But he was in lawful possession of a boat, someone with a gun ordered him off the boat, and he is no longer in possession of a boat.
  - vacri 14y ago
    I don't think his lawful possession of the boat starts until that form was properly signed. Moral possession, sure.
    - Strang 14y ago
      Then whose boat was it, lawfully? You raise an interesting point, by the way. America is partly founded on the idea that laws do not create rights, but instead recognize natural rights. If this story is accurate and the DHS agent did not recognize his natural rights, that is an offense. But if the law did not recognize his natural rights, that is an even greater offense.
Pinatubo 14y ago
Meanwhile, somewhere else out there in the blogosphere, someone is telling a story about some arrogant rich jerk who pitched a fit when asked to sign a form to bring his fancy new boat across the border.
damian2000 14y ago
This reminds me of when I was on holiday once, riding a motorbike around Indonesia. The traffic police there are sometimes stationed at busy intersections and are known to pick on tourists for any minor infringement. He told me I left without waiting for the green light. Nevermind that everyone else on the road including cars did the same thing. I had two choices - pay a "fine" (i.e. bribe), or have my motorbike seized on the spot. It felt wrong but I paid the fine. After I paid the guy was apologetic and insisted on shaking my hand.
antidaily 14y ago
They say you're better off taking the cash you'd pay for a boat and just throwing it into the ocean.
- ams6110 14y ago
  A boat makes you happy twice: when you buy it, and when you sell it.
- OldSchool 14y ago
  Another source says, "Believe me, my young friend, there is NOTHING--absolute nothing--half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats..." I believe this to be true at least for me, and I've also found that no other machine exists that can gather a family or friends together with the same reliable prospect for good times. A quality boat can last decades, but yes they are never any sort of good investment; they are an up-front and recurring cost. It just depends if it's your thing or not.
- stanleydrew 14y ago
  Reminds me that Warren Buffett doesn't own a yacht. When asked why, he responded "Why would I want to own a yacht? All my friends have yachts."
einhverfr 14y ago
One thing that I have learned is that every encounter with law enforcement (and that includes customs) is governed by power relationships. One simple example: If I am pulled over for speeding, I find I am far less likely to get a ticket if I put myself in control over the interaction. I make sure I greet the officer first and ask what I can do to help. This puts me in a position of being outwardly subservient but the officer is no longer in control over the conversation. Moreover, I am doing so in a way which is emphasizing that I am not a threat and so the officer has few options to escalate a power struggle. Here, this is all about power. "Sign this form because I have the power to make your life miserable if you don't." We believe in honesty and rule of law, but when it comes down to it, at least the latter is nothing more than a convenient fiction and efforts to make it a reality end up making it less of one. I am here in Indonesia at the moment and the big breakthrough for me was that as corrupt as everything is over here, it functions more or less the same way it does in the US, with just surface differences.
- Swannie 14y ago
  You're not in control when you are pulled over. But its in the police officers interest to let you believe you are, as you will act in a predictable manner.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    Control is relative though and nuanced. The question is one of initiative and nuance and a matter of trying to establish things up front. The officer can be legally in control, and in control of some aspects (i.e. you are not free to go) but still not in control over where the social interactions/conversation leads. To give you an idea, I once got a warning (or maybe it was a greatly reduced speeding ticket, I don't recall) and found out the next day from someone who apparently knew the officer who pulled me over that I was suspected of having drugs in my car (which was a total misunderstanding, he saw some things he didn't recognized assumed they must be bongs or something and extrapolated from there). Go figure....
fjarlq 14y ago
Barry Schwartz laments the same kind of problem in his TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdo...
edw519 14y ago
It’ll end by me bending over at some point. Karma for this: http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-asking-for-help-119-days-ago/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-asking-for-hel...
- clicks 14y ago
  Nice to have you back Ed. Stick around. :)
  - edw519 14y ago
    I never left. I love Hacker News. And I'm not proud of grandparent comment, but I couldn't resist. I'll try to revert to making comments that provide value to my fellow hackers.
    - orangethirty 14y ago
      I'm inviting you to my next fishing trip. I know where we can get cheap boats from government auctions. :) We can call it the U.S.S Karma.
    - logn 14y ago
      So happy to have insight like your GP comment, and have it being voted to the very top.
    - DanielRibeiro 14y ago
      It is good to have you here.
- eqreqeq 14y ago
  As much as you wish it were so, I doubt it. The sun does not revolve around you. It was probably karma for something else </half joking>
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- znowi 14y ago
marknutter 14y ago
The biggest, and in my opinion, terrifying problem with bureaucracies is the lack of humanity; when humans stop treating each other like humans and use common sense, yet I feel like both parties in this story lacked humanity. Yes, the DHS employee went ahead and followed procedure even though it was going to seriously inconvenience Arrington, and that sucks. But Arrington's pedantry also inconvenienced the employee since it no doubt would have let to a long string of seldom used contingencies, much like making a fast food employee make you a special request. There was a moment where both parties could have just looked at the system for what it was - imperfect and inhuman - and knowingly nodded in agreement at the path of least resistance; in this case, the path of least resistance was Arrington signing the damn form and getting on with his day. Sure, technically he saw the error and his signing the form would mean he was somehow not acknowledging it. But what are the consequences really going to be? I mean, what are the chances some other bureaucrat up the chain o' command would notice the mistake and contact Arrington on trumped up charges of lying on a routine customs form. Slim to nil. But it's the "principle" Arrington is worried about in this case. Well, there's principled, and there's downright ridiculous. I doubt Arrington reads every TOS on every website he's ever signed up for, and I doubt very much he would truly lose sleep at night knowing he signed that form. Arrington tried to out bureaucrat a bureaucrat and go burned. Lessoned learned, I suppose.
harrylove 14y ago
The boat in question[1] would appear to be a Coastal Craft 400 IPS[2]. Roughly, $1M CAD (roughly, $1M USD at today's rate). I don't have that kind of money lying around for anything, much less a boat, but I suppose I'd be a little pissed myself if all of it was in the hands of someone else due to red tape. 1. https://twitter.com/BrianKrantz/status/279015063661199360/photo/1 https://twitter.com/BrianKrantz/status/279015063661199360/ph... 2. http://coastalcraft.com/coastal-craft-400-ips/boat-specs-400-ips/ http://coastalcraft.com/coastal-craft-400-ips/boat-specs-400...
- WatchDog 14y ago
  Heh, 1 mil doesn't buy much boat.
  - chm 14y ago
    New, no. Used, yes =)
jacques_chester 14y ago
Some tactics that may or may not work depending on jurisdiction and circumstances: 1. Mark the correction on the form. Sign underneath the correction, or mark with your initials, in addition to the correct place to sign. 2. When signing, write "Under Duress" underneath. IANAL, TINLA.
schiang 14y ago
This is what happens when an employee KNOWS he/she can't be fired. The USA needs to seriously look at how they handle government employees. They get away with too much bs because it's hard for them to get fired.
raintrees 14y ago
The form is being treated as a contract, and like all contracts I am requested to sign, I would line through and correct them as needed, then sign. If the other party will not allow the amendments, then we go to the next step, but in the mean time, the contract was made factually correct. I did this with my girlfriend (now wife) on our first rental contract and was amused by her shock at my changing the "official" forms. Likewise, forms with blanks that in no way allow for the information to be printed into the space given get writing that extends across whatever needed to supply the correct answers. Maybe the form will eventually be updated to be a little more accommodating, maybe not.
