Senators Propose Bill Requiring Warrants To Search Devices at the Border (cnet.com) 179
An anonymous reader shares a report: If you're taking a trip in to or out of the US, border agents currently have free rein to search through your digital devices. Unlike police, agents don't need a warrant to look through your phones, laptops and other electronics. Two US senators are hoping to change that with a bipartisan bill. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, and Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, on Wednesday introduced the Protecting Data at the Border Act, which would require agents to obtain a warrant before they can search Americans' devices at the border.
The number of electronic searches at the border has spiked in the last four years. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security conducted more than 33,000 searches on devices, compared with 4,764 searches in 2015. Customs and Border Protection declined to comment. "The border is quickly becoming a rights-free zone for Americans who travel. The government shouldn't be able to review your whole digital life simply because you went on vacation, or had to travel for work," Wyden said in a statement.
The number of electronic searches at the border has spiked in the last four years. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security conducted more than 33,000 searches on devices, compared with 4,764 searches in 2015. Customs and Border Protection declined to comment. "The border is quickly becoming a rights-free zone for Americans who travel. The government shouldn't be able to review your whole digital life simply because you went on vacation, or had to travel for work," Wyden said in a statement.
Why not apply it to everyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
The border is quickly becoming a rights-free zone for Americans who travel
What about non-Americans? Should they just suffer any indignity at the hands of the border officers? In most civilized countries, there may be some extra requirements you have to comply with when entering the country, but when it comes to civil rights and due process, both residents and guests are afforded the same protection here.
Re:Why not apply it to everyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
At present, that seems to be the direction we're heading ... and it's why a lot of non-Americans are simply refusing to travel to the USA.
The numbers are starting to show it [forbes.com].
The reality is, given the current state of America, non-Americans are starting to decide not to deal with the whole thing.
The folks voting for anti-immigration policies (Score:4, Insightful)
Young folk need to get out and vote. I'm not calling them out for not voting (the old folk make it hard, at least in the United States, by keeping polling places as far from University as possible and writing laws to require a drivers license to vote). But the old folk are going to wreck shit if you don't because, well, they're old and they're set economically so they don't care if the world burns.
My step-mom said it best when she was weaving in and out of traffic and I commented she was gonna get hit: "Let 'em hit me, I'm older and I'm better insured".
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if you step-mom got it from the movie, I forgot it's name, or if both got it from the same place.
It's voter suppression that's what (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Require ID, sure - what's wrong with requiring ID?
It might be potentially fine -- if the state took upon itself the responsibility to ensure that everyone eligible to vote got that ID at no cost to them. These voter ID laws never, ever do this. They always have provisions that made them difficult for many eligible voters to get at all -- onerous (even impossible for some people) documentation, requiring travel to inconveniently located offices only occasionally open, fees that must be paid, etc, etc. The drafters of this legislation have spent decades now
I don't drive with her that often (Score:2)
Re: Why not apply it to everyone? (Score:4, Informative)
...and it's why a lot of non-Americans are simply refusing to travel to the USA.
That's a rather amusing claim, considering the current situation on our border. Any more witticisms you'd care to share? If not, here's one my mom told me when I was fourteen (don't blame her; she was raised Catholic):
Q: Heard the latest gay pickup line?
A: "May I push in your stool?"
It took 11 months to legally bring my wife here from Brazil on a K1 Fiancee Visa. It would have been cheaper and faster to smuggle her across the border, but I am against illegal immigration. We need to make the legal methods of entry more reasonable. The way Trump has doubled-down on illegal immigration, I'm not sure undocumented border crossing would have been faster than obtaining a visa.
Re: Why not apply it to everyone? (Score:4, Informative)
Most illegal overstayers arrive in airports. Crossing the border is a red herring, the wall is mostly a joke. For the amount of money Trump would waste on it, he could ACTUALLY secure the border, with patrols, for a looooong time.
He's fixated on the wall because he knows his Presidency won't last and he wants to have "icons" to point to when he's in prison, fuming.
Re: Why not apply it to everyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
For the amount of money Trump would waste on it, he could ACTUALLY secure the border, with patrols, for a looooong time.
