AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > February > 23 > Entry
Should airport security be allowed to search and seize our digital devices?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you’re not a terrorist. There’s no plan to blow up a ballpark on your laptop, no Al-Qaeda cell phone numbers in your Fave Five. You might walk through life convinced that you’re immune to a frightening invasion of privacy — after all , you’ve got nothing to hide.
Well, think again, because if part of that journey involves re-entering the U.S., you might learn what a serious invasion of privacy feels like. Did you know that U.S. Customs and Border Protection can force passengers to give up full access to electronic files, even seizing them for indefinite periods?
“This is an issue that affects anyone who crosses the border,” explains Marcia Hofmann, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that filed a lawsuit to seek clarification on such seizures. “The danger is that people think that this only happens to people who look Middle Eastern, and they say, ‘That’s a shame, but nothing that I have to worry about.’ This literally could happen to anybody — we got a report from a priest this past week.”
Before you start cracking jokes about priests with something to hide, what feels private to YOU— perhaps a troubling medical condition, an impending divorce or job search, all your e-mails and website searches? Who sees these files — the FBI? Your local police department? With the “border exception” to search and seizure laws, there’s no telling who has access to your information.
Hofmann’s group aims to “empower people to do what is necessary to protect their belongings and digital information.” That includes making sure this alarming scenario is well-known; in a recent survey of travel industry executives, 81 percent had no idea that electronic devices can be permanently confiscated. Meanwhile, terrorists surely keep up, and have other ways to transmit information across our borders in a less detectable manner. So in the end, Al-Qaeda may feel safer from prying customs agents than you do.
We all need to make sacrifices for safety. However, faced with the same bureaucracy that came up with fighting terrorism by removing our shoes — derided as pointless by numerous other nations — Americans deserve to better understand how serious compromises to our rights yield productive benefits.
Rebuttal
Andy acts like Richard Reid was a fairy tale. But Al-Qaeda came within seconds of taking down an American Airlines flight via the very non-fairy-tale explosives in his shoes. Compared to that risk, the annoyance of doffing my shoes and handing over my Blackberry is minor.
Security versus privacy is a permanent dilemma. But the reason people are complacent enough to complain about laptop privacy is precisely because we’ve gotten assertive about security. I don’t want our privacy rights trashed. But if it comes to a choice, I’d far rather officials be allowed to read my private emails, if doing the same thing elsewhere catches a terrorist.
Contrary to what Andy might want you to believe, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials have to abide by extensive search and seizure standards - 33 pages of them. Via email, a spokesperson told me, “It is not the intent of CBP to subject travelers to unwarranted scrutiny. [But] all travelers entering the United States, including U.S. citizens, are required to participate in CBP processing…. CBP Officers are verifying admissibility and looking for possible terrorists, terrorist weapons or narcotics. Laptop computers may be subject to detention for violation of criminal law such as if the laptop contains information with possible ties to terrorism, narcotics smuggling, child pornography or other criminal activity.”
CBP officials are worried about terrorists and pushers, not your medical records. Since digital communication remains the primary way terrorists communicate around the globe, digital devices must be able to be reviewed.
Dr. James Carafano, a Heritage Foundation security expert, explained in an interview that “To fight terrorism, we need to look for terrorists. And evidence has shown that that means doing everything from physical searches to wiretaps to computer searches. Should we do these things? If you want to stop terrorists, electronic information is vital. But we must be doing it legally. We want a system that both provides security and protects our liberty.” Better than most of us, Carofano understands the need:nineteen active terrorist attempts against America have been prevented since 9/11.
In a perfect world, we could have perfect privacy and perfect peace, but we don’t live in a perfect world. We are under attack and this is one way we must be able to defend ourselves.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By stilloniams
February 23, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
At Halliburton/KBR, sexual assault is just part of the workplace experience for women Like many viewers, I watched this ABC 20/20 report when it first aired in December with jaws-open, eyes-bugging horror. It told the story of two women workers for Halliburton/KBR who had been sent to Iraq. There, one, Jamie Lee Jones, a young computer tech, was gang-raped on her fourth day by coworkers after being drugged; the other, Tracy Barker, was sexually assaulted by a State Department employee. Both immediately reported their assaults, only to have KBR first lock them in isolation, then question their accusations. In the case of Jones, it even "lost" the medical report that documented evidence of gang rape.
Click on a small picture to see shocking photos:
By Copyleft
February 25, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
“I have nothing to hide” is the slogan of the lazy American who’s happy to surrender his freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security.
By Gale
February 25, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
Search and seizure without warrent or even reasonable suspicion is unconstitutional. End of story. If a terrorist is smart enough to hid a bomb in a blackberry, he is smart enough to outwit the TSA. As Andy mentions, the security of my personal files once out of my possession is questionable. Many people use these devices for phone numbers, passwords, addresses, etc. This is an unacceptable invasion of privacy where a citizen has every expectation of privacy.
By Libsrule
February 25, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
Oh these searches are silly. Terrorists? We are the terrorists. Right? The Democrats are in charge, now. Washington is all about love and caring for each other so why would anyone want to try and sneak into our country in order to try to hurt us?
The democrats were right for going on vacation instead of voting to renew our right to ease drop on others. So what if we have another 9-11? No one should worry that anyone is listening when they talk onn their cell phone. What are a few thousand American lives when we are talking about cell phone security? I WANT MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY!!!!
But airport searches? People like Andrea might not want their laptops searched. What are a few thousand American lives compared to Andrea getting through the sirport in a expedient manner. Screw the public. Andrea has appointments.
America needs to learn that now that the Democrats are in charge, no one will want to hurt us anymore. We will be loved by the world just like they loved us during the 1990s.
I understand that every other country in the world has security in their airports which is just as stringent as ours and many have security that is a lot worse, but we are Americans!! We are better than everyone else and I’ll be damned if I am going to stand by and let those mean old Republicans make us afraid.
We don’t need no stinking security. WE NEED MORE HOPE!!!
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
Gale
If a terrorist is smart enough to hid a bomb in a blackberry, he is smart enough to outwit the TSA.
If a burglar wants to break into you home, there is no dead bolt that is going to stop them. So … when do you plan on taking all the locks off your doors?
