Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

It is not reasonable to follow up on even a credible report that someone wants to buy a pressure cooker by doing a search of the person's house. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There was no suspicious activity. The activity reported was entirely innocent. Yes someone was worried about a terrorist, but those worries were entirely groundless.I'm sure if the feds wanted to, they could obtain a list of everyone who ordered a pressure cooker over the past few days. Would you consider such a list to be a list of potential terrorists to investigate? What makes a similar report from a random citizen something to investigate?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Of course the search is not unreasonable in a Constitutional sense because the police asked for permission. On the other hand showing up to search the house in the first place was ridiculous, making it unreasonable in a completely different sense.

Some people have made that claim, yes. But mostly people have opined on the stupidity rather than the legality of the search. Onifre thinks the search was illegal. I don't believe anyone else has said that. Correct. In my opinion, the search was legal. That still does not make conducting such a search reasonable.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your statement does not express all that much. Amadou Diallo's death wasn't an infringement of anyone's rights either.

Assault does not require any contact at all. Assault is an intentional physical action that places a person in apprehension of unwanted contact or harm. It is usually charged instead of battery because it is far easier to prove. Pointing a fire arm at someone or drawing back your fist to make a punch are assault.In some jurisdictions assault is considered to be an unsuccessful battery.Battery is the actual physical contact resulting from an assault.

Well, I admit that I left out some words that might eliminate such a conclusion. The apprehension has to be of immediate harm, and the standard is what a 'reasonable man' would conclude. But what is beyond dispute is that an assault does not require any physical contact or harm. Intentional offensive or unwanted contact (even slight contact) is battery.Assault - WikipediaHere is a more complete definition:

quote:

---

At common law, an assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

​

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law. There is, however, an additional criminal law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful battery. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact. The specific meaning of assault varies between countries, but can refer to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force

---

So the veracity or accuracy of the report was irrelevant? Your position is that the police should follow up on every report, however stupid? I doubt you can convince many people to agree with you on that. And for good reason. That idea is inane on its face. There was simply no connection with terrorism sufficient to raise any kind of suspicion.You are glossing over the fact that the connection between the reported activity and terrorism was extremely tenuous. Using your reasoning, the police should reasonably have visited the house if they were told about a search for backpacks by someone sufficiently paranoid. After all, the Boston Bombers did use backpacks. Aren't those things defensive only? They don't constitute any threat at all to a non-perp. But not using any shielding does nix the idea that the police needed to be prepared to face a shoot out. They did not make any such preparations.The police reaction was a complete waste of time and resources. Following up reports of searches for pressure cookers is unlikely to uncover terrorist. Accordingly, the search was not reasonable.

That's right. It was the Jews failure to cease to exist that caused the government to round them up and force them into ovens and showers. The freed Negroes failure to provide on demand free labor after slavery ended forced Southern governments to pass the 'Black Codes'. And it is Korematsu's failure to redact his own Japanese history that necessitated putting him in a concentration camp. That's a personal impression that may in a particular instance be correct. But it is not a universal truth. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And I believe such an argument is appropriate. I am not supplying a general rule that disobedience or standing on your rights is always appropriate. I am refuting the general principle that it is disobedience and non-compliance that creates fascism.Why don't you cite even a few examples of fascism that have resulted from non-compliance with reasonable laws. I note here that your deleting of some of the chain of conversation I provided in my post (See Message 179) creates a different context for my message. I'll also note that I acknowledged that your rule had some application but was not universal.

What about the gathering of the search history do you find to be illegal. As I understand it, the search was gathered by non-state actors who were authorized by the owners of the computers. What's illegal about that?

That's false. It has never been illegal in the US to have government proof encryption. The law you quoted put limits on what could be exported without government approval.

No, that is not right either. You could not export encryption software beyond certain capabilities, but no law stopped you from importing such software from abroad or from using the software to communicate with foreigners.There were no use restrictions at all. Just export restrictions. Attempts to legislate the use of encryption with backdoors have never been successful in this country.

Not even with your lawyer?I understand that you have a pretty narrow view of what constitutes rights, but I have no clue how you interpret the sixth amenmdment as not protecting the privacy of attorney client communications.

Of course Attorney Client Privilege has it limits. But it absolutely protects certain communications between an attorney and the client from even attempts to eavesdrop by police. And as is backed up by numerous Supreme Court rulings, the privilege is required in order for clients exercise their right to counsel under the Sixth AmendmentIn short, in situations involving criminal prosecution, the Sixth Amendment requires that conversations about past crimes between the criminal defendant and his lawyer be privileged. The government is not allowed to eavesdrop.