5 ms·

I agree with your sentiment. I also find it funny that this sort of illegal government activity actually caught someone selling weapon parts to Iran. Does the N

I agree with your sentiment. I also find it funny that this sort of illegal government activity actually caught someone selling weapon parts to Iran. Does the NSA system actually work? Random success? Statistically speaking you will eventually catch something, right?

d_t_w 11y ago
Oliver North had his laptop confiscated?
- a3n 11y ago
  Where? By warrant? Personal or work? Link?
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Parent comment was making a joke: Oliver North was one of the people involved in the Iran-Contra affair illegally shipping arms to Iran in the 80s while also supporting terrorism in Nicaragua.
    - a3n 11y ago
      I was self-aware at the time. :) I might have realized that laptops weren't in common use at the time. I remember his secretary Fawn Hall smuggled documents out in her boots for him. How old school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_Hall
csbrooks 11y ago
Yes, invading everyone's privacy and illegally searching them will catch more bad guys. I don't think anyone's arguing it won't. The point is, it's not worth the loss of freedom and privacy. The purpose of America is not to make cops' jobs as easy as possible.
- draugadrotten 11y ago
  > The purpose of America is not to make cops' jobs as easy as possible Why not make cops jobs as easy as possible?
  - csbrooks 11y ago
    If that was the absolute top priority of this country, what would America look like?
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    Because constitutional protections are not black and white. They protect not just against grossly anti-constitutional laws, but against stupid laws, too, by making them impractical, but not unconstitutional, to enforce.
  - granos 11y ago
    Its a trade off. For the last few decades (at least) government policy/lawmaking has been leaning towards more invasive surveillance of the general public. This certainly makes police work easier, as they already have monitoring systems in place that allow them to collect information much more easily. They may already have a file on a suspect. The down side is that public opinion and policy making are constantly changing. A person who is constantly monitored needs to worry that any activity they take part in today, regardless of how legal/acceptable, may become unacceptable tomorrow. Take, for example, boycotting by Canadian citizens of goods made in Israeli settlements. A year ago one may have disagreed with the sentiment, but it certainly wouldn't have seemed illegal. Today the Canadian government is threatening to bring these citizens up on hate crime charges. (As an aside I am not deeply familiar with this particular issue and am using it only as and example and as described at face value. Its entirely possible that some people have committed hate crimes.) The Canadian government certainly already has files on some, if not all, of the biggest actors in this movement. In a truly democratic society we need to tolerate and even bolster the voice of dissent. We claim to value our (nearly) unlimited freedom of speech. But a person who needs to worry that all of their words are recorded and can be used out of context later to condemn them will be less likely to voice their dissent. That loss of freedom is the cost of making police job's as easy as possible.
regularfry 11y ago
That's not quite what happened. The guy was already under investigation, and his laptop was specifically targeted when he crossed the border. This wasn't a dragnet win: it just supplied additional evidence in a case that was already being built.
- talmand 11y ago
  Then why not have the warrant ready to go when he crossed the border? If the suspect was already under investigation and there was suspicion there would be evidence on the laptop, then it would seem a warrant would be easy to obtain. Then this would be a non-issue.
  - regularfry 11y ago
    I'm guessing that this wasn't the agents' understanding of the process. From reading the opinion, it seems that they thought it was perfectly fine to search the laptop on spec, then later apply for a warrant to justify what they found. They had enough warning that he was going to be going through customs to decide whether to grab the laptop when he arrived in the country or when he left it, opting for the latter, so yes, they would have had plenty of time to apply for a warrant if they thought they needed one up-front.
    - talmand 11y ago
      It's not that they thought it was fine to just search the laptop; that it was fine for them to seize the laptop, remove it from the scene, and then search at their leisure. It would be like border agents seizing a car crossing the border, towing it to another location (leaving owner behind as well), and searching it later. How that comes off as a reasonable search to anyone is beyond me.
itistoday2 11y ago
> I also find it funny that this sort of illegal government activity actually caught someone selling weapon parts All it said was that he was selling accelerometers, which could be used in a variety of things (i.e. autonomous vehicles, commercial aircraft, etc.): The defendant was accused of unlawfully selling Q-Flex Accelerometers—models QA-2000-10, QA-2000-20, and QA-3000 There was no statement of intent (in the article at least), so saying these were to be used for weapons seems a bit premature.