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this
it’s EAVESdrop … EAVESdrop!!! criminey, I hate it when people get common expressions wrong — it’s almost as bad as when they turn things into facile “dems just want to hug the terrorists” arguments.
and, yes, I do want my right to privacy. call me crazy, but it’s guaranteed UNDER THE FLIPPIN’ CONSTITUTION. the government can listen to as many phone conversations as it wants - as long as it goes through the appropriate channels.
don’t like it???? go live in a dictatorship, since that’s what you seem to crave.
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Yoyoyo!!! (get me, I’m so hip) … hope your weekend was a good one and that you finally thawed out!!
There’s an oh-so-subtle line between NO security and confiscating everyone’s Bberries, laptops, cphones, etc. Not to speak for Gale, but I don’t think she’s advocating NO security. God knows, I’m not. She’s just making a point that, even if Congress did legalize the confiscation of everyone’s GameBoys, etc., terrorists will still find a way around it - there’s no such thing is perfectly safe.
The question is - how much freedom are you willing to blithely let go???
Me, I just find it SOOOOOOOOOO ironic that a lot of the gun-totin’ crew are more than happy to sign over their personal privacy. “you’ll take my gun from my cold, dead hands … but, hey no problem listening in on all my phone calls, reading my e-mail, looking at my personal files!!!”
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
USinUK
I think it should be market driven. A person goes to the airport and is offered two choices. The first choice is to simply walk onto the plane with no checks.
The other is to walk onto a different secured airplane with all those nasty unconstitutional searches.
I personally would select the secured airplane, taking the risks that they will find my pictures of the USC cheerleading squad, or even some of my very personal e-mails about appointments and lunches. Damn those security people.
Enjoy your flight on your kind of airplane.
By Gandalf, the Grey
February 25, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Whateva
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
I’ll bet George Washington’s cell phone wasn’t bugged and we still won the civil war.
Ladies and gentlemen … give it up for LibsRule … he’ll be here with his comic stylings all week!!!
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
Wasn’t GW’s (near) first words regarding 9/11 paraphrased as: “The terrorists only win when we give up out lifestyle and live in fear?”
And, no many other governments are not as obtuse as ours when dealing with airport security; more efficient and realistic maybe but not as infringing.
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
I think it should be market driven. A person goes to the airport and is offered two choices. The first choice is to simply walk onto the plane with no checks.
now, you’re just being silly. we’ve had checks since the Summer of Hijacking back in the 1970s (not nearly as fun as the summer of love … but you did get more frequent flier miles). we always will have security at airports because of that kind of terrorism - no one is advocating otherwise.
all we’re saying is, hangonaminnit - what’s with confiscating phones and other devices??? checking them for air security is one thing - rifling through them is something entirely different.
Although, on a related subject … a friend of mine (who happens to be a GA state legislator) came up with the idea of creating a “free enterprise zone” in the city - there would be no regulation/no food inspection/no nothing. If you wanted to go to the restaurants there, it would truly be a “buyer beware” situation. I wonder how long they’d stay in business - and how many of the “free market” people would support them …
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Good weekend. I got suckered into helping a fiend clean out his Public Storage shed. He had paid $160/mo since 1992 to store nothing but junk. I think it had come to around $32,000 in total cost over the years.
I have had one since 2003. That’s close to five grand to store stuff that isn’t worth 500 bucks. I’m spending this afternoon starting the process of throwing away or selling all that crap.
To the issues!!!
I have traveled my whole life. Before 9-11, I used to wear a Gerber utility tool on my belt. It had a 5” blade that is so sharp that it will cut you if you touch it. With that tool, I could have probably taken apart most of the airplane.
That changed with 9-11. Did I get any less trustworthy? Would I now use that tool to take over an airplane? Of course not. But while I was walking thruogh US security with that tool on my belt, I would need to secure it under the airplane when I flew to most of Europe and flying to the Middle East wsa a whole different proposition. The rest of the world has been doing this for years.
We can’t ignore the danger while quoting laws that were written when parchment was the medium of the day.
By AllRelative
February 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
and we still won the civil war.
Doesn’t that depend on who you ask? I have met many Southerners still whining about it and Sherman.
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
jokesOn
Wow. You gave up your lifestyle and are now living in fear? Relax, Pal.
In 2004, I was refused a flight to Israel because I had a Morocco stamp in my passport. What about that is realistic and less infringing?
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Repeat after me: EBay is my friend. EBay is my friend. So is Craig’s List. Get rid of that stuff!! When we fled New England … I mean … when we moved over to the UK, I was floored by the stuff people were willing to pay for on EBay! It made us enough money to make a good dent on furnishing our living room!
ANYhooo … no one is talking about knives. I think we can all agree on knives (whether you plan to dismantle the plane or not, heck, just stow it in your bag for your own safety!). What we’re talking about here is the TSA confiscating your stuff and rifling through the files.
This goes WAY beyond securing a flight. This is delving into your personal files on a “fishing expedition”. Sorry, but, no tickee = no laundry. No subpoena = no right to rifle through my stuff.
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
And, no many other governments…
Look up the word “many,” it does not mean all.
Wow. You gave up your lifestyle and are now living in fear? Relax, Pal.
Wow. That is exactly what we are saying to you. “Do not give up your rights because of fear.” I think you get it…just backwards.
By Archie
February 25, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
My response to the topic question is yes. In a perfect world, we could have perfect privacy and perfect peace, but we don’t live in a perfect world. That aforementioned statement is why I say yes. If airport security had done it’s job as well as the other intelligence people 9/11 would not have happened. I think people can live with less electronics and people and their cell phones are annoying anyway. Remember the topic question is about digital devices. My question to Andrea would be why would you have such private information on a device at an airport when you know such a device will be searched? Surely airport security procedures need to be reviewed and improved so as to not violate privacy but my answer at this time to the topic question is yes.
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
Archie,
My question to Andrea would be why would you have such private information on a device at an airport when you know such a device will be searched?
Because it is guaranteed by the constitution.
And lets be clear here. They are not, in most cases, looking for a immediate threat. They are looking for information to gather intelligence regarding possible future threats.
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
Hey Archie!
My question to Andrea would be why would you have such private information on a device at an airport when you know such a device will be searched?
Ahhh … but it isn’t supposed to be “searched” - checked, yes. They ask you to turn it on and see if there’s anything weird with it, but they have no right to search through the files.
And, where are we as a country when we can’t carry personal information with us without a fear of it being seized by the government???
And, just to save everyone the time, here’s the text of the 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Pretty darned cut and dry to me - no seizing of papers and effects without a warrant issued for probable cause.
