Homeland Security Stole Michael Arrington's Boat 812
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Arrington, founder of TechCrunch, lives near Seattle and bought a boat there. He ordered it from a company based near him, but across the border in Canada. Yesterday, the company tried to deliver it to him, and it had to clear customs. An agent for the Department of Homeland Security asked him to sign a form. The form contained information about the boat, including its cost. The price was correct, but it was in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars. Since the form contained legal warnings about making sure everything on it is true and accurate, Arrington suggested to the agent that they correct the error. She responded by seizing the boat. 'As in, demanded that we get off the boat, demanded the keys and took physical control of it. 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. ... A person with a gun and a government badge asked me to swear in writing that a lie was true today. And when I didn't do what she wanted she simply took my boat and asked me to leave.'"
This never happened to me, (Score:5, Funny)
in the years that I imported horse manure.
Re:This never happened to me, (Score:4, Insightful)
They are mortal enemies
Re:This never happened to me, (Score:4, Funny)
"The U.S. postal service ... are also competing against USPS
That explains a lot.
De oppresso liber (Score:3)
Vote from the rooftops
DHS (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DHS (Score:4, Insightful)
they exist because of scared soccer moms who think that perceived security is worth anything, as long as their snowflakes are 'kept safe'.
really, that's it. fear controls and every leader since the beginning of time knows that.
you can get anything if you keep the population in perpetual fear.
that's it. it security theater for most of us who see this. it was never meant to be anything real. no one in upper levels truly would believe this is an effective thing; BUT they also would be hung upside down if some 'thing' happened and they didn't show that they did 'all they could' to stop it. so, its an excuse, too, a CYA move.
no thinking person believes the BS; but thinking people are not in charge...
Re:DHS (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont remember the last time we had a dept that was so pathetic, inefficient, useless, corrupt and annoying as the Dept. of Homeland Security.
The DEA.
LOL ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter"
So, a government functionary with a minor Napoleon complex who just wants to get on with the fun parts of the job then?
This is what happens when you give stupid people that much power.
Re:LOL ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's just paperwork, it doesn't matter"
So, a government functionary with a minor Napoleon complex who just wants to get on with the fun parts of the job then?
This is what happens when you give stupid people that much power.
This is what happens when you give anyone power without having balance and checks to keep them in line.
Re: (Score:3)
This is what happens when you give stupid people that much power.
This is what happens when when you give anyone too much unregulated power. And that power needs to be regulated by a true democracy. Intelligence becomes more of a factor when it comes to working the democracy.
Re:LOL ... (Score:4, Informative)
"Stole" or "confiscated"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd tend to say that when the "confiscation" has no legal basis whatsoever, we can very accurately call it "stolen".
Re: (Score:3)
So, "confiscation" is the correct term, then? He didn't sign the form to get the boat out of customs impound so they couldn't release it to him.
This sound like another occurrence of true vs. right answers: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/the-true-answer-and-the-right-answer/ [nytimes.com]
Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not in this case. The agent is the one that filled in the form by copying the invoice data over in the first place. If she had the authority to do that, she has the authority to either correct it or scrap it and do another one.
Re: (Score:3)
The DHS had the authority to hold the boat the minute it arrived on US soil, for customs clearance. That's why Arrington had to sign the paperwork: to get it released.
Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? (Score:5, Funny)
The DHS had the authority to hold the boat the minute it arrived on US soil
If your boat ends up on US soil rather than water, aren't you doing something wrong?
Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? (Score:4, Insightful)
So he is free to hop onboard right now and sail away? No? Then it IS theft.
Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? (Score:5, Interesting)
They didn't steal it, he "voluntarily surrendered" it.
When the TSA goon confiscated my toothpaste I calmly asked him "Why are you confiscating my toothpaste?"
He corrected my misunderstanding. "We are not confiscating anything. You are voluntarily surrendering it."
At that point there was no point in arguing with someone so brainwashed that they are forced to play lawyer semantics to "Take something that doesn't belong to them under the threat of duress."
God help us all.
--
"Only a coward uses censorship."
Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? (Score:5, Informative)
The guy refused to sign the import documents which would release the boat and then is surprised when they didn't release the boat?
