Ah, procedure. I'm particularly fond of situations like this where the procedure is, for the normal person, a once-in-a-lifetime event. But the flunky on the other side of the desk does it every day. And they think you are yet another stupid person who doesn't understand the simple procedure, and they have nothing but contempt for those who don't understand the procedure as deeply as they do (especially which parts of the paperwork are important, and which really are not.)
Nestled deep within this fucked up situation is an asymmetry of information that gives the flunky incredible power over someone who is, in almost every other context, perceived to be better than they are (especially in this case involving a young rich kid with an expensive toy). Most human beings, when confronted with such an imbalance of power, are not going to be able to resist abusing their power.
In practical terms, there are only two solutions to this problem that I know of. You can learn the procedure better than they do, and beat them on details. This can be effective, but it's boring and the payoff isn't very good. The other solution is to be really, really nice. To be incredibly accommodating. To engender a spirit of goodwill, joviality and kindness such that the flunky wants to help you. CHP officers call this the "personality test" - and they administer it every time you get pulled over, BTW.
It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery. It's like they are saying, "If you can at least pretend that I'm a good person, just doing my job, then you won't have to suffer. However, if you annoy me, disrespect me, I will make you suffer like you've never known. Remember: I can check a box that will consume months of your life and untold amounts of treasure."
> CHP officers call this the "personality test" - and they administer it every time you get pulled over, BTW.
This is pretty much true of all police agencies. "Contempt of cop" is one of the worst offenses you can commit in terms of your likelihood of being punished for something minor.
> [T]he procedure is, for the normal person, a once-in-a-lifetime event. But the flunky on the other side of the desk does it every day.
I just had a TV delivered. And then a replacement delivered, but they were unauthorized to pick up the original, so the same two delivery guys had to come back a third time.
All three times, the delivery guys tried to force me to sign an incomplete form. They clearly wanted me to sign for whatever condition it was in and they would check all the boxes on my behalf to cover their own asses. The tactic was plainly obvious.
> The other solution is to be really, really nice. To be incredibly accommodating.
That's what I usually try to do in this sort of situation. However, it simply was impossible because the delivery guys 1) were rather large and intimidating 2) in my home, where I'm still unpacking and 3) spoke very poor english. Charm simply does not work on underpaid meatheads who don't understand the words your using. Any attempt to communicate clearly resulted in them becoming impatient and visibly annoyed, which resulted in me becoming uncomfortable (in my own home!). So each of the first two times, I just didn't sign my name. I just made an X that is in no way similar to my normal signature. The last time, for the pickup, I wrote "PERFECT CONDITION" over the whole form and then signed my name to that. The delivery guys were clearly pissed that last time because they didn't have another form and that if they dropped the TV, then they couldn't blame damage on me.
Take photographs. 'perfect condition' on a form is not as powerful as 'here are your guys and my TV'. Certainly if you're a renter, take pictures before you move in. Same as landlords, too. Pictures are free and can potentially save a lot of heartache.
> Charm simply does not work on underpaid meatheads
Charm, or respect, works on people. Sorry, but when you call them meatheads, it doesn't instill me with any confidence that you treated them with respect. The actions you describe support that fact (mostly through the way you describe it).
Again, maybe you have a reason, but unless you are leaving critical things out, your attitude is what makes it impossible.
Back and forths like are annoying and make this community look pedantic. You know damn well you sometimes deal with people who simply don't respond to your niceties. It's a fact of life, and the commenter was simply pointing that out.
You don't know the situation. Why does it have to be his fault? Some people out there really are assholes and really do just want to take advantage of people.
> You know damn well you sometimes deal with people who simply don't respond to your niceties.
People.
> Again, maybe you have a reason, but unless you are leaving critical things out, your attitude is what makes it impossible.
I said as much.
> Why does it have to be his fault?
It doesn't have to be. I said as much.
> Back and forths like are annoying and make this community look pedantic.
Commenting is not the way to handle this then. Downvote, or flag if you think it's not appropriate. Commenting, however, signifies what I said contributed to the discussion. If it didn't, then any reply would be equally worthless.
The more important part of that sentence, which you elided, was the fact that there was a language communication barrier.
I treated them with nothing but respect in person. I always joke around and make small talk with people in the service industry. I know how far that sort of thing can take you. However, I elected to use the word "meatheads" because it paints a picture: They were large men whom couldn't hold a conversation. Whether or not they could hold a conversation with native spanish speakers was immaterial to the story.
> The more important part of that sentence, which you elided, was the fact that there was a language communication barrier.
It's not more important. You're attitude has nothing to do with language.
> However, I elected to use the word "meatheads" because it paints a picture: They were large men whom couldn't hold a conversation.
Meathead is means far more than that. If you used it merely to mean "people I can't speak with and are large," than you should know it's not what people associate with that word. It's much more derogatory.
> I treated them with nothing but respect in person.
At least the first time.
At once you tell me that they can't communicate, but then you go on to imply that they understand the words you are writing out on paper (Perfect Condition).
Respect is earned. Treating another person with immediate decency is an honorable thing, but to give respect freely indicates a weakness that will be exploited. They were there to do a job, not have tea and chat about local charity.
> Treating another person with immediate decency is an honorable thing
That's respect.
> Respect is earned.
You are confusing trust with respect. The only people that believe that respect is earned are people that need to an excuse to act like an asshole. Respect costs nothing.
It's not just a USA thing. You get this in the UK too.
In general though, in these situations you can have too choices - you can be right, or you can get the outcome you want.
Sometimes, happily, the two co-incide. Sometimes they don't, but you just have to put on your big boy pants, smile and suck it up.
As a slight aside, I think this is why Project Management is so valuable as training for life. My aim as a PM is to get my project delivered, and in the course of doing that I have to eat untold shite and do it with a smile on my face - primadonna developers, infrastructure functions that are borderline competent, lethargic business users, bureaucratic change boards etc etc.
In each circumstance I could try and force people to do what I want because they are idiots and I am of course completely correct (!) but that is just satisfying my ego. Instead I smile, ask about their kids, buy them a latte, and meanwhile my project succeeds.
It's not just a USA thing. You get this in the UK too.
I think it's pretty much everywhere. Petty people get a little power (maybe as cops, or customs, or tsa or whatever) and they like using it. Most of those people are fine and try to do the right thing. But there are a few (I think of them as tragic) for whom that is all they really have in life- so they are bullies.
especially in this case involving a young rich kid with an expensive toy
I realize it was an aside and doesn't take away from the point you were making, but the person who wrote this is Michael Arrington, who, according to wikipedia, is 42. Not really old, but not exactly a 'young rich kid', either.
>That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice to people, they will be nice to you.
I'm saying that if you're nice to someone who wants nothing more than an excuse to hurt you, and who has no compunction about doing so, then perhaps you won't get hurt.
The end goal is not for them to be nice to you. The goal is for them to refrain from making your life a living hell.
I just think there's another way to look at this situation.
Have you seen The Incredibles? The scene towards the beginning when Mr. Incredible helps the little old lady cheat the insurance system? I think most bureaucrats want to be that person. They want to give the good guy a break; they want to cut people who try hard a little bit of slack. It means more work for them, since they need to spend their own time to make sure those people followed instructions, and there's only so much energy you can give each one. Not only that, but they know the ways the bureaucracy was built a little loosely— the ways to get around things, not ways you should use all the time, but sometimes you have to.