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
right on, jokes on!!!!
By Gale
February 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
I was reminded of a quote and looked it up, only to find the attributed author denied being the source. It seems appropriate here, nonetheless: “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” Ben Franklin.
With each bit of privacy we give up, we edge closer to complete lack of liberty. When we tell school kids they must accept random drug testing and locker searches, what will they allow in twenty years as voters with their damaged sense of privacy?
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
right on, jokes on!!!!
Right back at’cha;)
By jhpoke
February 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this
If there are laws that have the possibility of being abused. They will be.
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
When we tell school kids they must accept random drug testing and locker searches, what will they allow in twenty years as voters with their damaged sense of privacy?
Conservatives seem to have no problem searching kids lockers in the name of protecting our kids, but conservatives cannot imagine talking to them about birth control.
Seems the underlying theme here is that the current repugs have no problem asserting control over other people and removing personal choice.
By Jack
February 25, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
The TSA is a joke. How many times have watchdog agencies slipped dangerous stuff right by them? They are impotent as the UN.
By Archie
February 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
Hello USinUk! I am not a lawyer but the 4th amendment says unreasonable search and seizure and since there has been no successful challenge to airport procedures I assume that what they are doing is constitutional. I don’t believe security folk would waste too much time on private information unrelated to their jobs and I think people need to get help for some of this attachment to digital devices. Heck, security people have to do some unusual things because the people they are trying to catch do some unusual things. I get thoroughly checked these days just to go shoot pool so maybe the security people know what they’re doing. I do have some concerns about privacy in other areas but my answer to the topic question is yes.
By AGFNPR
February 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
USinUK - Me, I just find it SOOOOOOOOOO ironic that a lot of the gun-totin’ crew are more than happy to sign over their personal privacy. “you’ll take my gun from my cold, dead hands … but, hey no problem listening in on all my phone calls, reading my e-mail, looking at my personal files!!!”
That’s because the gun-totin crew to which you refer has NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY ON THEIR OWN LAND.
The game-warden can come on your land for any reason, or for no reason at all to check and see if you are following hunting regulations. They have the right to remove gates to your personal property to gain access.
So please forgive me if I am not so quick to defend the rights of those in airports. I only fly about once a year, so these regulations really don’t affect me. And I would be willing to bet the majority of frequent flyers aren’t sympathic to my situation.
I know I have a poor attitude, and I should be concerned about civil rights, but from my point of view, the ACLU crowd isn’t working hard to defend rights for people like me. Why should I care about their causes?
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
AGF -
don’t take this the wrong way, but why would you need the ACLU when you have the NRA?? Criminey, you want to talk a power group in DC?? you should see the size of their headquarters on I-66!! At any rate, here’s what the ACLU has to say on their 2nd Amendment positions (if you’re interested): http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
I can’t speak to the game warden/access issue - except to say that hunting IS regulated as far as the types of weapons you can use (i.e., no bazookas when hunting ducks) and there are restrictions on what you can hunt when (i.e., doe days). If this gives wardens the right of access to check that you’re staying within guidelines, I don’t know — but it would seem so.
By 2D
February 25, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
USinUK… You quote the 4th ammendement, but it is not as clear cut as you may say. It clearly states “unreasonable” search and seizure.
I too am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I believe unless a person challenges these searches in court and gets a ruling from the Supreme Court to declare them unconstitutional, then there are.
Heck… The Constitution also prevents “cruel and unusual” punishment, which at the time did not prevent a good old fashioned hangin’ on the public square. Now, I think some folks will try to attempt to have the death penalty completely rebuked.
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
JokesOn
They are looking for information to gather intelligence regarding possible future threats.
Well somebody get a rope. We need to stop anyone gathering intelligence regarding possible future threats. Looking out for future threats? Hell thst’s as crazy as not running up your credit cards. Live for the day, man. In the words of the great thinker: Scarlett O’Hara: I’ll worry about that tomorrow.
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
jokesOn
Conservatives seem to have no problem searching kids lockers in the name of protecting our kids, but conservatives cannot imagine talking to them about birth control.
So no conservatives tell their children about birth control. Wow. I had no idea. After all the talks I had with my kids about birth control and STDs, I now learn that I’m not even a conservative. Whowouldhavethunkit?
But of course I did the unthinkable. I also explained how abstinence might be a good choice until they are older. I am guilty of being a conservative.
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
Archie -
the 4th amendment says unreasonable search and seizure and since there has been no successful challenge to airport procedures I assume that what they are doing is constitutional. I don’t believe security folk would waste too much time on private information unrelated to their jobs and I think people need to get help for some of this attachment to digital devices. Heck, security people have to do some unusual things because the people they are trying to catch do some unusual things
no challenges to airport procedures … YET. But, I gotta say … no, when it comes to the government, I would never just assume that what they’re doing is constitutional until the Supremes say it is.
yes, security people have to be diligent and aware, but to confiscate items just on the off-chance that there may be something they need to look at??? ah. no. I don’t think so.
Just cause. Warrant. Due process.
If you don’t have that, you really don’t have any privacy in the US, anymore.
By Jack
February 25, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
The right to bear arms was put there to protect us from our own government. When they take our guns, we should worry. Trash the NRA all you want I’m not a member.
By Borrrrrrr-ing
February 25, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
Yawwwwnnnn!
Looks like another week of “Nuh-UH! Everything YOU say is wrong and I’m a geeeeeeeeenius!”
See ya.
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
USinUK.
I am heading over in about an hour. I dread it, but I really need to get rid of that junk.
I have a Georgia and a Tennessee Media permit. I have been checked out so many times that I can’t imagine why I would care if they searched my laptop or ipod.
Like I said, I would get on the plane that did strip searches. When I am at 40,000 feet, getting back on the ground is much more important than wondering if some agent was going to find those pictures of the USC Cheerleading squad or my appointment calender that I carry on my laptop.
I always thank the gate agents even if I am singled out for a more detailed search. Check the shoes, check the baggage, hell, check the underwear. I want to get there in one piece.
By AGFNPR
February 25, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this
USinUK -
But WHY should they have access to check and see if I am following guidelines? Doesn’t that assume that I am doing something wrong? So you are saying it is OK to come on my land because someone THINKS I might be breaking the law? Game wardens don’t need a search warrant to search your property. They don’t need probably cause to search your property. These issues SHOULD be hot button items for any good liberal, but they aren’t.