He refused to commit perjury, and was then surprised--as most people would be--when he was punished for his refusal to commit perjury. How hard is this to understand?
Re:"Stole" or "confiscated"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mo. he asked that an error on the document be corrected since he was required to swear that the information was correct to the best of his knowledge and it was not. Any reasonable government agent would have struck USD and written in CAD and asked him to sign that rather than gleefully confiscate the boat.
Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what happens when the victim isn't rich?
We never hear about it, and the agent seizes his boat and profits.
Corruption is a very real threat!
So what if this guy is rich? The point is that if they'll do it to rich people, they'll do it to anyone, except little people have no ability to retaliate.
Re:Oh no, he's rich. But we're looking at that wro (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Do not appear to have anything confiscatable
2) Flatter their ego
Stupid people care about the law. They think that if they obey the law, they will be ok. The fact is, the law really doesn't matter. Cops don't know the law, they just enforce it. The most important thing is to not get involved with the police, and if you do, to not get arrested. If you get arrested, you have already lost.
The law only matters after you are arrested. But even then, you will end up plea-bargaining to an unrelated charge anyway. The idea that you will stand up before a judge and he will see that you were in compliance with the law and you will achieve some kind of 'justice' is pure naivete. Even if the case is dismissed, you lost.
"how screwed up our government bureaucracy ..." (Score:5, Insightful)
He writes:
itâ(TM)s to highlight how screwed up our government bureaucracy has become.
If true (we should hear the other side), it's nothing new in the history of governments or the United States. Not that it shouldn't improve, but the good old days never were.
That's the essential point to understand that if you want to improve things: The problem isn't current bad apples or lack of morality or a temporary increase in corruption; it's the universal, eternal nature of humanity and their institutions. Ignoring that fact is like designing a bridge and ignoring gravity. There are solutions, such as transparency, but it's not a matter of replacing the current 'bad' apples with a new batch -- they will be human too.
Re:"how screwed up our government bureaucracy ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't want to "replace" the current crop of losers - We want to burn down the whole fucking orchard.
The security theater has gone on for about 11 years too long now. End it.
Re:"how screwed up our government bureaucracy ..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is the universal, eternal nature of humanity. That is why the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution tried very hard to limit the powers of the government. The more powerful the government gets the more likely this sort of thing is to happen and the harder it is to get this type of abuse corrected.
I agree that limited government is one tool to minimize the harm of institutions, but I'd balance it out a little ...
If not government, who will restrain humanity's instincts to kill and cheat each other? To whom would Arrington appeal to get his boat back? I think that's the primary irony and challenge of society: To protect ourselves against humanity and its institutions, we only have more humans and institutions.
Also, the Articles of Confederation had even more limited government than we have now, but our ancestors found it too ineffectual. The Framers goal was to create a more powerful central government, though still limited.
Finally, the Framers were just as human -- petty, corrupt, selfish, dumb -- as we are. The Constitution isn't scripture handed down by gods, but the flawed work of people like our current politicians and society. As someone said, 'we are the ones we've been waiting for.'
Really? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure Arrington, with his long history of reporting the facts, is telling us the entire story. And if he is? It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy . . .
They told me (Score:5, Funny)
They told me if I voted for Romney, we'd see DHS continue with abuse power... and they were right.
Re:They told me (Score:4, Informative)
His point was it really did not matter who he voted for. The crap continues.
Or, it could be that the folks who told him that were just saying ANYTHING to keep Romney from being elected. Because their guy was already giving them stuff, and they did not want to stop receiving stuff.
How is anyone still suprised... (Score:5, Interesting)
the US is a totalitarian state now run by the corporations and paranoia merchants who exist to fuel wars. I would not travel there with any electronic device as I would be more concerned about them messing about it or taking it at the border than if I was going to China. Seriously it has to have killed of a bit of tourism if nothing else with the mental border policies. Sure Israel blows up laptops it does not like but at least they have provable reason. I've picked flights to avoid the US as a stop over simply because I don't feel safe traveling there with electronics, not that I have anything to hide but I don't think that matters anymore.
