The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today
uncrunched.com
uncrunched.com
Nestled deep within this fucked up situation is an asymmetry of information that gives the flunky incredible power over someone who is, in almost every other context, perceived to be better than they are (especially in this case involving a young rich kid with an expensive toy). Most human beings, when confronted with such an imbalance of power, are not going to be able to resist abusing their power.
In practical terms, there are only two solutions to this problem that I know of. You can learn the procedure better than they do, and beat them on details. This can be effective, but it's boring and the payoff isn't very good. The other solution is to be really, really nice. To be incredibly accommodating. To engender a spirit of goodwill, joviality and kindness such that the flunky wants to help you. CHP officers call this the "personality test" - and they administer it every time you get pulled over, BTW.
It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery. It's like they are saying, "If you can at least pretend that I'm a good person, just doing my job, then you won't have to suffer. However, if you annoy me, disrespect me, I will make you suffer like you've never known. Remember: I can check a box that will consume months of your life and untold amounts of treasure."
God bless the USA.
That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you.
I'm saying that if you're nice to someone who wants nothing more than an excuse to hurt you, and who has no compunction about doing so, then perhaps you won't get hurt.
The end goal is not for them to be nice to you. The goal is for them to refrain from making your life a living hell.
Have you seen The Incredibles? The scene towards the beginning when Mr. Incredible helps the little old lady cheat the insurance system? I think most bureaucrats want to be that person. They want to give the good guy a break; they want to cut people who try hard a little bit of slack. It means more work for them, since they need to spend their own time to make sure those people followed instructions, and there's only so much energy you can give each one. Not only that, but they know the ways the bureaucracy was built a little loosely— the ways to get around things, not ways you should use all the time, but sometimes you have to.
That's the power bureaucrats have, and generally, they want to use it for good. They want to help that little old lady get her check. They want to let that kid go home when his dad dies. And yeah, they want to take a little time off themselves, but who doesn't?
What they don't want to do is go out of their way to help some random idiot who just wasn't paying attention to his own shit, who seems to think because you're paid to process paperwork it's your job to advocate for him, without so much as pretending like he's asking you for a favor. Screw that guy.
And, seriously, what are we asking here? I'm reminded of an Ani Difranco quote:
“Maybe you don't like your job. Maybe you didn't get enough sleep.
Nobody likes their job; nobody got enough sleep.
Maybe you just had the worst day of your life. You know there's no escape,
and there's no excuse,
so just suck up and be nice.”Additionally, it has been my experience that American cops are not shy about showing overwhelming force. Nor are they shy about pushing the boundaries of what they can do to you, what they can cite or arrest you for. Nor do they have any compunction about tricking you into giving them more access or more information than they have a right to.
We live in a society which has somehow learned to ascribe to the philosophy that you should use your power to it's full extent. Discretion is a sucker's game. The MO is: show up to the scene with overwhelming force, and if anyone gives you an excuse, arrest them. Cite them. Take their stuff. Cost them time and money. Punish them. Or, for a federal prosecutor: ignore common sense and threaten a non-violent person with decades in federal prison to get your desired plea-deal. There is no prize for discretion, only convictions.
They consider their weapons and their other privileges a means to "intimidate and show power". And with this approach, no wonder when they get a chance, they do show power.
I've met cops that didn't really care, I met some that were super friendly and a few not so friendlies, one couple arrived at a party because of a noise complaint right at midnight when a lot of people were cheering happy birthday. Tried as I could (I was talking to them as their English and the Americans German both weren't great), they didn't understand that yes, that's louder than the rest of the party was before and after and were just assholish all around.
At the resident registration office I had case workers that tried to made me feel bad for everything and just wanted to exercise power as well as those that helped me avoid fees I would have otherwise had to pay.
The worst person was the doctor at the conscription office but as that was my only contact with a military person ever, it's not much of a sample size ;)
So in closing again: they are just humans. And just like humans they often can be manipulated into helping you.
And never make excuses for them online in a hackers forum.
It takes someone very naive to be rude to a cop or other government official, knowing how miserable they can make your life with very little effort.
It takes someone even more naive to genuinely care about someone who would be willing to use frivolously the power to make your life miserable.
There are "good" cops and government officials, but they are the minority. When you encounter a random one, you don't know which kind they are, and by the time you find out it's too late.
Pretending to be nice, in this context, doesn't seem shitty to me, it seems like the ONLY course of action a reasonable person can take. And thus it's my MO when dealing with cops or other government employees.
> Being nice to a beaurocrat is stupid. Appear to be nice or even charming is one thing but always be willing to throw them under the bus once you are done with them.