I always thought a fleet of blimps with IR cameras would be a lot more effective. And cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
For the amount of money Trump would waste on it, he could ACTUALLY secure the border, with patrols, for a looooong time.
I always thought a fleet of blimps with IR cameras would be a lot more effective. And cheaper.
That only provides detection, you still need patrols to be able to respond. Of course, the same thing is true with a wall; walls don't prevent crossing, they only slow and complicate crossing. Even with a wall, you still need detection and response capabilities.
Alternatively, what's really better, and cheaper, is to remove the incentive. If the incentive for illegal immigrants is work, then make it impossible for them to work in the United States. Impose harsh penalties, civil and criminal, on any Ame
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This page lists a non-trivial amount of folks who were APPREHENDED at the border. It doesn't include those who may have got through.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/s... [cbp.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Except the Democrats don't want to fix it either.
Your reply still doesn't make what he did correct. You just troll by pulling something else into the discussion.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The reality is, given the current state of America, non-Americans are starting to decide not to deal with the whole thing.
I wish people south of the U.S. would adopt this philosophy.
They don't have to deal with immigration, they just come in.
Based on modern interpretations... (Score:1, Interesting)
Non-Americans are a Constitution-free zone, as are any Americans declared 'enemy combatants' usually via excuses of 'terrorism'. I mean after all, why live like a bad 1980s TV show where you have to nab the villain even after he killed dozens of people to 'bring him to justice' when you can just use your overwatch capabilities and one hit kill him with a hellfire missile along with acceptable civilian casualties (that also exceed the number killed before you made him a priority to 'bring to justice'.)
But re
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Have you been paying attention. The Trump Administration uses their executive rights to enforce the laws, to be extremely tough to a point of cruelty to make sure immigration laws is enforced as hard as possible.
It would be like a traffic cop stopping and arresting you over going 0.01mph past the speed limit for speeding, or doing the same for going 0.01mph below the speed limit for driving too slow. The laws allow such action, however the executive branches in government normally allow leeway to make sur
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You do realize that this process started under the Obama admin right? If so then I also hope you realize that while the president can and does at time issue direct orders to various executive agencies, they usually don't and most of the operations are handled by the department directory or secretary. Most things only get to the executive's desk if it becomes a major problem. That's true not just in government but also in private industry.
Re: Why not apply it to everyone? (Score:1)
List of executive orders signed ed by each president
George Bush 291
Barack Obama 276
Donald Trump 110
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
An Anonymous Coward misleadingly stated:
List of executive orders signed ed by each president
George Bush 291
Barack Obama 276
Donald Trump 110
Oh, please.
Bush and Obama both served two full terms. Trump has, thus far, served less than 2.5 years of his first term.
That puts him on track to substantially exceed the total number of EO's Bush issued, should he somehow win re-election ...
(Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)
--
Check out my novel [amazon.com] ...
Re:Why not apply it to everyone? (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that this process started under the Obama admin right?
No, it started before that, but it did increase during the Obama administration.
The relevant court decision is United States v. Arnold (2008): “We are satisfied that reasonable suspicion is not needed for customs officials to search a laptop or other personal electronic storage device at the border.” (There were previous decisions saying that searches were acceptable with probable cause, but I think that's the first one saying reasonable suspicion is NOT needed.)
Good history here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homese... [fas.org]
If so then I also hope you realize that while the president can and does at time issue direct orders to various executive agencies, they usually don't and most of the operations are handled by the department directory or secretary. Most things only get to the executive's desk if it becomes a major problem. That's true not just in government but also in private industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the context. So technically it started under Bush but we didn't really hear about it until years later.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you been paying attention. The Trump Administration uses their executive rights to enforce the laws, to be extremely tough to a point of cruelty to make sure immigration laws is enforced as hard as possible.
