Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

This is a kaleidoscope of arguments, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. Should TSA be singling Moxie out? Of course not. TSA also shouldn't be handing people to the police for drug offenses. TSA is a debacle.

Should the country be abusing border integrity for domestic law enforcement? No, I don't think so, but, as a pragmatist, I recognize that this ship has thoroughly sailed, it is long past the horizon, and the very fastest cigarette boat of an argument I can devise has no hope of catching up to it.

Is it "unconstitutional" for someone with a demonstrable connection to someone else who is the focus of a major criminal investigation to be questioned? I can't see how anyone could defend that argument. I feel bad for Moxie, and I wish it took a warrant to search people at the border, but I simply don't think this is harassment.

View on HN

Your last paragraph has a nice focused point to discuss. The problem (as I see it from the comfort of my armchair) is not whether Moxie should be searched or questioned, it's how. For example, if the police appear at his home and bring him in for questioning, there are a nice series of legal rights and procedures in place to ensure that the investigation is performed properly.

Likewise, if the police wish to search his laptop or phone, there are again a nice series of procedures in place that Americans have already agreed are in society's best interests to enforce.

I would never suggest that the police do not do their job according to the rules in place. I am suggesting that using the border search rules to perform an investigation of an associate of a suspect gives the appearance that the police are avoiding the proper procedures because they don't have the evidence and cause to question him or search his laptop and phone.

This, I argue, undermines the credibility of the investigation, which is of great harm to society as a whole.

I don't like what happened to Moxie.

But: there is a pair of subtexts in the gestalt of the discussion about his border drama that I have a hard time accepting.

The first subtext is the notion that the US government is now harassing security researchers. That notion attaches itself to the headlines being written: "security researcher stopped at border". No. "Security researcher" wasn't stopped. "Affiliate of Wikileaks volunteer" was stopped.

The second subtext is that questioning an affiliate of a Wikileaks volunteer would constitute harassment. Words mean things. Harassment describes government interventions whose sole purpose is to cause discomfort to targets. But an actual crime took place. It wasn't a small crime; it was a criminal event of fairly epic proportions. It may well be mitigated by the ethics of whistleblowing (I don't think so, but respect people who do, and count many of them as friends). Aggressive investigation of epic criminal events is not harassment; it's a central part of the government's charter.

(Did you make any of these claims? I don't care to find out. My issue is with the subtexts, not with any particular person's argument.)

The rest of this discussion, about the justice/injustice of border searches and whatnot... I have less strong opinions about. I've been searched aggressively at US borders. I didn't like it. I thought it was wrong. I researched it, read a bunch of court opinions on it, and came to the conclusion that much like the interpretation of our Second Amendment that guns should be minimally regulated, this is a settled bit of American law that I'm going to have to learn to dislike passively.

I agree with disputing both subtexts. The OP does not suggest that security researches are being targeted for searches. I certainly don't disagree with the notion of investigating a suspect's associates under certain circumstances.

Given your feelings about the subtexts, I think I understand your comments.

Like the federal agents who were caught on camera threatening someone that they would be put on the no-fly list and lose their jobs if they didn't cooperate - this was in a case that had nothing to do with airlines.

So we all accept that the TSA has absolutely nothing to do with transport security - it's just a way of intimidating citizens we don't like ?

When you do face a real terrorist threat it's going to be a little tricky to deal with when all your citizens regard 'anti-terrorism units' as a euphemism for secret police.

The TSA search was punitive and counterproductive. TSA is an ongoing debacle. I'd be angrier about this if TSA wasn't undertaking the harassment of every American citizen in an effort to demonstrate value by causing discomfort and humiliation.

The Customs interrogation was not punitive. Customs agents themselves may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, but part of their charter is to assist in domestic law enforcement. There is a clear law enforcement objective involved in Wikileaks.

Then arrest, charge and try him. Using customs/TSA/etc as an extra-judicial punishment is the scariest thing.

Whats next the local fire service sent out to do safety checks on anyone that opposes the government? I think the last two administrations already got caught ordering tax audits of groups that opposed them.

TSA abused their power, but TSA is an inherently abusive agency.

Customs did not abuse their power. What happened to Moxie is exactly what Customs does (badly). You can end up tussling with Customs for any of a zillion other reasons, too. It's not harassment. Words mean things.

Also, you seem to be under the misapprehension that the only options criminal investigators have is "arrest" (or even "subpoena" or "get a warrant"). That's simply not true.

Customs dragged him off a plane and searched his phone and computer - not looking for things he may have been smuggling but merely to punish him for being associated with wikileaks.

My point is that the specific incident I pointed to--pulling the guy off his plane at the last minute and giving him a pat-down--doesn't seem to be connected to any sort of legitimate policing activity. He's not suspected of a violent crime, and they can't talk to him for very long with the plane ready to leave the gate. It seems pretty clear that the point of pulling him off the plane for a pat-down was to embarrass him in front of the other passengers rather than any legitimate law-enforcement purpose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com