That's the power bureaucrats have, and generally, they want to use it for good. They want to help that little old lady get her check. They want to let that kid go home when his dad dies. And yeah, they want to take a little time off themselves, but who doesn't?
What they don't want to do is go out of their way to help some random idiot who just wasn't paying attention to his own shit, who seems to think because you're paid to process paperwork it's your job to advocate for him, without so much as pretending like he's asking you for a favor. Screw that guy.
And, seriously, what are we asking here? I'm reminded of an Ani Difranco quote:
“Maybe you don't like your job. Maybe you didn't get enough sleep.
Nobody likes their job; nobody got enough sleep.
Maybe you just had the worst day of your life. You know there's no escape,
and there's no excuse,
so just suck up and be nice.”
God, I wish it was the way you describe it. Unfortunately, Mr. Incredible is the exception, not the rule. Most flunkies really don't care about the person in front of them - at least not enough to risk their job (which Mr. Incredible was doing every time he helped someone).
Additionally, it has been my experience that American cops are not shy about showing overwhelming force. Nor are they shy about pushing the boundaries of what they can do to you, what they can cite or arrest you for. Nor do they have any compunction about tricking you into giving them more access or more information than they have a right to.
We live in a society which has somehow learned to ascribe to the philosophy that you should use your power to it's full extent. Discretion is a sucker's game. The MO is: show up to the scene with overwhelming force, and if anyone gives you an excuse, arrest them. Cite them. Take their stuff. Cost them time and money. Punish them. Or, for a federal prosecutor: ignore common sense and threaten a non-violent person with decades in federal prison to get your desired plea-deal. There is no prize for discretion, only convictions.
They consider their weapons and their other privileges a means to "intimidate and show power". And with this approach, no wonder when they get a chance, they do show power.
I think you are both right. They are humans, who obviously come with all kinda of attitudes. Now it's probably slightly worse because of a position of specific power.
I've met cops that didn't really care, I met some that were super friendly and a few not so friendlies, one couple arrived at a party because of a noise complaint right at midnight when a lot of people were cheering happy birthday. Tried as I could (I was talking to them as their English and the Americans German both weren't great), they didn't understand that yes, that's louder than the rest of the party was before and after and were just assholish all around.
At the resident registration office I had case workers that tried to made me feel bad for everything and just wanted to exercise power as well as those that helped me avoid fees I would have otherwise had to pay.
The worst person was the doctor at the conscription office but as that was my only contact with a military person ever, it's not much of a sample size ;)
So in closing again: they are just humans. And just like humans they often can be manipulated into helping you.
Being nice to a beaurocrat is stupid. Appear to be nice or even charming is one thing but always be willing to throw them under the bus once you are done with them.
And never make excuses for them online in a hackers forum.
It takes someone very naive to be rude to a cop or other government official, knowing how miserable they can make your life with very little effort.
It takes someone even more naive to genuinely care about someone who would be willing to use frivolously the power to make your life miserable.
There are "good" cops and government officials, but they are the minority. When you encounter a random one, you don't know which kind they are, and by the time you find out it's too late.
Pretending to be nice, in this context, doesn't seem shitty to me, it seems like the ONLY course of action a reasonable person can take. And thus it's my MO when dealing with cops or other government employees.
I don't think Cushman is saying pretending to be nice is "shitty".
> Being nice to a beaurocrat is stupid. Appear to be nice or even charming is one thing but always be willing to throw them under the bus once you are done with them.
I think he is saying it is shitty to pretend to be nice and then be willing to thrown them under the bus when you are done with them....
Why not actually be nice? What is stupid about being nice to a bureaucrat? It's not as if a bureaucrat is not a person, and people respond to kindness. Pretending to be nice to someone and then being "willing to throw them under the bus when you're are done with them", sounds pretty sociopathic to me. And I don't know about you but I find sociopathic tendencies pretty shitty....
> someone who wants nothing more than an excuse to hurt you, and who has no compunction about doing so
Maybe a few government employees are like that, but most are just regular people who are trying to get through a day of work like anyone else. They are perfectly willing to be nice to people who are nice to them.
I know people who work for the government, so I get to hear about the flip side of what you are saying. Some folks come into any government office with a preconceived notion something like, "This stupid government drone is just waiting to fuck me over." This frame of mind does not typically produce a warm and friendly affect.
It's a subtly but critically different idea: unless you're nice to people, they will be distinctly not nice to you. This is a unfortunate fact in general: even if somebody is not particularly nice to you, you should still be nice in return. However, it is only a real problem if the distinctly not-nice person is in a position of power as in this example.
Unless they hold power over you, don't be nice to anybody who isn't nice to you. Iterated prisoners dilemma: if you aren't willing to defect, they will every time.
If they hold power over you, smile until you stab them in the back.
You're missing the critical aspect of these interactions: one of the persons is an agent of the state acting under the color of law. The victim is not being nice out of courtesy. They are being nice to avoid having force against them escalated. Were it a private citizen offering the same deal - avoidance of coercive force in exchange for pleasantries we'd call it extortion.
Not that cynical. It's more than just "being nice to people." You could end up annoying someone in such a position just by being nice, but asking too many questions. Maybe they had a bad day, and you're smiling too much.
>> The other solution is to be really, really nice. To be incredibly accommodating. To engender a spirit of goodwill, joviality and kindness such that the flunky wants to help you.
That is not a practical solution. It sounds almost like a bribe. I'm not saying that you should be rude to anybody, but you shouldn't have to kiss somebody's ass just so that they do their jobs. Is a slippery slope. Now you are kissing their asses, latter that will not be enough and the demands for bribes will be the next logical step. No, the line has to be drawn here.
Politeness is fine, more than that and you are kissing their asses.
So I was pulled over while driving a few months ago.
I was trying to keep up with a friend, I got behind and I made a really stupid, illegal and probably dangerous maneuver in trying to keep up. Happened to be a cop at that intersection who pulled me over.
Officer comes to the car, and asks about what I just did. I pretty much immediately admit to doing it, and tell him that it was a terrible lapse of judgement on my part. He takes me license/reg back and runs it, then comes back and just asks me how long I've been driving. I told him about 5 hours or so, and he says he meant how many years. I tell him 15 or so.
He comments that he can't find any tickets or things on my record, and I tell him I've never had one. He just tells me to not do it again and to move on. I apologized again and told him I appreciated him keeping an eye out for the public safety.
Now I know that you're supposed to be super defensive, and next to an asshole to the cop in citing all your rights and admitting to nothing. But really, I messed up. It was better for me to admit what I did and accept responsibility.
So... this might be the kissing up that the prior post is talking about. Did I technically 'have' to do it? No. But I'm pretty sure if I had done otherwise, I would have left with a ticket.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, because you're absolutely right. In fact, the parent's anecdote is just that: an anecdote. The reality of the matter however is that you should never, ever admit wrong-doing under any circumstances. Use the minimum amount of words for basic communication with the cop, be polite, and then deal with whatever ticket is written (either pay it or contest it in court).
I've seen the video, and know that overall its good advice.
I think though, depending on various factors, that playing 'nice' can definitely get you further than stonewalling the cop. It all depends what you (potentially) did, who you are (being a white, upper middle class male doesn't hurt), and what you think the worse-case scenario will be.
