In article <lom724dght735ujusluhfgna5d****u7q3e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
richard <i.do.not@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 00:17:09 -0400, Larry <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >In article <hki72496nq7rflstuuukdavl1t376nvek9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > richard <i.do.not@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 07 May 2008 21:59:10 -0400, Larry <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Your knowledge, as usual, is ridiculously poor.
> >>
> >> Well dear boy, a few years ago, there was a case in which the Customs
> >> agents had found a passenger on an airline who said was carrying
> >> "child ****ography" and took him to court and confiscated the
> >> drawings.
> >>
> >> The Customs office lost the case because the drawings did not meet
the
> >> criteria for "child ****ography" under USA law.
> >
> >Okay, assuming this is true (and you don't provide a cite to the case,
> >so I just have your word for it), then the government lost the case
> >because the drawings were not child ****, NOT because it was an illegal
> >search. If it was an illegal search, the case would be dismissed
before
> >it even got to the point of determining whether the pictures were
> >illegal or not.
>
> The guy who persued the case was also an attorney. I had emailed him
> several times.
And he didn't get back to you? Shocking.
> His website has since been removed not because of the
> case, but mainly due to "netnanny" insisting it was not a good site
> and probably lack of interest.
Probably, since you're the only one interested in emailing the guy who
had drawings of ****d 8 year olds.
> The case involved penned drawings of **** children, mostly girls,
> between the ages of 8 and 11. Customs claimed they were drawings of
> actual persons.
>
> >
> >So, you just proved my point - searches like this are legal.
> >
>
> To a point.
No, entirely. The search was legal and the evidence was allowed in
court against the guy.
> The searches can only determine if the item is illegal or
> not.
You're an idiot. A search doesn't determine if something is illegal or
not. That's what a trial is for. A search just finds things.
> Now do you really think that customs or TSA is gonna take hours
> going through one laptop determining if each and every file is legal
> or not? Not without my presence they are not, if it's my laptop.
You're an idiot, you know? Who said they spend hours on every laptop?
> >> Upon entering the country, I will agree that the Customs people have
> >> the legal right to inspect your belongings, including laptops and
> >> contents thereof.
> >
> >So glad you agree what the law is. I'm sure law enforcement officers
> >throughout this country are thrilled.
> >
> >> To a point.
> >>
> >> But not when it comes to simply boarding a plane and going to a
> >> destination within the USA. Yes, they can x-ray and examine luggage.
> >> Plugging in the laptop and examining the contents? No.
> >> Not on a domestic flight.
> >
> >Who said they could do this on a domestic flight? In the case that
> >started this thread, the person was flying to the US from the
> >Philippines.
> >
>
> If you have a dozen books in your bag, does this give them the legal
> right to read them?
Yes, it does. To the extent that they need to to see if it could be
illegal or not (like military plans or something). Usually this would
be done by at most flipping through the pages and just skimming them.
> The heart of the case was over the matter of
> whether or not the customs had the legal right to open files and
> determine if the content was illegal or not.
And the court very clearly said they could. Case closed.
> Thusly, possibly exposing
> trade secrets and intellectual property to those that are not privvy
> to them.
Trade secrets? Do you think that the TSA cares what the secret formula
for Coke is? If they see something illegal, you're busted. If not,
you're on your way.
> Let's say you are coming back from Europe and your breifcase contains
> confidential files pertaining to a case. Are they allowed to read
> those files? I don't think so.
Of course you don't. Because you're a buffoon.
> So why are they allowed to view the
> contents of a file on a laptop?
Because the laptop might contain things that are illegal to possess, and
they have a right to make sure people coming into this country don't
bring illegal items with them.
Do you want people coming into the US with child ****? (well, you
probably do -- but most people don't). Do you want Osama bin Laden
coming into the US with blueprints to the Sears Tower? Or with a recipe
for a dirty bomb?
> To my knowledge, paper is not a banned product.
Depends on the form.
> They can only look to the point that determines whether or not an item
> is on the banned list.
You're close. Not right, but close.
> >> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> >> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall
> >> not be violated.............
> >>
> >> This has to be applied to domestic flights as well. If they can do
> >> this on an airplane, why not on a bus, a train, or any other public
> >> trans****tation system?
> >
> >Who said they do this on domestic flights?
>
> Been to an air****t lately?
Yes, frequently.
> Your luggage is x-rayed and screened. At
> the checkin gate, you have to give up any item you still have in your
> pockets.
Yep. I'm all for it. I don't want someone bringing weapons or
contraband on my flight!
> If that item is not allowed on the plane, you don't have the
> legal right to keep it. They take it from you. You can have it back
> and they'll escort you off the property.
Absolutely wrong, as usual. If it's something that is legal to have,
but illegal to take on a plane, you can keep it - you just can't board
the plane with it. You have to choose whether to discard it and board
or keep it and not board. Though at many major air****ts, there are USPS
kiosks right there so you can mail yourself the items, so that you DO
get to keep it, and just don't have it on the plane.
In other words, the opposite of what you said.
> Then, you must walk, barefoot, through a metal detector.
> If you're carrying a laptop, some air****ts check it for toxins.
All good things. Though I personally think the shoe check is a bit
much.
> We now have to go through all of this bull**** because King Bush has
> determined that you and I are terrorists.
Ummm, before 2001 there were metal detectors and magnotometers and
searches, you buffoon. I actually missed a flight once in the early 90s
because some security screener didn't know what a modem was and he was
so concerned about this unknown electrical device I had on me that he
called a supervisor.
> >> By allowing this search, the 9th circuit has broken the sanctity of
> >> the constitution.
> >
> >If they did, then the Supreme Court will overturn the decision.
> >
> Most likely. As the 9th circuit has a track record of getting it
> wrong.
Most likely? Do you know what small percentage of cases are overturned?
In any event, the 9th circuit is pretty liberal and is most often
overturned because their decisions are too leftist. In this case, they
were conservative and pro--law and order, so I really don't see a
reversal coming.
I doubt that SCOTUS would even grant cert and hear the case unless a
circuit somewhere else reached a different result in the same facts.
> >> On Monday, I am boarding a plane, and with a laptop. We shall see
what
> >> they do with it and what happens if they do look inside it.
> >
> >Will there be child **** or illegal material on that laptop?
>
> No. As I'm gonna send it all to you and then you can email it to me
> later.
If you send it to me, I'm turning you in to the police. Once I stop
laughing at you.
|