d_t_w 11y ago

Oliver North had his laptop confiscated?

a3n 11y ago
Where? By warrant? Personal or work? Link?
- pjc50 11y ago
  Parent comment was making a joke: Oliver North was one of the people involved in the Iran-Contra affair illegally shipping arms to Iran in the 80s while also supporting terrorism in Nicaragua.
  - a3n 11y ago
    I was self-aware at the time. :) I might have realized that laptops weren't in common use at the time. I remember his secretary Fawn Hall smuggled documents out in her boots for him. How old school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_Hall

csbrooks 11y ago

Yes, invading everyone's privacy and illegally searching them will catch more bad guys. I don't think anyone's arguing it won't. The point is, it's not worth the loss of freedom and privacy. The purpose of America is not to make cops' jobs as easy as possible.

draugadrotten 11y ago
> The purpose of America is not to make cops' jobs as easy as possible Why not make cops jobs as easy as possible?
- csbrooks 11y ago
  If that was the absolute top priority of this country, what would America look like?
- Zigurd 11y ago
  Because constitutional protections are not black and white. They protect not just against grossly anti-constitutional laws, but against stupid laws, too, by making them impractical, but not unconstitutional, to enforce.
- granos 11y ago
  Its a trade off. For the last few decades (at least) government policy/lawmaking has been leaning towards more invasive surveillance of the general public. This certainly makes police work easier, as they already have monitoring systems in place that allow them to collect information much more easily. They may already have a file on a suspect. The down side is that public opinion and policy making are constantly changing. A person who is constantly monitored needs to worry that any activity they take part in today, regardless of how legal/acceptable, may become unacceptable tomorrow. Take, for example, boycotting by Canadian citizens of goods made in Israeli settlements. A year ago one may have disagreed with the sentiment, but it certainly wouldn't have seemed illegal. Today the Canadian government is threatening to bring these citizens up on hate crime charges. (As an aside I am not deeply familiar with this particular issue and am using it only as and example and as described at face value. Its entirely possible that some people have committed hate crimes.) The Canadian government certainly already has files on some, if not all, of the biggest actors in this movement. In a truly democratic society we need to tolerate and even bolster the voice of dissent. We claim to value our (nearly) unlimited freedom of speech. But a person who needs to worry that all of their words are recorded and can be used out of context later to condemn them will be less likely to voice their dissent. That loss of freedom is the cost of making police job's as easy as possible.

regularfry 11y ago

That's not quite what happened. The guy was already under investigation, and his laptop was specifically targeted when he crossed the border. This wasn't a dragnet win: it just supplied additional evidence in a case that was already being built.

talmand 11y ago
Then why not have the warrant ready to go when he crossed the border? If the suspect was already under investigation and there was suspicion there would be evidence on the laptop, then it would seem a warrant would be easy to obtain. Then this would be a non-issue.
- regularfry 11y ago
  I'm guessing that this wasn't the agents' understanding of the process. From reading the opinion, it seems that they thought it was perfectly fine to search the laptop on spec, then later apply for a warrant to justify what they found. They had enough warning that he was going to be going through customs to decide whether to grab the laptop when he arrived in the country or when he left it, opting for the latter, so yes, they would have had plenty of time to apply for a warrant if they thought they needed one up-front.
  - talmand 11y ago
    It's not that they thought it was fine to just search the laptop; that it was fine for them to seize the laptop, remove it from the scene, and then search at their leisure. It would be like border agents seizing a car crossing the border, towing it to another location (leaving owner behind as well), and searching it later. How that comes off as a reasonable search to anyone is beyond me.

itistoday2 11y ago

> I also find it funny that this sort of illegal government activity actually caught someone selling weapon parts All it said was that he was selling accelerometers, which could be used in a variety of things (i.e. autonomous vehicles, commercial aircraft, etc.): The defendant was accused of unlawfully selling Q-Flex Accelerometers—models QA-2000-10, QA-2000-20, and QA-3000 There was no statement of intent (in the article at least), so saying these were to be used for weapons seems a bit premature.