Overrunning the borders of any country is a crime. Liberals seem to like turning a blind eye to those that commit crime (i.e. See Massachusetts DA Rachael Rollins and her refusal to prosecute shoplifters) Presenting yourself at a border crossing and requesting asylum does not get you thrown into what you fuckwits call cages. Sneaking across the border does. Just because you can't find a good paying job in your native land does not automatically burden this country with a requirement to take you in and f
Re: (Score:2)
The highway I take to work has a 55 MPH speed limit. If you're doing less than 60, you're probably obstructing traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
What about non-Americans? Should they just suffer any indignity at the hands of the border officers?
Consider yourself to be at an advantage. US law does not apply to you unless you attempt to enter the USA*. US law applies to its citizens anywhere in the world.
*Or do business with a US citizen. Or buy/sell petroleum anywhere in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider yourself to be at an advantage. US law does not apply to you unless you attempt to enter the USA*.
Obvious counter-example: Julian Assange.
Many US laws have extra-territorial reach and apply to non-citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
What about non-Americans? Should they just suffer any indignity at the hands of the border officers?
Consider yourself to be at an advantage. US law does not apply to you unless you attempt to enter the USA*. US law applies to its citizens anywhere in the world.
*Or do business with a US citizen. Or buy/sell petroleum anywhere in the world.
Americans like to think their laws apply to everyone in the world. It's why so many people even in "allied" western countries are starting to really dislike America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The entire point of having a border checkpoint is so you can question and search people attempting to enter. All this bill is doing is forcing CBP to just let people who can prove they're allowed to enter to enter, without subjecting them to those questions and searches.
Nonsense. You can still question them, and you can still physically search them, but under the proposed law, you wouldn't be able to treat them like a suspected terrorist and go through their phone, laptop, etc. without probable cause and due process — you know, like the founding fathers actually intended.
Besides, I can pretty much guarantee that if a law like this ever gets passed, there will be a FISA-like court that springs up overnight to get quickie warrants for those rare cases where there is p
Re: (Score:2)
It has gotten to the point where many major companies have laws requiring that people take new laptops with nothing on them, and set them up after they get to their destination, simply because the security risk of having unknown people rifling through highly confidential data is too high.
Re: (Score:2)
Err... companies have policies, I mean. :-D
Take that up with the Canadian, UK, and Aussie Gov (Score:1)
The USA can't force Canada, UK, NZ, Australia, & Israel to change their digital search laws. You realize in those countries all can require you to provide the unlock password for no reason, right? If you refuse, go to jail. Israel will hold you overnight before deporting you, plus they like to check social networking accounts.
The USA will just keep your stuff for 30-180 days, clone it, and eventually return it, if you don't provide the requested access. I've been tempted to refuse. As a US citizen, I
Re: (Score:2)
US courts have long been asked that question. The result is the same. The US gov can ask questions of anyone and look at anything.
No warrant needed as that would slow down the searches. People have to get to the next flight/their ship/bus/the train has to keep to a "time table"
Re "Should they just suffer any indignity at the hands of the border officers?"
Entering another nation is not a given.
That nation has a duty to protect its own citizens first and enforce its own law
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. They're unliky to get angry over something that happens to US citizens, too.
Article summary gets it way wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFS: "Unlike police, agents don't need a warrant to look through your phones, laptops and other electronics."
The fuck you say? The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seize
Re: (Score:2)
Airports are "international territory", US law doesn't apply there.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad your can throw all of that out of the window as long as your are within 100km of the outer border and/or near an airport.
Re: (Score:3)
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
There have been many rulings from the USSC that go counter to the literal wording of the US Constitution. Usually they state something to the effect of balancing interest of the state against the "minor inconvenience" of the subject. See immigration checkpoints inside the border, DUI checkpoints, stop and frisk, etc...
For tangible items, in US v. Ramsey (1977) in a 6 to 3 decisions the USSC said "searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping
Re: (Score:1)
There have been many rulings from the USSC that go counter to the literal wording of the US Constitution.
The fourth amendment says "against unreasonable searches and seizures", not "against all searches and seizures". The definition of "unreasonable" has changed from time to time.
