I routinely substitute Cyrillic letters for Latin on Disqus and other forums to get around their filters (which block for more than mere "profanity").

Slashdot does not allow non-ASCII characters — although it does not attempt to screen out profanity either.

There is a related form for leaving the country.

I was never asked the question of how much cash I'm carrying. Nor have I ever — in 20+ years of being an American — been made aware of having to declare such sums.

withdrawing more than $10k in cash from a bank

What if it is simply my savings — stored in a jar?

if that money ends up as part of a money laundering scheme, the feds can find you

That's a good argument to have one's DNA registered — at birth. In case it ever ends up inside a rape victim or on a murder scene, you know... Somehow, that has not persuaded Americans to mandate DNA-registration. Not yet, anyway. But, as I said, personal assets are not protected anywhere near as well by our laws, as the persons themselves...

its not hard to construct a right to travel

It is even less hard — for the government — to construct the opposite. In fact, they already did — the no-fly lists exist...

Take a look at the Second Amendment — the right to "keep and bear arms" does not need to be constructed or otherwise derived — it is explicitly listed. And what? Even in the most liberal places — like Texas — you must have a license for it. Which means, it is not a right, but merely a privilege...

There is nothing wrong with being an extremist.

There may well be in certain cases — but it is not (or should not be) a dirty word, I agree.

Yes, although one point of view may be better than another, a compromise is often worse than either of the "extremes"...

All three are Republicans that claim to want "small government"

At least, we know of their party-affiliation from the article. Had the gentlemen been Democrats, the affiliation would've been omitted.

insist that private contractors abide by the same rules that government agencies do

This is not, in itself outrageous or even stupid. Should an orbit-bound rocket lose control, for example, the results may well be far more disastrous than 9/11...

even when the contractors are cheaper and safer than than the government agencies last attempt.

Perhaps, they borrowed the illogic from the Labor Unions? You know, the guys, who insist, foreign manufacturing be following the same procedures and workers be paid the same as in here?

If you're traveling with more than $10k, you just have to fill out one form declaring it.

I believe, that requirement — whatever its Constitutionality — applies only to people arriving into the US, not leaving. Indeed, you aren't declaring anything upon leaving — neither the Customs nor Border Patrol have anything to do with passengers departing.

Also, it was introduced, when $10k meant a lot more money, than it does today. I don't know, when, exactly, but I do remember seeing it on the Custom form in the early 90ies. The $10k even then was $17.5k in today's dollars. But, I think, the requirement is much older...

most of it laundered drug money ... What do bitcoins smell like?

I'm far more concerned, whether the smell of my honestly-earned money is any different from that of the laundered drug proceeds. I suspect, the smell is exactly the same and, should I ever choose to cross the border with substantial cash, these devices will point me out. A major loophole in American (and English) legal system, allows seizure of "suspect" assets even if the person himself can not be arrested.

Now, why would an honest citizen need to carry his cash with him?.. Oh, well...

My objection was not to merits or lack thereof of a particular OS, but to the practice of placing the burden of research on the audience (and opponents).

Whatever it is you are stating, should be backed by evidence. It is best to include the links with the statement being supported, but it can be tedious. So, links should be provided upon request — without any lip like "just google it yourself"...

I would say it would be against the Fourth Amendment as I would say it is an unreasonable search

Oh, but "reasonable" is a term with such a wide interpretation, you drive a train through it — sideways...

Just ask a European what they think privacy is and you will see that it is much more that just the stuff you do at home when you are alone. It inclused everything you do and what defines you as a person. That is the startingpoint.

Ah, yes, the famous "why can't we be more like Europe" whine.

Well, you can not board a train anonymously in Europe either — so, in that regard, we are "like Europe" already. Or do you believe, European police don't have access to the rail passengers?.. Of course, they do — and it does not even cause an outrage, unlike here...

The mere freedom of association includes by pretext the right to travel to associate.

A very explicitly spelled-out right to "keep and bear arms" is readily infringed upon all over the nation. Even the most liberal locales — like Texas — require you to obtain a license. And it can be suspended even there upon a mere accusation of a crime.

In less liberal locales — like New York — the Executive can withdraw the license at any moment and for any reason — or without reason at all. Says so on the document itself... In other words, over the generations even that right turned into a privilege.

And that, once again, is a right, that is quite explicitly enumerated in the Constitution — for better or worse. What are we to expect for a right, that exists (or not) only by implication and must be derived from another or, worse, from the well-meaning but nebulous 9th Amendment?

The law doesn't state you have freedom to use any means of transport available. You can be banned from airlines, trains, buses, and your rights technically aren't infringed because you can still walk

If the First Amendment were interpreted this way, you could be banned from using newspapers or radio for your speech — and it would not have been an infringement, because you can still talk to your friends...

drive your car

Nope, that still requires a "driver's license" — a government's permission to drive your own car on any road, to which the public has legal access. And the Executive government can withdraw that permission without bothering with the Judiciary.

or hitch a ride in a friend's vehicle.

Nope, can't do that either. Not legally.

Nope, you only need be under suspicion of a crime. All it takes.

It takes a judge's decision — as the terms of your release before trial. Judiciary can suspend your rights. Executive should not be able to — but, in the case of travel, they do just that with the "no-fly" lists. Which was my point.

Like people on GPS bracelets to ensure they do not leave the state.

The bracelets are an alternative to being in jail — having your freedoms suspended by the Judiciary, not Executive. Executive can arrest you — limiting your freedoms temporarily — but they can not deprive a citizen of his rights for very long without a successful a successful trial.

Try again when you have been around the world, checked out the laws and rights enshrined within those laws, been arrested under those laws

I've been around the world quite a bit, but I have never been arrested. Nor do I accept that as a requirement to holding (and putting forth) an opinion.

I can still enter the UK despite my last trip causing a ton of problems with the Bobbies.

But Michael Savage can not — without causing the Bobbies any problems whatsoever.

The only countries on the American landmass that are stupid about shit like this are the USA and Canada.

Stupid like what? Keeping understandables out? I would not call it "stupid" — quite the contrary — but, unfortunately, we aren't that. Not any more...

We already have freedom of movement [wikipedia.org], which is enshrined in the Constitution, as interpreted by case law.

In that case, the "no-fly" lists are, indeed, unconstitutional — and the ACLU are asleep at the wheel. Perhaps, having aligned themselves over the past decades with the Far Left of the American politics, they don't want to further hamper a Far Left President... Or, maybe, they are just disorganized and lacking decent members and funds — as eventually befalls all Far Left organizations, who don't manage to secure government funding while in their heyday.

What we don't have is freedom of anonymous movement.

Well, in that case we don't have a right to anonymous speech either. But numerous people on this and other forums would disagree — sometimes violently...

In my humble opinion, any right — speech, travel, carrying weapons — must be exercisable anonymously, or else it is not really a right at all, but a mere privilege.

Unfortunately, I — a first generation immigrant — have been rather disappointed by Americans generally agreeing, the government should be limiting certain rights with "common sense", even if "sometimes" it could go "over the top".