Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DHS Can Seize Your Electronics Within 100 Mi.of US Border, Says DHS

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the dhs-confirms-it-must-be-true dept.

Privacy 597

dreamstateseven writes "In a not-so-unexpected move, the Department of Homeland Security has concluded that travelers along the nation's borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security. According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border. The memo highlights the friction between today's reality that electronic devices have become virtual extensions of ourselves housing everything from e-mail to instant-message chats to photos and our papers and effects — juxtaposed against the government's stated quest for national security. By the way, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nation's actual border."

cancel ×

597 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (3, Interesting)

fufufang (2603203) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839813)

Can they go into Canada or Mexico and seize stuff? Is this even legal? Or does it count as an invasion? Or has it got to be in the sea?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (5, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839853)

Yes and no. They can cross into Canada if they're perusing a suspect and there must be R&PG according to the treaty, same applies to Canada border agents crossing into the US. To the no part, anything else is considered a violation of the border treaty and of other agreements.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840189)

"perusing" a suspect? How does that work?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (5, Funny)

uncqual (836337) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840255)

It's what the TSA does to passengers.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (2)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840261)

peruse tr.v. perused, perusing, peruses: To read or examine, typically with great care. So in other words, it's pretty much what they're saying they're entitled to do.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839873)

The claim is that no 4th amendment right exist anywhere within the united states where the border is nearer than 100 miles.

So, for instance, where I live, which is about 60 miles south of Canada, no 4th amendment rights.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (4, Interesting)

jc42 (318812) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839925)

So it sounds like this applies to anyone living within states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii or Florida, all of which are within 100 miles of the ocean shore. Actually, I think that all of Massachusetts (where I live) is also less than 100 miles from the shore, but I might be wrong.

I wonder what fraction of the US population lives within 100 miles of the national border. I'd guess it's well over 50%, but I don't see any easy way to find the number. Anyone know?

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (5, Informative)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839965)

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (2, Interesting)

Inf0phreak (627499) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840173)

And that map isn't even complete. It's missing some 100 mile radius disks centred at inland international airports.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840257)

Also missing areas around embassies which are foreign soils.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (1)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839975)

Just click the second link in TFS. Nice diagram with the stats.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (3, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839977)

That info (circa 2008) is in the last link of the /. article. It's apparently 2 out of 3 US citizens.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (1, Informative)

belphegore (66832) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839991)

Don't forget a 100 mile radius around inland international airports.

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (3, Interesting)

bbelt16ag (744938) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840109)

Ok guys i got a question. Does this include your home residence as well? can DHS enter you home at any time? I have heard of the sneak and peak and of other things they can use to enter with out probable cause or a warrant...

Re:How about the US-Canadian/US-Mexico border? (2)

balsy2001 (941953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840141)

International waters don't start until 12 nautical miles off shore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_waters). So maybe the constitution free zone only extends 86 statute miles inland from the shore. I wonder if the constitution-free zone is based on nautical miles or statute miles. Not that this matters because this is pure BS.

Fuck you DHS (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839815)

Go die in a fire.

Re:Fuck you DHS (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839981)

Appropriate use of AC

Re:Fuck you DHS (3, Insightful)

balsy2001 (941953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840023)

I was going to make some comment about sacrificing freedom for security, but your comment will do.

Re:Fuck you DHS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840085)

Go die in a fire.

I agree.

Oh, and can we please stop linking to useless Wired magazine articles, especially the Threatlevel section? Nothing here is new except the ACLU filed a FOIA request, so just link to the source: http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-immigrants-rights-national-security/aclu-files-foia-request-unreleased

Re:Fuck you DHS (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840213)

I want Bis Sis to die of prostate cancer and terminal jock itch.

But not the constitution (4, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839823)

According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border.

But not according to the constitution. It's more unauthorized law from the "SCOTUS says SCOTUS can say whatever it wants because SCOTUS says so" crew.

Re:But not the constitution (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839931)

Has this gone to the Supreme Court? I wouldn't doubt they would say something asinine like this, but it didn't say in TFS.