I definitely considered this. I was driving through the border of a traditionally black neighborhood and college campus. I'm a white male, and it was some frat party weekend on the campus and I got the sense he was looking to nail drunk students.
If I wasn't white, I think its highly possible things would have turned out differently.
Every encounter I've had with police so far (a few traffic stops, being caught dumpster diving, being in a few parks in Boston after midnight), I've found it just to be better to be nice. I've walked away from every situation so far with zero tickets, arrests, handcuffings, etc...
So? If you _know_ you've done something wrong, and you get caught, then you should own up and accept the consequences.
My experience is people have more respect for people who will admit to a mistake/wrong-doing than for someone who will try to weasel their way out of trouble.
If you did something wrong, and know it, I think it's laudable to own up to it and be nice about it. If you get a free pass, great, if not, well, you deserve it.
The OP was trying to do something right, and got punished for it.
>you shouldn't have to kiss somebody's ass just so that they do their jobs.
You don't. The person in this story did her job. He wouldn't sign the papers so she seized the boat. She also doesn't have the authority to change the papers. Her job is, if something goes sideways, impound everything and let the other parties sort it out.
The author of the article wanted a small and very reasonable exception made for his case. Everyone would agree that the change from CAD to USD is small and inconsequential and in this case more accurate. But that's not how "the system" works, and so he's not asking them to do their job.
If you just want the public official you're dealing with to do their job, then all you have to do is refrain from being difficult. If you want small special favors, then be nice. It's that easy.
Yours is a minority viewpoint here, and I wish it got more explanation.
If the bureaucrat's only two options were a) let the guy have the boat, or b) take the boat so someone else can sort it out, then I'm definitely more sympathetic to the bureaucrat here.
From the point of view of the border, the item has already been released from Canada. They almost certainly can't just dump it back on the other side (they would have to refuse it entry to the US). They also can't give it to him w/o the proper paperwork (bureaucracy aside, that paperwork insures that the proper fees and taxes are administered). If he won't sign, the only thing they can do is hold the property. Eventually, they'll bill the owner for the cost of holding it or sell it at auction.
I don't know the code at all, but logic suggests this is the most likely scenario.
> Nestled deep within this fucked up situation is an asymmetry of information that gives the flunky incredible power over someone who is, in almost every other context, perceived to be better than they are (especially in this case involving a young rich kid with an expensive toy). Most human beings, when confronted with such an imbalance of power, are not going to be able to resist abusing their power.
This is self-congratulatory pop psychology claptrap. But it will probably sell well to a certain (shall we say Randian) subset of the HN readership.
> "If you can at least pretend that I'm a good person, just doing my job, then you won't have to suffer.
Yes, yes, isn't so unreasonable the way those "flunkies" expect to be treated like worthwhile human beings?
Why is it mistaken to expect to be treated nicely? When did it become ok to be an asshole to fellow citizens?
When I go to the convenience store to buy a donut, I am nice to the clerk behind the counter. When I go through customs, I am nice to the agent behind the counter. How are those mistakes?
Expecting that is absolutely fine. Feeling entitled to that is not. You don't get to fuck over other people's days when they fail to extend you a courtesy.
Well I mean, clearly they do get to do that, but that is a problem, not excusable behavior.
I treat clerks nicely because I am a decent person. I treat government officials in positions of power over me nicely because, aside from being a decent person, I understand the score.
Frankly I wish American culture were such that I could just give people $50s instead of putting on the song and dance. Either one is bribery, neither particularly morally superior to the other.
You think you understand the score, but to me it seems more like a persecution complex.
The irony is that in Arrington's situation the border agent tried to educate Mike that this was a rule that could be safely bent in the interest of expedience, but it was Mike himself who insisted on perfect procedure.
If you are dealing with the burrito vendor outside your office and keep it straight business ("super burrito, with steak"), perhaps because it has been a long day and you are tired as hell, there is no retribution. The quality of your burrito service is not compromised just because you failed to be his 5 minute friend that day. Why? Maybe the burrito vendor understands customer service, maybe because the burrito vendor understands that you are peers in an economic transaction, or maybe because the burrito vendor just doesn't have an ego problem. Who knows, who cares.
Fail to pretend to be a friend to that cop, DMV worker, or private security guard at the front desk of your buddies apartment? Good luck not getting hassle or at least artificially degraded service.
EMT or firefighter? Taxi driver? Doctors and nurses? Train ticket puncher? Just like the burrito vendor, no pressure to be their "friend".
Some jobs either attract people with a sense of entitlement, or cultivate a sense of entitlement in otherwise decent people. The root cause of this? Who the hell knows, but everyone who perceives it is not imagining things. If you haven't noticed it, then perhaps you need to tune in.
I've never been hassled by cops, DMV workers, or private security guards. In fact two years ago I screwed up car registration paperwork and a DMV worker was invaluable in helping me get it sorted out efficiently.
Am I somehow special? I doubt it. Maybe I don't have problems with government employees because I approach those situations with positive expectations and I try to be nice to people.
Maybe I do that because I actually know a few people in customer-facing government roles and they are no more entitled or abusive that anyone else I know.
I can tell you though that from their perspective, abuse is a frequent occurence--usually from folks who walk through the door with a sense of persecution. A lot of people view anyone behind a government desk as fair game, since, after all, everyone knows the government is out to get us.
I'm not saying it justifies rudeness, but I can see being quite thoroughly paranoid about signing a federal form that contains a known inaccuracy. The agent's opinion that the discrepancy was unimportant might not have been shared by her superiors.
If people can be subject to federal prosecution for signing a form prepared by government workers, those workers should consider it their job to make sure the contents of that form are absolutely accurate.
Umm, you break federal laws or regulations every day in the course of your normal life. I guarantee it.
You add in state and municipal codes and you probably are breaking the law right now as you read this and probably in multiple ways.
Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over for speeding? Especially given that the tests for which are written so that any commercial vehicle with any wear and tear at all will fail some aspect.
"Standing your ground" on principle is fine I guess if you have as large an ego as Arrington; I would rather focus on what is important and get sh*t done. I also really would advise taking anything he says when it comes to anything he has a vested interest in with a grain of salt. He has less than a stellar record on honesty when it comes to self-reporting.
Yes but it's a bit more damning if you SIGN YOUR NAME to something you know is false. It's easier for a judge or jury to find leniency in breaking a law you didn't know about than knowingly stating a falsehood to be true. It's much easier to twist the situation from "I signed it cause they said it was okay." (Where's your proof? This will turn into a he said she said situation) to a "He intentionally mislead the government in order to [something bad, cheat on taxes, get through customs unlawfully, etc.]"
you break federal laws or regulations every day in the course of your normal life.
Perhaps. But if that's true, I don't know which laws they are or how I'm breaking them.
Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over for speeding?
You have completely twisted what I said. First, I said if someone can be prosecuted for signing a form prepared by government workers. You left that critical condition out entirely. Secondly, and more broadly, I'm not talking about government workers demanding absolute accuracy of us -- I'm talking about them demanding absolute accuracy of themselves.
IANAL, obviously, but it does occur to me that once the customs worker encouraged Arrington to sign the form anyway, should he ever have been prosecuted for doing so -- which I agree seems unlikely -- he had, I would think, a valid entrapment defense. Of course, he probably had no proof that she said that, but being able to argue it might have been sufficient anyway. So I agree, he probably should have signed the form.
