Okay, we're all geeks here, we all know about XKCD by now. New toons are published on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Can we stop getting articles for them on here? Or is there real demand for it? If you really care for it, just go on the site on those days, and read it from there. Because if you read it here, you miss the funniest part of XKCD. #xkcd
The strangest thing I ever saw was the TSA making my co-worker remove a prosthetic leg. It kind of freaked me out at first because I didn't know it wasn't a real leg. #xkcd
@Shamoononon: I shave my legs.: What's the etiquette with missing legs, anyway?
I worked as an environmental inspector a while back, and saw this one guy that worked for the town about once a week. One day he showed up without a leg, and I was really uncomfortable asking the question: "um...what happened to you leg, man?" #xkcd
92BuickLeSabre promoted this comment
Edited by Shamoononon: I shave my legs. at 10/19/09 7:32 PM
Shamoononon: I shave my legs. was starred
Shamoononon: I shave my legs. was unstarred
If I were a terrorist, I'd just make an image of my hard drive, put it somewhere online, fly to U.S., buy some cheap junk PC from Best Buy and download & restore my hard drive image. But I guess some people are just dumb enough to carry all those bomb instructions, plans and schematics with them. And if I had an actual bomb, I most certainly wouldn't put it in a camera or a laptop...
So... adding "respectively" doesn't really clarify what you are talking about when you mention 2 maximum days, but 3 different items. It also doesn't work when it's that far away from what you are referring to, assuming you are referring to the items.
The one thing I don't think anyone mentioned is how weak our border security is in the first place. If someone had some truly nefarious information or items that they needed to get into the U.S. there are thousands of points on our northern & southern borders where they could simply hand carry it. They'd NEVER see the TSA, Border Patrol... No one.
Here's my good deed for the day: BORDER SEARCHES DO NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT
The rules regarding search-and-seizure has always been that border searches require no warrant. There are some areas of the country that have always been permitted to play by different rules. Military bases are one. "Borders" are another.
The First Congressional Congress made it legal.
"That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration."
Authorized by the First Congress,88 the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops.
This type of search and seizure at the border is legal. It has been legal for decades. It is not Marxist nor Socialist nor is it truly the product of 9/11. It is a search and seizure which is an exception - known as the Border Exception - and it is an exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment.
If you are interested read the Supreme Court case: United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977).
As the Ninth Circuit very intelligently decided in US v. Arnold, the files on your computer are cargo. There is no functional difference between a document you typed into Word and the printout. Imagine you had a locked box that you refused to open. They'd seize the box.
The printout is subject to search; the file is the exact same thing. Airports are borders. Different standard applies.
Many things are legal and constitution that may give you the wicked heebie-jeebies. If a city wants to install security cameras in all of its parks to watch for crime, that's not a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights as you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public park. Does it go against the original intent of the Constitution? Probably. Is it Constitutionally-permissible? Yes.
The Border Exception is nothing new, is legal and constitutional, and has its basis in the genesis of the Constitution. It doesn't matter if they're look for child pornography, bomb schematics, or a kugel recipe. Your computer may be searched at the border.
@mths: In all fairness, I just cut and pasted a lot of what I wrote last time when people were getting in a tizzy about the Border Exception and the TSA's plenary right to search without warrant or even probable cause.
I hate security at airports, but since I've got nothing to hide, I don't mind all that much. I'm sure I'd disagree if they took my MacBook, but that would be in anger.
It's not necessarily the searching I have a problem with, it is the fact that the Border Patrol, and anyone else for that matter, can do it without any reasonable suspicion...
This is a HUGE problem and contributes to letting the government get away with this sort of crap. You shouldn't be OK with a violation of privacy like this.
What's worse is that you don't even seem to care much, despite writing an article about it. You could at least be confident in your decision to support it instead of taking a "whatever" attitude. That's the problem with America. People don't care enough.