- Kiro 14y ago
  Why so overzealous? Would you be shocked if I said that I always sign stuff without even reading it?
  - raintrees 14y ago
    No, not shocked. I think we all tend to live in buffer zones at times where we may not be paying attention. I am sorry to say that it is not uncommon for me to realize that I have been driving down the road and not really paying attention to road conditions. I guess I just choose to keep myself on task when faced with a contract much more often than not, and consciously make the decision to read it or not read it each time. Most of the time I will read it, and make sure it is factually correct. I freely admit I do occasionally choose to forgo reading a contract if other factors are weighing heavier. Like the impatient person behind me in line that seems to want to clean the floor with me because they are in a much bigger hurry :)
duck 14y ago
This reminded me of a situation Richard Stallman was involved in while visiting a doctor's office: http://stallman.org/articles/asked_to_lie.html http://stallman.org/articles/asked_to_lie.html
gdg92989 14y ago
2 + 2 = 5
- nacker 14y ago
  You have to provide a link for some of the illiterate downvoters here. "2 + 2 = 5" was my 1st thought 2. http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-twoplustwo.htm http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-twoplustwo.htm
charlieok 14y ago
“What struck me the most about the situation is how excited she got about seizing the boat. Like she was just itching for something like this to happen. This was a very happy day for her.” I am inclined to believe this. Ugh. Makes me mad.
Rain_maker 14y ago
Would Google Glass be able to solve this type of issues???
philwelch 14y ago
Exactly which branch of DHS did this? I don't think the department itself has agents, it's just an umbrella for other agencies.
oasisbob 14y ago
Something vaguely similar happened to me once while registering a new scooter. Because it was shipped to me directly, it had less than a mile on the odometer. (Less than half a km even, if memory serves.) Under penalty of perjury, I had to declare the odometer to the nearest mile, but the system wouldn't accept zero for the mileage. After 40 minutes of trying to sort it out with a supervisor, I muttered something about forgetting the km-to-miles conversion, amended the mileage to one, and was on my way.
justlearning 14y ago
"So now I have to hire a lawyer to try to figure all this out." forgive my ignorance, but isn't Arrington a lawyer?. Question - Why does a lawyer need to hire another lawyer to represent him? Although, there are several branches of law specialization, Arrington could take it on himself to file the case against DHS? no? "I live a fairly simple life and that didn’t change much after I sold TechCrunch in 2010" - yeah we all know.
- starnixgod 14y ago
  A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.
- jdboyd 14y ago
  "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" - 19th century proverb.
- malandrew 14y ago
  I imagine that in this case there is also a benefit of distancing himself from the process of finding a legal resolution. If I hire a lawyer, I'm using the system as it's supposed to be used. If I represent myself (because I'm a lawyer), it's easy for the opposing side to misconstrue that as "contempt" of the process.
fcatalan 14y ago
They say a boat will make you happy just twice: The day you get it and the day you get rid of it. This boat truly seems a complete failure.
- lake_rogue 14y ago
  or this boat just made him happy twice in one day.
chmike 14y ago
They didn't stole the boat, they seized it. Not wanting to sign an erroneous legal document is respectable, calling the DHS stealers is clearly not. Don't be surprize if they won't cooperate to solve the matter ASAP.
- LancerSykera 14y ago
  They took it by force. If I took your car by force, what would you call it?
  - jmccree 14y ago
    Are you a repo person and my car loan invalidated? Did I steal my car from someone else? Was a car matching my car's description involved in a crime nearby that a judge ordered a warrant for a black ford F150 with a "geeks rule" bumper sticker? Are you a Customs/Border Patrol Agent and I do not have the proper paper work on the car I'm attempting to drive in? Are you a police officer and I do not have a driver's license on I-75? If any of the above, lawful seizure by government authorities, not theft.
- nthj 14y ago
  DHS behaved in a morally indefensible manner. I don't care if Arrington is telling a one-sided story and was actually a total asshole: DHS works for the American public and my tax dollars pay for the pain of putting up with jerks for the public good. Hence, they stole his boat. If the President were to show up at my parents' doorstep without a warrant or probable cause and shoot my little sister because he was having a bad day, would you call it a lawful execution? No, it's murder. That's an extreme exaggeration to prove my point. But that's where your logic ends up. Having a badge that reads "Government Agent" does not mean all your actions are moral or legal.
  - eropple 14y ago
    They confiscated his boat because the papers weren't in correct order--and the official, according to Arrington's story, was willing enough to let it go if he wouldn't be an officious prick about it. He will get his boat back once the paperwork is completed correctly. Shocking, I know, but he will.
boolean 14y ago
Great timing: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/20/boatbound-aibnb-for-boats/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/20/boatbound-aibnb-for-boats/
robomartin 14y ago
Hiring a lawyer will get your boat back. It will not fix the problem. The problem is too much government. Perhaps you should consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism We don't need to eliminate government, of course. Someone still has to throw parties for foreign dignitaries and say stupid shit on TV. We do need to trim it down to the bone and get it out of our daily lives. You just had a run-in with the "Gestapo" society we are building-up to. Thugs with badges and guns. Great stuff. That's exactly what I want the future to be in for my kids. Right. I mean, think about it for a moment. You are buying a boat from Canada. Why should government be involved in any way whatsoever? Are you really free? You can't even go fishing to feed your family without asking for permission from the government in the form of a fishing license. Think about THAT for a moment. Our ancestors were able to fish and hunt to feed themselves, their families and communities as needed. Today, if you are caught fishing without a license ANYWHERE, you can be arrested and fined. I've seen guys with guns board group fishing boats here in California to check for fishing licenses. Imagine that image in my kid's mind: Fishing with Dad and guys with uniforms and guns interrupt the experience to ask for papers. Pretty cool setup we have, ey? Reminds me of a story from when I was a child. We were traveling in Argentina. My Dad got pulled over by a cop at this checkpoint between Ezeiza (International Airport) and Buenos Aires. The cop asked for papers and took his time checking them out. Another cop came out of the booth. He, menacingly, looked inside the car were my Mom, Sister and I were. The first cop asked my Dad to get out of the car. They walked around the car looking for problems. The car was perfect. Then he said something like "We need to go in the office for you to pay your fine". I'm sure my Dad though "WTF, over?". He, politely, asked: "What's the problem officer". Without blinking the copy replied: "You were driving with one hand". They went inside and my Dad, effectively, had to bribe them. It was a first class shake-down. Here's what's funny: This was a Fiat 128 with a manual transmission. And, it would be my guess that the vast majority of cars in Argentina at the time had manual transmissions. There was no law about having to have both hands on the wheel at the same time, but, even if that law existed, you'd have to violate it for a fraction of a second every time you shift the transmission. Next time you vote, think about who you are voting for and what they really stand for. Think beyond you and do the generations to come a favor by reducing government to the most essential functions we need and nothing more.
pasbesoin 14y ago
It appears that agent solicited, and advised, you (the story's author) to falsify information. I don't know what weight that would carry with respect to this form, but were you to have initiated such falsification, I imagine it might or would have been construed to be some level of criminal activity. So... did this agent solicit, advise you to commit a crime? If so, will this agent face repercussions for her actions? Perhaps it's "not serious". Except that you sought to correct the information, to make the situation fully compliant, and she appears to have used her position to punish you for this. I would also question why she was so eager. Are their incentives for agents, and perhaps financial incentives for the agency(s) involved, to pursue such seizures? I guess, were I in your shoes, I'd be hesitant to further buck the might and potential maliciousness of the U.S. government. However, from my perspective, I would very much like a public airing and answers to these questions.