But I don't really care about that. Arrington is not collecting a salary paid by my tax dollars; he is simply a citizen attempting to protect himself. Whether he made the right choice or not here is for him to figure out. What I care about is the behavior of my government, which I pay for and which claims to be acting on authority vested in it by its citizens, of which I am one.
At the top of this thread is someone complaining about how "flunkies" love to use complex procedure to punish people.
But in this actual case, the agent seems to have done the opposite--try to help bend the process so Mike could get on with his life. Mike is the one who decided to, in his own words, "stand on principle."
As to how serious that particular bend is, I don't personally know. I would tend to assume that a trained federal agent might have a better handle on that than Mike Arrington, though.
Lying to a federal agent is a felony in the US. Had he signed the papers and gotten in trouble, do you actually think the agents would have admitted their wrongdoing to save him and risk their jobs?
A guy I know was in a similar situation when trying to enter Australia.
20+ years ago, when he was 18, he was arrested for the afternoon because of a student protest.
So now on the visa forms, when entering Australia on vacation, he was asked if he had ever been arrested.
He checked yes. The border control people in Australia denied him entry, and put him on the next plane back home.
When he told the border guy the full situation, the border guy said, "Next time, just check NO."
Then, this interesting quote: "You give us the papers we want. We give you the papers you want."
Meaning: make the papers (visa forms) look the way we want them to look, and we'll give you the papers (tourist visa) you want.
I remember that rule of thumb when crossing borders, or filling out paperwork to open a new bank account in a foreign country. Luckily, I've never had to lie, but it sure helps to make the forms look the way they want them to look, instead of treating them as an opportunity to express your individual quirks.
99.99% of all paperwork is done to cover somebody's ass in case something goes wrong. So if the guy is fine, nobody cares. If the guy makes trouble in Australia, border control's ass is covered - they asked about if he's a criminal, and he lied, so they could do nothing, so no blame on them. If there were no such question, eventually somebody would say "oh, if only border control would ask the right questions, we could avoid that - so let's assign blame to them". To prevent that, they have a cover. If you tell the truth, and the truth requires them taking additional risk, they will dispose of this risk as quickly and efficiently as they can - i.e. in that case, by denying entry. This way, their ass stays covered.
But the problem with all these things is that if the guy had lied on the form and then got in any kind of trouble, suddenly it becomes a huge issue that he lied on the form. It makes the bureaucrats life easier at the expense of the rights of the people involved.
This highlights a problem which isn't unique to Australia. For example, if a potential employer (or whoever) asks you if you've ever been arrested and your record has been expunged or you've been pardoned, you are expected to lie and say "no". That is how the system works.
It sucks, but learning how to deal with these sorts of things is part of the price one has to pay when they have a run-in with the law. I'm not sure it's analogous to the boat thing. The agent really was wrong to insist on processing the boat with the incorrect information.
I'm wondering, isn't asking for your criminal history during job interviews the same as discriminating based on age or race? I mean, even if you were convicted, you've paid the price by doing your time and after that you should have equal opportunities at a job like anyone else, right?
Maybe I'm just too idealistic but I never understood why we hardly give these people a second chance. And then people wonder why recidivism rates are so high.
In the US, the law says that employers ARE allowed to discriminate. They can, for instance, only hire left-handed people. Or refuse to hire people because of their eye color. Or because of their criminal background.
The exception is a small number of specific traits on which one is NOT permitted to discriminate. Race is one. You MAY discriminate on the basis of age, as long as you're giving a bad deal to a young person... it is illegal to discriminate negatively against someone for being old. There are a few other protected classes (pregnancy, etc), and some states add extra protections above-and-beyond the federal law (in some states it's illegal to fire people for being gay... but in others that is perfectly legal).
The one place it gets a bit odd is when they claim that your criteria for discrimination is just a "cover" or has the "same effect" as discriminating on the basis of a protected class. For instance, refusing to hire people because they live in a certain neighborhood is legal, but in court they would try to show that the neighborhood was predominately non-whites and so you were REALLY discriminating on the basis of race.
The good news is that ALMOST ALL employers go well above and beyond what the law requires. Both to protect themselves from ambiguous cases AND because they are basically decent human beings, they go out of their way not to discriminate on anything other than basic ability to perform the job. But even so, some areas like criminal background get considered.
If you've got nothing on your record, you'll probably be pereived as a good person. If you have any negative history at all, suddenly you become a fundamentally bad person who's just being good right now. At least, you've proven that you are "capable" of doing something "wrong", even if it was just being at school on the day of a protest.
What nobody wants to admit is that, in the right circumstances, most people are "capable" of anything.
If I'm hiring an accountant I probably want to know if they have a history of dishonesty charges. You are free to give such a person a second chance, I'm less keen. I probably don't care if they had some drug charge 20 years ago though.
Employers can be held legally responsible for the actions of their employees in certain circumstances, and hiring a ex-felon (when you knew, or could have known) doesn't look good to a jury.
I think this sucks. Since graduation I've never been asked if I'm a felon or been arrested, so it wouldn't matter to me, but for lots of the working class, "no felons" is a common screening technique for employers, and it makes it really hard for people who have done their time to society to re-integrate.
If the employer wants that information, they can stump for a police background check. My private life is my private life, and there's no way that a checkbox on a form photocopied by the hundreds is going to give a balanced view of any arrest of mine.
I have never been arrested, but if the employer actually needs that level of employee security - perhaps handling client money? - then it's the employer's duty to protect themselves with more than a volunteered checkbox.
That's not a lie. The actual meaning of the question question is if you have officially ever been arrested. And the answer is no, that arrest is no longer official.
Getting the payment denomination wrong is an actual falsity. Though it would have been easy to make a note when signing.
> That's not a lie. The actual meaning of the question question is if you have officially ever been arrested. And the answer is no, that arrest is no longer official.
That's completely incorrect. An "official" arrest (what is its opposite? I wouldn't want to experience an unofficial arrest) doesn't stop being "official," although the record of it might be deleted or sealed. Nobody can make an arrest retroactively not happen, they can just remove the record of it.
But this brings up something important, and it might be the cause of your confusion. An arrest is just an arrest. It can happen to anyone, and importantly, it can happen to a person who is innocent both in reality and in the eyes of the law. Arrest records don't really mean what a lot of people think they mean: it's the courts, not the police, who decide guilt and innocence.
This is why asking people about arrests, or using arrest information for pretty much any purpose except police investigation, is fundamentally flawed.
It's true that arrest information is useless, I was thinking more about harsher things being expunged.
And they do stop being official, in a sense. They are no longer tied to you as a current person, they become a burden of the past you, ending at the point of expunging.
Being arrested is way different from having been convicted of a crime, but it seems that border agents across the world don't want this pointed out. I've been asked a similar question often enough at the US-Canadian border("Have you ever been in front of a judge?").
Unfortunately, you do have to treat these encounters like you would police questioning. Don't volunteer information, and give very simple (yes/no) answers if you really need to answer.
Or, just go with the flow. I remember a time I was leaving Boca Raton Florida, heading for Front Royal Virginia (field engineering work). I had a partial bottle of wine in my carry on (way before 9-11) and as I carefully set the bag on the conveyor for the x-ray device, I asked the security attendant if it was okay to have a partial bottle in the bag.
She said "What?" in a heavy accent, so I asked again, she said "What?" again, and by this time my bag was at the bottom of the exit ramp of the conveyor.