Call me old fashioned but I just don't want to be irradiated and have all my electronic devices seized and violated at the whim of some random overpaid security guard with a bad attitude.
Re:How is anyone still suprised... (Score:5, Interesting)
A bit of background: I'm Canadian, white, from a mediteranean background, professional infosec guy.
I've been to Israel, and eastern european countries, and been in places where where suicide bombers have detonated themselves and killed and maimed scores of people.
I advise corporate entities about the risk of going to "questionable jurisdictions" such as China and other IP thieving countries, but the US is increasingly becoming problematic if you seem to not fit the profile.
I've been better treated by Mexican, Polish, Czech, Cuban, and Israeli border control than the US DHS, and this before and after 9/11.
The common thread seems to be understanding or risk, incompetence (of a person/dept) and training. The US DHS seems to be afflicted with all three: understanding of risk is flawed, the people hired to safeguard the country seem poorly selected (google those articles of DHS hiring people whose previous work experience was McDonalds) and poor training.
Israeli's have some of the best training, and they try to avoid using the dumbdumbs for border and customs (they can work on courtesy but that's something else).
Even in a rural Polish town's airport, you'll have military clad types with full auto weapons on display, but even they understand the situation.
You don't get that feeling when you enter Uncle Sam's domain, and it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't make anyone safer.
least of his worries (Score:5, Insightful)
f*d up bureaucracy on the US/Canada border (Score:3, Interesting)
I know it's a little off topic and few are likely to read an AC's post anyway :), but I have a story of government bureaucracy bullshit related to the U.S./Canadian border.
Years ago, I tried to cross the border to get into Canada from the U.S. I had been arrested about a year before or so on a minor charge--interference with government operations. Basically some asshole cops were abusing their power, arresting kids outside a music venue, throwing them into the ground, and one of them threw his elbow into me on his way over, knocking me back. So I stood my ground. When he told me to move back, I told him that I wouldn't because a) he hit me on the way over , b) I hadn't moved since this whole thing started, and c) what they were doing wasn't police work, it was plain and simple bullshit. (Btw, one of these cops was later thrown in jail for murdering his young boy lover, and the other gets in trouble periodically for beating up high school students.) So I got arrested. After they let me go, amidst much snickering as they filled out my charge sheet or whatever on their rinky-dinky circa 80s mainframe system (it seemed), I went to court (not the real court, mind you, the misdemeanor court) and pled guilty so I could just get out of there. I paid $150 to someone behind a window and left.
So flash forward to when I'm trying to cross the border, and the Canadian border/police officer tells me that I have a felony terrorist offense on my record and they won't allow me in. And I'm like, "What?!?!" Well, there's a felony in Canada with the same name as the misdemeanor that I stupidly pled guilty to. I tried explaining this, and my explanation was along the lines of "So these asshole cops were abusing their power, and I was resisting it," all while the cop I'm talking to is obviously taking these (future murderer and disgraced) cops' sides. So I had to sneak into Canada. I'm not sure, but I suspect that to this day, I am still not allowed into Canada. It's something I could maybe fix with a lawyer, but I'm not rich and I'm stubborn about this bullshit.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure this all happened because of the 9/11 mess, Patriot Act and such. Screw bureaucracy. Screw all of these new government institutions and laws put in place since 9/11 that are just obviously fucked up (TSA, I'm talking about you). And of course, confiscating this guy's boat is bullshit, but as he said, he is rich and he will get it back. How many people have shit like this happen who aren't rich and don't have a popular blog and slashdot to publicize it? I'm guessing far too many.
DHS handled it poorly. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think regardless of how in the right the DHS rep is they handled it poorly. If they don't have the authority to change the form fine. If they must seized the boat fine. Explain the the gentleman why you are unable to make the changes and why you must seized the boat. Then let them know what the next step is to get things sorted out. Most people are fairly forgiving of inconveniences if they know why they are happening.
This just smacks of a functionary that enjoys being a pain. As for the DHS agent this is probably not going to go well for them. Even if it doesn't cost them there job it will probably result in a demotion.
What was the agent's name? (Score:4, Insightful)
Name names. This thug needs to be held accountable for her abuse of public trust and power.