huhsamovar 14y ago
So, the error wasn't amended and the form wasn't signed. Now you have to put up with the law. If the agent said they didn't care about the error, surely the correct course of action would be to correct it and sign it. Am I missing something?
- dhimes 14y ago
  No- you are correct. The authorities should be pursued by the author until the paperwork is properly handled. The person who seized the boat should have to answer for trying to intimidate the author into signing false documents. This is all provable.
pg 14y ago
There seem to be so many stories of this type. E.g. yesterday http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-a-united-airlines-flight-for-taking-pictures.html http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-a-united-airlines-flight... 9/11 seems to have given a big swathe of people in the US the ability to do outrageous things more or less at will. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be one of its most damaging consequences.
nirvana 14y ago
He's afraid to sign a form that has an error on it, because he's a moral person. Meanwhile, she's giddy to steal his very expensive boat, because she knows no matter how much she fucks it up, it's not going to come back on her. Plus nice new boat to screw around with. If this situation doesn't show how profoundly corrupt government is, then I don't know what will. And all the evil like this-- it is visited not just on rich people like him, but on poor people, who have their assets stolen by government agents just as giddy as she is. Yet most articles about it don't even have the guts to call it what it is: Theft. It's pathetic what "americans" have become. If he's pulled out a gun and shot her dead, right then and there, he would have been in his rights, she was in the act of grand theft, and it would have been self defense. But of course mentioning that truth is shocking-- shocking!-- to the enslaved sheep that americans have become. (Hell the idea that he should be allowed to have a gun even, seems to be alarming to the impotent cowards that inhabit this country.)
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jrs235 14y ago
I’m sure they’ll say they haven’t seized the property yet… They’re just holding onto evidence. After Michael spends thousands on lawyers fees to get it back and prevent a default judgement and seizure he might get it back. This could turn into one of those ridiculous, United States vs Buddy (yes against the property not the person) cases where Michael will have more trouble defending the boat as only a third party witness if they allow his testimony… After all they’ll claim there is no known rightful owner and that it was abandoned at customs. Sick.
- jrs235 14y ago
  Really? A downvote? Has anyone else ever heard of United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.... I would not doubt that if you asked DHS if they seized his property that they would say they haven't and that it is currently being held as evidence. He'll probably get his boat back but not after a legal fight costing several thousands of dollars.
bloaf 14y ago
If it had been me, I probably would have started singing the bureaucrat song from Futurama: People, We didn't choose to be bureaucrats No that's what our mighty Ja made us We treat people like swine and make them stand in line Even if nobody paid us They say the world looks down on the bureaucrats They say we're anal, compulsive and weird But when push comes to shove you gotta do what you love Even if it's not a good idea
honorable_man 14y ago
Okay all, the rest of the story(I was there). 1. The amount on both invoice and CBP form were in U.S dollars correctly completed on the form. 2. Just because someone has $$$ and posts something first on the web, doesn't make them true. 3. The officer in question did not act gleefully, in fact SHE called back to the office and vessel manufacturer several times to verify the stated value. 4. The officer in question vilified by this rich individual now has to endure all the grief posted here and elsewhere by Mr rich guy and explain why she followed the LEGAL document value and wouldn't cow to his brow beating. 5. Coastal Craft ended up paying for a broker to perform what should have been a personal importation and guess what The value on that entry was EXACTLY the same as on the CBP presented form. 6. Mr. Rich guy will probably post everywhere now that HE was right due to the fact that he has his boat and did not sign anything, but the fact is that the company took the high moral ground and due to ALL the false posting by Arrington, they paid for the paperwork to be processed. 7. We are all at the mercy of individuals who feel (right or wrong) that they can put out whatever they feel and get hundreds of all of you all worked up about the big bad government, fact is she is/was correct and all of us had to jump thru hoops due to arrington's posts and written falsehoods. 8. I am proud to work with this office/officer and all of you should be ashamed for vilifying her/DHS without knowing the facts. 9. Most working folks have bosses and we are no exception sadly we had to answer many questions for correctly performing our sworn duties due to all the bad press put out by someone who feels entitled or above the public servant. Shame on you.
honorable_man 14y ago
Okay all, the rest of the story(I was there). 1. The amount on both invoice and CBP form were in U.S dollars correctly completed on the form. 2. Just because someone has $$$ and posts something first on the web, doesn't make them true. 3. The officer in question did not act gleefully, in fact SHE called back to the office and vessel manufacturer several times to verify the stated value. 4. The officer in question vilified by this rich individual now has to endure all the grief posted here and elsewhere by Mr rich guy and explain why she followed the LEGAL document value and wouldn't cow to his brow beating. 5. Coastal Craft ended up paying for a broker to perform what should have been a personal importation and guess what The value on that entry was EXACTLY the same as on the CBP presented form. 6. Mr. Rich guy will probably post everywhere now that HE was right due to the fact that he has his boat and did not sign anything, but the fact is that the company took the high moral ground and due to ALL the false posting by Arrington, they paid for the paperwork to be processed. 7. We are all at the mercy of individuals who feel (right or wrong) that they can put out whatever they feel and get hundreds of all of you all worked up about the big bad government, fact is she is/was correct and all of us had to jump thru hoops due to arrington's posts and written falsehoods. 8. I am proud to work with this office/officer and all of you should be ashamed for vilifying her/DHS without knowing the facts. 9. Most working folks have bosses and we are no exception sadly we had to answer many questions for correctly performing our sworn duties due to all the bad press put out by someone who feels entitled or above the public servant. Shame on you.
honorable_man 14y ago
Okay all, the rest of the story(I was there). 1. The amount on both invoice and CBP form were in U.S dollars correctly completed on the form. 2. Just because someone has $$$ and posts something first on the web, doesn't make them true. 3. The officer in question did not act gleefully, in fact SHE called back to the office and vessel manufacturer several times to verify the stated value. 4. The officer in question vilified by this rich individual now has to endure all the grief posted here and elsewhere by Mr rich guy and explain why she followed the LEGAL document value and wouldn't cow to his brow beating. 5. Coastal Craft ended up paying for a broker to perform what should have been a personal importation and guess what The value on that entry was EXACTLY the same as on the CBP presented form. 6. Mr. Rich guy will probably post everywhere now that HE was right due to the fact that he has his boat and did not sign anything, but the fact is that the company took the high moral ground and due to ALL the false posting by Arrington, they paid for the paperwork to be processed. 7. We are all at the mercy of individuals who feel (right or wrong) that they can put out whatever they feel and get hundreds of all of you all worked up about the big bad government, fact is she is/was correct and all of us had to jump thru hoops due to arrington's posts and written falsehoods. 8. I am proud to work with this office/officer and all of you should be ashamed for vilifying her/DHS without knowing the facts. 9. Most working folks have bosses and we are no exception sadly we had to answer many questions for correctly performing our sworn duties due to all the bad press put out by someone who feels entitled or above the public servant. Shame on you.

