his organization issued guidelines reminding agents about the issue -- but he has also refused to make the guidelines public, stating that they're "law enforcement sensitive."
...when law enforcement won’t disclose the laws they’re enforcing, we have problems. this isn’t how a free and open society works. These bozos seem to forget they work for us. Government is for the people, not for itself.
This is a class based market economy. Government is for the ruling class. They know capitalism progressively increases social inequality and they haven't forgotten the 20th century.
What "inequality"? This is America, not the old Soviet Union. We are born equal, but after that you're on your own and it's up to you to make a life for yourself. To hell with that Progressive/Marxist/Commie nonsense.
When Marx was alive, the proletariat was starving, had almost nothing but the essentials to survive–albeit barely, and had to work to the bone to make ends meet. Today, the middle class and–even the lower class in the West–is able to afford a computer, a car, more than plenty of food, and perhaps even a pet. And it wasn’t because of marxism. It was because the average worker made huge gains in average collective wealth as manufacturing and global communication improved. Marxism is an outdated ideology. The average middle and lower class workers in America has a significantly higher standard of living now than any other time in history. Complaining that the bourgeoise is richer now is just pure envy. It was a valid argument back in those days because of how separated the social classes were. It’s not a valid argument anymore. At least not in America. You can say, “It’s principles!” but principles don’t hold much weight unless you can back them up somehow through application. And we all know how that turned out.
If this comes to pass, I'm writing a big fat check to the ACLU, putting my phone in my checked bag, and disabling the fingerprint activation. And no, I've got nothing to hide.
gatorguy said: [...] the relative sparseness of major events in the US as compared to Europe for instance is testament to the excellent work of our policing agencies (FBI/CIA/NSA/Local agencies) made possible by the tools they have available to them.
Is the difference the result of law enforcement resources and practices, or is it just that the long distance and oceans between hostile territories and the United States make it expensive and inconvenient for foreigners to pop in and blow things up?
Would wiping a phone before flying (after an encrypted backup to iCloud) solve the problem of a search?
Yes, but it might also looks suspicious and get you into bigger trouble. And yes, that's already happened.
That's not the whole story though. Pretty much anything can "look suspicious" to law enforcement these days. A Customs agent may simply not like the shape or color of your face and use "he looked suspicious" as an excuse for further searches. They may even perform an unusually intense search so as to emotionally provoke the person being searched, hoping the person being searched will get angry so they can use that natural human reaction of anger as cause for further searches or even detainment. This isn't pessimism or anti-governmentalism. It is observation of reality.
I highly recommend the book "1984" for those of you who have not read it.
Patrick Henry was right to ask for either Liberty or Death. When we sell our souls to the God of Security, we lose both security and privacy (among other things) in the end. That doesn't mean we don't need government or laws or security at all. It means we have them but keep them as small and unobtrusive as possible. We are not doing that now. Now we allow terrorists or the threat of terrorism to scare the populace into supporting measures that restrict individual liberty to dangerous levels.
I prefer to take greater risk in life in exchange for greater freedom. Unless you are willing to afford your neighbor with more freedom than you afford your own self, then you are not truly a proponent of freedom. (For example, I don't drink alcohol for many reasons, but I would not support another Constitutional amendment banning it again.) The day more Americans are willing to take greater risk in exchange for expanded individual liberty is the day freedom will truly reign once again in the US of A.
Greater security sounds good on the surface, but it's a raging lion beneath. Security supporters have more to fear from the State than from terrorists. Support liberty instead. Freedom is risky but worth it.
This is how the system is set up and if they want in then they need to do it legally. It's that simple.
Why do people give away their freedoms and rights for FAKE security? The Terrorist Threat in almost nonexistent and not worth your freedoms and our money. We spend billions for security to protect us from absolutely nothing when it comes to this statistically. It's all FAKE and agenda driven. Here a list of thing that REALLY kill American's so maybe we should ban these things. How many people die from T in the USA each year? Almost none. Only 30 people have died from terrorism since 2001. More Americans have died from squirrel and raccoon attacks than have died from terrorism since 9/11.
Let's do the math... 30 people since 9/11 is less than 2 people a year. If you include 9/11 it's 178 a year. Still way less...
- Slip and Falls "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over one million Americans suffer a slip, trip, and fall injury and over 17, 000 people die in the U.S. annually because of these injuries."
- Bicycles "In 2015 in the United States, over 1,000 bicyclists died and there were almost 467,000 bicycle-related injuries."
- 300,000Americans die of obesity every year.
- 40,000 Americans per year die of car accidents.
- 550,000 Americans per year die of cancer.
- Drowning 2000
- Poisoning 39,000
- Fires 2700
Chocking 2500
So sad!
Not that I disagree with your basic point, but if you refuse they may in turn refuse to let you on your plane.