I think he is saying it is shitty to pretend to be nice and then be willing to thrown them under the bus when you are done with them....
Why not actually be nice? What is stupid about being nice to a bureaucrat? It's not as if a bureaucrat is not a person, and people respond to kindness. Pretending to be nice to someone and then being "willing to throw them under the bus when you're are done with them", sounds pretty sociopathic to me. And I don't know about you but I find sociopathic tendencies pretty shitty....
No, being nice to ANYONE (no matter HOW they are spelled) is never "stupid".
Maybe a few government employees are like that, but most are just regular people who are trying to get through a day of work like anyone else. They are perfectly willing to be nice to people who are nice to them.
I know people who work for the government, so I get to hear about the flip side of what you are saying. Some folks come into any government office with a preconceived notion something like, "This stupid government drone is just waiting to fuck me over." This frame of mind does not typically produce a warm and friendly affect.
You have to ingratiate yourself to them to have them treat you properly, and the only reason for that is their authority.
Psychic bribery is a fine term for it.
If they hold power over you, smile until you stab them in the back.
That is not a practical solution. It sounds almost like a bribe. I'm not saying that you should be rude to anybody, but you shouldn't have to kiss somebody's ass just so that they do their jobs. Is a slippery slope. Now you are kissing their asses, latter that will not be enough and the demands for bribes will be the next logical step. No, the line has to be drawn here.
Politeness is fine, more than that and you are kissing their asses.
I was trying to keep up with a friend, I got behind and I made a really stupid, illegal and probably dangerous maneuver in trying to keep up. Happened to be a cop at that intersection who pulled me over.
Officer comes to the car, and asks about what I just did. I pretty much immediately admit to doing it, and tell him that it was a terrible lapse of judgement on my part. He takes me license/reg back and runs it, then comes back and just asks me how long I've been driving. I told him about 5 hours or so, and he says he meant how many years. I tell him 15 or so.
He comments that he can't find any tickets or things on my record, and I tell him I've never had one. He just tells me to not do it again and to move on. I apologized again and told him I appreciated him keeping an eye out for the public safety.
Now I know that you're supposed to be super defensive, and next to an asshole to the cop in citing all your rights and admitting to nothing. But really, I messed up. It was better for me to admit what I did and accept responsibility.
So... this might be the kissing up that the prior post is talking about. Did I technically 'have' to do it? No. But I'm pretty sure if I had done otherwise, I would have left with a ticket.
Stonewalling isn't necessarily the best strategy, particularly if you both know you were in violation.
If I wasn't white, I think its highly possible things would have turned out differently.
Every encounter I've had with police so far (a few traffic stops, being caught dumpster diving, being in a few parks in Boston after midnight), I've found it just to be better to be nice. I've walked away from every situation so far with zero tickets, arrests, handcuffings, etc...
If you've done wrong, admit it. Don't lie about it.
If you get a ticket, accept it as deserving punishment for putting other lives at risk.
I think though, depending on various factors, that playing 'nice' can definitely get you further than stonewalling the cop. It all depends what you (potentially) did, who you are (being a white, upper middle class male doesn't hurt), and what you think the worse-case scenario will be.
My experience is people have more respect for people who will admit to a mistake/wrong-doing than for someone who will try to weasel their way out of trouble.
The OP was trying to do something right, and got punished for it.
I would say that, for better or worse (worse, obviously), it is both.
This is what I thought when I saw the US custom of tipping bartenders.
You don't. The person in this story did her job. He wouldn't sign the papers so she seized the boat. She also doesn't have the authority to change the papers. Her job is, if something goes sideways, impound everything and let the other parties sort it out.
The author of the article wanted a small and very reasonable exception made for his case. Everyone would agree that the change from CAD to USD is small and inconsequential and in this case more accurate. But that's not how "the system" works, and so he's not asking them to do their job.
If you just want the public official you're dealing with to do their job, then all you have to do is refrain from being difficult. If you want small special favors, then be nice. It's that easy.
If the bureaucrat's only two options were a) let the guy have the boat, or b) take the boat so someone else can sort it out, then I'm definitely more sympathetic to the bureaucrat here.
Is that understanding correct?
I don't know the code at all, but logic suggests this is the most likely scenario.
This is pretty much true of all police agencies. "Contempt of cop" is one of the worst offenses you can commit in terms of your likelihood of being punished for something minor.
This is self-congratulatory pop psychology claptrap. But it will probably sell well to a certain (shall we say Randian) subset of the HN readership.
> "If you can at least pretend that I'm a good person, just doing my job, then you won't have to suffer.
