I'm always weary of when advocacy organizations make up terms and apparently expect others to adopt them as if they were official designations, like the FSF's use of DRM to instead refer to "Digital Restrictions Management".
In all fairness, they didn't redefine anything, thay made a term that can be easily communicated, just like any marketer would. Just because they are non-profit means that they have to forego valid strategies to spread their message?
I think the point is that the government extended border searches to mean searches within 100 miles of a border, which is pretty ridiculous. It seems like it was specifically designed to include the most populated cities in the US. The ACLU is claiming that the border search exception in the constitution shouldn't hold this far away from the border.
A better name would be "4th Amendment Free Zone" but they're going for as much shock value as possible.
The crux is DHS announcing they can have border agents search anyone without probable cause 100 miles inland from the border.
It's one of those legal issues where the executive crosses the line and it takes about five years for a case to wind its way up to the Supreme Court and sanity to be restored in a ruling overturning the daft policy.
Apparently it's happened in California; federal agents were just pulling people over and searching the cars over objections.
9 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 37.4 ms ] threadAm I missing something?
This is the first time I've ever said this, but is this really Hacker News? The government is hacking our lives apparently.
The crux is DHS announcing they can have border agents search anyone without probable cause 100 miles inland from the border.
It's one of those legal issues where the executive crosses the line and it takes about five years for a case to wind its way up to the Supreme Court and sanity to be restored in a ruling overturning the daft policy.
Apparently it's happened in California; federal agents were just pulling people over and searching the cars over objections.