You realize we're talking about the CBP, not the TSA?
You realize we're talking about the CBP, not the TSA?
Routine searches of items as they travel across the international border into the US have never been basedon on reasonable suspicion. That was the custom at the time when the Fourth Amendment was ratified and continues in unbroken tradition today.
I specifically say 'routine' to mean things like xray of baggage or vehicles, inspection of cargo,
provision of payment for customs/tariffs, verification of visas/passports and the like. No one has ever suggested that a country should allow people and goods to enter without being checked for compliance. Nor would most of the useful parts of the regulatory state (e.g. the requirement for pharmaceuticals to be safe/pure) be possible if anyone could bring suitcases of the knockoff Chinese medicine through the airport without fear of a search.
Of course, neither extreme position ('the border police can do anything/nothing') is tenable. What I was trying to document is the limits on either end. So you have the sort of short interview on the one hand and the 48 hour hard limit that requires judicial authorization on the other.
You know we were talking about the CBP, not the TSA, right?
Josh Wolf served 226 days for failure to comply with a subpoena issued by a district court judge pursuant to a court ordered entered into during a grand jury investigation. His case in no way involved a border search. And right or wrong, it has no bearing on this topic.
What we were discussing here was border searches and what sort of searches and seizures agents can carry out without any judicial hearing. Like what sort of searches can be carried out and what sort of limits on the duration of said searches might be before the agent needs to go to a judge.
So either you don't know that the two have nothing at all to do with one another (except in the sense that 'both involves the US legal system', which also relates my speeding tickets to OJ's murder trial) or you did figure that out but are posting off topic nonsense anyway.
And therefore, your honor, my client should be let off the hook because he used the old "save draft" trickaroo.
Incorrect. Prolonged (non-routine) detentions must be based on reasonable suspicion. Even then, the duration of the detention must be limited to the time necessary to confirm or dispel that suspicion. And even if there is reasonable suspicion, under no circumstances can the duration exceed 48 hours without a judicial hearing.
See this handy guide [PDF] for more details and lots of citations. Or here's a quote for the lazy:
There appear to be no âoehard-and-fast time limitsâ that automatically transform what would otherwise be a routine search into a non-routine search, nor render a non-routine search conducted under the reasonable suspicion standard unconstitutional. Rather, courts consider âoewhether the detention of [the traveler] was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified it initially.â In order to provide perspective, the 16-hour detention in Montoya de Hernandez was considered a non-routine search (justifiable by reasonable suspicions), while a one-hour vehicular search did not require reasonable suspicion. The Second Circuit has characterized four- to six-hour-long detentions of individuals suspected of having terrorist ties as routine.
However, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Adekunle concluded that the government must, within a reasonable time (generally within 48 hours), seek a judicial determination that reasonable suspicion exists to detain a suspect for an extended period of time.
The entire field of economics is predicated upon the idea of 'endless growth', the implementation of which is trashing the planet. It would be good if we could do something about that first.
Actually, growth leads to the sort of prosperity that is conducive to environmentalism. It is really only after people can afford food, shelter, power, heat and medicine that they chose to stop trashing the planet. Until that point, worrying about the planet is a luxury they cannot afford. If you want to save the planet, your strategic aim should be to ensure that your protections allow sufficient economic growth to make the third world comfortably middle class enough that they actually care about it and are willing to shoulder the additional expense and brake on growth inherent in the environmental tradeoff.
There's a reason India is building 100s of coal fired power plants and mocking the US and Europe when we tell them to switch to more expensive sources even when they already have 30% on hydro/solar.There are still 250 million Indians without power -- why would a democratically accountable government put more priority on reducing emissions than on providing a basic need to them? And given this is a basic need that westerners have for decades taken for granted, what right do we have to lecture them?
I don't mean to say that I don't believe in environmentalism. I do, even though I think it has significant tradeoffs (and is sometimes executed inefficiently, in the sense that I believe we could have more protection at less cost, making everyone happier all at once). But it does have to be placed in the right spot in the list of priorities.
I saw your suggestions as three separate recommendations rather than a package and was replying to 3) specifically.
the new reply could be attached to the parent of the comment that was written by the person who wouldn't see it.
I was assuming that the reply to the person would not be viewed by him if it was below his threshold, and also assumed that that person, like me, seldom revisits the thread unless a comment I have made is replied to or moderated, and thus wouldn't see it if I posted it elsewhere in the thread.
Of course, now that I think on it (having received notification of your reply), If I understand correctly, the system would tell him I replied and allow him to view it even if it was below his threshold. So there's that part of it pointless and dusted.