Re:But not the constitution (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840279)

287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3), which provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General.

The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."

That's the genesis of the current state of affairs. As far as I know, it's not been tested in USSC. However, inasmuch as they've approved ex post facto laws, inverted the commerce clause (and in so doing created the legislative condition where anything they like, they can regulate), usurped article 5 powers for themselves, violated almost the entire bill of rights in other cases... this is why I blame them. If they were doing their jobs, legislators would know better than to make such as laws. As it is, legislators can expect that these absurdities may well be upheld, even though they are on the face obviously and blatantly unconstitutional. That's been no barrier to the sophists on SCOTUS in recent decades, and congress knows it.

Re:But not the constitution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839941)

So where's the constitutional enforcement division of the FBI when you want them? That's right, there ain't one!

No point in even having one anymore.

Re:But not the constitution (4, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840117)

It's more complicated than that. The founders recognized that a nation is partially defined by how much control it has over its borders. This includes controlling what goes through the border. And in order to do that, it is necessary to be able to inspect anything. And in order to do that... well, you have to be able to do it without something exactly straddling an imaginary line. And now you're down into implementation details that have nothing to do with the constitution, SCOTUS or anyone else at that level.

Go write your congress critters that a border that is 100 miles wide makes a mockery of the spirit of the law, while still obeying the letter of the law. But that's the only way you're going to change that.

The entire country is a border then... (3, Interesting)

sabri (584428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839825)

Well, doesn't their reasoning make the entire country a border? Because an international plane (helicopter) can land virtually anywhere.. What protection does the fourth amendment give?

Did this ever reach the supreme court?

Re:The entire country is a border then... (2)

corran__horn (178058) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839951)

Technically a international airport is considered part of the border. So yes, almost all out the continental US is a "Border".

Bullshit. (5, Informative)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839827)

According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border.

The failure of the court to enforce the fourth amendment against government usurpation does not change what it says. There is no "border exception" in the bill of rights.

-jcr

Re:Bullshit. (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839847)

So once soap box, ballot box, and jury box have failed, what is left?

Re:Bullshit. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839899)

Ammo box

Re:Bullshit. (4, Insightful)

Bomazi (1875554) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840227)

How does that work exactly ? You shoot at a border agent and then what ? Guns are not a solution to everything.

Re:Bullshit. (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839915)

Jail box.

Re:Bullshit. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839943)

denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance

Re:Bullshit. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839949)

So once soap box, ballot box, and jury box have failed, what is left?

So once soap box, ballot box, and jury box have failed, what is left?

1. Bribery

2. Blackmail with Eastern Europen prostitues

3. Conning a bunch of suckers with AR-15s that they need to fight for "Freedom" and if they actually pull it off, place yourself as dictator of the new Republic. History is filled with examples of charismatic people who con a bunch of folks to fight and die for "freedom" only to take over in the end.

Re:Bullshit. (1, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839953)

Libertarian masturbatory fantasies involving guns.

Re:Bullshit. (2)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840197)

Libertarian masturbatory fantasies involving guns.

Also system theorist's tortured nighmares of an unavoidable path, repeated countless times in history.

Re:Bullshit. (1)

foobsr (693224) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839985)

So once soap box, ballot box, and jury box have failed, what is left?

Imagine the FED goes bankrupt, not able to pay the military.

CC.

Re:Bullshit. (5, Interesting)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840111)

When I joined the Marine Corps, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I always figured it would be the foreign enemies I had to worry about.

Re:Bullshit. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840133)

When I joined the Marine Corps, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I always figured it would be the foreign enemies I had to worry about.

You figured wrong.

Re:Bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839945)

Dear lord, the worse part is that this people not playing right with mathematics.

Next amendment: For an infinitely thick border, borders cease to exist, therefore, unreasonable searches and seizures are allowed everywhere.

100 miles? I hope they start exercising this on ALL Washington D.C., which seems to fall in the premises.

Implied Power (4, Interesting)

Electrawn (321224) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840041)

Further, the US Constitution doesn't grant the federal government immigration authority. It is an "Implied Power" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers [wikipedia.org]

NYC in the 100mi zone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839829)

LA too? Since they are both on the coasts which acts as a natural border?