Look - I am not trying to start a fight. I am only pointing out that a good number of liberal folks (who claim to care about civil rights) don’t really care about mine. On this particular issue liberals have a “take care of their own” mentality.
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
2D -
Hey!
I agree with you - we always need a test case. And, I’m sure we’ll get one if they really do pursue this. From my reading of Andrea’s post, Customs and Border has the right to do it, but she didn’t mention it actually happening to anyone just yet.
As far as reasonable vs. unreasonable - I think we can all agree that, yes, it is reasonable to assess whether the electronic device could be used as a detonator. However, I think reasonable people can agree that it would qualify as UNreasonable to confiscate said device, hold it indefinitely, and rifle through all its files without just cause. And, no, you boarding a plane isn’t “just cause.” Basically, if the police can’t stop you on the street, take your phone/Bberry/GameBoy, and rifle through the files, why should the Custome/Boarder Patrol???
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this
So no conservatives tell their children about birth control. Wow. I had no idea. After all the talks I had with my kids about birth control and STDs, I now learn that I’m not even a conservative.
Don’t have a cow man. Just throwing some of your wonderful generalizations back at’cha;) And it worked.
By 2D
February 25, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this
USinUK… I think you are missing the whole “checks and balances” setup.
The laws are Constitutional until a legal challenge is made and the courts decide otherwise. You might not believe they are, but as far as the legal system works, they are.
I also highly doubt that the TSA policy states anything like the following “Hey, confiscate any Blackberry that y’all think might look suspicious and rumage through all of the files on a fishing expedition”
Please.
I haven’t read any guidelines, but I would expect there to be a set of guidelines for collecting said devices and a separate set procedures for the search. Even if that guideline is as simple as take every third device and search for a certain type of file. Why do I suspect that? Because with the number of people moving in and out of the airport, they would need some set of guidelines to ensure expedient and broadbased coverage.
I would also suspect that if the TSA found information related to illegal activity NOT related to terrorist activities, that information would not be admissible in court. I’ve seen enough “Law and Order” to know that. :)
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
Borrrrrrr-ing
Later, Gator.
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
AGF -
Again, let me clarify - I really don’t know anything about hunting other than you seem to need a stand for deer and a blind for ducks. And very warm cammos for both. Anything beyond that and I’m lost. So, like I said earlier, I really don’t know if that’s the game warden’s justification - to me, it sounded like a good excuse, but I really don’t know.
But, if it helps - I do care about your rights to privacy on your land. Heck, I didn’t know it was a problem! From what you tell me, I am on your side on this one - no probable cause, they shouldn’t have the right of access on your property.
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
I am heading over in about an hour. I dread it, but I really need to get rid of that junk.
Go with god, my son - be fruitful and DON’T multiply!!! Be ruthless!!! you’ll be a happier man for it.
Like I said, I would get on the plane that did strip searches.
I think Hooters Air may do that … hahaha
Seriously, like I and others have said - we’re all about security. I don’t even have a problem with this new device that basically does a strip search without stripping you (the X-RAY-type thing that allows the security folks to see beneath your clothes). And, I have no problem with being asked to power up my laptop, camera or anything else I’m carrying. Heck, I’ll even walk you through some of my files, if you like.
But, take it from me indefinitely?? Nnnnnnnnope. Not without cause.
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
jokesOn
it’s no problem.
As far as airport security, I think all you guys that want the search and seizure laws to be dated from 1776 should simply have your own airlines. Call it what ever you want. Fly where ever you want except that you can’t fly over major population centers, except to land.
I’ll stick with Delta and if they want to see the pictures and schedules in my laptop, have at it. The only thing I would ask is that you not force Delta to fly their planes under security standards that were instigated to keep parchment from being stuffed in underwear.
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
2D -
The laws are Constitutional until a legal challenge is made and the courts decide otherwise. You might not believe they are, but as far as the legal system works, they are.
I think we’re both in violent agreement on that one. Like I said to Archie - there hasn’t been a challenge to it … YET. And, until there is, the law stands.
I would also suspect that if the TSA found information related to illegal activity NOT related to terrorist activities, that information would not be admissible in court. I’ve seen enough “Law and Order” to know that. :)
why would you assume that? if they didn’t need to have a warrant to confiscate and search your effects in the first place, why would anything be thrown out of court??
By Archie
February 25, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
too am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I believe unless a person challenges these searches in court and gets a ruling from the Supreme Court to declare them unconstitutional, then there are. I agree with that statement. 2D, some nightclubs don’t even allow women to bring their pocketbooks inside and what does that have to do with topic? Well, women have brought firearms inside of nightclub and rather than search those bags thoroughly security doesn’t allow them to come inside. I have done unarmed security work and I have looked through women’s purses and I can say it’s not something you want to remember as far as the contents go. Anyway because the world has changed there are going to be some different kinds of searches that really would be unreasonable 10 to 20 years ago. Looks like another week of “Nuh-UH! Everything YOU say is wrong and I’m a geeeeeeeeenius!” It may not get to that point but I do notice some will disagree with Shanti even she says the sky is blue.
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
I think all you guys that want the search and seizure laws to be dated from 1776
you’re being silly, again. now, just stop it and read what we’re saying. I’m not saying that airport security should go back to 1776 standards - I’m not even saying that airport security should go back to 1976 standards (see my summer of hijacking statement, earlier).
all I’m saying is that, if you want to confiscate my laptop, camera, bberry or anything else indefinitely - then, please, the least you can do is have a warrant - just like any other law enforcement agency would have to have.
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this
USinUK
I have postponed my whole day, but am now dreading going to the shed. Must go … Must put down laptop … Must put on jacket and walk out door …
I have a collection of really bad movies that I find in the bins at Walmart and Target. I own a movie called Blue Thunder. Remember it? I think it was actually made into a TV series. The movie was made in 1982, 26 years ago.
It was about this police helicopter that had all this super advanced observation equipment. The big grabber was that in 1982, the ability to see through walls, do advanced data searches, hear through walls from a helicopter, silent mode on a jet copter … all this technology was around in 1982.
Sometime during the 1970s I read about the Soviets had some sort of optical equipment that a person could point at a window. Anyone talking on the other side of that glass would vibrate the glass and the instrument would pick up those vibrations so you could hear what was being said, no matter how far away you were.
I have actually seen a demonstration of a common CRT type TV being used as a camera to photograph people while they were watching TV.
