The amendment applies at the border. The agents are acting unlawfully.

IAAL, this is not legal advice though.

Routine border searches are largely permitted under the 4th Amendment. This is settled law.

What constitutes a "routine border search" that would be permitted for the purposes of customs enforcement, however, is something that is hotly debated, and that the courts have clarified in recent decisions such as US v. Cotterman and US v. Koluz does not include "forensic searches" without the standard Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion criterion being met.

Thanks for the case references! These came after my legal training and so I hadn’t studied those. They narrow the border search doctrine somewhat. Good to know.

Well, of late, what was considered settled law is being reinterpreted at a remarkable rate, so maybe there is hope for this 'settled' law to be overturned....

Like what? The big one people always try to bring up when they make coy statements like this is Roe v. Wade but no one thought that was a strong ruling. Even later justices who were strong proponents of women's right to chose like Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought it was a shit ruling.

I was actually thinking of them overturning Humphrey's executor vs United States....

Roe v Wade and the resulting multi-decade clusterfuck is because your Congress are weak-willed pussies who are unable to actually work through a legislative process to find a consensus.

Yes, it took decades, but in Australia our various states have worked through the "it's criminal" -> "It's criminal but not enforced" -> "we're deliberately vague and won't prosecute doctors" -> "we have a legal framework that makes abortion legal up to {20,22,24} weeks on demand, after which it requires the consensus of two independent medical opinions".

The US needs to do the same. Yes, it will take decades. No, it shouldn't because abortion is a medical procedure, but religion is a scourge.

The Roberts court is nakedly partisan and makes rulings as necessary to expand and protect Republican power (e.g. they protected Trump’s reelection with rulings with carveouts allowing them to decide the other way if a Democratic president tried a similar argument in the future). You should not bet on a reinterpretation of existing law here moving in a direction you’d like.

Interesting. What, then, do you make of the extensive rulings that the current court has issued to block or overturn Trump's actions?

How do you reconcile your 'nakedly partisan' theory with the court rulings that, for example, overruled Trumps attempt to use the AEA for immigration enforcement, overruled his attempt to deploy the National Guard without the consent of state governments, overruled his attempts to unilaterally impose tariffs, overruled his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, and so on?

Note the use of “Republican” in the comment you’re replying to: they are trying to walk a fine line between protecting the guy who gave them the votes needed to do things like Roberts’ career-long goal of rolling back the VRA while protecting the core of the party (e.g. the inconsistent logic used to protect the Federal Reserve, which all of the monied interests wanted, but none of the other independent agencies; or the tariffs, which are deeply unpopular with most businesses) or permanently grant powers they don’t want a Democratic president to use (e.g. deploy the national guard over a governor’s wishes).

Things like birthright citizenship are a good example of that latter concept: the law is extremely clear there so they ruled against him because the only alternative would be declaring outright that the President is not bound by the constitution, but in many other cases they’ve made quite unusual actions to preempt lower courts before either finding a new executive power or, where the law is clear, stalling to allow things like deportations to proceed in the interim before ruling against.

And if at the border they found keys to your house so they went there and did a search too? Thanks what a phone is. Not even mentioning Tailscale. ;p

I mean if it were me? Yep. I'm in a city that borders Canada, and pretty much anywhere i go is "the border" despite my current route to the nearest bridge being about 45 minutes. I personally feel it's a little ridiculous that CBP has jurisdiction in my neighborhood.

"settled law" is no longer a reliable indicator in the US.

This one wasn't routine

How so?

Well they got a tip 4 hours before the guy got on the flight, that he was on the flight and they should search him

That sounds like reasonable suspicion then, which is a lawful predicate for a border search.

Even random border searches are permitted according to our jurisprudence.

Reasonable suspicion doesn't mean you can carte blanche search anyone who another government agency asks you to search.

Hopefully we'll find out more during the trial what triggered the search. I don't like speculating.

Actually, Reddit is a lot more dead than that right now. I would argue >90% of the content now is fake.

That is a big claim. I know some of it is because I have interviewed people who have described ~exploits building LLM redditors.

But >90%? Can you provide something that supports something in this ballpark?

I don’t think it’s 90%, but also - fake content doesn’t apply just to LLM generated content.

When you go the places which are clearly at the target of bots such as commercial products, geopolitical issues, and politics - the ratio becomes bad.

This is also true in hacker news, but the moderation team here is good enough in burying these topics away from the front page for the most part.

I am certain the name was chosen purposefully because damn is it funny.

if you think "shitty" is a funny name then there is nothing anyone can ever do to convince you otherwise. you are so far out of reach that only maturing can cure this.

if you are over 30, you are out of reach to anyone and everyone.

Funnily enough, not that niche, because I have tried many times to do it as part of a wider project.

This entire time. It’s a gradient and it has been getting worse annually. But the firearms tracking is only for regular people not criminals, funny that, it aligns with the problem OP outlines: it has nothing to do with helping and everything to do with controlling and subduing those who have the ability to stop them.

Yes, it would seem so.

That is again an issue with company culture because the issues should be addressed anyway, AI or human.

Sure but: 1) most companies’ culture in this area is already bad; 2) AI tools enable and amplify the absolute worst of that culture.

Maybe. Maybe not.

His point is that Anthropic is likely doing this on purpose for their own IPO and to counter the other IPOs.

I don't see how one could possibly come to that conclusion, except by rejecting out of hand the idea that there could be a true threat requiring genuine caution.

> rejecting out of hand the idea that there could be a true threat requiring genuine caution.

What true threat could possibly exist where the models are perfectly fine to use, just only by American citizens?

None, but the executive branch doesn't have any power to summarily prohibit American citizens from using dangerous things. If the danger checks out and can't be mitigated then Congress will have to pass a law.

Anthropic is... making the US government shut down their flagship model on purpose? The conspiratorial thinking on HN is approaching UFO subreddit levels.

It's so difficult to have rational AI discussion here anymore. Half (or more?) of the developer community seems to have some form of AI hysteria that causes them to throw all logic out the window in service of the magical machine god.

It's intended since the guy prompted the LLM. If you don't know how to use a potentially destructive tool then don't use it. If you fire a gun you are guilty even if you didn't want to murder anyone