100 miles inland (3, Interesting)

Dr. Tom (23206) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839831)

Well, that includes all coastal cites, New York, L.A., Miami.

Re:100 miles inland (3, Informative)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839929)

Well, that includes all coastal cites, New York, L.A., Miami.

Look at a map of the original United States, and then imagine a 100-mile zone inside those borders. It looks to me like virtually the entire country would have been within 100 miles of a border. Somehow, I doubt that those who wrote the Bill of Rights would have agreed that they didn't intend it to apply to 90% of their country.

Re:100 miles inland (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839993)

Or you can look at the map that is linked to at the bottom of the /. article.

Re:100 miles inland (1)

immaterial (1520413) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840241)

Didn't realize that was a map of the original 13 colonies. My history classes must have been wildly inaccurate!

Re:100 miles inland (1)

guttentag (313541) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840247)

Yes, but conveniently puts Washington D.C. dangerously close to and possibly inside the constitution free zone, depending on how far the actual border is considered to extend into the ocean from the shore. Because that would be awkward for laws to be written and constitutional issues decided in a place where the constitution does not apply.

That might be news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839833)

to people living in Seattle, San Diego, Cleveland, or Detroit.

How much of the nation is that? (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839841)

Just eyeballing a map of the US, I'd estimate that 100 miles in covers at least a quarter of the country. Anyone have a more accurate proportion of how much the country this covers?

Re:How much of the nation is that? (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839923)

Anyone have a more accurate proportion of how much the country this covers?

Sure do. [aclu.org]

2/3rds of the US population lives within this zone.

Re:How much of the nation is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840199)

population != country.

Re:How much of the nation is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839935)

The north-south length of New Hampshire is 190 miles (Wikipedia). So take half that and imagine a thick border across the northern edge of the US, and another in the South where we border Mexico. That's a lot, but no where near a quarter either in area or population.

Re:How much of the nation is that? (1)

Miseph (979059) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840093)

Unless it covers coastlines, which are also borders, and along which the majority of the US population lives.

It gets even bigger if every international airport counts as a border and gets a 100 mile radius 4th Amendment-free zone as well, covering virtually every major city in the nation.

Re:How much of the nation is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840103)

Throw in "International Airports" (Denver, St. Louis, etc.) and you've covered a lot more of the nation.

AC

Re:How much of the nation is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840143)

Here is a map of the US showing the 100 mile zone.

http://tinypic.com/r/2re6sjr/6

Sacre bleu! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839843)

Just for conjecture, Burlington, VT, Rochester, NY, Cleveland, OH are well within 160km (100 miles) of the Canadian border.

does the coast count as a border? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839849)

if so pretty much all major economic centers in the u.s. would be subject to this shit...

Re:does the coast count as a border? (1)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840099)

That isn't "would be subject to this shit" that's IS subject to this shit and have been for years. The second article in TFS is from 2008 -- half a decade ago. Why is it taking so long for people to wake up to what is going on?

Definition of border? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839863)

So, does the border include the coast?
If so, that covers a large part of the population.

Re:Definition of border? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839969)

Yes, the border includes the coast.

Yes, more than 68% of the US population lives in Constitution-free areas of the country.

Yes, this has been successfully used to seize vehicles that were driving between San Diego and Los Angeles, and which came no where close to crossing the border, or were in any way involved in anything having to do with the border.

Is anyone surprised? This has been going on a least since 2008.

Re:Definition of border? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839995)

So, does the border include the coast?
If so, that covers a large part of the population.

I'm not 100% sure, but Territorial waters extend 24 nautical miles from the coastline by International convention so you could probably argue that even if the coastlines are included, it's not a full 100 miles inland from them. However, in the context of what this article discusses it's more likely to mean within 100 miles of a land-based border, as the DHS has never had the ability to enforce coastal boundaries... that's Coast Guard and US Navy jurisdiction.

Loss of Money (3, Interesting)

IonOtter (629215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839865)

Well, there goes $350 from me?