The result of this law will be two-fold. It will be a feather in Wyden's resume. It will cause a lot of people to be delayed at the border while a warrant is obtained, or the person being told "you can save yourself a lot of time, and probably make your connecting flight, if you just agree to the search." It won't really solve anyth
Re: Article summary gets it way wrong... (Score:2)
The Fourth Amendment was de facto repealed in 2001 by the (supremely unpatriotic) Patriot Act.
Re: Why not apply it to everyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice line of reasoning. As long as they are non-americans, they have no rights, and since they have no rights, it's all fair game. You can jail them for as long as you want, and they have no rights to an attorney.
Let's turn all the H1Bs into slaves next. Remember: they have NO RIGHTS.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the point. It's just slavery with more steps.
Re: (Score:2)
I would strongly disagree. Why should we get a warrant and why does privacy matter ? The reasons are universal and in no way related to the citizenship of the person.
Same applies to any law. Non-citizens on US territory have the same rights, precisely because the law applies to them as well.
Finally think about it this way : if a US citizen travels to Europe, he/she would assume he wouldn't be searched or detained for no reason. The opposite should apply as well .. just because the US describes itself as a
Re: (Score:2)
The people of the US did "ordain and establish this Constitution".
I don't recall reading anywhere that the constitution they ordained and established applies only to US citizens.
Please require the warrant to be pre-existing (Score:1)
Otherwise it will be "you can give us your password now and be on your way, or wait a day or two in the secure zone as we go through the process of asking for a warrant and getting it declined."
Re:Please require the warrant to be pre-existing (Score:5, Informative)
The bill already addresses this:
Source: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/i... [senate.gov]
IANAL, but ... (Score:2)
(2) deny entry into or exit from the United States by a United States person
The loophole by which CBP violates the Fourth Amendment is that a 'US Person' is one who has entered the USA and is subject to its laws. People detained at the border pending entry are not yet 'US Persons'. This may vary for US Citizens, as US law applies to them worldwide.
Also, they may not detain you. But your stuff may have to be impounded, pending that warrant.
Re: (Score:1)
Absolutely false and not a loophole.
The power to indefinitely detain and search people and properties crossing the border arises from Article I, of the Constitution which gives Congress the authority to both regulate foreign commerce and "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises."
From the very first Congress in 1789, it has been unquestioned that without the border search exception (i.e. border agents can detain and search individuals and cargo without suspicion or deny entry in order to enforce c
Re: (Score:3)
The bill already addresses this:
So basically they can still hold you up to get "consent" long enough to ensure you'll miss any connecting flights if you don't "voluntarily" give them what they want...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise it will be "you can give us your password now and be on your way, or wait a day or two in the secure zone as we go through the process of asking for a warrant and getting it declined."
Even under current law, they can not detain a US citizen for refusing to provide a password. They may seize the device, but they can not detain the person just for refusing.
Absolutely yes! (Score:1)
I read this summary and thought, introduced in the Senate? Bipartisan? Horray! Then I read Wyden and Rand Paul, and my hopes of it passing were crushed.
Where and how? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It happens whenever someone brown-ish tries to enter the country.
Tall, white people from Holland get free pases for suitcases full of MDMA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that it is less wrong in certain places, but where does this occur most often, and how? It would be easy to assume it is happening mostly at the southern border, but I can't find information to say if that is the case.
Michigan: https://www.courthousenews.com... [courthousenews.com]
Tampa: https://www.courthousenews.com... [courthousenews.com]
Toronto, JFK Airport, Miami, Los Angeles, and O'Hare airports: https://cpj.org/reports/2018/1... [cpj.org]
Houston airport: https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
Constitution is Long Dead (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that this bill is necesary proves the constitution is dead.
To be clear, the constitution defines the powers and limitations of the federal government and says nothing in regards to alterring those terms based upon where the federal agent is located. The fourth amendment protections should already apply everywhere, yet they don't, and this bill is thus necesary.
What constitutes the current federal government's organization if not the constitution we are all lead to believe is its foundation?