Yes, yes, isn't so unreasonable the way those "flunkies" expect to be treated like worthwhile human beings?
It is unreasonable for them to use their power to coerce the sort of treatment from people that they mistakenly believe they are entitled to.
This is the case whether you consider them flunkies or community heroes.
When I go to the convenience store to buy a donut, I am nice to the clerk behind the counter. When I go through customs, I am nice to the agent behind the counter. How are those mistakes?
Well I mean, clearly they do get to do that, but that is a problem, not excusable behavior.
I treat clerks nicely because I am a decent person. I treat government officials in positions of power over me nicely because, aside from being a decent person, I understand the score.
Frankly I wish American culture were such that I could just give people $50s instead of putting on the song and dance. Either one is bribery, neither particularly morally superior to the other.
The irony is that in Arrington's situation the border agent tried to educate Mike that this was a rule that could be safely bent in the interest of expedience, but it was Mike himself who insisted on perfect procedure.
Fail to pretend to be a friend to that cop, DMV worker, or private security guard at the front desk of your buddies apartment? Good luck not getting hassle or at least artificially degraded service.
EMT or firefighter? Taxi driver? Doctors and nurses? Train ticket puncher? Just like the burrito vendor, no pressure to be their "friend".
Some jobs either attract people with a sense of entitlement, or cultivate a sense of entitlement in otherwise decent people. The root cause of this? Who the hell knows, but everyone who perceives it is not imagining things. If you haven't noticed it, then perhaps you need to tune in.
Am I somehow special? I doubt it. Maybe I don't have problems with government employees because I approach those situations with positive expectations and I try to be nice to people.
Maybe I do that because I actually know a few people in customer-facing government roles and they are no more entitled or abusive that anyone else I know.
I can tell you though that from their perspective, abuse is a frequent occurence--usually from folks who walk through the door with a sense of persecution. A lot of people view anyone behind a government desk as fair game, since, after all, everyone knows the government is out to get us.
I'm not saying it justifies rudeness, but I can see being quite thoroughly paranoid about signing a federal form that contains a known inaccuracy. The agent's opinion that the discrepancy was unimportant might not have been shared by her superiors.
If people can be subject to federal prosecution for signing a form prepared by government workers, those workers should consider it their job to make sure the contents of that form are absolutely accurate.
You add in state and municipal codes and you probably are breaking the law right now as you read this and probably in multiple ways.
Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over for speeding? Especially given that the tests for which are written so that any commercial vehicle with any wear and tear at all will fail some aspect.
"Standing your ground" on principle is fine I guess if you have as large an ego as Arrington; I would rather focus on what is important and get sh*t done. I also really would advise taking anything he says when it comes to anything he has a vested interest in with a grain of salt. He has less than a stellar record on honesty when it comes to self-reporting.
Perhaps. But if that's true, I don't know which laws they are or how I'm breaking them.
Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over for speeding?
You have completely twisted what I said. First, I said if someone can be prosecuted for signing a form prepared by government workers. You left that critical condition out entirely. Secondly, and more broadly, I'm not talking about government workers demanding absolute accuracy of us -- I'm talking about them demanding absolute accuracy of themselves.
IANAL, obviously, but it does occur to me that once the customs worker encouraged Arrington to sign the form anyway, should he ever have been prosecuted for doing so -- which I agree seems unlikely -- he had, I would think, a valid entrapment defense. Of course, he probably had no proof that she said that, but being able to argue it might have been sufficient anyway. So I agree, he probably should have signed the form.
But I don't really care about that. Arrington is not collecting a salary paid by my tax dollars; he is simply a citizen attempting to protect himself. Whether he made the right choice or not here is for him to figure out. What I care about is the behavior of my government, which I pay for and which claims to be acting on authority vested in it by its citizens, of which I am one.
But in this actual case, the agent seems to have done the opposite--try to help bend the process so Mike could get on with his life. Mike is the one who decided to, in his own words, "stand on principle."
As to how serious that particular bend is, I don't personally know. I would tend to assume that a trained federal agent might have a better handle on that than Mike Arrington, though.
I just had a TV delivered. And then a replacement delivered, but they were unauthorized to pick up the original, so the same two delivery guys had to come back a third time.
All three times, the delivery guys tried to force me to sign an incomplete form. They clearly wanted me to sign for whatever condition it was in and they would check all the boxes on my behalf to cover their own asses. The tactic was plainly obvious.
> The other solution is to be really, really nice. To be incredibly accommodating.