Clerical errors are already clearly explained (Score:5, Informative)
Since the CAD is currently weaker than the dollar, having declared it in USD instead of CAD would be adverse to the government, which actually makes it easier. (It depends on the exchange rate at the date of export, but based on today.)
(Rulings adverse to the importer entered after Dec 2004 actually HAVE to come from a formal protest.)
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=e7f7df984a01d3c9478867fa0f872497&rgn=div5&view=text&node=19:2.0.1.1.19&idno=19 [ecfr.gov]
19CFR 173:
 173.1 Authority to review for error.
Port directors have broad responsibility and authority to review transactions to ensure that the rate and amount of duty assessed on imported merchandise is correct and that the transaction is otherwise in accordance with the law. This authority extends to errors in the construction of a law and to errors adverse to the Government as well as the importer.
[T.D. 70-181, 35 FR 13429, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46830, Aug. 9, 1979]
 173.2 Transactions which may be reviewed and corrected.
The port director may review transactions for correctness, and take appropriate action under his general authority to correct errors, including those in appraisement where appropriate, at the time of:
(a) Liquidation of an entry;
(b) Voluntary reliquidation completed within 90 days after liquidation;
(c) Voluntary correction of an exaction within 90 days after the exaction was made;
(d) Reliquidation made pursuant to a valid protest covering the particular merchandise as to which a change is in order; or
(e) Modification, pursuant to a valid protest, of a transaction or decision which is neither a liquidation or reliquidation.
 173.4a Correction of clerical error prior to liquidation.
Pursuant to section 520(a)(4), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1520(a)(4)), the port director may, prior to liquidation of an entry, take appropriate action to correct a clerical error that resulted in the deposit or payment of excess duties, fees, charges, or exactions.
[T.D. 85-123, 50 FR 29957, July 23, 1985]
 162.23 Seizure under section 596(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)).
(...)
(d) Seizure under 19 U.S.C. 1592. If merchandise is imported, introduced or attempted to be introduced contrary to a provision of law governing its classification or value, and there is no issue of admissibility, such merchandise shall not be seized pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c). Any seizure of such merchandise shall be in accordance with section 1592 (see  162.75 of this chapter).
As I understand the circumstances, on importation he performed what's called 'prior disclosure' - (Â 162.74 Prior disclosure.) identifying orally or in writing to the customs officer of the violation, before an actual investigation was begun. In this case the importer is supposed to tender any potential penalties/duties (in this case, none, since the import value was actually LOWER than declared) .
And finally:
 162.75 Seizures limited under section 592, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
(a) When authorized. Merchandise may be seized for violation of section 592, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1592) only if the port director has reasonable cause to believe that a person has violated the statute and that
(1) The person is insolvent,
(2) The person is beyond the jurisdiction of the United States,
(3) Seizure otherwise is essential to protect the revenue, or
(4) Seizure is essential to prevent the introduction of prohibited or restricted merchandise into the Customs territory of the United States.
(b) No seizure if prior disclosure. Under no circumstances shall merchandise be seized under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1592 if there has been a prior disclosure of the violatio
This happened to me (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Would you like some cheese with that? (Score:5, Informative)
Ask to have the paperwork re-done
Isn't that what got his boat confiscated?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly the point.
So next time bring a heavyweight lawyer as a sidekick. I suspect that the DHS clerk was breaking more than one law at that moment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So in America, it is now considered normal that you only have rights if you can and do afford to always have a lawyer besides you?
Re:Would you like some cheese with that? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes.
Re:Would you like some cheese with that? (Score:5, Funny)
There are other options I'd like to bring along.
- an Italian-American mother who don't take no crap
This.
Who needs a gun, when you could be packing a Sicilian matriarch?
Re:Would you like some cheese with that? (Score:5, Informative)
Did you read the whole article?
He did try to fix it, and the DHS agents acted like morons.
Re:Would you like some cheese with that? (Score:4, Insightful)
He did try to fix it, and the DHS agents acted like morons.
Says who? If the customs agent wrote a blog, would it say the same? What if she wrote her blog first and it was posted to Slashdot as "Arrington acts like and a**hole, gets yacht confiscated"? Do we just believe whichever side gets posted to Slashdot first?