Re:Constitution is Long Dead (Score:5, Insightful)
> To be clear, the constitution defines the powers and limitations of the federal government
If Constitution lists the powers of the federal government. Included in that short list are:
Import and export duties
Immigration
Foreign commerce
Given the powers granted the federal government, looking at the contents of a vehicle someone wants to bring into the country is reasonable. The fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches. Searching a truck at the border is a reasonable search for the purpose of import and export taxes, immigration enforcement, and regulating foreign commerce.
From that, we get the general rule that border searches are a reasonable exercise of the federal powers. That actually makes sense, or did make sense. Smartphones are a new technology which requires taking another look at the general rule. The government probably doesn't need to search your phone in order to exercise the powers listed above, so clarification is needed regarding the new technology.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the first level-headed and well reasoned post I've seen in this thread. If it wasn't for the fact I've already replied elsewhere I'd mod you up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't waste your time with ACs. Their goal isn't discourse, its name calling. And you are unlikely to change their mind.
Definition of reasonable search (Score:2)
Searches deemed reasonable in a purely domestic context include:
With probable cause supported by a warrant that meets Constitutional requirements, including limiting it to the minimum necessary to achieve the governments legitimate purposes.
Consent searches
Search incident to arrest
Probable cause and exigent circumstances preclude getting a warrant
No expectation of privacy:
Plain view
Open field
There is less case law regarding border searches, but generally i
* international commerce (Score:2)
That should say international commerce.
The citizenship clause limits how much the government can interfere with travel between states. It does not limit the government I the same way regarding entry into the country.
Re: (Score:2)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. :)
Every Supreme Court justice ever disagrees with you.
Seriously, when one or more justices disagrees with a ruling, either the putcome or just part of the reasoning, they publish a "dissenting opinion", or just "dissent". I've never seen even a dissent argue that the government doesn't have the authority to search vehicles entering the country.
That may be because it's been long recognized that controlling a defined border is an essential element to the definiti
The Constitution is Dead (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do we need this legislation? Is it not redundant?
The fact that this bill is necesary proves the constitution is dead.
To be clear, the constitution defines the powers and limitations of the federal government and says nothing in regards to alterring those terms based upon where the federal agent is located. The fourth amendment protections should already apply everywhere, yet they don't, and this bill is thus necesary.
What constitutes the current federal government's organization if not the constitution we are all lead to believe is its foundation?
Re:The Constitution is Dead (Score:4, Insightful)
learn a little about the law before shooting off your virtual mouth.
searches at the border are constitutional and have been ruled such because they are "reasonable". In line with the Fourth Amendment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Constitution is Dead (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
learn a little about the law before shooting off your virtual mouth.
searches at the border are constitutional and have been ruled such because they are "reasonable". In line with the Fourth Amendment.
Parent is entitled to his interpretations. If you have a problem with it then address it on merits don't hide behind appeals to authority.
There is no shortage of legal wizardry nobody except lawyers view as legitimate. For example: civil asset forfeiture, 100 mile constitution free zones from borders. Both completely indefensible concepts and unsurprisingly both have resulted in widespread abuse of power.
Ultimately legitimacy not laws underwrite government. It's nice to see work to close the gap but as
Re: (Score:2)
hardly "hiding behind authority" when the Supreme Court rules border searches constitutional. That's how it's done here, there is nothing to argue then.
Re: (Score:2)
hardly "hiding behind authority" when the Supreme Court rules border searches constitutional.
That's how it's done here, there is nothing to argue then.
In the country I live people argue over and disagree with supreme court decisions all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
sure, you can hate their decisions or disagree... but doesn't change fact that they are the ones that decide what is constitutional or not, so that border searches are by definition constitutional and lawful and legal. that's how it works, what goes on between your ears is irrelevant.
Constitutional protections do not apply outside US (Score:3)
Data searches... (Score:2)
What's the point in searching devices at the border anyway? Noone is going to physically smuggle data across a border, anyone doing anything remotely illegal is just going to cross the border with a blank/innocuous device and then download their data once they've passed the border.
Re:Data searches... (Score:4, Insightful)
They are just using it as an excuse anyway. I've posted about this subject before. Someone high enough at CBP realized that there is no distinction between data searches and physical searches in the current laws governing their powers. As we have seen, most government agencies are perfectly content with going on fishing expeditions into private citizens lives under the guise of 'security and law enforcement.'
