Halt! Who goes there?

This is a discussion on Halt! Who goes there? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by maxorator Brewbuck, I have a feeling that you're not right about this. Even in Estonian constitution the ...

  1. #46
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,235
    Quote Originally Posted by maxorator View Post
    Brewbuck, I have a feeling that you're not right about this. Even in Estonian constitution the same privacy rights are for both citizens and non-citizens. There are quite few things that apply only to citizens here: like the right for retirement pension, right to work in governmental institutions, may not be sent away from the country, rights to receive some kinds of information, right to be in parties. This is pretty much the whole list and I think in USA non-citizens have most of the constitutional rights too, as SlyMaelstrom said.
    I'm not good at interpreting the Constitution. I'm just describing what is happening in practice. It could be that all persons, citizens or not, have the right to a speedy trial (6th Amendement), but that certainly does not mesh with what's happening in Guantanamo right now.

    Whether there is an official distinction or not, there is a distinction in practice. And no, I don't support any of this garbage.

  2. #47
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    why don't we talk about the real issue here? There is nothing serious to gain out of searching people's computers and it will never amount to anything more than a hassle for the innocent. The criminals will get around it so easily that it's not worth any amount of the time or money that it will eventually cost me.
    Well, that's part of the irony. You see, if we could put privacy issues aside, I would find this a very good ruling. No matter the cost/benefit ratio. Let me explain.

    Because the ruling doesn't impose limitations on who, why or what, you can correctly argue this serves little purpose and imposes a cost that won't justify what little gains one can get. Who is going to get caught? Any criminal falling in the idiot, dumb, or distracted categories. But what is important here is that, It is left to the officer the decision of who they will search, why they will search and what they will search. Ultimately, and despite believing they will be developing their own internal rules around this, this is an effective measure. The traditional random search cannot apply here since this is a lengthy process; my laptop takes 3 minutes to fully start and be ready. My hard drive is slow and it won't operate without being connected to an AC socket (of which I don't have an adapter for the US system). But what can apply is a "nose search" (the name exists here. Don't know what you call it over there).

    As such, I cannot see this happening in a mass scale. They will be selective and only through tipping or reasonable suspicion will indeed most of the people get searched, bettering that cost/benefit ration somewhat (at least lower the cost).
    Last edited by Mario F.; 05-08-2008 at 09:51 AM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  3. #48
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    As such, I cannot see this happening in a mass scale. They will be selective and only through tipping or reasonable suspicion will indeed most of the people get searched, bettering that cost/benefit ration somewhat (at least lower the cost).
    You mean just like they don't search EVERYONE's suitcase, purse, handbag, rucksack or whatever when you are about to board the plane. Instead, they pick a criteria/profile of who to search (single travellers, travelling to/from country different from their citizen-ship, wearing sandals, beardy, long hair, young, or whatever the formula states, and perhaps also select someone "looking suspicious" on random).

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

  4. #49
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    Even more selective than that perhaps. Since searching a purse takes the better of 2 minutes. A laptop will take maybe 15.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  5. #50
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Even more selective than that perhaps. Since searching a purse takes the better of 2 minutes. A laptop will take maybe 15.
    Sure, I didn't mean that the frequency would be the same, but along the same principles (not necessarily the SAME criteria either).

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

  6. #51
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by maxorator View Post
    Brewbuck, I have a feeling that you're not right about this. Even in Estonian constitution the same privacy rights are for both citizens and non-citizens. There are quite few things that apply only to citizens here: like the right for retirement pension, right to work in governmental institutions, may not be sent away from the country, rights to receive some kinds of information, right to be in parties. This is pretty much the whole list and I think in USA non-citizens have most of the constitutional rights too, as SlyMaelstrom said.
    Don't misunderstand... most of the Constitutional rights granted to non-citizens are consider human rights. As brewbuck said, you have to distinguish the difference between Constitutional and Human. That is to say, just because it's in the constitution, doesn't mean it's everyone's right. Much of the reasoning behind our consitituional rights stem from the fact that we pay taxes to be here. If you're not paying taxes, then do you really think you deserve the same rights? Do you really think you deserve the full protection of our law enforcement and government? The fact is, that any non-US citizen posting in this thread really doesn't have the right to tell us what is good for us. To you it's just a lose of liberty... but to us it's also a gain in security. In this particular law, it is not... that's why I'm ........ed off... but if you're going to ask me, after I've explained how I feel about having my bags searched, if I would want them to stop searching people's bag... I would tell you absolutely not. Yes, it's a loss of liberty to me, but if it makes it even just a little harder for people to harm me in my own country, then it's worth it.

    ...and for the record, I know what Ben Franklin had to say about this subject and as wise as the man was, he always liked to sum up his proverbs with far too simplistic of examples. There is not just liberty and security, there are varying degrees of both... and if I can sacrifice a little of this one for a lot of the other, then you better believe I'll do it.
    Sent from my iPad®

  7. #52
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    I made a point of trying not to tell you are any other American citizen what's good for you. I however took the liberty on commenting on a rule that invariably affects me. I also took the liberty on freely comment on the fact I don't think security should come at the cost of privacy.