@Danny Allen: You say you're against unwarranted searches and that there are privacy concerns, but you also roll-over and say "I guess I'm OK with it" when the DHS claims that only 1000 laptops were searched (unwarranted, since all border searches are effectively can be done without a warrant).
This is exactly how government agencies sneak in invasive policies. First it was to combat terrorism: who's gonna argue against giving up some privacy to fight terrorism? Then it was to fight kiddy porn: who's gonna argue against giving up some privacy to fight kiddy porn? Next, though, it'll be ACTA and we'll want to fight that, even if it's 1 outta 200M, but the policy will already be thoroughly in place by then.
"Given those numbers, I guess I'm OK with it. As long as it's only the terrorism and kiddy porn stuff they're after."
Bullshit. I don't care if some guy on the plane has actual photographs of donkeys having sex with six year old girls - it is not a flight safety issue, which, ostensibly, is why they are snooping through our stuff.
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
I worked as an environmental inspector a while back, and saw this one guy that worked for the town about once a week. One day he showed up without a leg, and I was really uncomfortable asking the question: "um...what happened to you leg, man?" #xkcd
10/19/09
"Ahhhhhhh!!! Holy Shit"
I think he probably should have mentioned something first. I really had no idea and was caught way off guard.
08/28/09
-OR-
When you travel overseas use it as a thin client and connect back to your work / home machine to retrieve the data you need.
Problem solved.
08/28/09
-OR-
Leave your building blueprints and kiddie porn at home.
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
Rules like this completely miss the point.
08/28/09
The rules regarding search-and-seizure has always been that border searches require no warrant. There are some areas of the country that have always been permitted to play by different rules. Military bases are one. "Borders" are another.
The First Congressional Congress made it legal.
"That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration."
Authorized by the First Congress,88 the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops.
This type of search and seizure at the border is legal. It has been legal for decades. It is not Marxist nor Socialist nor is it truly the product of 9/11. It is a search and seizure which is an exception - known as the Border Exception - and it is an exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment.
If you are interested read the Supreme Court case: United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977).
As the Ninth Circuit very intelligently decided in US v. Arnold, the files on your computer are cargo. There is no functional difference between a document you typed into Word and the printout. Imagine you had a locked box that you refused to open. They'd seize the box.
The printout is subject to search; the file is the exact same thing. Airports are borders. Different standard applies.
Many things are legal and constitution that may give you the wicked heebie-jeebies. If a city wants to install security cameras in all of its parks to watch for crime, that's not a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights as you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public park. Does it go against the original intent of the Constitution? Probably. Is it Constitutionally-permissible? Yes.
The Border Exception is nothing new, is legal and constitutional, and has its basis in the genesis of the Constitution. It doesn't matter if they're look for child pornography, bomb schematics, or a kugel recipe. Your computer may be searched at the border.
08/28/09
That's why you're well known here: Because you know what you're talking about.
08/28/09
08/28/09
I hate security at airports, but since I've got nothing to hide, I don't mind all that much. I'm sure I'd disagree if they took my MacBook, but that would be in anger.
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
This is a HUGE problem and contributes to letting the government get away with this sort of crap. You shouldn't be OK with a violation of privacy like this.
What's worse is that you don't even seem to care much, despite writing an article about it. You could at least be confident in your decision to support it instead of taking a "whatever" attitude. That's the problem with America. People don't care enough.
08/28/09
08/28/09
This is exactly how government agencies sneak in invasive policies. First it was to combat terrorism: who's gonna argue against giving up some privacy to fight terrorism? Then it was to fight kiddy porn: who's gonna argue against giving up some privacy to fight kiddy porn? Next, though, it'll be ACTA and we'll want to fight that, even if it's 1 outta 200M, but the policy will already be thoroughly in place by then.
08/28/09
Bullshit. I don't care if some guy on the plane has actual photographs of donkeys having sex with six year old girls - it is not a flight safety issue, which, ostensibly, is why they are snooping through our stuff.
Bombs. Not contraband. Get it through your head.
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09