It honestly wouldn't surprise me to see them attempt to argue/implement some type of 'border data search' on anything traversing the network at the border too. They probably haven't thought of it yet and Congress is such a mess they likely won't pass any law stopping it soon. The truly alarming part of a lot of these acts is the fact that clearly enough of certain types of people have reached positions of power/influence within these organizations that have no actual respect for the founding principles of the country. The famous Ben Franklin quote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," is quite applicable and just shows that the people in power don't seem to have any respect for those principles.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the point in searching devices at the border anyway? Noone is going to physically smuggle data across a border, anyone doing anything remotely illegal is just going to cross the border with a blank/innocuous device and then download their data once they've passed the border.
I think that the culture of US law enforcement organizations is to use any/all laws that they can to accomplish what they view as their mission. If current statutes don't distinguish between physical property and goods and virtual/electronic property and goods with respect to searches during border crossings, then border agents will probably tend to include virtual/electronic property and goods as being within their purview. For example, at the fringes of this kind of property/goods there ARE items that ar
Re: (Score:2)
The point is usually making sure that hispanic and middle-eastern looking people don't feel welcome here. It can also apply to annoying journalists and activists.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the point in searching devices at the border anyway? Noone is going to physically smuggle data across a border, anyone doing anything remotely illegal is just going to cross the border with a blank/innocuous device and then download their data once they've passed the border.
Most people aren't as paranoid about data as the average /. reader. In one of the cases mentioned, the Customs Agent looked at the browser history, found a site that he thought might be pr0n, the computer was confiscated, the hard disk removed and subjected to forensic analysis to recover deleted files, and some of the deleted files were determined to be kiddie porn, and the guy arrested.
Wired has a guide: https://www.wired.com/2017/02/... [wired.com] but I will guarantee that 99.9% of the people taking phones and lap
Re: (Score:2)
Many attempts get made to bring back images and movies, support for banned groups, contacts with people in banned groups.
People travel to nations they say they never did to support banned groups.
Funds given to banned groups.
Re " blank/innocuous device"
People often "always" have their full devices with them. Re "download their data once they've passed the border."
A generation of very average people always want to be online with the smartph
Re: (Score:1)
Re:This can not go anywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest enemy to the bill is the same as always. The 'tough on crime' and 'we must stop all terrorism' crowd will deride it as neutering law enforcement and opening out borders up (even though these are US citizens...). Rand Paul is never a good barometer for how wide Republican support for a bill will range anyway. He is a bit of a fanatic, though to his credit a consistent fanatic, about a number of principles and the GOP as a whole waxes and wanes on support for certain things much more fluidly. Not to mention he is a bit of an outcast because he actually has enough backbone to buck party leadership regularly. I may not agree with his views, but I can respect certain attributes about him.
Wyden isn't much better on the democratic side given his penchant for grand standing gestures in legislation. He is constantly creating and introducing idealist bills that he knows will never have a chance. I actually personally like this bill and hope it does pass, but know better than to expect that it has wide bipartisan support on either side based on the sponsors.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Rand Paul is never a good barometer for how wide Republican support for a bill will range anyway."
Right you are on this. That is because he is not really a Republican, he is more of a Libertarian running as a Republican.
>"He is a bit of a fanatic, though to his credit a consistent fanatic, about a number of principles"
He is not a fanatic, he is just principled and uncorrupted. Something very hard to find in politicians.
>"Not to mention he is a bit of an outcast because he actually has enough ba
It's useless anyway (Score:2)
Anyone who even remotely has anything to hide comes to the country with a clean system and transports any required data via an encrypted line in should the need arise.
If my computers contain anything when I travel, it's usually gifts for the hard working security personnel. I feel they're entitled to get to see some of my work. Hopefully on an airgapped system, but hey...
Re: (Score:2)
Many average and below average people always have they smart phone with them.
With a full list of people they communicate with and their support for banned groups.
Their funding of banned groups.
Images of them at cult/faith/political/funding events supporting banned groups.