We haven’t had personal privacy in most of our lifetimes. To law enforcement, it has seldom been whether or not we can use the equipment to spy on people, it has been whether or not the evidence collected can be used in court.
That technology has been turned on US citizens for most of our lives. If your laptop has Y-Fi or Blue-ray technology, your laptop can be searched anytime you pass by another network enabled laptop with the right software, even if the laptop is turned off.
Do you honestly think this is not being done? Maybe I am a defeatist, but I just keep my drives clean and expect it.
Big brother has been with us for many years and like it or not, Big Brother is as much a Democrat as he is a Republican.
That Caribbean Island for retirement is looking better and better.
By USinUK
February 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
longer response tomorrow … until then, PUT DOWN THAT LAPTOP, PUT ON THAT JACKET … BE RUTHLESS!!!
good luck!!
hasta la pasta!
By Healthy Liberal
February 25, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
This is what’s REALLY going to kill you, you disgusting blobs of self-indulgent, greedy, judgmental hate, aka Republicans. Good luck with your “health care” needs! Have another shovel full. You won’t be missed.
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this
USinUK
It needs to be reasonable. I have missed one flight in all my years of flying and I have been singled out dozens of times. I am always polite and friendly and they usually move me through pretty quickly.
It usually boils down to whether or not the gate agent is a pr*ck. I completely agree that these people should not have such power and yes, we need to be careful about allowing searches to go too far.
But the cops can search your car if they have reasonable cause, which is as little as a busted tail light.
Like I said: Big Brother is here.
I’m thinking a 62 foot Morgan tri-mast with a complete galley and twin engines. Sat link up for the internet and head into the sunrise.
I’m sorry, this is my pre-spring wander-lust that I always go through. It will pass.
By Monica
February 25, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
*However, I think reasonable people can agree that…”
Wow. You’re asking for a lot here!
I do agree that taking my laptop indefinitely seems to be a bit unreasonable.
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this
If your laptop has Y-Fi or Blue-ray technology, your laptop can be searched anytime you pass by another network enabled laptop with the right software, even if the laptop is turned off.
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
But the cops can search your car if they have reasonable cause, which is as little as a busted tail light.
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
Read up on illegal search/seizure appeals and you will find that even with dramatic eye-witness knowledge by the cops they are not to search/seize without either a warrant or proof of reasonably immediate danger.
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
I’m not talking about legal searches. Remember the only difference between legal and illegal searches is what can be used in court. RFK ordered wire taping of MLK. That was the early 1960s. Would anything they collected be used in court? Of course not.
Read my post to USinUK about Blue Thunder. Do you remember any court orders being issued for “through the walls intell” to be collected during the 1980s?
it is here and is being used every day.
As far as cops, yes they can pull you over for a broken tail light. If they determine that you are “behaving suspiciously”, they can search your vehicle. They need to ask your permission, but if you say no, they have the right to detain you until a search warrant can be obtained. So you can technically deny them the permission to search your car, but you go to jail until they go the route of filling out the paper work and getting a judge to give them permission.
Now what is “Nope, nope, nope” about that?
By Ironman Carmichael
February 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
Far as I’m concerned, they can keep ‘em. This may be 21st Century heresy, but most digital devices are more bother than they’re worth.
By 2D
February 25, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this
Yo… “Healthy Liberal”, what’s the point???
That article is just spewing stats and stating that obesity is going to wreck our economy and our health care system. And??? Tell me something I didn’t know.
By Libsrule
February 25, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
Healthy Liberal
This is what’s REALLY going to kill you, you disgusting blobs of self-indulgent, greedy, judgmental hate, aka Republicans. Good luck with your “health care” needs! Have another shovel full. You won’t be missed.
You tell em. We are right!!! Onward with HOPE!
Hope of getting our bills paid by evil Republicans.
Hope of closing down plenty of evil capitalist companies that just steal from us. Screw the employees. If they are so stupid to refuse state assistance, they are no better than the X-icans.
Hope of showing those ignorant Christians exactly what a fetus is really worth. Flush ‘em!!
Hope and Health care.
Hope and health care and food stamps.
Hope and health care and a good old all American race based hiring system where evil White Males can’t get all the good jobs.
Hope and health care and food stamps and race based hiring and plenty of abortions.
I’m with you all the way!!!
By blah blah
February 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Because RFK wiretapped MLK, I’m a genius and you’re an idiot. Any more questions numbnut?
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this
Like I said: Big Brother is here.
You act as though that is a reason to embrace him instead of beat him back into the repugs imperialist cave.
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
As far as cops, yes they can pull you over for a broken tail light. If they determine that you are “behaving suspiciously”, they can search your vehicle. They need to ask your permission, but if you say no, they have the right to detain you until a search warrant can be obtained. So you can technically deny them the permission to search your car, but you go to jail until they go the route of filling out the paper work and getting a judge to give them permission.
Notice that the individual has rights until/if the courts override those rights through a procedure. Quite different to those who choose not to be deliberately obtuse.
Now what is “Nope, nope, nope” about that?
Seeing as you wrote: But the cops can search your car if they have reasonable cause, which is as little as a busted tail light. Which is totally incorrect.
TOJ. Like I said, I would get on the plane that did strip searches. When I am at 40,000 feet, getting back on the ground is much more important than wondering if some agent was going to find those pictures of the USC Cheerleading squad or my appointment calender that I carry on my laptop.
Would you be just as flippant if this was your wife? Child? Mother?
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
RFK was a democrat. If you think it is just the Republicans that do this, you are part of the problem.
I don’t put sensitive info on my laptop. In fact, I’m not sure what I would have anything on any of my computers that anyone would want. I don’t carry drugs in my car. I don’t try to sneak anything back into the country. I have to get security clearance sometimes and so far, I am always approved.
I have no problem with Big Brother because I am aware of him being here. I don’t like it, but you or I are not going to beat him back into anyone’s cave.
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
Notice that the individual has rights until/if the courts override those rights through a procedure. Quite different to those who choose not to be deliberately obtuse.
That would be the right to go to jail. That’s not really a right. That’s having your rights taken from you until they find a judge that will issue a search warrant. But if you want to consider being put in handcuffs and detained as a right, good for you.
Seeing as you wrote: But the cops can search your car if they have reasonable cause, which is as little as a busted tail light. Which is totally incorrect.
My apologies. They need two reasonable causes. One to pull you over and one to search. Again, I apologize.
