Re:EFF's Fight to End Warrantless Device Searches at the Border
by pvg on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @02:15AM
(#16263473)
This is what it says:
"That hasn't applied at or within 100 miles of a US border point of entry since 1953."
The plain meaning of that is not 'doesn't apply fully and maybe sometimes applies and sometimes not'. There's a difference between 'charitable interpretation' and 'so charitable as to coincidentally be bent into something originally unsaid but happens to support my argument'.
The goal of charitable interpretation is to avoid assuming ill-faith, not to reinterpret the position to something other than what it is.
Re:EFF's Fight to End Warrantless Device Searches at the Border
by wnoise on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @06:36AM
(#16264486)
"Opens a large hole in, allowing violations to large numbers of travelers at governmental discretion and thus doesn't usefully constrain the government against those in the area" is well within charitable interpretation of the quotation.
Apparently small loopholes can be readily, repeatedly violated.
Parallel construction has actually been attested and reported on by mainstream news sources.
I hate the metonymy of "black helicopters". Helicopters that are painted black do exist, after all. It's merely that there is no reasonable evidence for their use in extralegal conspiracies. If you're going to dismiss something as a conspiracy theory, I'd rather you do that directly.