Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjgoins | Hacker News Reader

He addresses the politeness issue in the follow up by saying, quite rightly:

To the authoritarian mind, there are only two responses to a demand: submission or defiance, and anything less than total submission is defiance.

View on HN

You realize that just because he says that doesn't mean it's actually true, right?

In fact, his argument for being brusque doesn't square with his argument for the inalienability of his rights to silent re-entry. If he's right about the latter, he has no reason to "assert the fact that he won't be pushed around"; he won't be pushed around either way.

I'm left with the conclusion that I'm reading about a major-league douchebag... one who I'm glad is defining the frontiers of our rights as citizens, but a douchebag nonetheless.

Here is well researched 24 page report on what courts have found to be what your rights are at a border crossing

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf

Some surprises to me are that you can be detained for 4 to 6 hours as part of routine screening and body cavity searched without a warrant if you simply match a profile.

It is well researched by I find the logic justifying warrant-less search specious:

"It has long been established that border crossers’ reasonable expectation of privacy is lower at the border because they generally expect border guards to search persons and property for contraband. Because this is common knowledge, border crossers are put on notice when approaching a border that a search may be imminent, and thus their privacy is “less invaded by [border] searches” when they occur."

More generally that means: We blatantly violate so many people's rights that they're not really being violated.

I don't love the logic at play here either but feel compelled to note that, like it or not, it is the logic that every court in the land will use. Your rights at our country's borders are limited. The Supreme Court has held these limitations to be constitutional. Disagree or not, your only recourse may involve a constitutional amendment.

Eventually the criminals who believe that our only recourse is a constitutional amendment, and are counting on the difficulty of obtaining one, will be in for a rude awakening.

You're missing what I think is one of the primary points he's trying to make - answering any of those questions instantly puts him at risk of lying to a federal officer, which is a criminal act.

In order to be polite, you have to risk being a criminal. Ergo, it makes more sense to be a little rude (and being silent isn't that rude, _particularly_ to a federal officer - for them being silent is simply one of a series of acceptable responses) and forgo the risk of criminal charges. Are you being a douchebag to a police officer when you refuse consent to a search?

He also lists a number of countries in which Customs and Immigration believe their job is "Customs and Immigration" and _not_ getting historical biographical information.

There really is a fundamental privacy issue.

True Story:

I was crossing the border from Canada into the United States in 2003, and was with a friend (an attractive blonde, Canadian, that I had declared our relationship to be "friend") at a ground crossing (Peace Arch, in BC) - we were pulled over for secondary, and went into the Immigration office. They asked us a number of questions, all of which I answered to be the best of my ability (I have neither the courage, nor moral fiber of the author - wish I did) - and they were preparing to let us go. Just as we were packing up our passports, and leaving, the Immigration Officer pulled a "Columbo" and said, "Oh, one more thing - are you still dating that Red Head, Marjorie?" I was a little floored - I had crossed the border _once_ with a (red headed) girlfriend in 1999 - that information (that we were dating, the color of her hair, her name) was clearly in a federal file on me, and they were using it to get a reaction from my companion (who, thank goodness, was actually a friend as I had described her).

So, from a privacy perspective, just be aware that as you answer all of these questions, they are going into a federal database, that certainly can paint quite a detailed pictured of your life. If you are willing to remain silent, then they have less to enter into their database.

It's interesting how when people buck the status-quo, even just a little bit, they get tagged with the "douchebag" title. God bless them.

EDIT: As a follow-on, I should note that as a Canadian, I really have no excuse not to answer all questions asked by American Customs and Immigration, but, very ironically, as a TN Computer Systems Analyst, I am almost _never_ asked any questions _whatsoever_ by American C&I, and the rare time they ask me anything, it is always the single (very reasonable) "Who are you working for". Returning to Canada, on the other hand, is an exercise in what did I do in the US, where I'll be going, what I'll be doing, who I'll be staying with, for how long, etc, etc...

You have a drastically diminished expectation of privacy at the border, because of the state's sovereign right to regulate those borders. This is a large part of the reason why border police can search you at will; the "reasonableness" of a search is largely delineated by the balance of the state's legitimate interests in searching you against your expectation of privacy.

You seem taken aback that the state would remember your previous border-crossings. I'm actually impressed and sort of pleased that they're this on-the-ball. It seems totally reasonable to me for the state to keep a record of aliens crossing into the country.

And beyond that, it seems weird that record keeping would shock your conscience, but the fact that the border police can search the files on your laptop without a warrant (which: they can, according to the 4th and 9th circuit courts) doesn't warrant a mention.

Lawyer and patriot or not, this guy is living in a fantasy world, where the "business or pleasure" question is a sticky spider web patrolled by venomous legal monsters, but warrantless searches of his person, his body cavities, the documents in his briefcase and the files on his computer are totally benign.

I don't think that searches are ok for him according to item no. 9 from his update:

Moreover, the existence of the right of privacy is usually based on whether people have a current expectation of privacy in a certain situation. To the extent that people decline to assert their right of privacy, it slips away. Lack of vigilance by citizens begets more government power.

I'm not of the opinion that my expectation of privacy is diminished at the border. My expectation of privacy is diminished at the border, because the Supreme Court ruled that it is so, definitively.

You can be polite without giving any more information.

"Did you go to China for business or pleasure?"

"I'm sorry, but as a US citizen, my rights enable me to refuse to answer any questions you ask. I am invoking that right."

You can even leave out the "I'm sorry" if you want. You make it clear why you are doing this, which means you get to protect yourself and educate others.

You don't have to be a jerk to defend your rights, and I firmly believe you will be more effective (generally) at defending those rights.

The pragmatic civil libertarian might choose to open with something like "Respectfully, I don't believe I have to answer that one. We can discuss it with my attorney present if you disagree."

This has additional value in that the person you are speaking to is taught something and doesn't leave the encounter just thinking you are an ass.

I guess politeness can be one of those grey area kinds of things, but when somebody replies "none of your business" to a question of mine, I usually find it a little rude. Alternatively he could have explained his reasoning for remaining silent instead of just doing so; that might have educated (sadly) some of the officers as to why he was acting that way while appearing polite and retaining his rights.

Nonetheless, to the human mind, there are plenty of shades of grey. If you're trying to convince (both them and the blog-reading public), you'd do well not to act as if everything's black and white. see also: Stallman.

One of my favorite quotes: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw)

Stallman's complete and total unwillingness to bend at all occasionally grates on my nerves.

I am also grateful for it.

That's an opinion, not demonstrated fact, and one I don't agree with.

Customs officials may be in some position of authority, but they are still people. People generally prefer to be treated with respect, politeness, and civility. Your every interaction with someone in authority is not an alpha-male/top-dog struggle for dominance.

Regardless of that, there's a difference between polite defiance and rude defiance, often a big one. Odds are you'll get a better response from the former, one that allows you to exercise your rights without coming off as a dick. At the very least it's easier to earn sympathy if you're still mistreated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com