The part about the average threshold might still be useful, though--Consider if your warning said,
"Not only will the person to whom you are replying not see your comment, neither will [50% (or 75% or whatever)] of current readers."
"You are posting at [-1]. [60%] of our readers will not see your comment."
It might make the trolls think--or not.
-of course, I'm interested in stats like that, so I wouldn't mind seeing that posted at the top of each thread page, just to satisfy my idle curiosity...
Rather than eliminating AC, how about user filters that can hide posts that contain a list of entered phrases for a single session?
The single session rule would make it necessary to create a new list (or re-enter it) each time the user logs in, thus preventing self-siloing, but allowing the user to avoid certain things on days when "I just don't wanna deal with it..."
I swear, I'd be tempted to use it for this whole election season...
(3) The deterrence step: A sincerity warning, as measured by the intention of having a dialog. When someone replies to a post, the slashdot server would do a simple check from the other side to see if the reply will be visible to that person. If so, no problem, reply away, but if not, then there is a warning: "The author of the comment to which you are replying will never see your reply. You may reply anyway, but your reply will be flagged with a warning that it does not appear sincere." If the person is sincere and actually has something to say, then he can go say it elsewhere, but if he insists on saying it there, then first there will be a notice such as: "The following reply will NOT be seen by the author of the comment to which it claims to be a reply. Whatever the following reply is, it cannot be taken as part of a sincere dialog or discussion."
I like this--I'd even take it if it was an individual account setting
I'd suggest modifying the the notice to indicate the viewing threshold (maybe compared to an average threshold), so that I would not waste time on a fruitless reply to the individual specifically, but could reply generally if i chose.
Anything to make me think before posting.
After my first (unintentional) troll mod, I now carefully think about and compose everything I say when logged in.
I prefer AC to exist, because I like having the option, even if I don't use it.
Right. So if that coffee shop specifically advertizes "Free WiFi With Unlimited Bandwidth", and is not a coffee shop but a multibillion dollar IT company with a dedicated department of lawyers going over every detail of the deals they offer, what's the implied meaning of "Unlimited Bandwidth"?
I think in the Microsoft case, it's clear that unlimited storage on OneDrive is that it's unlimited storage for items relating to the imputed use as a collaborative tool. That would mean documents, photos, and the like. And, you know, be reasonable about it using your own internal ability to discern it.
[ Of course, now the rules lawyering begins. "Oh photos are allowed, I'm going to download every GIF on planet Earth and sync it because I'm on the spectrum and hence believe that technically-correct-is-the-best-kind-of-correct". And that might tempt me to say, "No, it's your own personal, non-commercial, photos, not the entire National Geographic archive since 1965". But I won't, because that just invites more rules-lawyering and concedes the idea that I'm supposed to enumerate every detail. ]
Oh, and for bandwidth, I would think "Unlimited Bandwidth" would imply something fuzzily-like "No numerical limit but users in the top 5% that are using more than 10-20x what the median user does should probably lay off a bit. We'll probably let them go at top speed unless the network is saturated, at which point we'll put them in the lowest priority QoS so that the other 95% of users don't experience degraded performance due to those hogs." But I'm not going to formulate that in a rules-lawyery way, because it's pretty obvious to the reasonable folks that when 5% of users are using 50% of the resource, they should a back a smidge.
At least in SF, my impression is that new supply is expensive which drives up the average price but suppresses the increase in prices for other units by soaking up high-end demand that would otherwise chase other units.
And that's the rub -- it's better to have two $5K condos and 10 $3K flats than to just have the 10 flats. In that case, the would-be-condo owners will just bid up the flats, pushing out whoever was in that segment. And those folks will bid up the next tier and so forth.
Or do you think that rich people that want to live in SF will look at the unavailability of high-end real estate and think "Oh well, nothing but cheaper units here, I'll pass" or will they buy up those properties and renovate them up?
Yes, the same thing should happen with banks, insurance companies, childcare and hospitals. Let's get the government regulations out of the way and rely on Yelp reviews and Facebook likes. FREE MARKET!
Because clearly if person ever expresses the opinion that one particular regulation or set of regulations should be repealed, that person is forever committed to arguing that every single one should be repealed. And conversely, if one ever argues that a regulation has positive worth, they are permanently banned from arguing against any other. Analyzing each regulation independently and concluding that (like many other things) some are useful and some aren't (and a few really perverse ones are downright counterproductive) should definitely not be allowed.
In space, no one can hear you fart.