That's what I usually try to do in this sort of situation. However, it simply was impossible because the delivery guys 1) were rather large and intimidating 2) in my home, where I'm still unpacking and 3) spoke very poor english. Charm simply does not work on underpaid meatheads who don't understand the words your using. Any attempt to communicate clearly resulted in them becoming impatient and visibly annoyed, which resulted in me becoming uncomfortable (in my own home!). So each of the first two times, I just didn't sign my name. I just made an X that is in no way similar to my normal signature. The last time, for the pickup, I wrote "PERFECT CONDITION" over the whole form and then signed my name to that. The delivery guys were clearly pissed that last time because they didn't have another form and that if they dropped the TV, then they couldn't blame damage on me.
> Charm simply does not work on underpaid meatheads
Charm, or respect, works on people. Sorry, but when you call them meatheads, it doesn't instill me with any confidence that you treated them with respect. The actions you describe support that fact (mostly through the way you describe it).
Again, maybe you have a reason, but unless you are leaving critical things out, your attitude is what makes it impossible.
That's respect.
> Respect is earned.
You are confusing trust with respect. The only people that believe that respect is earned are people that need to an excuse to act like an asshole. Respect costs nothing.
You don't know the situation. Why does it have to be his fault? Some people out there really are assholes and really do just want to take advantage of people.
People.
> Again, maybe you have a reason, but unless you are leaving critical things out, your attitude is what makes it impossible.
I said as much.
> Why does it have to be his fault?
It doesn't have to be. I said as much.
> Back and forths like are annoying and make this community look pedantic.
Commenting is not the way to handle this then. Downvote, or flag if you think it's not appropriate. Commenting, however, signifies what I said contributed to the discussion. If it didn't, then any reply would be equally worthless.
I treated them with nothing but respect in person. I always joke around and make small talk with people in the service industry. I know how far that sort of thing can take you. However, I elected to use the word "meatheads" because it paints a picture: They were large men whom couldn't hold a conversation. Whether or not they could hold a conversation with native spanish speakers was immaterial to the story.
It's not more important. You're attitude has nothing to do with language.
> However, I elected to use the word "meatheads" because it paints a picture: They were large men whom couldn't hold a conversation.
Meathead is means far more than that. If you used it merely to mean "people I can't speak with and are large," than you should know it's not what people associate with that word. It's much more derogatory.
> I treated them with nothing but respect in person.
At least the first time.
At once you tell me that they can't communicate, but then you go on to imply that they understand the words you are writing out on paper (Perfect Condition).
Something doesn't add up.
I realize it was an aside and doesn't take away from the point you were making, but the person who wrote this is Michael Arrington, who, according to wikipedia, is 42. Not really old, but not exactly a 'young rich kid', either.
In general though, in these situations you can have too choices - you can be right, or you can get the outcome you want.
Sometimes, happily, the two co-incide. Sometimes they don't, but you just have to put on your big boy pants, smile and suck it up.
As a slight aside, I think this is why Project Management is so valuable as training for life. My aim as a PM is to get my project delivered, and in the course of doing that I have to eat untold shite and do it with a smile on my face - primadonna developers, infrastructure functions that are borderline competent, lethargic business users, bureaucratic change boards etc etc.
In each circumstance I could try and force people to do what I want because they are idiots and I am of course completely correct (!) but that is just satisfying my ego. Instead I smile, ask about their kids, buy them a latte, and meanwhile my project succeeds.
I think it's pretty much everywhere. Petty people get a little power (maybe as cops, or customs, or tsa or whatever) and they like using it. Most of those people are fine and try to do the right thing. But there are a few (I think of them as tragic) for whom that is all they really have in life- so they are bullies.
20+ years ago, when he was 18, he was arrested for the afternoon because of a student protest.
So now on the visa forms, when entering Australia on vacation, he was asked if he had ever been arrested.
He checked yes. The border control people in Australia denied him entry, and put him on the next plane back home.
When he told the border guy the full situation, the border guy said, "Next time, just check NO."
Then, this interesting quote: "You give us the papers we want. We give you the papers you want."
Meaning: make the papers (visa forms) look the way we want them to look, and we'll give you the papers (tourist visa) you want.
I remember that rule of thumb when crossing borders, or filling out paperwork to open a new bank account in a foreign country. Luckily, I've never had to lie, but it sure helps to make the forms look the way they want them to look, instead of treating them as an opportunity to express your individual quirks.
Unfortunately, you do have to treat these encounters like you would police questioning. Don't volunteer information, and give very simple (yes/no) answers if you really need to answer.
It sucks, but learning how to deal with these sorts of things is part of the price one has to pay when they have a run-in with the law. I'm not sure it's analogous to the boat thing. The agent really was wrong to insist on processing the boat with the incorrect information.