I said "Never mind, have a nice day" picked up my bag and made my flight.
They check your bags and feet for dried dirt, maybe have you stand in a tray with chemicals to destroy anything nasty on the bottom of your shoes, and check your country of origin against a list to see just how bad it could potentially be.
US Customs generally speaking aren't that bad. It is US immigration which are authoritarian nutjobs (and the TSA).
US Customs seem to be mostly interested in FACTS, immigration and the TSA seem to be mostly interested in if they like you as a person and if you treat them well.
With food things are unpredictable. I am in the habit of declaring everything up front (and occasionally I do find out later I missed something) but it's rare that I have stuff confiscated and when I do it is a surprise to me. It isn't so rare that they look through and itemize what food I am bringing with me.
The last time I had stuff confiscated it was during the bird flu scare and it was dry instant noodles with some sort of dry chicken flavoring in it. I guess chicken = bird flu......
What a bitter man you are. So my grudge and distress you're on the lookout for karma justice. Still got no balls to say you're sorry and move on. Truly, one of the biggest egos I have met.
The hate is strong in this one. Act like an adult and rant to Ed in private. I'm sure you feel aggravated by his comment but your anger serves no purpose in a public forum. If you feel the comment is inappropriate then simply downvote it and move on. Nothing is ever solved by offensively arguing in public.
Stealing someone's boat is not karma for writing an article pointing out how much of a hypocrite you are. The first is a crime, the second is protected speech.
Plus you wouldn't be so mad if you didn't realize he was right.
9/11 seems to have given a big swathe of people in the US the ability to do outrageous things more or less at will. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be one of its most damaging consequences.
This doesn't make too much sense. DHS isn't one thing; it's many things glommed into one, including INS, CBP, FPS, TSA, APHIS, FEMA, the strategic medical stockpile, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service, among others.
I don't like the TSA any more than you do, but can we hold on to the Coast Guard?
The Coast Guard was placed there for financial gerrymandering. The idea that they are part of DHS is a horrible joke.
Same with most of what you mentioned. Bush/Obama has shoved everything in there to create a psuedo military branch so it can't be declined in the future. Disgusting actions, honestly.
Perhaps my understanding of the USCG is underinformed then, I was under the impression that they were moved from the command of the Marines into DHS years ago. Are they simply an independent police organization then?
Remember: DHS exists because after 9/11, politicians got a bug up their ass about how many different federal agencies there were with missions that involved interior security, and decided there should be one cabinet-level authority managing all of those functions. It was not a well-thought-out thing; it is literally a meatball of different security, law enforcement, safety, military, and even scientific agencies.
Which makes it an odd subject for directed contempt.
Not even close the USCG was under the Dept of Transportation not the Marines before being merged into DHS in 2002. Also, in time of war the Navy can annex the USCG.
Bush/Obama shoved everything in there because people it was a national outrage after 9/11 that we had different departments for these things. We got what we goddamned asked for. It's not Bush's fault, or Obama's fault, but your fault and my fault.
Because we live in a society where we've empowered the majority to make decisions like this. We reap the benefits when it turns out well, we should share the blame when it turns out poorly.
That seems like a non sequitur. There is a linguistic symmetry to your suggestion, but I don't think that is a good argument for agreeing with it. Basically, I don't see any practical value to feeling like it's my fault that a bunch of other people made a decision that affects me negatively, nor would I take credit for other people's decisions that affect me positively when I originally disagreed with them.
The Coast Guard is part of DHS, not the TSA. The point is that DHS is a big organization with many parts that have long-existing structure and control systems. It's not just the yahoos looking at full body scans at airports.
That was just a mistype from looking at previous post, I'm halfway through a bottle of whiskey here after being snowed in the house all day, so be lenient.
USCG's role in the drug war is IMO fairly unconscionable as well. It's horrible that they take what would otherwise be an essentially purely good and morally unquestionable agency (saving people's lives on the water, navigation, environmental protection, defense of the coast during wartime) and turn it into one of the leading edges on the war on freedom.
This is outrageous. Its police state behavior. "Confiscating" property should require documented probably cause and something like a warrant. What if the boat was your house? What if you were living in it with a family which my parents do? What then? One agent has the power and authority to do that? Ever read the comic strip or seen the movie Judge Dread?
It isn't about public safety but about politics. Who wants to be the presiding politician when something does hit the fan right after that government security program was shelved? The politician who doesn't want to get re-elected.
No, DHS did not "steal" your boat. They confiscated it and you'll get it back by following some lengthy and convoluted appeal process.
But I seriously don't understand Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and why they have to be such utter dickheads on the Canadian border. Their Canadian counterparts (CBSA) are just as effective and efficient and somehow manage to be generally sane and rational.
They absolutely did "steal" his boat, for some definition of the word "steal."
The DHS agent will not be charged with theft or larceny. But he was in lawful possession of a boat, someone with a gun ordered him off the boat, and he is no longer in possession of a boat.
You raise an interesting point, by the way. America is partly founded on the idea that laws do not create rights, but instead recognize natural rights. If this story is accurate and the DHS agent did not recognize his natural rights, that is an offense. But if the law did not recognize his natural rights, that is an even greater offense.
I'm not sure - I think this is 'need a lawyer' territory.
But I would put forth the point that it's possible for an item to not be formally owned by anyone. Control is a kind of ownership, but it's not necessarily lawful ownership, otherwise a thief would lawfully own your car once he's driven off in it.
Perhaps it might be that he lawfully owns it, but can't lawfully control it until he gets the customs sign-off? But if he lawfully owned it while it's impounded, would that not mean he would have to pay licensing/registration for it while it sat there?
I frequently travel across the border in both directions between BC & Washington. To be honest I believe that your experience often comes down to the particular agent you have to deal with in your crossing & how they feel that day. I've had US CBP agents question me at length for a simple crossing ("Are you sure you have never been arrested? Really sure? ") and Canadian CBSA agents pat me down and search every square inch of my car.
Crossing the border is a bit easier with a Nexus card, but again your experience really depends upon the agent you come upon any given day.
Some people just shouldn't be working in positions of 'authority'.
When CBSA searched your car were they doing it as a power trip or were they doing it for some unexplained reason? The latter is just part of the job. I travel quite often to the states and find that the CBSA agents are almost uniformly polite and often friendly. Going the other way, I find CBP agents are generally surly and aggressive.
If you refuse to sign a form because it has an error on it, it's your problem. If that form is what enables you to take custody of a boat, then you don't get to take custody of the boat. On the other hand, if the form that you signed has handwritten errata on it near the signature, and you weren't sneaky about it, then it's the bureacrats' problem instead of yours.
I'm not sure why he didn't just amend the form himself and initial the change. If the customs official didn't like that, well, he ends up in the same place as 'not signing'. If the customs official didn't care, he gets what he wants.
and you weren't sneaky about it, then it's the bureacrats' problem instead of yours.
Actually it's your problem. They took his boat, ruined his week and it might cost him tens of thousands in lawyer fees. Other can miss flights to important meeting, bury their mom etc etc. Either way, you lose.
Do you think the agent will be punished? I doubt it, blue wall of silence, union protection and all.
I think you misunderstand. He's saying this could have possibly been avoided by manually crossing out amount and correcting it, initialing it and then signing the page. Now you haven't lied and the it's up to someone else to fix it officially.
One thing that I have learned is that every encounter with law enforcement (and that includes customs) is governed by power relationships.