I would like someone to explain how looking at what's on my phone is every going to be a useful way to prevent terrorism--especially if you specifically exclude cloud data. Do we really think terrorists are keeping incriminating emails or plans directly on their phones, unencrypted? Are they going to read every email on my phone before letting me board? And look at every photo? There is such a fundamental difference between doing a physical search for bombs and weapons and a digital search of my devices it's not even funny. Congress should step in and flat out prohibit any search of digital content of passengers without a warrant. This would no nothing to hinder law enforcement and, conveniently, complies with the Constitution.
I love the Mobile Pass app, but it just occurred to me that to use it you do have to unlock the phone at both customs checkpoints, which does kind of invite a search. I don't think I have anything in particular to hide, but the idea of some stranger rifling through my phone is still kind of creepy, and bound to waste a lot of time.
This is it exactly. I have nothing to hide legally as well just don't like the idea of some stranger going through my phone. Passwords can be changed immediately as well, just don't like some customs agent going randomly through my phone , just because he/she can. Creepy is the way I would describe it as well.
i don't have anything to hide but i respect the right of folks to privacy so i feel like for them to search your phone they have to have probable cause that you are actually up to something. and saying that you are brown and/or came from the middle east to me isn't enough. photos and fingerprints match a warrant which allows them to detain you and get a warrant to search your stuff sounds about right to me. finding a gun in your carry on would work also.
Right idea, wrong argument. Probable cause is not necessary. Is walking through the metal detector an illegal search too? Are explosive-sniffing dogs at ball games illegal? There needs to be a reason why inspecting everybody's phone is beneficial. I haven't looked, but I would bet there is some sort of implied consent statement when you are applying for a passport.
I disagree. You are being searched for weapons. Searching your phone, they want to know your beliefs. Big difference. TSA theater can continue to make people take off their shoes and belts so they will think they are safe, but this is way over the line.
Just create a second iCloud account with the basic contacts you need in it. Then when travelling wipe the phone setup with your second account. Once past security remove the account and add your primary one back. That way you can be certain no one is having a nose through your personal stuff.
Just create a second iCloud account with the basic contacts you need in it. Then when travelling wipe the phone setup with your second account. Once past security remove the account and add your primary one back. That way you can be certain no one is having a nose through your personal stuff.
Or, you know, just recognize this is unconstitutional and refuse to allow it to stay on the books.
Would wiping a phone before flying (after an encrypted backup to iCloud) solve the problem of a search?
Sure. It would not prevent them looking at it tho even tho there's nothing there to see.
But if you are suspected of being involved in a major crime Apple may turn over your backed-up cloud data to them anyway with a lawful order to do so. IMHO At the end of the day the only ones with a worry for the foreseeable future are those folks who who seem to be out to cause harm but not be discovered and suffer the consequences. Yes the law enforcement agencies may be protecting your rights to safety and security while depriving certain individuals of the chance to take it from you. I don't personally see the issue with that. If someone does I think they may suffer from a grandiose view of their own importance.
Yes, this is about stopping terrorists because terrorists are sure to take along all the incriminating evidence on their phones! Because we all know that all terrorists are stupid and would never think to use encrypted comms, separate phones for nefarious actions etc! Can you show me again the statistics of how many plots, or even single-acting players, have been foiled by the authorities having these types of abilities?
Sorry gator boy, but it is this (as in your) type of apathetic behaviour that has allowed the erosion of very hard-fought personal rights over a very short timeframe. Under the pre-text of "safety" and "security" the free world has allowed ourselves to be voluntarily shifted dangerously towards the empowering of "despotic" leadership of the future.
Explain to me again how these types of powers don't provide a slippery slope towards the complete erosion of people's rights? And, for pity sake, don't try to invoke the hackneyed "Necessary tradeoffs for the safety and security of the people" until you can point to some meaningful statistics on how these powers have actually averted a real problem – that the authorities were not already aware of through other means!
At the moment the leaders of the free-world (the US) can't even seem to find a way to indict individuals who confess (publicly tweet out their own emails) their intent to illegally collude with another nation. Why give them more powers when they can't even use the ones they have properly?
his organization issued guidelines reminding agents about the issue -- but he has also refused to make the guidelines public, stating that they're "law enforcement sensitive."
...when law enforcement won’t disclose the laws they’re enforcing, we have problems. this isn’t how a free and open society works. These bozos seem to forget they work for us. Government is for the people, not for itself.
They are not hiding laws, they are hiding guidelines. Forcing them to reveal their methods would be a terrible idea.
For example, if the SWAT team uses a specific method for breaking down doors, they shouldn't be required to make it public. The fact that they break down doors is what is made public.
Your logic is like saying we should tell terrorists exactly how we find them because its their right to know.
And you're pretending the rest of the world is better? Ha!
trackeroz said: At the moment the leaders of the free-world (the US) can't even seem to find a way to indict individuals who confess (publicly tweet out their own emails) their intent to illegally collude with another nation. Why give them more powers when they can't even use the ones they have properly?
Oh, so something that didn't happen and which was invented wholesale by people who have admitted it's not true, you mean. Thanks for clarifying. Meanwhile in reality…
If I am the bad guy, I just transfer all the data to a micro SD with heavy encryption. And stuck it inside my noses.