I have never been arrested, but if the employer actually needs that level of employee security - perhaps handling client money? - then it's the employer's duty to protect themselves with more than a volunteered checkbox.
Maybe I'm just too idealistic but I never understood why we hardly give these people a second chance. And then people wonder why recidivism rates are so high.
Not sure how that's racist or ageist?
What nobody wants to admit is that, in the right circumstances, most people are "capable" of anything.
The exception is a small number of specific traits on which one is NOT permitted to discriminate. Race is one. You MAY discriminate on the basis of age, as long as you're giving a bad deal to a young person... it is illegal to discriminate negatively against someone for being old. There are a few other protected classes (pregnancy, etc), and some states add extra protections above-and-beyond the federal law (in some states it's illegal to fire people for being gay... but in others that is perfectly legal).
The one place it gets a bit odd is when they claim that your criteria for discrimination is just a "cover" or has the "same effect" as discriminating on the basis of a protected class. For instance, refusing to hire people because they live in a certain neighborhood is legal, but in court they would try to show that the neighborhood was predominately non-whites and so you were REALLY discriminating on the basis of race.
The good news is that ALMOST ALL employers go well above and beyond what the law requires. Both to protect themselves from ambiguous cases AND because they are basically decent human beings, they go out of their way not to discriminate on anything other than basic ability to perform the job. But even so, some areas like criminal background get considered.
I think this sucks. Since graduation I've never been asked if I'm a felon or been arrested, so it wouldn't matter to me, but for lots of the working class, "no felons" is a common screening technique for employers, and it makes it really hard for people who have done their time to society to re-integrate.
Getting the payment denomination wrong is an actual falsity. Though it would have been easy to make a note when signing.
That's completely incorrect. An "official" arrest (what is its opposite? I wouldn't want to experience an unofficial arrest) doesn't stop being "official," although the record of it might be deleted or sealed. Nobody can make an arrest retroactively not happen, they can just remove the record of it.
But this brings up something important, and it might be the cause of your confusion. An arrest is just an arrest. It can happen to anyone, and importantly, it can happen to a person who is innocent both in reality and in the eyes of the law. Arrest records don't really mean what a lot of people think they mean: it's the courts, not the police, who decide guilt and innocence.
This is why asking people about arrests, or using arrest information for pretty much any purpose except police investigation, is fundamentally flawed.
And they do stop being official, in a sense. They are no longer tied to you as a current person, they become a burden of the past you, ending at the point of expunging.
She said "What?" in a heavy accent, so I asked again, she said "What?" again, and by this time my bag was at the bottom of the exit ramp of the conveyor.
I said "Never mind, have a nice day" picked up my bag and made my flight.
Always prefer asking for forgiveness over permission unless you're doing something irreversible.
But I wouldn't risk this going into the US.
On other countries, it's worth the risk, and it has worked for me already (not with something written, but spoken. I wasn't lying btw)
I sort of live on a farm (a collection of converted farm buildings, neighbours are corporate types or also hobby farm). What happens if I say yes?
US Customs generally speaking aren't that bad. It is US immigration which are authoritarian nutjobs (and the TSA).
US Customs seem to be mostly interested in FACTS, immigration and the TSA seem to be mostly interested in if they like you as a person and if you treat them well.
US Customs did however once confiscate a Fortnum and Mason's pork pie from me that I was taking to an English friend in Seattle.
(Says canned, cooked, shelf stable pork only. Must be in commercial packaging with labeling to that effect.)
The last time I had stuff confiscated it was during the bird flu scare and it was dry instant noodles with some sort of dry chicken flavoring in it. I guess chicken = bird flu......
'Telling the truth on security forms is absolutely essential to being granted a security clearance now or in the future.'
Then I'm told to lie about past mistakes, medical history, and anything else that leaves the application untidy.
Karma for this: http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-asking-for-hel...
And I'm not proud of grandparent comment, but I couldn't resist. I'll try to revert to making comments that provide value to my fellow hackers.
Plus you wouldn't be so mad if you didn't realize he was right.
http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-a-united-airlines-flight...
9/11 seems to have given a big swathe of people in the US the ability to do outrageous things more or less at will. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be one of its most damaging consequences.
I don't like the TSA any more than you do, but can we hold on to the Coast Guard?
Same with most of what you mentioned. Bush/Obama has shoved everything in there to create a psuedo military branch so it can't be declined in the future. Disgusting actions, honestly.
Remember: DHS exists because after 9/11, politicians got a bug up their ass about how many different federal agencies there were with missions that involved interior security, and decided there should be one cabinet-level authority managing all of those functions. It was not a well-thought-out thing; it is literally a meatball of different security, law enforcement, safety, military, and even scientific agencies.