Re:Would you like some cheese with that? (Score:4, Insightful)
It "no big deal" until the IRS or the boat licensing authority gets ahold of that slip and it doesn't MATCH EXACTLY... Then he gets accused of defrauding taxes and such. A COMPANY has lawyers that can defend that type of clerical error. YOU don't.
To be totally fair, this is over dramatized. Obviously, without the paperwork, she can't clear the boat. So that means lock it back up until the correct paperwork is redone... And you go to the bottom of the queue for wasting her time.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously, without the paperwork, she can't clear the boat. So that means lock it back up until the correct paperwork is redone... And you go to the bottom of the queue for wasting her time.
Except she filled out the form with the wrong information. She wasted her own time and he doesn't deserve to go to the bottom of the queue for that.
Re:Would you like some cheese with that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Would you like some cheese with that? (Score:5, Funny)
On slashdot, if there's a confrontation between someone from the government and a rich guy, who do you think people will believe?
The stoner who wasn't there but has a very strong opinion about what happened.
Re:Would you like some cheese with that? (Score:4, Insightful)
And if the customs agent doesn't have the authority to amend the paperwork then and there, what happens?
Re:Would you like some cheese with that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Would you like some cheese with that? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Arrington overreacted and misrepresented facts, but whining is perhaps a bit strong.
It wasn't DHS "stealing" a boat, it was them refusing to release it without a signature.
We don't know whether the agent in question had the authority to make changes to the legal documents. If not, refusing to release it while the paperwork was redone might have been the only valid recourse.
For those who suggest initialized amendments to the document, whether that is allowed depends on the type of document. DHS might not be allowed to accept amended documents. Their hands could very well be tied.
What was truly disappointing was his speculations about the DHS agents feelings. That was very unprofessional, to say the very least.
Re:Would you like some cheese with that? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a customs declaration, same as everybody fills out when entering the country with something valuable. You tell the government you have it and that you bought it, and you state its approximate value in USD. The government doesn't want to know its value in florins, or rubles, or Canadian dollars. The value does not have to be exact, as it's only needed for statistical purposes. Even if knowingly misrepresented, I have yet to meet a government agency that is unwilling to correct paperwork after the fact.
I expect that much everybody the DHS agent deals with understands this, and doesn't care enough to make a big deal of it. When some guy starts insisting that the government should rebuild its procedures to compute value using a foreign currency, the agent smiled cheerfully, explained that the boat can't be released without the proper paperwork, and likely tried to restrain the laughter at the guy who thinks the world should bend to his will.
Well, Mr. Arrington, congratulations. Your high moral standards and obsession with accurate reporting have inconvenienced your government and cost you a few weeks' time with your precious new boat while new papers are filed. At least you can post your story online and get some sympathy from faceless strangers.
Anecdotally, I just received notice from the IRS that I've just finished an audit for 2010. I had rounded a few numbers on my 1040, and they didn't get third-party papers corroborating a deduction, and they thought I was worthy of closer scrutiny. Fixing it took a few hours on the phone, a trip to my accountant, and a signed letter attesting that I really did do what I said I did. Apparently I'll soon be getting a second refund check.
The government is not out to get you, the hapless individual. The government is out to get all the other assholes who screw over the system, and you just happen to have aroused suspicion. Once you're under suspicion, you have two options. You can be offended and return the offense, approaching every interaction as though you were going to battle, or you can convince the government that you're not the criminal they're looking for, but merely someone who deviated a bit too far from their expectations. The latter's really not that hard, and can help to stretch the bounds of their expectations.
Re:No way... (Score:4, Insightful)
But this is not "news for nerds" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.
Yeah, just close your eyes....
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really in nerdspace, but still - it highlights the fact that people in positions of power misuse it.
Maybe Franz Kafka was an optimist.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's one way to rationalize your feelings of powerlessness. "I'm not a pussy, I'm a cynic!"
Re:No way... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No way... (Score:4, Insightful)
But this is not "news for nerds" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.
Unless it happened to you.