I was going to upgrade to a nice, shiny new Galaxy S III this Saturday, and get a data plan and everything.

I don't need either, but thought it might be nice to play around with all the cool toys, send IM and Tweets and stuff. Well. Not so nice after all.

Sorry, Samsung! Sorry, T-Mobile! I'm gonna stick with my talk & text plan on a $25 disposable that I fling down a sewer grate.

Re:Loss of Money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840005)

I'm gonna stick with my talk & text plan on a $25 disposable that I fling down a sewer grate.

Somehow I think the people who drew up the Bill of Rights imagined protecting better citizens than you.

Re:Loss of Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840259)

Somehow I think you're wrong.

Re:Loss of Money (1)

Chubby_C (874060) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840025)

replying to undo an incorrect moderation

Check out the map. (5, Informative)

cinghiale (2269602) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839867)

Re:Check out the map. (2)

RandomFactor (22447) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839919)

For perspective, the entire state of Florida is included in this.

I was gonna retire there someday too...

Re:Check out the map. (4, Informative)

Relic of the Future (118669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840073)

As well as all of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island (the southwest corner of Vermont is the only thing keeping all of New England from being Constitution-free), New Jersey, and Delaware. The largest city that's safe, is Phoenix.

Re:Check out the map. (1)

Relic of the Future (118669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840009)

Money quote: "nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population live within this "Constitution-Free Zone." That’s 197.4 million people."

San Diego (2)

theArtificial (613980) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839869)

Sucks to live in San Diego, California, Yuma or Tucson Arizona etc. I wonder of the typical sarcastic response is along the lines of "It's cool, I wasn't using my rights anyway"

Re:San Diego (5, Insightful)

foofish (10132) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840033)

As a resident of Tucson, this is alarming. If I lived farther north I'd be used to it, as Sheriff Arpaio has already made Phoenix a Fourth Amendment Free Zone.

Probable cause... (2)

yerktoader (413167) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839875)

I thought this applied to probable cause. Wouldn't seem necessary if they don't need probable cause. I've also head that around 70% of our population lives within 100 miles of the borders. Can anyone provide cites for these? Thanks.

Since 2008 (2)

mill3d (1647417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839881)

Re:Since 2008 (3, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840191)

Actually they can go over 100 miles if they feel like it.

"That whenever in the opinion of a chief patrol agent or special agent in charge a distance in his or her sector or district of more than 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States would because of unusual circumstances be reasonable, such chief patrol agent or special agent in charge shall forward a complete report with respect to the matter to the Commissioner of CBP, or the Assistant Secretary for ICE, as appropriate, who may, if he determines that such action is justified, declare such distance to be reasonable."

We are half way down the slippery slope (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839885)

So, for all the gun control fans out there, you cannot pick and choose which part of the Constitution you choose to enforce. When you start deciding that one section or another is inconvenient in the modern era you undermine everything, including the parts you like. We have a process for amending the Constitution. It is intentionally difficult.

Just as people argue about what exactly "bear arms" means, now we get to argue about what "unreasonable" means. I think they are both adequately clear. The suspension of the fourth amendment when you are actually at a boarder crossing makes sense because it is voluntary. You have a sign that says "All items entering this boarder checkpoint are subject to search". One mile away is unreasonable.

Definition of border (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839959)

I'm unable to find the definition of "border" anywhere on dhs.gov. Does it include the coasts? Does it include airport international arrival terminals? In both cases, is there a radius, such as the oft-touted 100-mile radius?

Based on some Googling just now, my guess is that the 100-mile border range including coasts -- popularized by the ACLU in 2008 -- comes not from DHS or Executive Order, but rather from proposed-but-not-passed Congressional bills, such as 2011 HR 1505 [gpo.gov] (and other bills stretching back to 2008). But I also guess that now that DHS has decided this, Congress will just pass a bill that expansively defines the border.

They can fucking try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42839971)

They keep pushing people, and someone, somewhere is going to push back. And it won't be pretty. DHS might even lose.

Don't worry, citizen. (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42839979)

It is only temporary. Someday, we will increase it to 1,000 miles.