Would you be just as flippant if this was your wife? Child? Mother?
My wife, child and mother all fly. Yes, I want them to also go on the secure airline. As long as the gate agents all follow procedure, they can all be searched. Everyone is someone’s child.
By MissedOut
February 25, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
Because RFK wiretapped MLK
is that a variation on But Clinton did it, But Clinton Did it, But Clinton Did it?
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
TOJ,
Answer my question to you please.
You are boarding a plane and the officials take your wife and child with the intent on strip searching them: Are you just as flippant?
I don’t like it, but you or I are not going to beat him back into anyone’s cave.
I agree if everyone bellies-up like you are willing to but many of us are not.
By Libsrule
February 25, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
Blah blah
Because RFK wiretapped MLK, I’m a genius and you’re an idiot. Any more questions numbnut?
That’s right. You tell em. He makes me feel really bad about myself, too. I join you in your grief. Pardon me while I weep.
Damn X-ican.
By Libsrule
February 25, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
Missed Out
That’s right. That is what it is. It’s just another version of the Bill Clinton thing.
And we all know that the world loved us while Billy was in office. republicans ruin everything and they should not be able to point to ANY democratic mistakes in the past. It’s not fair and we should never stand for it.
RFK was a SAINT. HE GAVE US HOPE!!!!
By Newzwyre
February 25, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this
The new “Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life- US Religious Landscape Survey” is out. Yay!
Did you know -
There are just as many Athists and Agnostics in the United States (4%) as there are Mormons (1.7%), Jews (1.7%), and Muslims (.6%) combined? But there are three times as many who are unaffiliated with ANY organized religion?
13% of Georgians are unaffiliated with any religion, are agnostic, or atheist.
most “unaffiliated, agnostic or atheist” are white (73%), married (46%), with no children (67%)and 40% have at least some college education.
http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
You are boarding a plane and the officials take your wife and child with the intent on strip searching them: Are you just as flippant?
Would I be joking about it? No. But would I go along with it? Absolutely. Would I like it? No.
I agree if everyone bellies-up like you are willing to but many of us are not.
Hate to tell you this, but today 150,000 travelers went through the Atlanta airport and joined me at the bar. And the same number will be there tomorrow, and the next day and the next. Your computer is joined to the internet and can be searched whenever anyone likes it, legal or not. Use a debit card or charge card lately? How about that Kroger Plus card? You can preach about your latest crusade all you want, but you are right now opening up the biggest portal to your life, your computer. And you are worried about the airport?
I promise you that it is nothing that I like, but we have no privacy.
I have many battles like everyone else. I am self employed so my battles often involve whether or not I sleep indoors. Those battles take my whole life. Searches at airports is a battle I will leave to you. I keep my private stuff in private places.
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this
Newzwyre
67% have no children. That says something. I’m not sure what. But it says something.
By Newzwyre
February 25, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022501014.html
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide when police without a warrant can search the vehicle of a person who is under arrest.
Rodney Joseph Gant was handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car and under police supervision when Tucson, Ariz., police officers searched his car.
[snip]
The justices said they will hear the case next fall to decide whether officers must demonstrate a threat to their safety or the need to preserve evidence to justify a warrantless search in cases like Gant’s. Gant was arrested about 10 feet away from his parked car.
[snip]
The state said the ruling, if allowed to stand, would impose a “dangerous and unworkable test” that would complicate the daily lives of law enforcement officers.
The case is Arizona v. Gant, 07-542.
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
Would I be joking about it? No. But would I go along with it? Absolutely. Would I like it? No. Thanks for being honest. I would not be so amiable.
Your computer is joined to the internet and can be searched whenever anyone likes it, legal or not. (joined?!?!)
With all due respect, you need to keep to subjects you know about. Your tech info is totally incorrect. Granted, you and many others that do not know how to set up their home networks (off unused ports on your pc/router, if you have a router, for example) may be quite vulnerable, but it still is not anywhere as easy as you believe.
I promise you that it is nothing that I like, but we have no privacy. And as Big Brother puts another nail in the bill of rights coffin you cheer instead of rally against the machine.
By Flippant
February 25, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
I’m a Republican and I’M ALWAYS RIGHT! And if you don’t shut up and agree with me, YOUR ALWAYS WRONG! Why are you so stupid? I answered your question and the answer shows that you are stupid, and I am a geeeeeeeeeeeeeeenuis!
Neener neener neener neener! ppppbbbbbllllplplplplplplppppttttt!
obligatory crotch grab
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
TOJ,
Ohh yea. The spammers can post after 5 because they open multiple instances of the page while it is available and post after hours. Probably because the searches gather all the sites (especially those that correlate to porn like “woman to woman”) during one phase and distribute the spam during the next. Might even be some error checking involved, hence why we see the “Interesting site” posts: they are just checking for bounce-backs/404s. The easy solution would be to make us all have user names/passwords to post.
By Perhaps
February 25, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
67% have no children. That says something. I’m not sure what. But it says something.
That they do not subscribe to the ugly desert dwellers God-driven mandate to go out and breed like rats, perhaps?
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
By JokesOn
Thanks for being honest. I would not be so amiable.
It is a matter of priorities. If the authorities decide it’s time to search my daughter and they have a female agent to do it, she is going to be searched. I can either raise holy hell and get myself srrested and ruin the trip or I can keep my mouth shut and move on. I think that is also what you would do. If it is not, what would you do differently?
With all due respect, you need to keep to subjects you know about. Your tech info is totally incorrect. Granted, you and many others that do not know how to set up their home networks (off unused ports on your pc/router, if you have a router, for example) may be quite vulnerable, but it still is not anywhere as easy as you believe.
My system was set up by the same company that set up Crawford communication’s new sat uplink in Norcross. It’s probably set up right. I don’t know the terms. Joined. Linked, whatever. It isn’t easy for most to do, but it can be done. Spyware can be bought by anyone.
And as Big Brother puts another nail in the bill of rights coffin you cheer instead of rally against the machine.
How many times do I need to write that I am not happy about it before you get it? I wish all people were honest and all women had long legs, but I got here too late. Mankind had already spent 200,000 years screwing it all up and these ideas of honestly and privacy were already corrupted.
You claim to want to fight it. What would you propose? The information the Bush administration has requested on individual terrorists is much less that the information Kroger collects on you everytime you buy a cart full of groceries.
