Comment by danbruc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by danbruc | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

How is this not in violation of international law, especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1] article 17, which would apply to US citizens as well as non-US citizens?

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

Maybe even article 9 if the law does not clearly establish what is allowable.

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

EDIT: Turns out the US did not really ratify this treaty. [2] So no human rights in the US, or at least not all of them enforceable in court. There may of course be similar rights from other laws or treaties.

[1] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civi...

The respect that USA shows for international laws is more or less on pair with the value of human rights in Guantanamo.

No offense, but I don't put much weight on international law. In order for a law to have impact, someone has to enforce it. Who will enforce international laws? The UN?

In this case it would be every country that ratified the treaty itself. This kind of international treaty just becomes more or less national law. But I just read that the US did not really ratify this one, it ratified it and added five reservations, five understandings, and four declarations. So this one has probably not much effect in the US. But usually you can just go to national courts if you see a violation of international law like this.

Yes, any treaties or laws ratified by congress have the full legal weight as any national law. They must be upheld by our nation; otherwise, it's unconstitutional.

Yes, but then you're asking countries to police themselves. If following the law is not in the countries best interest, they won't do it unless someone else forces them to.

I think the American mindset in regards to the law and the state itself, especially that set forth by the founding fathers, is that the people are those who make laws and enforce them, so this mindset asks for a revolt to the state as a reply to such acts.

The US can easily claim it's not "arbitrary" because they've been selected by their systems for complete roto-rooter inspection, and it's not "unlawful" because the US laws could allow it.

If software identifies you as potential criminal or terrorist at the border, the following search is not "arbitrary" by any means. The state should not be transparent about the exact reasons why you were chosen (e.g. the social media post or phone call), apart from pointing out the law based on which they are acting.

Only if the software or procedures do a reasonable job at selecting people. It is hard to tell from the outside whether this is the case but the cases that became publicly known at least suggest that the system is not flawless and also seems to pick people with opinions or doing things the US disapproves but which are not illegal.

How much information must be provided is certainly debatable. Article 9 continues as follows.

Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

So what are reasons? You are in violation of US law? You are in violation of US law X? You are in violation of US law X because you did Y? You are in violation of US law X because you did Y and we know because of Z? How much reason is enough reason?

Actually, if you are only detained for some time, then there re probably no charges. Unfortunately my understanding of law has a lot to be desired. How much inference is allowed without charges?

And thinking about it again, nobody, as far as I can tell, heavily complains about your bags getting searched, for security or customs. So it seems indeed more of a matter of degree what kind of search is acceptable.

On the other hand getting your bags searched is about imminent dangers and crimes, downing the airplane, smuggling illegal things, evading taxes. Inspecting your digital life seems hard to justify from that perspective unless you think people are regularly posting on Facebook that they are about to cross the border with a bag full of drugs hidden so well that they can not be found.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com