(For those who don't get the joke, except for maybe a tiny patch near Lebanon, KS, the entire continental United States lies within 1,000 miles of a border, give or take.)

But in all seriousness, nearly two-thirds the population of the United States lives within 100 miles of our nation's borders. The DHS's claims are tantamount to an outright abrogation of the fourth amendment for the overwhelming majority of Americans—an irrefutable and egregious violation of their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. So the only real question that we should be asking is this:

  • Why aren't these usurpers in jail yet?

Freedom is a myth if our nation is unwilling to take people like this to task for wiping its a** with our nation's highest law. If we do not prosecute the DHS and anyone who commits illegal searches based on their borderline treasonous guidance, then our nation's highest law will have no teeth, and we might as well start calling ourselves the American Democratic Republic right now.

Why aren't these usurpers in jail yet? (3, Insightful)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840029)

In jail? They were just reelected.

Re:Don't worry, citizen. (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840043)

Why aren't these usurpers in jail yet?

And the answer is... because there are no legal penalties whatsoever defined for violating the constitution. The oath is an empty act, with absolutely no teeth behind it.

And as for the "ammo box" answer, your fellow citizens, by and large, would just as soon you attempt to gum them to death, and the government took that idea and ran with it over a half century ago in United States v.Miller.

Re:Don't worry, citizen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840179)

Freedom is a myth ...

That's right, freedom IS a myth.

The best thing you can do is leave the country now while you still can.

Good luck taking much in the way of liquid assets with you though. You might find
you don't have the 'freedom' to do that.

My favorite part of all this is that most of you fuckwits voted for the very people who
are doing this to you. So you fucked yourselves. Put that in your pipes and smoke
it, you fucking sheep.

Thank good for the NRA (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840011)

This is why we NRA members keep our guns: to defend our freedoms from the government!

As we speak millions of NRA members are marching weapons in hand, erh, what was that... Imean thousands are marching,... come again, not that many? ok hundreds are marching..., no? not even that? ok Right now as we speak some of us NRA members are even thinking about doing something about this, which is why we keep our weapons ready!

this is like that stargate episode (1)

cenerentolo (2817897) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840013)

cant remember if it was atlantis or sg1, they were looking for some artifact of the ancients. there was this whole treasure path they had to take, it might have been with claudia black (woof), which makes it sg1... it was long and laborious. first they had to want the right thing, and to have a pure heart... and, dude, like have you ever had to truly change your heart? not easy in 6 seconds..... THEN they had to solve like IMPOSSIBLE RIDDLES....... THEN.... they had to move through this invisible time dilation maze... where if they got trapped, they would be frozen forever in time... it has LONG AGO gotten to the point where these types of encroachments from habeas corpus to wiretapping to seizure of property now, that there is NO FUCKING WINNING, and if they are gonna fuck with ya they are gonna fuck with ya. this is the beginnings of a fascist culture.. beginnings, who the frack am i kidding???? we are full throes of this fucking thing. ONE MUST NAVIGATE AN INVISIBLE TIME DILATION MAZE to get out of the liberty encroachments these paper liars are proud to be spooging on humanity. god help us.

this is a very bad sign (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840017)

I hardly know what to say.

Fight terrorists with terrorist methods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840031)

Encrypt you drives, remove access to all ports, thread and glue all screws. And just for civilized justice, lace the electronic with explosives in case the damn thing is pried open,

The top brass in government feels everyone below should be treated like a criminal or a terrorist ? Then they deserve the monsters they feel all are.

seems arbitrary (1)

Libertarian001 (453712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840039)

100 miles, you say? Seems a bit arbitrary. Almost like someone just pulled the number out of their ass. Or looked at a map to see where huge portions of the population lived and figured they'd just unilaterally start excluding those inconvenient Amendments.

I wish they'd be done with it already and just state that the Constitution doesn't apply within 100,000 miles of Washington D.C. because, you know, terrorists.

What Say the Courts? (1)

hduff (570443) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840071)

Or have they been targeted by drones to keep them quiet?