One simple example: If I am pulled over for speeding, I find I am far less likely to get a ticket if I put myself in control over the interaction. I make sure I greet the officer first and ask what I can do to help. This puts me in a position of being outwardly subservient but the officer is no longer in control over the conversation. Moreover, I am doing so in a way which is emphasizing that I am not a threat and so the officer has few options to escalate a power struggle.
Here, this is all about power. "Sign this form because I have the power to make your life miserable if you don't." We believe in honesty and rule of law, but when it comes down to it, at least the latter is nothing more than a convenient fiction and efforts to make it a reality end up making it less of one.
I am here in Indonesia at the moment and the big breakthrough for me was that as corrupt as everything is over here, it functions more or less the same way it does in the US, with just surface differences.
You're not in control when you are pulled over. But its in the police officers interest to let you believe you are, as you will act in a predictable manner.
Control is relative though and nuanced. The question is one of initiative and nuance and a matter of trying to establish things up front. The officer can be legally in control, and in control of some aspects (i.e. you are not free to go) but still not in control over where the social interactions/conversation leads.
To give you an idea, I once got a warning (or maybe it was a greatly reduced speeding ticket, I don't recall) and found out the next day from someone who apparently knew the officer who pulled me over that I was suspected of having drugs in my car (which was a total misunderstanding, he saw some things he didn't recognized assumed they must be bongs or something and extrapolated from there). Go figure....
The boat in question[1] would appear to be a Coastal Craft 400 IPS[2]. Roughly, $1M CAD (roughly, $1M USD at today's rate). I don't have that kind of money lying around for anything, much less a boat, but I suppose I'd be a little pissed myself if all of it was in the hands of someone else due to red tape.
The form is being treated as a contract, and like all contracts I am requested to sign, I would line through and correct them as needed, then sign. If the other party will not allow the amendments, then we go to the next step, but in the mean time, the contract was made factually correct.
I did this with my girlfriend (now wife) on our first rental contract and was amused by her shock at my changing the "official" forms.
Likewise, forms with blanks that in no way allow for the information to be printed into the space given get writing that extends across whatever needed to supply the correct answers. Maybe the form will eventually be updated to be a little more accommodating, maybe not.
No, not shocked. I think we all tend to live in buffer zones at times where we may not be paying attention. I am sorry to say that it is not uncommon for me to realize that I have been driving down the road and not really paying attention to road conditions.
I guess I just choose to keep myself on task when faced with a contract much more often than not, and consciously make the decision to read it or not read it each time. Most of the time I will read it, and make sure it is factually correct.
I freely admit I do occasionally choose to forgo reading a contract if other factors are weighing heavier. Like the impatient person behind me in line that seems to want to clean the floor with me because they are in a much bigger hurry :)
Something vaguely similar happened to me once while registering a new scooter. Because it was shipped to me directly, it had less than a mile on the odometer. (Less than half a km even, if memory serves.)
Under penalty of perjury, I had to declare the odometer to the nearest mile, but the system wouldn't accept zero for the mileage.
After 40 minutes of trying to sort it out with a supervisor, I muttered something about forgetting the km-to-miles conversion, amended the mileage to one, and was on my way.
If this story went down exactly as Mike suggests the agent will lose her job or at least her federal law enforcement qualification.
On the other hand, Mike is pleading his case in the court of public opinion, and his reputation is likely going to get him a lot of popular support either warranted or unwarranted.
My guess is that Mike gets his boat back and no one loses their job. He was probably rude and she was probably unreasonable. Nothing much will happen because of either situation.
I remember the old days, when employee missteps would cause calls for a repremand or retraining. These days it seems that everyone thinks that the slightest misstep should have you fired.
What? It's his word against hers and she's probably going to lie. Even if she doesn't lie this is not a firing offence because it's unliklely to piss off her boss in any way that makes them angry at her, rather than at some rich guy with a lawyer.
That's a big if. I have a feeling her side of the story is much different. Probably including lots of blustering by him about how important he is and that he's a lawyer and how she's an idiot and the government is ridiculous.
I'd bet a lot that he's paying an asshole tax and if he had kept his cool, he'd have his boat.
I am personally fairly pleased his boat was taken, he's the one that inflicted TechCrunch on the public. But logically, I'm displeased that the government is doing things in this way.
It appears that agent solicited, and advised, you (the story's author) to falsify information. I don't know what weight that would carry with respect to this form, but were you to have initiated such falsification, I imagine it might or would have been construed to be some level of criminal activity.
So... did this agent solicit, advise you to commit a crime? If so, will this agent face repercussions for her actions?
Perhaps it's "not serious". Except that you sought to correct the information, to make the situation fully compliant, and she appears to have used her position to punish you for this.
I would also question why she was so eager. Are their incentives for agents, and perhaps financial incentives for the agency(s) involved, to pursue such seizures?
I guess, were I in your shoes, I'd be hesitant to further buck the might and potential maliciousness of the U.S. government. However, from my perspective, I would very much like a public airing and answers to these questions.
The biggest, and in my opinion, terrifying problem with bureaucracies is the lack of humanity; when humans stop treating each other like humans and use common sense, yet I feel like both parties in this story lacked humanity. Yes, the DHS employee went ahead and followed procedure even though it was going to seriously inconvenience Arrington, and that sucks. But Arrington's pedantry also inconvenienced the employee since it no doubt would have let to a long string of seldom used contingencies, much like making a fast food employee make you a special request. There was a moment where both parties could have just looked at the system for what it was - imperfect and inhuman - and knowingly nodded in agreement at the path of least resistance; in this case, the path of least resistance was Arrington signing the damn form and getting on with his day.
Sure, technically he saw the error and his signing the form would mean he was somehow not acknowledging it. But what are the consequences really going to be? I mean, what are the chances some other bureaucrat up the chain o' command would notice the mistake and contact Arrington on trumped up charges of lying on a routine customs form. Slim to nil. But it's the "principle" Arrington is worried about in this case. Well, there's principled, and there's downright ridiculous. I doubt Arrington reads every TOS on every website he's ever signed up for, and I doubt very much he would truly lose sleep at night knowing he signed that form.
Arrington tried to out bureaucrat a bureaucrat and go burned. Lessoned learned, I suppose.
They didn't stole the boat, they seized it. Not wanting to sign an erroneous legal document is respectable, calling the DHS stealers is clearly not. Don't be surprize if they won't cooperate to solve the matter ASAP.
Are you a repo person and my car loan invalidated? Did I steal my car from someone else? Was a car matching my car's description involved in a crime nearby that a judge ordered a warrant for a black ford F150 with a "geeks rule" bumper sticker? Are you a Customs/Border Patrol Agent and I do not have the proper paper work on the car I'm attempting to drive in? Are you a police officer and I do not have a driver's license on I-75? If any of the above, lawful seizure by government authorities, not theft.
DHS behaved in a morally indefensible manner. I don't care if Arrington is telling a one-sided story and was actually a total asshole: DHS works for the American public and my tax dollars pay for the pain of putting up with jerks for the public good.
Hence, they stole his boat. If the President were to show up at my parents' doorstep without a warrant or probable cause and shoot my little sister because he was having a bad day, would you call it a lawful execution? No, it's murder.
That's an extreme exaggeration to prove my point. But that's where your logic ends up. Having a badge that reads "Government Agent" does not mean all your actions are moral or legal.