Why? They are part of that way of life and its on their smart
Re: (Score:2)
And you think people who're THAT dumb would not have been caught any other way?
Seriously, we don't need more laws to catch the stupid ones. They are the ones that we already catch just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to arrest me for buying a new laptop before coming to the US? In other words, you're going to arrest pretty much any salesperson coming to you? Because the very LAST thing you want to be caught at a presentation is your potential client getting to see the files from the competitor.
It's also pretty much the standard procedure for every security consultant before traveling. For obvious reasons.
is this turn-on or search? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, we call him that all the time. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No need to body-shame Trump over his fast-food-fed grandma body, or use homophobic language just because he takes it up the butt from Putin. Nor should we shame any of his potential mental illnesses or disabilities. We can criticize his rampant corrupt deplorable idiocy without resorting to such intolerant behavior ;-)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1)
Probably the only voice of sanity in the US government.
Yep, and that's exactly why this bill will never pass.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of what Rand Paul does in the Senate is concerned more than anything with bringing member's of his father's cult into line as supporters of the son. Very little of what Rand has ever proposed in the Senate is far from what his father had supported in the house, on TV, in presidential campaigns, or in cult rallies.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Most of what Rand Paul does in the Senate is concerned more than anything with bringing member's of his father's cult into line as supporters of the son. Very little of what Rand has ever proposed in the Senate is far from what his father had supported in the house, on TV, in presidential campaigns, or in cult rallies."
And that matters, why? Seems to me the message is still very valid, despite who is saying it.
He follows is father's beliefs on small government, strong protections on personal freedoms,
Re: (Score:2)
His father wasn't the first.
Much of what Ron Paul says was indeed recycled from other people before him. What Ron Paul did that was unique was how we weaponized it in his campaign rallies and managed to nearly brainwash his followers.
And how exactly is any of this a "cult"?
Ron Paul is a cult leader not because of the matters you explicitly mentioned above but because of how he advocates for accomplishing those changes. His followers openly advocate for reducing government to the point where all that is left is Ron (or Rand) Paul. At that point there is no longer a demo
Re: (Score:2)
>"There are indeed problems with the fed. But installing an emperor won't solve them"
Libertarians are very much anti-emperor. They want power in the hands of the people through the republic, just as described by the Constitution and intended by the founding fathers.
>"There is a middle ground that can reform the fed without destroying our country in the process."
Agreed. But to do that, we need people like Paul. We are so out of control and our of balance that even if you think he is radical, he is j
Re: (Score:2)
>"There are indeed problems with the fed. But installing an emperor won't solve them"
Libertarians are very much anti-emperor.
There are plenty of Paullowers who are very much pro-emperor. After all, what do you get when you get rid of as much government as possible, and place as much power as possible in the hands of one person? That is a recipe for an emperor or a fascist regime.
They want power in the hands of the people through the republic
Power in the hands of the people is counter to "a government small enough to drown in a bathtub". Better representation requires more elected officials, not fewer.
just as described by the Constitution and intended by the founding fathers.
They recognized the importance and value of representational government. Ron Paul str
Re: (Score:2)
>"After all, what do you get when you get rid of as much government as possible, and place as much power as possible in the hands of one person? That is a recipe for an emperor or a fascist regime"
When you remove power/size/money from the government, it goes to/stays with the "people" not a person. To you, me, all citizens.
>"You and I seem to have different ideas of what entail personal liberties."
Perhaps.
>" How would personal liberties be defended if we dismantled representative democracy and ins
Re: (Score:2)
That's not fair. Ron Wyden and Justin Amash both qualify too.
Re: (Score:2)
33,000 violations of peoples privacy, and likely 17 college kids with personal use amounts of weed discovered via texts with their dealer.
Re: (Score:2)
And did you go to court and get convicted, or were they merely harassing you?
Also what caused them to try and search your phone? I've been into and back out of the US eight times since New Year's Eve and the only search was because I had so many electrical cables in my bag that they couldn't tell what was in there. Even then they just asked me to take the cables out, rescanned the bag and I continued on my way.