Secretary Janet Napolitano oversees the third largest Cabinet department and leads our nation's efforts to secure our country from terrorism to natural disasters.
http://www.dhs.gov/about-dhs [dhs.gov]
Arrington is an interesting person but it's a stretch to say the he's either a terrorist or natural disaster.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Arrington is an interesting person but it's a stretch to say the he's either a terrorist or natural disaster.
Unlike the DHS.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty sure most of the states are going to beat him to it.
Hmm, it's almost like a majority of the population is ok with it.
Damn politicians, bending to their whims.
Does not matter. Passing laws, enacting regulations, issuing EO's does not trump the Constitution. It's no different than if the government passed a law or regulation that authorized DHS to conduct random no-warrant, no-probable-cause house searches, or passed laws restricting the right to vote based on skin color.
If the majority are in favor of restricting/altering the 2A , then it shouldn't be any problem to follow the established procedure to amend the Constitution. The simple fact that none of the anti-gun people will even attempt to start the amendment process is proof that they don't think the majority agrees with them.
Once it's OK to "go around" the Constitution on the 2A, then that opens the door to the rest of the Bill of Rights being neutered. Either the Constitution is valid or it is not. There is no middle ground.
Strat
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait... you were talking about the DHS agent? No. She didn't abuse her power. She, as he insisted, followed the letter of the law. No paperwork, no boat.
It wasn't *his* paperwork that was wrong, it was the US Government's paperwork. As an agent of the Government, it should be incumbent upon her to help correct it. Or rather than seizing the boat, why didn't she just turn him around and send him back to Canada to await corrected paperwork.
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isnt it fascinating that it's abhorent to violate a poor person's rights, but its chiche to promote violating the rights of the wealthy?
Much worse under Obama regime (Score:5, Insightful)
I always thought the fanatical left was completely hypocritical that they bashed the Bush administration for liberty violations by federal agents but now they are Obama constituents and are completely silent.
*sigh*
Oh well; who needs those stupid ethics and morals anyway?
Re:Much worse under Obama regime (Score:4, Insightful)
Personal property rights are not just "the rights of the rich".
You are an idiot.
Tolerating injustice because you don't like the victim is how this nonsense starts. Sooner or later, the victim will be someone more sympathetic. By then the abuse will be entrenched.
Re:so what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree. Many years ago, (2002 or 2003), myself and two friends went to Canada. One friend was French, carrying a proper passport, etc.
When crossing into Canada, the customs official could not have been more cordial. He asked all three of us to come up at once (we were walking). Had a quick chit-chat about why we were going to Niagara Falls, checked our friend's passport to make sure everything was good, and wished us well.
Coming back was a completely different experience. We assumed the process would be the same, so we all started up to the customs agent at the same time. He jumped back from his seat, unholstered a pistol, and started shouting commands at us. (3 young college kids). After that, we received the 3rd degree on how two Americans could be friends with a Frenchie, etc.
CBE officials are power hungry... end of story.
Re:so what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:so what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Having crossed a fair few borders in my life, the US ones are without a doubt the most unpleasant ones.Worse even than the former East German one (albeit on a West German passport... I'm sure with an eastern block passport they would have been even worse).
It's odd, given that on the whole the US is full of friendly people trying to be helpful... all the assholes seem to hang out at the border and at airports.
Re: (Score:3)
I keep telling people that if you have to use the 2nd amendment to correct your government you have already lost. That is all the excuse they need to bring down the boot. Look how well it worked out for Ireland and Pakistan.
Re:so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
THAT is why you stand up to them.
Re:so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes one want to become a Libertarian.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just so you are aware, the vast majority of boats are owned by lower and middle class people. Boats tend to be a money sink which a lot of the wealthy avoid unless they just really have so much money that they don't care.
Re: (Score:3)
I had the opportunity to look up an address in Washington State on Google Maps and found that there were a lot of boats in the suburbs of Seattle. They were typically parked on their trailers in or very near the front yards of their owners' homes. Small boats, surely, but obviously ready to use when the desire presented itself.