289 points by shill 14y ago

Sounds like Mike had a pretty crappy day. Interested in seeing how this unfolds.

DHS honestly makes me embarrassed to be an American. We could kill the whole thing tomorrow and it would make zero difference to public safety.

tptacek 14y ago
This doesn't make too much sense. DHS isn't one thing; it's many things glommed into one, including INS, CBP, FPS, TSA, APHIS, FEMA, the strategic medical stockpile, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service, among others. I don't like the TSA any more than you do, but can we hold on to the Coast Guard?
- homosaur 14y ago
  The Coast Guard was placed there for financial gerrymandering. The idea that they are part of DHS is a horrible joke. Same with most of what you mentioned. Bush/Obama has shoved everything in there to create a psuedo military branch so it can't be declined in the future. Disgusting actions, honestly.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    USCG isn't part of TSA; they just happen to report to the same cabinet secretary. I'd guess that the boating run-in here was with CBP.
    - homosaur 14y ago
      Perhaps my understanding of the USCG is underinformed then, I was under the impression that they were moved from the command of the Marines into DHS years ago. Are they simply an independent police organization then?
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Yes, more or less. Remember: DHS exists because after 9/11, politicians got a bug up their ass about how many different federal agencies there were with missions that involved interior security, and decided there should be one cabinet-level authority managing all of those functions. It was not a well-thought-out thing; it is literally a meatball of different security, law enforcement, safety, military, and even scientific agencies. Which makes it an odd subject for directed contempt.
        homosaur 14y ago
        Makes that they did that instead of addressing the actual security issue of 9/11 which was lack of intelligence sharing between FBI/CIA/etc I guess. Or maybe that's what the de facto merger of military and CIA is supposed to accomplish.
        tptacek 14y ago
        Intelligence sharing was indeed one of the key reasons they thought it would be smart to make the DHS meatball.
        yukoncornelius 14y ago
        Not even close the USCG was under the Dept of Transportation not the Marines before being merged into DHS in 2002. Also, in time of war the Navy can annex the USCG.
  - ajross 14y ago
    The Coast Guard is part of DHS, not the TSA. The point is that DHS is a big organization with many parts that have long-existing structure and control systems. It's not just the yahoos looking at full body scans at airports.
    - homosaur 14y ago
      That was just a mistype from looking at previous post, I'm halfway through a bottle of whiskey here after being snowed in the house all day, so be lenient.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Bush/Obama shoved everything in there because people it was a national outrage after 9/11 that we had different departments for these things. We got what we goddamned asked for. It's not Bush's fault, or Obama's fault, but your fault and my fault.
    - adventured 14y ago
      Speak for yourself. I didn't ask for that.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      Why should everyone accept collective blame for decisions they didn't make or support in any way?
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Because we live in a society where we've empowered the majority to make decisions like this. We reap the benefits when it turns out well, we should share the blame when it turns out poorly.
        nitrogen 14y ago
        That seems like a non sequitur. There is a linguistic symmetry to your suggestion, but I don't think that is a good argument for agreeing with it. Basically, I don't see any practical value to feeling like it's my fault that a bunch of other people made a decision that affects me negatively, nor would I take credit for other people's decisions that affect me positively when I originally disagreed with them.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Well, when you build a bureaucratic monster there are all sorts of costs. Completely unrelated agencies having to carry the ill will engendered by the ones that suck is one of those costs. Perhaps they should have considered that.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    You think CBP was sunshine and roses before it got folded into DHS?
- rdl 14y ago
  USCG's role in the drug war is IMO fairly unconscionable as well. It's horrible that they take what would otherwise be an essentially purely good and morally unquestionable agency (saving people's lives on the water, navigation, environmental protection, defense of the coast during wartime) and turn it into one of the leading edges on the war on freedom.
3327 14y ago
This is outrageous. Its police state behavior. "Confiscating" property should require documented probably cause and something like a warrant. What if the boat was your house? What if you were living in it with a family which my parents do? What then? One agent has the power and authority to do that? Ever read the comic strip or seen the movie Judge Dread?
- rayiner 14y ago
  Confiscating boats has never required the same procedures as confiscating real property. It's a distinction literally older than the republic.
  - 3327 14y ago
    I think the term is ehm, piracy?
CoachRufus87 14y ago
It isn't about public safety but about politics. Who wants to be the presiding politician when something does hit the fan right after that government security program was shelved? The politician who doesn't want to get re-elected.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