Which makes it an odd subject for directed contempt.
Or maybe that's what the de facto merger of military and CIA is supposed to accomplish.
Completely unrelated agencies having to carry the ill will engendered by the ones that suck is one of those costs.
Perhaps they should have considered that.
But I seriously don't understand Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and why they have to be such utter dickheads on the Canadian border. Their Canadian counterparts (CBSA) are just as effective and efficient and somehow manage to be generally sane and rational.
Or something like that...
The DHS agent will not be charged with theft or larceny. But he was in lawful possession of a boat, someone with a gun ordered him off the boat, and he is no longer in possession of a boat.
You raise an interesting point, by the way. America is partly founded on the idea that laws do not create rights, but instead recognize natural rights. If this story is accurate and the DHS agent did not recognize his natural rights, that is an offense. But if the law did not recognize his natural rights, that is an even greater offense.
But I would put forth the point that it's possible for an item to not be formally owned by anyone. Control is a kind of ownership, but it's not necessarily lawful ownership, otherwise a thief would lawfully own your car once he's driven off in it.
Perhaps it might be that he lawfully owns it, but can't lawfully control it until he gets the customs sign-off? But if he lawfully owned it while it's impounded, would that not mean he would have to pay licensing/registration for it while it sat there?
It does raise some interesting ideas.
Crossing the border is a bit easier with a Nexus card, but again your experience really depends upon the agent you come upon any given day.
Some people just shouldn't be working in positions of 'authority'.
Actually it's your problem. They took his boat, ruined his week and it might cost him tens of thousands in lawyer fees. Other can miss flights to important meeting, bury their mom etc etc. Either way, you lose.
Do you think the agent will be punished? I doubt it, blue wall of silence, union protection and all.
One simple example: If I am pulled over for speeding, I find I am far less likely to get a ticket if I put myself in control over the interaction. I make sure I greet the officer first and ask what I can do to help. This puts me in a position of being outwardly subservient but the officer is no longer in control over the conversation. Moreover, I am doing so in a way which is emphasizing that I am not a threat and so the officer has few options to escalate a power struggle.
Here, this is all about power. "Sign this form because I have the power to make your life miserable if you don't." We believe in honesty and rule of law, but when it comes down to it, at least the latter is nothing more than a convenient fiction and efforts to make it a reality end up making it less of one.
I am here in Indonesia at the moment and the big breakthrough for me was that as corrupt as everything is over here, it functions more or less the same way it does in the US, with just surface differences.
To give you an idea, I once got a warning (or maybe it was a greatly reduced speeding ticket, I don't recall) and found out the next day from someone who apparently knew the officer who pulled me over that I was suspected of having drugs in my car (which was a total misunderstanding, he saw some things he didn't recognized assumed they must be bongs or something and extrapolated from there). Go figure....
1. https://twitter.com/BrianKrantz/status/279015063661199360/ph...
2. http://coastalcraft.com/coastal-craft-400-ips/boat-specs-400...
I did this with my girlfriend (now wife) on our first rental contract and was amused by her shock at my changing the "official" forms.
Likewise, forms with blanks that in no way allow for the information to be printed into the space given get writing that extends across whatever needed to supply the correct answers. Maybe the form will eventually be updated to be a little more accommodating, maybe not.
I guess I just choose to keep myself on task when faced with a contract much more often than not, and consciously make the decision to read it or not read it each time. Most of the time I will read it, and make sure it is factually correct.
I freely admit I do occasionally choose to forgo reading a contract if other factors are weighing heavier. Like the impatient person behind me in line that seems to want to clean the floor with me because they are in a much bigger hurry :)
Under penalty of perjury, I had to declare the odometer to the nearest mile, but the system wouldn't accept zero for the mileage.
After 40 minutes of trying to sort it out with a supervisor, I muttered something about forgetting the km-to-miles conversion, amended the mileage to one, and was on my way.
On the other hand, Mike is pleading his case in the court of public opinion, and his reputation is likely going to get him a lot of popular support either warranted or unwarranted.
I'd bet a lot that he's paying an asshole tax and if he had kept his cool, he'd have his boat.
So... did this agent solicit, advise you to commit a crime? If so, will this agent face repercussions for her actions?
Perhaps it's "not serious". Except that you sought to correct the information, to make the situation fully compliant, and she appears to have used her position to punish you for this.
I would also question why she was so eager. Are their incentives for agents, and perhaps financial incentives for the agency(s) involved, to pursue such seizures?
I guess, were I in your shoes, I'd be hesitant to further buck the might and potential maliciousness of the U.S. government. However, from my perspective, I would very much like a public airing and answers to these questions.