    The (possible) words of Benjamin Franklin (an American tax payer and one of your Founding Fathers) were: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    At some point one has to make the distinction between liberty and security. You say its on the eye of the beholder. Very well, fair enough. But that then is a serious problem to which you concede there is no solution, because at the light of that any decision becomes a good decision. And it's perfectly acceptable to sacrifice liberty for the sake of security... killing the idea that liberty should be preserved. That my friend, is exactly what fascist did in Europe and, I must remind you, their main argument when Mussolini, Hitler, Franco and Salazar subjugated their populations.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 05-08-2008 at 10:29 AM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  8. #53
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,628
    For completeness I thought I would post the amendment
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
    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.
    and a relevant excerpt about scope.
    Certain early cases held that the Fourth Amendment was applicable only when a search was undertaken for criminal investigatory purposes, 66 and the Supreme Court until recently employed a reasonableness test for such searches without requiring either a warrant or probable cause in the absence of a warrant. 67 But in 1967, the Court held in two cases that administrative inspections to detect building code violations must be undertaken pursuant to warrant if the occupant objects. 68 ''We may agree that a routine inspection of the physical condition of private property is a less hostile intrusion than the typical policeman's search for the fruits and instrumentalities of crime. . . . But we cannot agree that the Fourth Amendment interests at stake in these inspection cases are merely 'peripheral.' It is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.'' 69 Certain administrative inspections utilized to enforce regulatory schemes with regard to such items as alcohol and firearms are, however, exempt from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and may be authorized simply by statute. 70
    In other words, only since 1967 by Supreme Court ruling has the American citizen been fully protected under this amendment during any type of administrative search. In my opinion, Mario is correct when he says that this recent court opinion conflicts with the current interpretation of the law, at least for a citizen such as myself leaving the country.

    I've been subject to pat downs even during domestic flights and other types of clever searching as well. I wouldn't say it's fair to balance copying everyone's laptop with the possibility that you might kill someone with the data. I think we're back to the point mats made about this article coming from a tabloid paper. The Inquirer is not the Times.

    Regardless, reading the history and scope of the amendment might be of interest to some.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment04/

    We have to rethink a lot of rights in the digital age. I would just like to issue that warning to everyone, since making sure that people can travel safely and making sure that Mr Badman can't take his deadly plans off the plane is becoming harder to do. For too long America was blind to organised crime or terrorist attacks taking advantage of it's limited searching at airports and other places. The technology itself is blurring legal distinctions I think. Will America come up with the best answers to the challenge? Maybe, but I think the law needs to answer.

    I remember when 9/11 first happened, the outpour of foriegn symmpathy and aid was tremendous. Bonds that had aged were renewed. It's simply unfortunate that our government took advantage of the situation and launched a war, which has only resulted in severed ties, hawking and intense criticism of our foriegn policy. People who were against the war from the start in my opinion were very wise to protest at the time.

  9. #54
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Expectation that your laptop, or your person, will not be searched when enterign or leaving an ariport fails the reasonable test. Searching your person and belongings when you are attemptign to board a plane or enter a country, including copying the data on your laptop (unless you would like to hang around while they search through every byte) is perfectly reasonable. Performing the same actions in your house or vehicle are not reasonable. It may violate your privacy, but you do not have the 'reasonable expectation' of privacy in an airport, this is nothing new and it does not do so illegally.

    So stop crying because you cant transport your kiddy 'movies' across the border.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  10. #55
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    Searching your person and belongings when you are attemptign to board a plane or enter a country, including copying the data on your laptop (unless you would like to hang around while they search through every byte) is perfectly reasonable.
    So much reasonable that is completely illegal in almost every country in the world and until recently illegal in the USA. That's how "reasonable" it is.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  11. #56
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,628
    Searching your person and belongings when you are attemptign to board a plane or enter a country, including copying the data on your laptop (unless you would like to hang around while they search through every byte) is perfectly reasonable.
    Clearly, or perhaps the person being searched could object to unlock his data, and then the government would need to issue a subpoena, and everyone misses the flight. Unless the TSA is incompetent enough to let said people board.

    Impromptu copying gigabytes of data is not a reasonable prevention method of any sort of crime. Even if the airlines considered that they could hold your laptop (or mp3 player or USB key or portable device X) the time and materials required is tremendous. If you're simply acting as a courier in some respects it's a bit of a pain in the ass that you wouldn't be prepared until weeks after the TSA has finished poking around and returned your luggage to you.

    As mentioned, it is also easily circumventable. I could download my data later, so what purpose does this serve and who does it protect? Nothing and no one.

    We are simply not prepared and that is the point.

  12. #57
    Dr Dipshi++ mike_g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    On me hyperplane
    Posts
    1,218
    So much reasonable that is completely illegal in almost every country in the world and until recently illegal in the USA. That's how "reasonable" it is.
    Well how reasonable is a cavity search? In comparison the idea of customs going through my HD content seems very appealing. At the end of the day its unlikely that it will ever happen to anyone anyway. As long as they dont think you look like a terrorist or a pedophile.

  13. #58
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,628
    Well how reasonable is a cavity search?
    Cavity searches take place after a warrant has been signed. The other thing is impromptu.

  14. #59
    Dr Dipshi++ mike_g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    On me hyperplane
    Posts
    1,218
    Still I think it would be unlikely that many people will have their hardisk searched, and if they do it will probably be for a reason. Its simply not a practical proposal.

  15. #60
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,628
    Perhaps it would be salient to prohibit wireless internet devices. It would prevent spontaneous communication, and if the TSA is that prepared to put the hammer down on somebody they can handle it after the flight. Of course, this means you can't carry a sophisticated phone onto the plane. But I don't find that a humongous sacrifice, and it's a sane way to protect and prevent a crime.

    I'm not even a lawyer, and I have better ideas on how to protect people in the new age while protecting rights. The old people in government seriously need to update the hardware in their brains. The computer revolution started in the 30's, then you had the personal computer change the world in the 70's and 80's. How long is the government going to take to figure this crap out?
    Last edited by whiteflags; 05-08-2008 at 01:02 PM.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Simulator
    By MasterAchilles in forum C Programming
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-30-2008, 09:31 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21