They confiscated his boat because the papers weren't in correct order--and the official, according to Arrington's story, was willing enough to let it go if he wouldn't be an officious prick about it.
He will get his boat back once the paperwork is completed correctly. Shocking, I know, but he will.
Another source says, "Believe me, my young friend, there is NOTHING--absolute nothing--half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats..."
I believe this to be true at least for me, and I've also found that no other machine exists that can gather a family or friends together with the same reliable prospect for good times. A quality boat can last decades, but yes they are never any sort of good investment; they are an up-front and recurring cost. It just depends if it's your thing or not.
“What struck me the most about the situation is how excited she got about seizing the boat. Like she was just itching for something like this to happen. This was a very happy day for her.”
Meanwhile, somewhere else out there in the blogosphere, someone is telling a story about some arrogant rich jerk who pitched a fit when asked to sign a form to bring his fancy new boat across the border.
Okay all, the rest of the story(I was there). 1. The amount on both invoice and CBP form were in U.S dollars correctly completed on the form. 2. Just because someone has $$$ and posts something first on the web, doesn't make them true. 3. The officer in question did not act gleefully, in fact SHE called back to the office and vessel manufacturer several times to verify the stated value. 4. The officer in question vilified by this rich individual now has to endure all the grief posted here and elsewhere by Mr rich guy and explain why she followed the LEGAL document value and wouldn't cow to his brow beating. 5. Coastal Craft ended up paying for a broker to perform what should have been a personal importation and guess what The value on that entry was EXACTLY the same as on the CBP presented form. 6. Mr. Rich guy will probably post everywhere now that HE was right due to the fact that he has his boat and did not sign anything, but the fact is that the company took the high moral ground and due to ALL the false posting by Arrington, they paid for the paperwork to be processed. 7. We are all at the mercy of individuals who feel (right or wrong) that they can put out whatever they feel and get hundreds of all of you all worked up about the big bad government, fact is she is/was correct and all of us had to jump thru hoops due to arrington's posts and written falsehoods. 8. I am proud to work with this office/officer and all of you should be ashamed for vilifying her/DHS without knowing the facts. 9. Most working folks have bosses and we are no exception sadly we had to answer many questions for correctly performing our sworn duties due to all the bad press put out by someone who feels entitled or above the public servant. Shame on you.
We don't need to eliminate government, of course. Someone still has to throw parties for foreign dignitaries and say stupid shit on TV. We do need to trim it down to the bone and get it out of our daily lives. You just had a run-in with the "Gestapo" society we are building-up to. Thugs with badges and guns. Great stuff. That's exactly what I want the future to be in for my kids. Right.
I mean, think about it for a moment. You are buying a boat from Canada. Why should government be involved in any way whatsoever? Are you really free? You can't even go fishing to feed your family without asking for permission from the government in the form of a fishing license. Think about THAT for a moment. Our ancestors were able to fish and hunt to feed themselves, their families and communities as needed. Today, if you are caught fishing without a license ANYWHERE, you can be arrested and fined. I've seen guys with guns board group fishing boats here in California to check for fishing licenses. Imagine that image in my kid's mind: Fishing with Dad and guys with uniforms and guns interrupt the experience to ask for papers. Pretty cool setup we have, ey?
Reminds me of a story from when I was a child. We were traveling in Argentina. My Dad got pulled over by a cop at this checkpoint between Ezeiza (International Airport) and Buenos Aires. The cop asked for papers and took his time checking them out. Another cop came out of the booth. He, menacingly, looked inside the car were my Mom, Sister and I were. The first cop asked my Dad to get out of the car. They walked around the car looking for problems. The car was perfect. Then he said something like "We need to go in the office for you to pay your fine". I'm sure my Dad though "WTF, over?". He, politely, asked: "What's the problem officer". Without blinking the copy replied: "You were driving with one hand".
They went inside and my Dad, effectively, had to bribe them. It was a first class shake-down.
Here's what's funny: This was a Fiat 128 with a manual transmission. And, it would be my guess that the vast majority of cars in Argentina at the time had manual transmissions. There was no law about having to have both hands on the wheel at the same time, but, even if that law existed, you'd have to violate it for a fraction of a second every time you shift the transmission.
Next time you vote, think about who you are voting for and what they really stand for. Think beyond you and do the generations to come a favor by reducing government to the most essential functions we need and nothing more.
The problem isn't some vague platitude about how there is "too much government". This wasn't caused by Social Security or other defined benefit programs (which make up most of "government"), or by the Veterans Administration, or by the Postal Service, or by FDA.
It was caused by one specific agency, created by W, which should never have been created, is duplicative by its very nature, and which has run amok. Homeland Security.
And no, this isn't evidence that we are heading for a Gestapo society. No. The Gestapo was highly organized, disciplined, and effective. Homeland Security, by contrast, is a bunch of minimum-wage flunkies, unable to get a job anywhere else because of malfeasance, complete lack of job skills, illiteracy, or a combination of these, which fails to accomplish anything of note whatsoever.
Continuing the pablum, you feed us a line about how fishing licenses are evil. I'm sorry, but we've had dozens of large world fisheries be over-fished to extinction. Mark me down in the columns as being in favor of responsible management of wildlife; this is another example of an area in which we need government.
Off-topic comparisons to Argentina, similiarly, do not really convince one that the entire US government is inherently bad. I know libertarians seek any and all excuses to drone on about this, but spare us.
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with conservation and responsible fishing or hunting. That has nothing whatsoever to do with me not being able to fish without a license. I should be able to fish any time I want without having to have a license as a prerequisite.
Now, we can debate ideas on how to prevent over-fishing and over-hunting. And that's OK. I am all for that. I won't put forth any proposals here because it is a complex subject. Licenses don't stop over-fishing. I've seen people take fish species, sizes and quantities that they are not supposed to.
See, here's the difference. I firmly believe that people --outside of extreme circumstances-- are good, not evil. For me at least, published guidance on such things as what species, sized and quantities to take would be enough. I don't need a law and a guy with a uniform and a gun to make me abide by reasonably justified social guidelines. Maybe some people do. I think most don't. A license, a background check or a permit and a set of laws will never prevent bad actors to, well, act badly.
I am using this idea of fishing licenses as an example of how much control government has over you. I live near a lake. I also live in earthquake country. Let's say we have an earthquake that takes down our infrastructure for a few weeks. If I need to walk over to the lake and fish in order to feed my family for a couple of weeks I should not need a government permit to do so. It is a fundamental right as a human animal on this planet to be able to feed yourself and yours. What's more basic than that? We have taken it to the level where you could be arrested for providing for your family. Not gonna happen? It's up to the thug with the gun isn't it. And, by the way, you are driving with one hand.
What? Politicians and officials don't twist things their way in the US like in places like South America?
Fish are a community resource and you should not get to take someone else's share of them, especially not to the point of destroying the population.
If you get in a situation where nobody can buy food, nobody is going to be enforcing the no-fishing law. It's a general rule. Courts exist for a reason.
If someone is going to lie about the fish they take then they didn't need to bother buying a license in the first place.
How is removing the ability to punish bad actors is going to improve anything?
DHS is a problem but it is not the problem. It's a symptom of the problem of excessive government control over our lives. For the most part the DHS is just an amalgam of other agencies anyway, and those would still exist even if the DHS did not.