Sure, technically he saw the error and his signing the form would mean he was somehow not acknowledging it. But what are the consequences really going to be? I mean, what are the chances some other bureaucrat up the chain o' command would notice the mistake and contact Arrington on trumped up charges of lying on a routine customs form. Slim to nil. But it's the "principle" Arrington is worried about in this case. Well, there's principled, and there's downright ridiculous. I doubt Arrington reads every TOS on every website he's ever signed up for, and I doubt very much he would truly lose sleep at night knowing he signed that form.
Arrington tried to out bureaucrat a bureaucrat and go burned. Lessoned learned, I suppose.
1. Mark the correction on the form. Sign underneath the correction, or mark with your initials, in addition to the correct place to sign.
2. When signing, write "Under Duress" underneath.
IANAL, TINLA.
Hence, they stole his boat. If the President were to show up at my parents' doorstep without a warrant or probable cause and shoot my little sister because he was having a bad day, would you call it a lawful execution? No, it's murder.
That's an extreme exaggeration to prove my point. But that's where your logic ends up. Having a badge that reads "Government Agent" does not mean all your actions are moral or legal.
He will get his boat back once the paperwork is completed correctly. Shocking, I know, but he will.
You think it's right for for a gov't agency to be uncooperative in retaliation for some perceived insult?
I believe this to be true at least for me, and I've also found that no other machine exists that can gather a family or friends together with the same reliable prospect for good times. A quality boat can last decades, but yes they are never any sort of good investment; they are an up-front and recurring cost. It just depends if it's your thing or not.
I am inclined to believe this. Ugh. Makes me mad.
The problem is too much government.
Perhaps you should consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
We don't need to eliminate government, of course. Someone still has to throw parties for foreign dignitaries and say stupid shit on TV. We do need to trim it down to the bone and get it out of our daily lives. You just had a run-in with the "Gestapo" society we are building-up to. Thugs with badges and guns. Great stuff. That's exactly what I want the future to be in for my kids. Right.
I mean, think about it for a moment. You are buying a boat from Canada. Why should government be involved in any way whatsoever? Are you really free? You can't even go fishing to feed your family without asking for permission from the government in the form of a fishing license. Think about THAT for a moment. Our ancestors were able to fish and hunt to feed themselves, their families and communities as needed. Today, if you are caught fishing without a license ANYWHERE, you can be arrested and fined. I've seen guys with guns board group fishing boats here in California to check for fishing licenses. Imagine that image in my kid's mind: Fishing with Dad and guys with uniforms and guns interrupt the experience to ask for papers. Pretty cool setup we have, ey?
Reminds me of a story from when I was a child. We were traveling in Argentina. My Dad got pulled over by a cop at this checkpoint between Ezeiza (International Airport) and Buenos Aires. The cop asked for papers and took his time checking them out. Another cop came out of the booth. He, menacingly, looked inside the car were my Mom, Sister and I were. The first cop asked my Dad to get out of the car. They walked around the car looking for problems. The car was perfect. Then he said something like "We need to go in the office for you to pay your fine". I'm sure my Dad though "WTF, over?". He, politely, asked: "What's the problem officer". Without blinking the copy replied: "You were driving with one hand".
They went inside and my Dad, effectively, had to bribe them. It was a first class shake-down.
Here's what's funny: This was a Fiat 128 with a manual transmission. And, it would be my guess that the vast majority of cars in Argentina at the time had manual transmissions. There was no law about having to have both hands on the wheel at the same time, but, even if that law existed, you'd have to violate it for a fraction of a second every time you shift the transmission.
Next time you vote, think about who you are voting for and what they really stand for. Think beyond you and do the generations to come a favor by reducing government to the most essential functions we need and nothing more.
People are being harrassed and fondled by the DHS every day apparently. One seized boat isn't going to cause a revolution ...
The problem isn't some vague platitude about how there is "too much government". This wasn't caused by Social Security or other defined benefit programs (which make up most of "government"), or by the Veterans Administration, or by the Postal Service, or by FDA.
It was caused by one specific agency, created by W, which should never have been created, is duplicative by its very nature, and which has run amok. Homeland Security.
And no, this isn't evidence that we are heading for a Gestapo society. No. The Gestapo was highly organized, disciplined, and effective. Homeland Security, by contrast, is a bunch of minimum-wage flunkies, unable to get a job anywhere else because of malfeasance, complete lack of job skills, illiteracy, or a combination of these, which fails to accomplish anything of note whatsoever.