Re:so what? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a boat owner (cruising sailboat, presently 'dry' while I repair the hull). The boatyard where it is kept includes boats and owners of all kinds. The majority of boat owners in my experience in New England is carpenters, guys who have a small business (single restaurant, dry cleaning shop, a guy who transports cars for a living, etc.) There are a few doctors and lawyers, a couple of $1MM+ catamarans, but most of the boats were bought used for $10,000 to $100,000. These folks are just everyday folks. Some people ski for a hobby, some drive boats around. The annual cost for most boat owners is about the same as the skiers - marina costs run $3000 to $10,000 per year depending on the boat, the location, and the amenities. If I had my boat in the water, at the two places I've been it would be costing me either $75 or $105 per foot for six months. It's a 44 foot boat for the purposes of calculating the cost.
Power boat prices have been down just like house prices because many people used their house equity to get into a boat that was too big & expensive, the value of the boat was less than they owed, and they let boat got repossessed right before or after their house got foreclosed. The price of fuel is also a big consideration for power boats - a 36 foot power boat with twin 340-HP gas engines may burn from 1/6 to 2 gallons per mile depending on how you drive it - below 'hull speed' of 6 knots or thereabouts, boats are much more efficient. A "Cigarette"-typeT go-fast boat may cost $100 per hour to drive.
For two or three years there has been a glut on the market, especially at the very low end - a lot of folks just walked away from their old, paid-for boat, leaving the marina to finally take the boat for the back slip fees. So you can go to most marinas right now and find a pretty good boat that maybe needs a bit of work, and the marina may just give it to you if you will pay a year's slip fees in advance.
Sailboat prices did not slump the same way, in part because apparently sailboaters tend to be more conservative about money - i.e. they're cheap. :) They tend not to buy more boat than they could afford. But according to the folks at the boat show I just attended, things are picking up at all levels.
Re:so what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the parent is correct. The vast majority of boats really are owned by Joe and Sam the carpenters down the street. Go to most boatyards or marinas, and you'll be able to meet them. Some marinas are definitely gold-plated, but in most cases it's a Bud Light crowd.
Interestingly, in most cases also, the folks in boats don't care how much you make - I've had many a beer sitting around a fire with a guy who owns a $1million + catamaran on one side and a guy who cleans houses for a living with a 25 foot fishing boat on the other. They've known each other for years, and they're both welcome any time on the other's boat. And they both dislike the 'boat snobs' who think the size of their tool makes them important ;) Boat people mostly respect each other because of their common interest - even with the mostly-friendly dichotomy between 'rag-boaters' (sailors) and 'stinkpotters' (power boaters).
There's a Creedence Clearwater song about "people on the river". It's mostly true.
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as we choose who are worthy of protection under the law and who are socially acceptable to victimize we are doomed to fail as a culture.
Re:so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, they've been doing this for many, many years. Since the RICO act, in fact.
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I care. Not because the guy is rich and I worship CEOs, but because this is another example of some governmental lowlife taking property.
As much as I am FOR regulations of corporations I am against misuse of regulation for petty reasons.
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What an assholish thing to post. The guy earned his money - you're somehow more okay with his property being seized because you're envious of it? Grow up.
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's OK to temporarily seize his boat because there was an error on his paperwork (clerical or not).
An error put there by the same people who seized the boat. How... convenient.
Now take off your fucking blinders.
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Both of you are a little selfish, aren't you? "Oh, he's got money so he's got no right to complain."
This is a bureaucrat fucking up the paperwork, refusing to fix it, then seizing the opportunity to take someone else's toy for a ride. That flagrant abuse of power is a problem with integrity.
In a country where the constitution was deliberately crafted around the idea of protecting citizens from governmental abuse and seeking to empower the citizens with means to call their government on any and all abuse.
Integrity problems in government ought to have you up in arms, it's your job as American Citizen[tm]. No matter what the cause is. So git off yer arses arriddy, ye lazy bums!
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why he didn't just make a note on the document then sign it.
"Oh, hang on."
*writes CDN and initials it*
"there we go!"
*sign*
I do that all the time for things that are worth far more than his boat.
Re:so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:so what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, this person is in one of the best positions to fix the problem. He can draw attention to an issue that affects more than just rich people, but the poor people it affects don't have the money or ability to draw attention to it.