I have a big problem with the merchant tracking, but I honestly couldn’t care less about the terrorists.
By Libsrule
February 25, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this
By Flippant
I’m a Republican and I’M ALWAYS RIGHT! And if you don’t shut up and agree with me, YOUR ALWAYS WRONG! Why are you so stupid? I answered your question and the answer shows that you are stupid, and I am a geeeeeeeeeeeeeeenuis! Neener neener neener neener! ppppbbbbbllllplplplplplplppppttttt! obligatory crotch grab
You tell him!! He thinks he is so cool actually discussing topics and stuff. He should be more like you and show his feelings and whine about those mean old X-icon posts. Debate? Shoot no!!
You start debating a Republican and pretty soon he will have you so confused that you will start believing that Al Gore is NOT a God.
I’m with you, Buddy. You are really the smart one here!!
By Libsrule
February 25, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
Perhaps
That they do not subscribe to the ugly desert dwellers God-driven mandate to go out and breed like rats, perhaps?
See? You get it. As a liberal, it is our duty to diminish our footprint here on this planet. If more people thought like you, our horrible species would not have survived this long and the planet would be filled with nothing but natural animals like donkies and cats and elephants.
We would have never survived long enouigh to ruin this planet.
Viva Gore. Down with humans. We s*ck!!!
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this
I think that is also what you would do. If it is not, what would you do differently?
Refuse until my lawyer arrived. If I would have to sacrifice a trip for it - so be it.
I did just that once when a friend and I got pulled over on 295 going around Jacksonville. We were pulled over for doing 7 miles over the limit and the cops said we looked nervous and suspicious driving a acura legend, and therefore were going to search the car. I told them nope and neither were saying another word until my lawyer was present. They puffed up for 15min, saw we were not going to cooperate, called in the drug dogs, dogs were totally unresponsive, and were were let go: With the explanation that we could have made it much easier by letting them search the car.
A hassle? yep. Worth it? absolutely.
How many times do I need to write that I am not happy about it before you get it?
I did a search on the page for “not happy” and it was not found. The greater point being, if you are “not happy with it,” why would you argue for its practice? (please provide more of a reason than “big-b is already out there”)
By HsvsRsvsesv
February 25, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
order cialis
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this
By JokesOn
Refuse until my lawyer arrived. If I would have to sacrifice a trip for it - so be it.
I’ll choose my battles. Setting on the side of a highway, just to make a point to a couple of cops who just thinks you are a jerk for wasting everyone’s time might be a victory, but at what price? If I go to battle, I go to win something worth fighting for. Did you change the system? Did you do anything other than make a point that had probably been made to those cops a dozen times? did you consult with your friend who’s time you would also be spending to prove your point? If he didn’t approve if it, you were as guilty as the cops at taking away someone’s rights.
A hassle? yep. Worth it? absolutely.
How so? What did it accomplish?
I did a search on the page for “not happy” and it was not found.
this is what I said: I promise you that it is nothing that I like, but we have no privacy.
The greater point being, if you are “not happy with it,” why would you argue for its practice? (please provide more of a reason than “big-b is already out there”)
I’m not happy about radical Islam. I’m not happy about needing that kind of security at the airports.
I’m not happy about the search and seizure laws cops have. I’m not arguing for them. I am arguing for living your life without charging windmills.
I’m not at all happy with the internet and the way it is set up, but I use it every day.
By The Other Jack
February 25, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
Thanks for the explanation of the night time posts.
Seems like a lot of work to post stuff that no one reads.
By FYI
February 25, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
Seems like a lot of work to post stuff that no one reads.
Seems like someone who claims to know “the internet and how it’s set up” would realize that it’s not “work” when a bot does it.
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
Did you change the system? Maybe.
Did you do anything other than make a point that had probably been made to those cops a dozen times? Other than preserve my rights? Maybe.
did you consult with your friend who’s time you would also be spending to prove your point? If he didn’t approve if it, you were as guilty as the cops at taking away someone’s rights. Nope. It was my car and he does not have any rights to it. He agreed though.
I’m not happy with.. Well, I AM happy with my constitutional rights and will do what I can to retain them, no matter how ineffectual you and others think the cause/actions might be. A million ants can turn into a impressive force.
Seems like a lot of work to post stuff that no one reads. Since it is performed by pc’s even a 1% success rate is profitable.
By NeedsEdjamacation
February 25, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
bot? wat dat? dat moore of dat computa speek?
By NeedsEdjamacation
February 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this
okay, that was a rhetorical question, asked in jest.
I had a cop pull me over legally(for failure to use a directional when changing interstate lanes) but then, because I was pulling off the interstate in a predominately black neighborhood(I am white) and had plates for another county, wanted to search my vehicle for drugs. Now, never mind I was returning to work from a lunch-trip to Home Depot. I laughed him right out of the area, back to his car. and No ticket for the reason(or so he said) he actually pulled me over. All of his questions indicated he felt I had to right to be near where I work, when my car plates indicated I did not live there.
By Thomas Jefferson
February 25, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this
Not no. But hell no!! This whole security thing has gone way too far. Government should forever and always keep its hands off our property, and its eyes and ears out of our lives. And for you chicken littles out there that quiver and quake over all of the big bad terrorists waiting to jump you in your driveway, get a grip. As my good friend Ben Franklin once said, “He who would give up his freedom for security, deserves neither.”
By NeedsEdjamacation
February 25, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this
NO right(to be in the area), should have been with all his questionings.
and specific questions: Any weed? Nope, any coke, Nope? I almost volunteered “Gee, you need to ask the right question, since I have a pound of meth in the trunk, wonder when you can get to the CORRECT question”.
seriously, I laughed him right back to his car.
By JokesOn
February 25, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this
In order to be clear: I would not have anywhere near a problem with security stating that we cannot have these items on a plane, and if you bring one it will be confiscated and sent to you or at a pickup site. Searching through it for info is bs though.
By 2D
February 26, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this
Very interesting posting lately…
Why does it seem that one group of posters attempt to keep their content focused on facts and their own experiences and another routinely resorts to name calling insults? Perhaps it’s a lack of substance, just like their probable Presidential nominee.
By USinUK
February 26, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this
JokesOn -
Well, I AM happy with my constitutional rights and will do what I can to retain them, no matter how ineffectual you and others think the cause/actions might be. A million ants can turn into a impressive force.
you are SO my hero. :-)
By JokesOn
February 26, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this
you are SO my hero. :-)
You do know that it is not trendy to dig me or my posts, no? hehe
I have no idea who you used to be on here, if anyone. Mind sharing?