Continuing the pablum, you feed us a line about how fishing licenses are evil. I'm sorry, but we've had dozens of large world fisheries be over-fished to extinction. Mark me down in the columns as being in favor of responsible management of wildlife; this is another example of an area in which we need government.
Off-topic comparisons to Argentina, similiarly, do not really convince one that the entire US government is inherently bad. I know libertarians seek any and all excuses to drone on about this, but spare us.
Just fix or abolish Homeland Security.
Now, we can debate ideas on how to prevent over-fishing and over-hunting. And that's OK. I am all for that. I won't put forth any proposals here because it is a complex subject. Licenses don't stop over-fishing. I've seen people take fish species, sizes and quantities that they are not supposed to.
See, here's the difference. I firmly believe that people --outside of extreme circumstances-- are good, not evil. For me at least, published guidance on such things as what species, sized and quantities to take would be enough. I don't need a law and a guy with a uniform and a gun to make me abide by reasonably justified social guidelines. Maybe some people do. I think most don't. A license, a background check or a permit and a set of laws will never prevent bad actors to, well, act badly.
I am using this idea of fishing licenses as an example of how much control government has over you. I live near a lake. I also live in earthquake country. Let's say we have an earthquake that takes down our infrastructure for a few weeks. If I need to walk over to the lake and fish in order to feed my family for a couple of weeks I should not need a government permit to do so. It is a fundamental right as a human animal on this planet to be able to feed yourself and yours. What's more basic than that? We have taken it to the level where you could be arrested for providing for your family. Not gonna happen? It's up to the thug with the gun isn't it. And, by the way, you are driving with one hand.
What? Politicians and officials don't twist things their way in the US like in places like South America?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST-eE4Ud7nw
Right.
I wonder how much of that goes on that we never become aware of.
If you get in a situation where nobody can buy food, nobody is going to be enforcing the no-fishing law. It's a general rule. Courts exist for a reason.
If someone is going to lie about the fish they take then they didn't need to bother buying a license in the first place.
How is removing the ability to punish bad actors is going to improve anything?
BTW, I would only consider first world democracies. Others' problems are arguably caused by different, more obvious, factors.
What about the NSA/CIA who have managed to wholesale wiretap everyone domestically without hesitation or meaningful resistance?
You're full of shit when you suggest that the problem is with a single, disorganized agency.
I do, however, think that if we just stripped away all of the parts of DHS that were a reaction to 9/11, that would solve at least some of our problems.
He told me I left without waiting for the green light. Nevermind that everyone else on the road including cars did the same thing. I had two choices - pay a "fine" (i.e. bribe), or have my motorbike seized on the spot.
It felt wrong but I paid the fine. After I paid the guy was apologetic and insisted on shaking my hand.
forgive my ignorance, but isn't Arrington a lawyer?. Question - Why does a lawyer need to hire another lawyer to represent him? Although, there are several branches of law specialization, Arrington could take it on himself to file the case against DHS? no?
"I live a fairly simple life and that didn’t change much after I sold TechCrunch in 2010" - yeah we all know.
People,
We didn't choose to be bureaucrats
No that's what our mighty Ja made us
We treat people like swine and make them stand in line
Even if nobody paid us
They say the world looks down on the bureaucrats
They say we're anal, compulsive and weird
But when push comes to shove you gotta do what you love
Even if it's not a good idea
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdo...
This is man bites dog. Person in power (cop, bouncer, immigration officer, DHS, whatever) abuses power. It's as typical as it gets.
I'm sorry, but you have it backwards, the point of that aphorism is that the event is unusual.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_%28journalism%29
Has anyone else ever heard of United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U....
I would not doubt that if you asked DHS if they seized his property that they would say they haven't and that it is currently being held as evidence.
He'll probably get his boat back but not after a legal fight costing several thousands of dollars.
http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-twoplustwo.htm
Am I missing something?
This is all provable.
Meanwhile, she's giddy to steal his very expensive boat, because she knows no matter how much she fucks it up, it's not going to come back on her. Plus nice new boat to screw around with.
If this situation doesn't show how profoundly corrupt government is, then I don't know what will.
And all the evil like this-- it is visited not just on rich people like him, but on poor people, who have their assets stolen by government agents just as giddy as she is.
Yet most articles about it don't even have the guts to call it what it is: Theft.
It's pathetic what "americans" have become. If he's pulled out a gun and shot her dead, right then and there, he would have been in his rights, she was in the act of grand theft, and it would have been self defense.
But of course mentioning that truth is shocking-- shocking!-- to the enslaved sheep that americans have become. (Hell the idea that he should be allowed to have a gun even, seems to be alarming to the impotent cowards that inhabit this country.)