mindcrime 14y ago
There's a pretty big difference between government seizure and stealing. There is? Coulda fooled me. If an individual took your boat without your permission, it's stealing. How is it different just because a large group of individuals got together and did it? Just because they give themselves fancy names like "government" and "State" and "DHS" doesn't mean they actually have any authority to take your property. I'm reminded of what Bastiat said in The Law[1]: Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective force — which is only the organized combination of the individual forces — may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose. Personally I think he hit the nail right on the head. [1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html Edit: OK, please don't upvote this. It doesn't deserve it, and it doesn't even really belong on HN at all. Neither does this article, really. I just realized that I let myself get drawn into a politics discussion by an inflammatory post, and I regret it. I mean, I stand by what I said, this just isn't really the place for it.
- bd_at_rivenhill 14y ago
  Not sure why it doesn't belong on HN; it's part and parcel of the same institutional culture that gave us the prosecution of Aaron Swartz. Check out the details on one of the most infamous civil forfeiture cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U..... This looks like either outright stealing or extra-judicial conviction of someone for the crime of "being a Mexican in possession of a large amount of cash." Either way, it looks pretty bad to me and shows how far the US legal system has moved away protecting property rights.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    Not sure why it doesn't belong on HN; it's part and parcel of the same institutional culture that gave us the prosecution of Aaron Swartz. Yeah, but it's still basically just politics. If this wasn't Arrington, it wouldn't be on here, most likely. But we all got suckered into discussing it because of the personality involved. Aaron's case was a bit different, in that it involved more issues that are specifically of interest to hackers, AND some actual hacking (of a sort) was involved AND somebody died. Either way, it looks pretty bad to me and shows how far the US legal system has moved away protecting property rights. Absolutely, I agree. I just think this whole discussion is more suited for Reddit than HN. I wish I'd bit my tongue now. But, sadly, my comment above has gotten WAY more upvotes than a comment[1] I made around the same time, which I think is far more valuable and on topic (on a completely different thread). I find that discouraging. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5262488 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5262488

yukoncornelius 14y ago

If this story went down exactly as Mike suggests the agent will lose her job or at least her federal law enforcement qualification. On the other hand, Mike is pleading his case in the court of public opinion, and his reputation is likely going to get him a lot of popular support either warranted or unwarranted.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
One can certainly hope so. But I don't hold high expectations. A note in her personnel file perhaps.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- michaelhoffman 14y ago
  That is rather a specific prediction. It seems we will know by Monday whether you are right.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
YokoZar 14y ago
What on earth makes you think the agency wouldn't cover for her even if it knew everything was true as stated?
- yukoncornelius 14y ago
  If she acted as Mike suggests she likely has a history of being an idiot and CBP will be happy to reprimand/release her.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

javajosh 14y ago

Ah, procedure. I'm particularly fond of situations like this where the procedure is, for the normal person, a once-in-a-lifetime event. But the flunky on the other side of the desk does it every day. And they think you are yet another stupid person who doesn't understand the simple procedure, and they have nothing but contempt for those who don't understand the procedure as deeply as they do (especially which parts of the paperwork are important, and which really are not.) Nestled deep within this fucked up situation is an asymmetry of information that gives the flunky incredible power over someone who is, in almost every other context, perceived to be better than they are (especially in this case involving a young rich kid with an expensive toy). Most human beings, when confronted with such an imbalance of power, are not going to be able to resist abusing their power. In practical terms, there are only two solutions to this problem that I know of. You can learn the procedure better than they do, and beat them on details. This can be effective, but it's boring and the payoff isn't very good. The other solution is to be really, really nice. To be incredibly accommodating. To engender a spirit of goodwill, joviality and kindness such that the flunky wants to help you. CHP officers call this the "personality test" - and they administer it every time you get pulled over, BTW. It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery. It's like they are saying, "If you can at least pretend that I'm a good person, just doing my job, then you won't have to suffer. However, if you annoy me, disrespect me, I will make you suffer like you've never known. Remember: I can check a box that will consume months of your life and untold amounts of treasure." God bless the USA.

Cushman 14y ago
> It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery. That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you.
- javajosh 14y ago
  >That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you. I'm saying that if you're nice to someone who wants nothing more than an excuse to hurt you, and who has no compunction about doing so, then perhaps you won't get hurt. The end goal is not for them to be nice to you. The goal is for them to refrain from making your life a living hell.

sivers 14y ago

A guy I know was in a similar situation when trying to enter Australia. 20+ years ago, when he was 18, he was arrested for the afternoon because of a student protest. So now on the visa forms, when entering Australia on vacation, he was asked if he had ever been arrested. He checked yes. The border control people in Australia denied him entry, and put him on the next plane back home. When he told the border guy the full situation, the border guy said, "Next time, just check NO." Then, this interesting quote: "You give us the papers we want. We give you the papers you want." Meaning: make the papers (visa forms) look the way we want them to look, and we'll give you the papers (tourist visa) you want. I remember that rule of thumb when crossing borders, or filling out paperwork to open a new bank account in a foreign country. Luckily, I've never had to lie, but it sure helps to make the forms look the way they want them to look, instead of treating them as an opportunity to express your individual quirks.

noarchy 14y ago
Being arrested is way different from having been convicted of a crime, but it seems that border agents across the world don't want this pointed out. I've been asked a similar question often enough at the US-Canadian border("Have you ever been in front of a judge?"). Unfortunately, you do have to treat these encounters like you would police questioning. Don't volunteer information, and give very simple (yes/no) answers if you really need to answer.
justin66 14y ago
This highlights a problem which isn't unique to Australia. For example, if a potential employer (or whoever) asks you if you've ever been arrested and your record has been expunged or you've been pardoned, you are expected to lie and say "no". That is how the system works. It sucks, but learning how to deal with these sorts of things is part of the price one has to pay when they have a run-in with the law. I'm not sure it's analogous to the boat thing. The agent really was wrong to insist on processing the boat with the incorrect information.
- vacri 14y ago
  If the employer wants that information, they can stump for a police background check. My private life is my private life, and there's no way that a checkbox on a form photocopied by the hundreds is going to give a balanced view of any arrest of mine. I have never been arrested, but if the employer actually needs that level of employee security - perhaps handling client money? - then it's the employer's duty to protect themselves with more than a volunteered checkbox.

dev360 14y ago

The revolution will not be televised.

jimrandomh 14y ago

If you refuse to sign a form because it has an error on it, it's your problem. If that form is what enables you to take custody of a boat, then you don't get to take custody of the boat. On the other hand, if the form that you signed has handwritten errata on it near the signature, and you weren't sneaky about it, then it's the bureacrats' problem instead of yours.