Excessive government control is not exactly the same as big government. IOW, you can be against too much control (i.e. massive spying on innocent citizens) and still want public healthcare and so on.
In theory, sure, in practice I don't think it's ever worked out that way. Can you give examples of countries with sizable government expenditures (e.g. 40% GDP or more) that do not also feature onerous regulation and extensive government interference over many aspects of daily life?
I can't give examples without that expenditures either. To be honest, I don't know which countries are on either side of that boundary, but countries that are usually put in the big state bag, like scandinavian ones, are not specially known for much state interference.
BTW, I would only consider first world democracies. Others' problems are arguably caused by different, more obvious, factors.
> And no, this isn't evidence that we are heading for a Gestapo society. No. The Gestapo was highly organized, disciplined, and effective. Homeland Security, by contrast, is a bunch of minimum-wage flunkies, unable to get a job anywhere else because of malfeasance, complete lack of job skills, illiteracy, or a combination of these, which fails to accomplish anything of note whatsoever.
What about the NSA/CIA who have managed to wholesale wiretap everyone domestically without hesitation or meaningful resistance?
You're full of shit when you suggest that the problem is with a single, disorganized agency.
I did not intend to suggest that other parts of the defense apparatus might not also be doing bad things; I was talking only about this particular incident.
I do, however, think that if we just stripped away all of the parts of DHS that were a reaction to 9/11, that would solve at least some of our problems.
If that's the case maybe he can become visibly active in political circles and demand that the public be educated as to what is being done to our country.
He can now, but nothing will change if people become interested in the problems caused by the DHS and politically active only after they've had a bad experience themselves.
People are being harrassed and fondled by the DHS every day apparently. One seized boat isn't going to cause a revolution ...
This is what happens when an employee KNOWS he/she can't be fired. The USA needs to seriously look at how they handle government employees. They get away with too much bs because it's hard for them to get fired.
This reminds me of when I was on holiday once, riding a motorbike around Indonesia. The traffic police there are sometimes stationed at busy intersections and are known to pick on tourists for any minor infringement.
He told me I left without waiting for the green light. Nevermind that everyone else on the road including cars did the same thing. I had two choices - pay a "fine" (i.e. bribe), or have my motorbike seized on the spot.
It felt wrong but I paid the fine. After I paid the guy was apologetic and insisted on shaking my hand.
"So now I have to hire a lawyer to try to figure all this out."
forgive my ignorance, but isn't Arrington a lawyer?. Question - Why does a lawyer need to hire another lawyer to represent him? Although, there are several branches of law specialization, Arrington could take it on himself to file the case against DHS? no?
"I live a fairly simple life and that didn’t change much after I sold TechCrunch in 2010" - yeah we all know.
I imagine that in this case there is also a benefit of distancing himself from the process of finding a legal resolution. If I hire a lawyer, I'm using the system as it's supposed to be used. If I represent myself (because I'm a lawyer), it's easy for the opposing side to misconstrue that as "contempt" of the process.
I’m sure they’ll say they haven’t seized the property yet… They’re just holding onto evidence. After Michael spends thousands on lawyers fees to get it back and prevent a default judgement and seizure he might get it back. This could turn into one of those ridiculous, United States vs Buddy (yes against the property not the person) cases where Michael will have more trouble defending the boat as only a third party witness if they allow his testimony… After all they’ll claim there is no known rightful owner and that it was abandoned at customs. Sick.
There's a pretty big difference between government seizure and stealing.
There is? Coulda fooled me. If an individual took your boat without your permission, it's stealing. How is it different just because a large group of individuals got together and did it? Just because they give themselves fancy names like "government" and "State" and "DHS" doesn't mean they actually have any authority to take your property.
I'm reminded of what Bastiat said in The Law[1]:
Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective force — which is only the organized combination of the individual forces — may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.
Personally I think he hit the nail right on the head.
Edit: OK, please don't upvote this. It doesn't deserve it, and it doesn't even really belong on HN at all. Neither does this article, really. I just realized that I let myself get drawn into a politics discussion by an inflammatory post, and I regret it. I mean, I stand by what I said, this just isn't really the place for it.
Not sure why it doesn't belong on HN; it's part and parcel of the same institutional culture that gave us the prosecution of Aaron Swartz. Check out the details on one of the most infamous civil forfeiture cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U..... This looks like either outright stealing or extra-judicial conviction of someone for the crime of "being a Mexican in possession of a large amount of cash." Either way, it looks pretty bad to me and shows how far the US legal system has moved away protecting property rights.
Not sure why it doesn't belong on HN; it's part and parcel of the same institutional culture that gave us the prosecution of Aaron Swartz.
Yeah, but it's still basically just politics. If this wasn't Arrington, it wouldn't be on here, most likely. But we all got suckered into discussing it because of the personality involved.
Aaron's case was a bit different, in that it involved more issues that are specifically of interest to hackers, AND some actual hacking (of a sort) was involved AND somebody died.
Either way, it looks pretty bad to me and shows how far the US legal system has moved away protecting property rights.
Absolutely, I agree. I just think this whole discussion is more suited for Reddit than HN. I wish I'd bit my tongue now. But, sadly, my comment above has gotten WAY more upvotes than a comment[1] I made around the same time, which I think is far more valuable and on topic (on a completely different thread). I find that discouraging.
So, the error wasn't amended and the form wasn't signed. Now you have to put up with the law. If the agent said they didn't care about the error, surely the correct course of action would be to correct it and sign it.
No- you are correct. The authorities should be pursued by the author until the paperwork is properly handled. The person who seized the boat should have to answer for trying to intimidate the author into signing false documents.
He's afraid to sign a form that has an error on it, because he's a moral person.
Meanwhile, she's giddy to steal his very expensive boat, because she knows no matter how much she fucks it up, it's not going to come back on her. Plus nice new boat to screw around with.
If this situation doesn't show how profoundly corrupt government is, then I don't know what will.
And all the evil like this-- it is visited not just on rich people like him, but on poor people, who have their assets stolen by government agents just as giddy as she is.
Yet most articles about it don't even have the guts to call it what it is: Theft.
It's pathetic what "americans" have become. If he's pulled out a gun and shot her dead, right then and there, he would have been in his rights, she was in the act of grand theft, and it would have been self defense.
But of course mentioning that truth is shocking-- shocking!-- to the enslaved sheep that americans have become. (Hell the idea that he should be allowed to have a gun even, seems to be alarming to the impotent cowards that inhabit this country.)
Nestled deep within this fucked up situation is an asymmetry of information that gives the flunky incredible power over someone who is, in almost every other context, perceived to be better than they are (especially in this case involving a young rich kid with an expensive toy). Most human beings, when confronted with such an imbalance of power, are not going to be able to resist abusing their power.
In practical terms, there are only two solutions to this problem that I know of. You can learn the procedure better than they do, and beat them on details. This can be effective, but it's boring and the payoff isn't very good. The other solution is to be really, really nice. To be incredibly accommodating. To engender a spirit of goodwill, joviality and kindness such that the flunky wants to help you. CHP officers call this the "personality test" - and they administer it every time you get pulled over, BTW.
It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery. It's like they are saying, "If you can at least pretend that I'm a good person, just doing my job, then you won't have to suffer. However, if you annoy me, disrespect me, I will make you suffer like you've never known. Remember: I can check a box that will consume months of your life and untold amounts of treasure."
God bless the USA.