As a Citizen of the State of Florida. (1)

trout007 (975317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840083)

Crap.

2030: A Really Backwards Border (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840097)

I expect future border crossings, perhaps as early as 2030,
will feature people parking their cars along a moving
sidewalk, then lining up, men in one line and women
in another, and stripping naked, swaying backwards
towards the border guard, bent over with their buttocks spread
wide so their anus is in full view, while coughing.

COME AND GET THEM.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840149)

And have fun decrypting them, while you're at it.

This includes more that half of people's homes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840165)

According to NOAA, more that 50 percent of the population lives within 50 miles of the border.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html

This is common for any banana republic. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840177)

The statist government ratches the noose tighter just a little at a time.

Our grandchildren will be born slaves and curse our names because would could have done something to save our freedom.

All the foreign terrorists had real paperwork from the federal government.

All the foreign terrorists were protected from local law enforcement by the federal government.

All the domestic terrorists were government employees - including the latest rogue cop.

Look up the numbers - US citizens are more likely to be murdered by their own government than by foreign terrorists and military combined and it's been that way for decades.

The government doesn't protect us from danger - the government is the danger.

Afraid of Words, Electronics, Guns, Shadows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840181)

Religion, Evolution. Competition. Truth. Law. Reporters. Photographers. The internet. Blacks. Whites. Mexicans. Christians. Muslims. Jews. Atheists. Men. Women.

STEP AWAY FROM THE LAPTOP!

I said FREEZE NERD!

lol!

You Americans need to chill.

mummy why do the terrorists hate us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840183)

Because we are free to be boot licking corporate lackeys darling.

USA,USA!

Our discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840201)

God forbid they catch you with a link to this slashdot thread in your web browser, or an archive of these comments. I dont think i will travel within 100 miles of the border with a mobile device. I have a stationary desktop computer, my cell phone is crap, but i do have a digital camera. I will NOT demand a warrant, but i will suggest very politely that most interpretations of the 4th amendment dont allow for "amendment-free zones", and perhaps be willing to stay at a local hotel, pay the bill, and give them my ID until they can get a warrant. I dont want them angry at me. My country really scares me now, and i remember thinking that Reagan scared me. I would give anything to have all the people in govt replaced by reagan republicans, who were relatively sane compared to these nutbags. Barack Obama KNOWS this is illegal, hes a constitutional law scholar, so wtf? he must be insanely evil, only possible conclusion. I think i may have just become a tea partier/progressive democrat...

I was detained in Charleston SC (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840225)

My wife and I went to Charleston SC for our anniversary last year. We were just walking around downtown when a couple of DHS agents walked up to us and demanded to see our ID and our cell phones.

Without even asking, one of them snatched my wife's purse and removed her cell phone from it, and plugged it into some device.

I did not have my cell phone on me, and when I told them that, I was arrested and taken to a mobile "command center" where I was interrogated as to why I didn't have a cell phone, and subsequently stripped to my underwear because they thought I was lying about not having one.

The entire experience was humiliating.

The USA is no longer a free country. Period. And, anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.

BFD (1)

CrazyDoode (843836) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840235)

Cause that is what the bureaucrats who come up with this kind of shit say.

They don't care if they are wrong since there is no process to give a shit if they are wrong.

Our constitutions were written in a day (even 50 years ago) and an age where integrity mattered and we all had beliefs which we stood up for and defended proudly. Not so today. Constitutions without consequence are meaningless, in my country and in all countries on this planet.

This is very convenient for Canada and Mexico (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42840267)

It's less of a step for them to claim that 100 miles as theirs. It's not covered under the constitution, so you don't have the right to arms as part of your "militia" so you may as well start eating tacos and saying Eh? That's how the terrorists won. They took your country 100 miles at a time from within your own government.

Fourth Amendment Free Zone (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42840281)

It's my understanding (and I've seen this in ACLU publications and so on) that the 4th amendment free zone only applies at entry points.

The 100 mile range applies more to issues like immigration stops visa checks etc.

http://www.visaserveblog.com/tp-110714115312/post-121023152428.shtml [visaserveblog.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>