OGinparadise 14y ago
and you weren't sneaky about it, then it's the bureacrats' problem instead of yours. Actually it's your problem. They took his boat, ruined his week and it might cost him tens of thousands in lawyer fees. Other can miss flights to important meeting, bury their mom etc etc. Either way, you lose. Do you think the agent will be punished? I doubt it, blue wall of silence, union protection and all.
- __david__ 14y ago
  I think you misunderstand. He's saying this could have possibly been avoided by manually crossing out amount and correcting it, initialing it and then signing the page. Now you haven't lied and the it's up to someone else to fix it officially.
  - vacri 14y ago
    He should have just amended it himself - "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission"
vacri 14y ago
I'm not sure why he didn't just amend the form himself and initial the change. If the customs official didn't like that, well, he ends up in the same place as 'not signing'. If the customs official didn't care, he gets what he wants.

lubujackson 14y ago

WTF does this have to do with tech news, in any way?

wilfra 14y ago
it was written by michael arrington, founder of techcrunch
gdc 14y ago
Some vague connection to a liquidity event.
antman 14y ago
You might need to import servers.

riggins 14y ago

This is why the founders wrote a constitution circumscribing the powers of government. This is man bites dog. Person in power (cop, bouncer, immigration officer, DHS, whatever) abuses power. It's as typical as it gets.

unimpressive 14y ago
>This is man bites dog. I'm sorry, but you have it backwards, the point of that aphorism is that the event is unusual. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_%28journalism%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_%28journalism%29
- riggins 14y ago
  doh! yes, I meant 'dog bites man'

GiraffeNecktie 14y ago

No, DHS did not "steal" your boat. They confiscated it and you'll get it back by following some lengthy and convoluted appeal process. But I seriously don't understand Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and why they have to be such utter dickheads on the Canadian border. Their Canadian counterparts (CBSA) are just as effective and efficient and somehow manage to be generally sane and rational.

RawData 14y ago
Of course they stole it...
- jlgreco 14y ago
  "When the pres^H^H^H^Hgovernment does it, that means it is not illegal." Or something like that...
Strang 14y ago
They absolutely did "steal" his boat, for some definition of the word "steal." The DHS agent will not be charged with theft or larceny. But he was in lawful possession of a boat, someone with a gun ordered him off the boat, and he is no longer in possession of a boat.
- vacri 14y ago
  I don't think his lawful possession of the boat starts until that form was properly signed. Moral possession, sure.
  - Strang 14y ago
    Then whose boat was it, lawfully? You raise an interesting point, by the way. America is partly founded on the idea that laws do not create rights, but instead recognize natural rights. If this story is accurate and the DHS agent did not recognize his natural rights, that is an offense. But if the law did not recognize his natural rights, that is an even greater offense.

Pinatubo 14y ago

Meanwhile, somewhere else out there in the blogosphere, someone is telling a story about some arrogant rich jerk who pitched a fit when asked to sign a form to bring his fancy new boat across the border.

damian2000 14y ago

This reminds me of when I was on holiday once, riding a motorbike around Indonesia. The traffic police there are sometimes stationed at busy intersections and are known to pick on tourists for any minor infringement. He told me I left without waiting for the green light. Nevermind that everyone else on the road including cars did the same thing. I had two choices - pay a "fine" (i.e. bribe), or have my motorbike seized on the spot. It felt wrong but I paid the fine. After I paid the guy was apologetic and insisted on shaking my hand.

antidaily 14y ago

They say you're better off taking the cash you'd pay for a boat and just throwing it into the ocean.

ams6110 14y ago
A boat makes you happy twice: when you buy it, and when you sell it.
OldSchool 14y ago
Another source says, "Believe me, my young friend, there is NOTHING--absolute nothing--half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats..." I believe this to be true at least for me, and I've also found that no other machine exists that can gather a family or friends together with the same reliable prospect for good times. A quality boat can last decades, but yes they are never any sort of good investment; they are an up-front and recurring cost. It just depends if it's your thing or not.
stanleydrew 14y ago
Reminds me that Warren Buffett doesn't own a yacht. When asked why, he responded "Why would I want to own a yacht? All my friends have yachts."

einhverfr 14y ago

One thing that I have learned is that every encounter with law enforcement (and that includes customs) is governed by power relationships. One simple example: If I am pulled over for speeding, I find I am far less likely to get a ticket if I put myself in control over the interaction. I make sure I greet the officer first and ask what I can do to help. This puts me in a position of being outwardly subservient but the officer is no longer in control over the conversation. Moreover, I am doing so in a way which is emphasizing that I am not a threat and so the officer has few options to escalate a power struggle. Here, this is all about power. "Sign this form because I have the power to make your life miserable if you don't." We believe in honesty and rule of law, but when it comes down to it, at least the latter is nothing more than a convenient fiction and efforts to make it a reality end up making it less of one. I am here in Indonesia at the moment and the big breakthrough for me was that as corrupt as everything is over here, it functions more or less the same way it does in the US, with just surface differences.

Swannie 14y ago
You're not in control when you are pulled over. But its in the police officers interest to let you believe you are, as you will act in a predictable manner.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Control is relative though and nuanced. The question is one of initiative and nuance and a matter of trying to establish things up front. The officer can be legally in control, and in control of some aspects (i.e. you are not free to go) but still not in control over where the social interactions/conversation leads. To give you an idea, I once got a warning (or maybe it was a greatly reduced speeding ticket, I don't recall) and found out the next day from someone who apparently knew the officer who pulled me over that I was suspected of having drugs in my car (which was a total misunderstanding, he saw some things he didn't recognized assumed they must be bongs or something and extrapolated from there). Go figure....

fjarlq 14y ago

Barry Schwartz laments the same kind of problem in his TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdo...

edw519 14y ago

It’ll end by me bending over at some point. Karma for this: http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-asking-for-help-119-days-ago/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-asking-for-hel...

clicks 14y ago
Nice to have you back Ed. Stick around. :)
- edw519 14y ago
  I never left. I love Hacker News. And I'm not proud of grandparent comment, but I couldn't resist. I'll try to revert to making comments that provide value to my fellow hackers.
  - orangethirty 14y ago
    I'm inviting you to my next fishing trip. I know where we can get cheap boats from government auctions. :) We can call it the U.S.S Karma.
  - logn 14y ago
    So happy to have insight like your GP comment, and have it being voted to the very top.
  - DanielRibeiro 14y ago
    It is good to have you here.
eqreqeq 14y ago
As much as you wish it were so, I doubt it. The sun does not revolve around you. It was probably karma for something else </half joking>
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
znowi 14y ago

marknutter 14y ago

The biggest, and in my opinion, terrifying problem with bureaucracies is the lack of humanity; when humans stop treating each other like humans and use common sense, yet I feel like both parties in this story lacked humanity. Yes, the DHS employee went ahead and followed procedure even though it was going to seriously inconvenience Arrington, and that sucks. But Arrington's pedantry also inconvenienced the employee since it no doubt would have let to a long string of seldom used contingencies, much like making a fast food employee make you a special request. There was a moment where both parties could have just looked at the system for what it was - imperfect and inhuman - and knowingly nodded in agreement at the path of least resistance; in this case, the path of least resistance was Arrington signing the damn form and getting on with his day. Sure, technically he saw the error and his signing the form would mean he was somehow not acknowledging it. But what are the consequences really going to be? I mean, what are the chances some other bureaucrat up the chain o' command would notice the mistake and contact Arrington on trumped up charges of lying on a routine customs form. Slim to nil. But it's the "principle" Arrington is worried about in this case. Well, there's principled, and there's downright ridiculous. I doubt Arrington reads every TOS on every website he's ever signed up for, and I doubt very much he would truly lose sleep at night knowing he signed that form. Arrington tried to out bureaucrat a bureaucrat and go burned. Lessoned learned, I suppose.

harrylove 14y ago

The boat in question[1] would appear to be a Coastal Craft 400 IPS[2]. Roughly, $1M CAD (roughly, $1M USD at today's rate). I don't have that kind of money lying around for anything, much less a boat, but I suppose I'd be a little pissed myself if all of it was in the hands of someone else due to red tape. 1. https://twitter.com/BrianKrantz/status/279015063661199360/photo/1 https://twitter.com/BrianKrantz/status/279015063661199360/ph... 2. http://coastalcraft.com/coastal-craft-400-ips/boat-specs-400-ips/ http://coastalcraft.com/coastal-craft-400-ips/boat-specs-400...