Or just change all the words in the note to different one in foreign dictionary and encrypte it.
Or just store the data in some faraway land in a turn off server. After arrived, just turn it on and the data will be back online.
There are millions way to do it. This search is only usable to the dump and lazy bad guy. If they put some heart and effort into it. Just random search of some Middle Eastern looking guy is useless. Not to mention most bad guy in US is homegrown.
If I am the bad guy, I just transfer all the data to a micro SD with heavy encryption. And stuck it inside my noses.
Or just change all the words in the note to different one in foreign dictionary and encrypte it.
Or just store the data in some faraway land in a turn off server. After arrived, just turn it on and the data will be back online.
There are millions way to do it. This search is only usable to the dump and lazy bad guy. If they put some heart and effort into it. Just random search of some Middle Eastern looking guy is useless. Not to mention most bad guy in US is homegrown.
If you're going to go to all that trouble then just wipe the device, and then sign in with a fake account that will restore your settings that includes map locations to US power plants and dams, major political landmarks, and only comes with two apps: the Qur'an and a flight simulator.
gatorguy said: Serious question: What countries do you visit where they don't have restrictions and rules on what can be brought into their country, and that personal property of yours cannot be searched.
Are you from the land of free? Or you are a commie?
cause you sound like someone from a communist country?
gatorguy said: Serious question: What countries do you visit where they don't have restrictions and rules on what can be brought into their country, and that personal property of yours cannot be searched.
Are you from the land of free?
Good one! I love how Americans think no other countries have freedoms even as the US keeps slipping. Just keep telling yourself: We've always been at war with Eurasia.
Comments
What "inequality"? This is America, not the old Soviet Union. We are born equal, but after that you're on your own and it's up to you to make a life for yourself. To hell with that Progressive/Marxist/Commie nonsense.
When Marx was alive, the proletariat was starving, had almost nothing but the essentials to survive–albeit barely, and had to work to the bone to make ends meet. Today, the middle class and–even the lower class in the West–is able to afford a computer, a car, more than plenty of food, and perhaps even a pet. And it wasn’t because of marxism. It was because the average worker made huge gains in average collective wealth as manufacturing and global communication improved. Marxism is an outdated ideology. The average middle and lower class workers in America has a significantly higher standard of living now than any other time in history. Complaining that the bourgeoise is richer now is just pure envy. It was a valid argument back in those days because of how separated the social classes were. It’s not a valid argument anymore. At least not in America. You can say, “It’s principles!” but principles don’t hold much weight unless you can back them up somehow through application. And we all know how that turned out.
North Korea
Russia
USA
I highly recommend the book "1984" for those of you who have not read it.
Patrick Henry was right to ask for either Liberty or Death. When we sell our souls to the God of Security, we lose both security and privacy (among other things) in the end. That doesn't mean we don't need government or laws or security at all. It means we have them but keep them as small and unobtrusive as possible. We are not doing that now. Now we allow terrorists or the threat of terrorism to scare the populace into supporting measures that restrict individual liberty to dangerous levels.
I prefer to take greater risk in life in exchange for greater freedom. Unless you are willing to afford your neighbor with more freedom than you afford your own self, then you are not truly a proponent of freedom. (For example, I don't drink alcohol for many reasons, but I would not support another Constitutional amendment banning it again.) The day more Americans are willing to take greater risk in exchange for expanded individual liberty is the day freedom will truly reign once again in the US of A.
Greater security sounds good on the surface, but it's a raging lion beneath. Security supporters have more to fear from the State than from terrorists. Support liberty instead. Freedom is risky but worth it.
Sorry gator boy, but it is this (as in your) type of apathetic behaviour that has allowed the erosion of very hard-fought personal rights over a very short timeframe. Under the pre-text of "safety" and "security" the free world has allowed ourselves to be voluntarily shifted dangerously towards the empowering of "despotic" leadership of the future.
Explain to me again how these types of powers don't provide a slippery slope towards the complete erosion of people's rights? And, for pity sake, don't try to invoke the hackneyed "Necessary tradeoffs for the safety and security of the people" until you can point to some meaningful statistics on how these powers have actually averted a real problem – that the authorities were not already aware of through other means!
At the moment the leaders of the free-world (the US) can't even seem to find a way to indict individuals who confess (publicly tweet out their own emails) their intent to illegally collude with another nation. Why give them more powers when they can't even use the ones they have properly?
For example, if the SWAT team uses a specific method for breaking down doors, they shouldn't be required to make it public. The fact that they break down doors is what is made public.
Your logic is like saying we should tell terrorists exactly how we find them because its their right to know.
Not going there when it’s like this.
Or just change all the words in the note to different one in foreign dictionary and encrypte it.
Or just store the data in some faraway land in a turn off server. After arrived, just turn it on and the data will be back online.
There are millions way to do it. This search is only usable to the dump and lazy bad guy. If they put some heart and effort into it. Just random search of some Middle Eastern looking guy is useless. Not to mention most bad guy in US is homegrown.
cause you sound like someone from a communist country?