By USinUK
February 26, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this
JokesOn -
I have no idea who you used to be on here, if anyone. Mind sharing?
Nope - never used to be anyone else but me … loitered for a long time before starting to take part in the forum back in November-ish.
As long as I’ve been here, I’ve enjoyed your posts - but, then, that could be because we’re usually on the same side of the debate ;-)
Hear it’s a rainy day in GA today … good thing!! I know you need it. It’s bright and sunny here - saw a gorgeous hillside of daffodils on my journey to work this morning … man, I love the spring.
By The Other Jack
February 26, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Daffodils? It’s already spring there? It’s still pretty nasty here.
By Copyleft
February 26, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Fighting a violation of our rights is ALWAYS worth the time and trouble, to those of us who still value them.
Yes, raise a stink. Delay or cancel your trip. Wage a “hopeless” court battle and tie up the system with red tape. If that’s what it takes to challenge yet another government intrusion into our freedoms, DO IT.
Too many lazy Americans these days, just shrugging and accepting whatever the government wants to do.
By kimberly
February 26, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Hello all, do you mind if I stray off topic for a moment and express my “woman to woman” feeling on a “woman” thing today?
Frankly, I’m having a hard time with this whole “hope” business I keep hearing about, when all I hear on every TV, radio, and print medium, and from the mouths of my fellow Americans is how much they hate that B-word or C-word with the cankles and too much ambition. Objective, substantive reporting re: election coverage is non-existent in this century. (Memo for editors: Fell-ate this one, do the eye-roll whenever you mention the other one’s name…)
I mean, I knew James Brown was right (at least he was honest!) that it is indeed a man’s world. But I never realized how much the men in this country TRULY hate the idea of a successful smart woman, and basically, women in general. (After all, the blog doesn’t really reflect a cross-section of Americans, does it?) Apparently it does. Even the “liberal” commentators in the news have taken to all-out favoritism in their hatred of the “Evil SHE.” Some men (former military especially) have been honest enough to admit that men just aren’t comfortable with female authority, and I appreciate their forthright admissions, even though most of them defend the raping of female soldiers on the “she wanted it” premise. Even women join in with woman-hating, a practice I find doubly discouraging.
I’ve tried to be objective, and for that, have been ridiculed. Y’all can jump in and spout and sputter that you don’t hate ALL women, and you respect SOME women, but frankly, I’m neither seeing nor feeling it from any of you. Stop telling me after all these years of having lies and war and contempt for thinking Americans forced upon us that I’m supposed to wake up in the morning and suddenly feel “hope” because either Obama or McCain is going to be the next President. Sorry, but this is one b-word that requires more than empty words to believe you, and I think I’ve heard quite enough.
Okay, I’m done. Thanks for listening, and please return to your regularly scheduled topic.
By The Other Jack
February 26, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
JokesOn
Yesterday you were quick to lecture me for not raising a stink if my daughter were to be submitted to a strip search at an airport. I asked what you would do, but strangely enough, you ignored the question.
So what would you do? Considering you are willing to stop your life, the life of a friend and the work of at least two police officers and a drug dog in order to prove an inane point to two cops and a dog, I’m anxious to hear what you would do to prove a point at the airport.
By Libsrule
February 26, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
NeedsEdjamacation
bot? wat dat? dat moore of dat computa speek?
You are just a brilliant comedian. And you are really putting that mean old conservative in his place. Doesn’t use computer dweeb speak in everyday conversation. What an ignorant person.
Since he doesn’t spend his life fixing other people’s tools so the other people can be creative and resourceful, he isn’t smart enough to speak the language. You tell em, Buddy. How dare he do something else with his life than fixing computers.
And as we all know, computer mechanics are at least as important as car mechanics and almost just as cool.
By The Other Jack
February 26, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
Kimberly
Hillary Clinton is nothing like most women I know.
I tend to think about individual people. As an individual, she is dishonest and full of hate. This does not mean that I believe all women are dishonest and full of hate.
If men (and women) need to blindly accept Hillary Clinton as the leader of the free world in order for you not to believe that all men have no respect for all women, this is going to be a long year for you.
By USinUK
February 26, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Daffodils? It’s already spring there? It’s still pretty nasty here.
yep … daffs … the tulip greens are starting to come up … trees are starting to blossom …
it’s been chilly and we’ve had frost in the mornings, but it’s still been a pretty mild winter (yay!)
now … from what I saw of yesterday’s W2W traffic, you did not make it down to your storage unit for a clear-out. BAD TOJ! Bad!!!
By lozen
February 26, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
Kimberly, I understand and I agree with you. I don’t care how many ppl say, “I hate Hillary because she’s evil and full of hate, certainly not because she’s a woman” I don’t buy it either. Sexism is alive and well in the USofA; you know it and I know it. And we are not the only ones who know it.
By lozen
February 26, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
And Kimberly, your statement, “Hello all, do you mind if I stray off topic for a moment and express my “woman to woman” feeling on a “woman” thing today?,” is appreciated also.
By USinUK
February 26, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
lozen -
Sexism is alive and well in the USofA; you know it and I know it. And we are not the only ones who know it.
I agree with you that sexism is alive and well in the US, the UK, France (god knows, the woman who ran against Sarkozy was vilified, too) and many other countries.
But to say “you hate Hillary because she’s a woman” is just … well … facile. It demeans 1) the women like myself who support Obama, implying some kind of self-loathing and 2) the people who don’t support her because of her support of Bush’s war.
There are legitimate reasons to support a non-ovaried American for President - please, don’t demean us by saying that we’re mysogenists …
By Funny
February 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
BAD TOJ! Bad!!!
Is USinUK holding a rolled-up newspaper?
By The Other Jack
February 26, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Not so fast. I did actually get quite a bit done. I found out that about half of the space was a tape library for an old client that has been out of business for about three years. I loaded the old Volvo Wagon up with those tapes and now about half the space is empty.
My ex is taking a couple of pieces of furniture that she had wanted anyway. I have a bunch of expensive birch plywood that I am going to slice up into shelves for a utility room.
Then it will just be some outdated music equipment, a few tools and college books. There are several boxes that have not been opened in years. I am debating opening them up. If I just throw them out, i will never miss what I had. If I open them up, I could find some cool stuff that