WatchDog 14y ago
Heh, 1 mil doesn't buy much boat.
- chm 14y ago
  New, no. Used, yes =)

jacques_chester 14y ago

Some tactics that may or may not work depending on jurisdiction and circumstances: 1. Mark the correction on the form. Sign underneath the correction, or mark with your initials, in addition to the correct place to sign. 2. When signing, write "Under Duress" underneath. IANAL, TINLA.

schiang 14y ago

This is what happens when an employee KNOWS he/she can't be fired. The USA needs to seriously look at how they handle government employees. They get away with too much bs because it's hard for them to get fired.

raintrees 14y ago

The form is being treated as a contract, and like all contracts I am requested to sign, I would line through and correct them as needed, then sign. If the other party will not allow the amendments, then we go to the next step, but in the mean time, the contract was made factually correct. I did this with my girlfriend (now wife) on our first rental contract and was amused by her shock at my changing the "official" forms. Likewise, forms with blanks that in no way allow for the information to be printed into the space given get writing that extends across whatever needed to supply the correct answers. Maybe the form will eventually be updated to be a little more accommodating, maybe not.

Kiro 14y ago
Why so overzealous? Would you be shocked if I said that I always sign stuff without even reading it?
- raintrees 14y ago
  No, not shocked. I think we all tend to live in buffer zones at times where we may not be paying attention. I am sorry to say that it is not uncommon for me to realize that I have been driving down the road and not really paying attention to road conditions. I guess I just choose to keep myself on task when faced with a contract much more often than not, and consciously make the decision to read it or not read it each time. Most of the time I will read it, and make sure it is factually correct. I freely admit I do occasionally choose to forgo reading a contract if other factors are weighing heavier. Like the impatient person behind me in line that seems to want to clean the floor with me because they are in a much bigger hurry :)

duck 14y ago

This reminded me of a situation Richard Stallman was involved in while visiting a doctor's office: http://stallman.org/articles/asked_to_lie.html http://stallman.org/articles/asked_to_lie.html

gdg92989 14y ago

2 + 2 = 5

nacker 14y ago
You have to provide a link for some of the illiterate downvoters here. "2 + 2 = 5" was my 1st thought 2. http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-twoplustwo.htm http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-twoplustwo.htm

charlieok 14y ago

“What struck me the most about the situation is how excited she got about seizing the boat. Like she was just itching for something like this to happen. This was a very happy day for her.” I am inclined to believe this. Ugh. Makes me mad.

Rain_maker 14y ago

Would Google Glass be able to solve this type of issues???

philwelch 14y ago

Exactly which branch of DHS did this? I don't think the department itself has agents, it's just an umbrella for other agencies.

oasisbob 14y ago

Something vaguely similar happened to me once while registering a new scooter. Because it was shipped to me directly, it had less than a mile on the odometer. (Less than half a km even, if memory serves.) Under penalty of perjury, I had to declare the odometer to the nearest mile, but the system wouldn't accept zero for the mileage. After 40 minutes of trying to sort it out with a supervisor, I muttered something about forgetting the km-to-miles conversion, amended the mileage to one, and was on my way.

justlearning 14y ago

"So now I have to hire a lawyer to try to figure all this out." forgive my ignorance, but isn't Arrington a lawyer?. Question - Why does a lawyer need to hire another lawyer to represent him? Although, there are several branches of law specialization, Arrington could take it on himself to file the case against DHS? no? "I live a fairly simple life and that didn’t change much after I sold TechCrunch in 2010" - yeah we all know.

starnixgod 14y ago
A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.
jdboyd 14y ago
"A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" - 19th century proverb.
malandrew 14y ago
I imagine that in this case there is also a benefit of distancing himself from the process of finding a legal resolution. If I hire a lawyer, I'm using the system as it's supposed to be used. If I represent myself (because I'm a lawyer), it's easy for the opposing side to misconstrue that as "contempt" of the process.

fcatalan 14y ago

They say a boat will make you happy just twice: The day you get it and the day you get rid of it. This boat truly seems a complete failure.

lake_rogue 14y ago
or this boat just made him happy twice in one day.

chmike 14y ago

They didn't stole the boat, they seized it. Not wanting to sign an erroneous legal document is respectable, calling the DHS stealers is clearly not. Don't be surprize if they won't cooperate to solve the matter ASAP.

LancerSykera 14y ago
They took it by force. If I took your car by force, what would you call it?
- jmccree 14y ago
  Are you a repo person and my car loan invalidated? Did I steal my car from someone else? Was a car matching my car's description involved in a crime nearby that a judge ordered a warrant for a black ford F150 with a "geeks rule" bumper sticker? Are you a Customs/Border Patrol Agent and I do not have the proper paper work on the car I'm attempting to drive in? Are you a police officer and I do not have a driver's license on I-75? If any of the above, lawful seizure by government authorities, not theft.
nthj 14y ago
DHS behaved in a morally indefensible manner. I don't care if Arrington is telling a one-sided story and was actually a total asshole: DHS works for the American public and my tax dollars pay for the pain of putting up with jerks for the public good. Hence, they stole his boat. If the President were to show up at my parents' doorstep without a warrant or probable cause and shoot my little sister because he was having a bad day, would you call it a lawful execution? No, it's murder. That's an extreme exaggeration to prove my point. But that's where your logic ends up. Having a badge that reads "Government Agent" does not mean all your actions are moral or legal.
- eropple 14y ago
  They confiscated his boat because the papers weren't in correct order--and the official, according to Arrington's story, was willing enough to let it go if he wouldn't be an officious prick about it. He will get his boat back once the paperwork is completed correctly. Shocking, I know, but he will.

