I am saying that you should make it clear you don't consent. If you give the cop whatever he asks for out of fear of violence (IE consenting to an illegal search) then we have already lost. I didn't suggest being non compliant, I said never consent to an illegal search, and only give ID if the policeman has a legally entitled reason for the request. Otherwise the only thing that happens is the behavior gets reinforced.

Who said anything about arguing? Saying calmly to the policeman that I do not consent to the search is now arguing? If you bend and consent to the search then there is no recourse to the cop. He broke no laws if you consent. So what neutral ground is there to fight on? He got via threat of violence what he legally couldn't, and is in the right. That only reinforces this sort of aggressive behavior on the cop side.

If you think saying "I do not consent to this search" is belligerent then you've already lost. How exactly do you have a single drop of recourse to the policeman if you consent to the search he has no right to perform? Once you do it is legal. He is using threats of violence to influence you into dropping your rights. Why is it this entire page is filled with people who think that calmly asserting your rights is belligerent and deserved of police brutality?

You can't sue them if you consent to being searched. You cannot sue them if they demand ID and then you produce it. In the end being arrested for upholding my rights is something I can sue for. Otherwise they can search and beat me all day and be completely in their rights about it.

There is nothing about saying. I do not consent to this search, or in showing you identification that makes you belligerent. Once you have given your ID or consent to search you cannot sue, as they've not broken any laws. It isn't uncooperative to say you are going to operate within your rights. It isn't illegal for them to search if you've said go for it so what would you then sue them for?

Where exactly did I say anything about getting tough or macho? All I said, and decidedly so was that consenting to a power they don't have is not good for anyone. Show me exactly where I said play the macho card and argue? Don't consent, and then they are breaking the law. When you do consent the coercion becomes a valid tactic.

Stating calmly that you do not consent to the search as it is a violation of your rights is "bravado and grandstanding"? Why would it have to be? Oh wait your entire life advice column is hinged on that contrived notion. Do you feel that it is impossible to calmly assert your rights?

In fact your entire line up of logic is bullshit, because if you acquiesce and submit to the search then it isn't illegal, so you have no recourse. For them to break the law it involves you must assert your rights. I get what you are saying. Don't be belligerent, don't incite worse scenarios, don't escalate.

That is all advice that has exactly zero to do with stating that you are well within your rights not to speak, not to consent to a search. But you wouldn't have an argument unless you took what I said and inflated it to be chest beating.

It is amazing to me people are saying let the cops break the law here, and then sue. This is what America has declined to. Not the: We have liberties in this country that no one is above or can violate, instead we are now: If a cop is breaking the law let him, to hope you don't get killed. Consent tot whatever he asks and hope that maybe you can go through a court case to sue the shit out of them for taxpayer money settlements. Common sense flew the coop long ago.

Sadly we shouldn't have to guess. The fact that we are likely to be surprised is a big bold highlight of important to consider.

The issue is with number two. (2) Follow their orders and do not become combative.). Following orders which are not legal, and are unconstitutional, out of fear for personal safety means that we are literally living in a Police state. Yes we know it is illegal, but he might kill you for pointing it out to him... The issue is so systemically out of control that it needs much more than advice on how not to get killed by cops.

In your estimation the ACLU informing these kids about their rights as civilians is wrong? Clearly you have something at stake in this debate, and should be forthcoming in your comments as such.

"If your rights are violated you deal with it later"

What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have? Subservience only reinforces their grandstanding and power playing. Ignorance of the law on the side of the police is not an excuse, just as ignorance of law among a civilian is no excuse.

Actually, in response to a government that seems to give less than a concerned moment for privacy, and happiness and rights as individuals, we should seek to secure our data to prevent their current run of abuses. If everyone encrypts and goes iundergroud with their data we can make the laws as written wholly irrelevant. Your thoughts about being free are sound and I agree with the goal, but the right now of it all doesn't give us a drop of secrecy, until we either revolt, vote out a lame congress etc. It isn't one or the other. It is by every means necessary. If that involves getting encryption to consumers for now then so be it.

There is no amount of freedoms they can take away which will actually make us safer. There is always a way around their plans to be destructive. In the end we are no longer free and we are not safer. Al we have are systems of control and power that we cannot hide from.

"However, much of what they're doing is *expressly* legal according to the law as written (even if those laws may not necessarily be Constitutional"

Why exactly did Ashcroft refuse to sign off on the legality of the Stellar Wind program and reverse the courts opinion, if it is all so entirely legal?