In a sense, this happening to him is a blessing to all of us, because it can end up being one more nail in the department of illegal detainment, theft and torture.
Re:Was the exchange rate wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
Dude, seriously, it's in the article ... they took the Canadian dollar value, turned it into American dollars (incorrectly), and asked him to sign a form under oath that what the form said was true.
The government form was wrong, he tried to fix it, they became assholes and confiscated his boat.
I'm entirely willing to believe some DHS agent went off and acted like an idiot when he was trying to reasonably fix a clerical error.
Re:no reason to lie... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no reason to lie... (Score:5, Insightful)
This way lies fascism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: gun control have a look at a few quotes.
http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml
One of my favourites, due to it's simplicity and honesty (rare for a politician) is
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
Janet Reno
U.S. Attorney General
1993-12-10
Re:Your tax dollars at work... (Score:5, Insightful)
How would gun control make a difference? Are you proposing that when the customs thug takes your boat, you should shoot them and drive it off into the sunset? Because the government has a lot more guns than you, and a police force highly trained in their use. Unless you are planning on holding a full-blown revolution and storming Washington, your guns aren't going to protect you from the government.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
This is a story of a bureaucrat acting like a fucking idiot and asking someone to sign incorrect paperwork, and then acting like a miserable old cow when he tried to resolve the problem.
Sorry, but if DHS is that incompetent and behaves that much like assholes, that's a major problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot hates anyone that builds airplanes, sailboats, custom cars, restores very expensive old cars, designs custom jewelry, owns a tuxedo rental store, etc. Didn't you get the memo?
I'm about to build a couple 4000 (my cost) pc's for some wealthy clients, so I'm sure they hate me too. I wouldn't be able to feed my family without rich people.
Re: (Score:3)
So you think that government agents should encourage people to make false statements and swear they are true?
If what happened was "I pointed out that the paperwork the DHS had written was incorrect and the agent said they couldn't correct it now and would have get a higher up to fix it which will take a few days and they'll hold the boat until that is done", then yes you would have a point and he would be being a "whiny rich asshole".
But that isn't what happened. The "they wouldn't let me have my boat right
Re: (Score:3)
The customs paperwork on a shipment was screwed up.
By the customs department, not the company or the private individual. If the company shipping the boat had made the error, or Arrington himself, this would be appropriate.
Re:Just sayin'.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether he was a dick to her, or vice versa, is entirely irrelevant. There are only four facts that are relevant in any way, and they're all binary:
1) Was the information on the form incorrect, yes or no?
2) Did she tell him to nevertheless sign a form with incorrect information, yes or no?
3) Did he refuse to swear that information he knew to be false was true, yes or no?
4) After that, sis she seize the boat, yes or no?
She doesn't have to like him and he doesn't have to like her. If the answer to all four of the above questions is "yes" then she is entirely in the wrong needs to be slapped down... ideally terminated as unfit to serve the public in any capacity.
Re:Just sayin'.... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's kind of a tough call. On the one hand, if you sign off on something government-y that's technically false, that can boomerang on you later on. On the other hand, since the US and Canadian dollar are within a percent or two of parity, the discrepancy is trivial, so any future correction would be trivial. Me, I'd have probably STFU and signed.
But I could only afford a used boat.So maybe I don't understand...
The flaw in the system seems to be the inordinate amount of power in one agent's hands. If the agent had to call a superior to do the seizure, and explain the stupid reason... I bet the matter would have evaporated at that point.
Re:Parity? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are close. But still not insignificant. And it's going to depend on what date the sale was as to who it's significant to.
The boat is likely $1m+. It's been in the works since 2011 and usually cheap boats don't take a year to build. Large, highly customized, high end expensive boats take over a year to build. With current exchange rates, The difference for a $1m boat is around $25k. Seattle's use tax rate is .095, plus an additional .3% for vehicles/boats, and .5% excise tax. So that's an extra $2500 in taxes and fees. Yeah it's only a small fraction of the total cost, but I don't think most people want to spend $2500 just because some agent didn't write $#CAD on the form.