boolean 14y ago

Great timing: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/20/boatbound-aibnb-for-boats/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/20/boatbound-aibnb-for-boats/

robomartin 14y ago

Hiring a lawyer will get your boat back. It will not fix the problem. The problem is too much government. Perhaps you should consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism We don't need to eliminate government, of course. Someone still has to throw parties for foreign dignitaries and say stupid shit on TV. We do need to trim it down to the bone and get it out of our daily lives. You just had a run-in with the "Gestapo" society we are building-up to. Thugs with badges and guns. Great stuff. That's exactly what I want the future to be in for my kids. Right. I mean, think about it for a moment. You are buying a boat from Canada. Why should government be involved in any way whatsoever? Are you really free? You can't even go fishing to feed your family without asking for permission from the government in the form of a fishing license. Think about THAT for a moment. Our ancestors were able to fish and hunt to feed themselves, their families and communities as needed. Today, if you are caught fishing without a license ANYWHERE, you can be arrested and fined. I've seen guys with guns board group fishing boats here in California to check for fishing licenses. Imagine that image in my kid's mind: Fishing with Dad and guys with uniforms and guns interrupt the experience to ask for papers. Pretty cool setup we have, ey? Reminds me of a story from when I was a child. We were traveling in Argentina. My Dad got pulled over by a cop at this checkpoint between Ezeiza (International Airport) and Buenos Aires. The cop asked for papers and took his time checking them out. Another cop came out of the booth. He, menacingly, looked inside the car were my Mom, Sister and I were. The first cop asked my Dad to get out of the car. They walked around the car looking for problems. The car was perfect. Then he said something like "We need to go in the office for you to pay your fine". I'm sure my Dad though "WTF, over?". He, politely, asked: "What's the problem officer". Without blinking the copy replied: "You were driving with one hand". They went inside and my Dad, effectively, had to bribe them. It was a first class shake-down. Here's what's funny: This was a Fiat 128 with a manual transmission. And, it would be my guess that the vast majority of cars in Argentina at the time had manual transmissions. There was no law about having to have both hands on the wheel at the same time, but, even if that law existed, you'd have to violate it for a fraction of a second every time you shift the transmission. Next time you vote, think about who you are voting for and what they really stand for. Think beyond you and do the generations to come a favor by reducing government to the most essential functions we need and nothing more.

pasbesoin 14y ago

It appears that agent solicited, and advised, you (the story's author) to falsify information. I don't know what weight that would carry with respect to this form, but were you to have initiated such falsification, I imagine it might or would have been construed to be some level of criminal activity. So... did this agent solicit, advise you to commit a crime? If so, will this agent face repercussions for her actions? Perhaps it's "not serious". Except that you sought to correct the information, to make the situation fully compliant, and she appears to have used her position to punish you for this. I would also question why she was so eager. Are their incentives for agents, and perhaps financial incentives for the agency(s) involved, to pursue such seizures? I guess, were I in your shoes, I'd be hesitant to further buck the might and potential maliciousness of the U.S. government. However, from my perspective, I would very much like a public airing and answers to these questions.

huhsamovar 14y ago

So, the error wasn't amended and the form wasn't signed. Now you have to put up with the law. If the agent said they didn't care about the error, surely the correct course of action would be to correct it and sign it. Am I missing something?

dhimes 14y ago
No- you are correct. The authorities should be pursued by the author until the paperwork is properly handled. The person who seized the boat should have to answer for trying to intimidate the author into signing false documents. This is all provable.

pg 14y ago

There seem to be so many stories of this type. E.g. yesterday http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-a-united-airlines-flight-for-taking-pictures.html http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-a-united-airlines-flight... 9/11 seems to have given a big swathe of people in the US the ability to do outrageous things more or less at will. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be one of its most damaging consequences.

nirvana 14y ago

He's afraid to sign a form that has an error on it, because he's a moral person. Meanwhile, she's giddy to steal his very expensive boat, because she knows no matter how much she fucks it up, it's not going to come back on her. Plus nice new boat to screw around with. If this situation doesn't show how profoundly corrupt government is, then I don't know what will. And all the evil like this-- it is visited not just on rich people like him, but on poor people, who have their assets stolen by government agents just as giddy as she is. Yet most articles about it don't even have the guts to call it what it is: Theft. It's pathetic what "americans" have become. If he's pulled out a gun and shot her dead, right then and there, he would have been in his rights, she was in the act of grand theft, and it would have been self defense. But of course mentioning that truth is shocking-- shocking!-- to the enslaved sheep that americans have become. (Hell the idea that he should be allowed to have a gun even, seems to be alarming to the impotent cowards that inhabit this country.)

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jrs235 14y ago

I’m sure they’ll say they haven’t seized the property yet… They’re just holding onto evidence. After Michael spends thousands on lawyers fees to get it back and prevent a default judgement and seizure he might get it back. This could turn into one of those ridiculous, United States vs Buddy (yes against the property not the person) cases where Michael will have more trouble defending the boat as only a third party witness if they allow his testimony… After all they’ll claim there is no known rightful owner and that it was abandoned at customs. Sick.

jrs235 14y ago
Really? A downvote? Has anyone else ever heard of United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.... I would not doubt that if you asked DHS if they seized his property that they would say they haven't and that it is currently being held as evidence. He'll probably get his boat back but not after a legal fight costing several thousands of dollars.

bloaf 14y ago

If it had been me, I probably would have started singing the bureaucrat song from Futurama: People, We didn't choose to be bureaucrats No that's what our mighty Ja made us We treat people like swine and make them stand in line Even if nobody paid us They say the world looks down on the bureaucrats They say we're anal, compulsive and weird But when push comes to shove you gotta do what you love Even if it's not a good idea

honorable_man 14y ago

Okay all, the rest of the story(I was there). 1. The amount on both invoice and CBP form were in U.S dollars correctly completed on the form. 2. Just because someone has $$$ and posts something first on the web, doesn't make them true. 3. The officer in question did not act gleefully, in fact SHE called back to the office and vessel manufacturer several times to verify the stated value. 4. The officer in question vilified by this rich individual now has to endure all the grief posted here and elsewhere by Mr rich guy and explain why she followed the LEGAL document value and wouldn't cow to his brow beating. 5. Coastal Craft ended up paying for a broker to perform what should have been a personal importation and guess what The value on that entry was EXACTLY the same as on the CBP presented form. 6. Mr. Rich guy will probably post everywhere now that HE was right due to the fact that he has his boat and did not sign anything, but the fact is that the company took the high moral ground and due to ALL the false posting by Arrington, they paid for the paperwork to be processed. 7. We are all at the mercy of individuals who feel (right or wrong) that they can put out whatever they feel and get hundreds of all of you all worked up about the big bad government, fact is she is/was correct and all of us had to jump thru hoops due to arrington's posts and written falsehoods. 8. I am proud to work with this office/officer and all of you should be ashamed for vilifying her/DHS without knowing the facts. 9. Most working folks have bosses and we are no exception sadly we had to answer many questions for correctly performing our sworn duties due to all the bad press put out by someone who feels entitled or above the public servant. Shame on you.

honorable_man 14y ago