4 ms·
Let me repeat what has been said in the other Hacker News threads about the same story: This is neither the law nor the actual practice in the US. It is just
by pfedor 14y ago
Let me repeat what has been said in the other Hacker News threads about the same story:
This is neither the law nor the actual practice in the US. It is just something crazy that DHS once said. If they ever actually searched someone 100 miles away from the border, that person could sue and there is no reason to believe that the verdict would be different from Almeida-Sanchez v. United States.
- ck2 14y agoWhat you are repeating is wrong. There are checkpoints a hundred miles from the border in many states and several videos of people suffering horrible results when they refuse searches at these checkpoints. The TSA also routinely performs searches far from the border with their VIPR team. (because someone might drive a train into a building? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_and_Response_team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_a... )
- stock_toaster 14y agoInteresting section in that wikipedia about Amtrak temporarily banning TSA/VIPR from its property.
- ck2 14y agoThat ban is over and VIPR has been back at train stations since. Here's a story from January 2013 http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=8957075 http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay... The most alarming part is how the "news" is now seemingly okay with all this.
- veidr 14y ago> This is neither the law nor the actual practice in the US. Not true; this is absolutely the actual practice in the US. Look what you have to do if you want to avoid being searched in one of these rights-exclusion zones: http://masonmark.com/mundane-american-hero/ http://masonmark.com/mundane-american-hero/
- mtgx 14y agoDidn't DHS reconfirm their position on this recently?
- freddealmeida 14y agoNice to see an Almeida standing up.