
The Department of Homeland Security Stole My Boat Today - shill
http://uncrunched.com/2013/02/21/the-department-of-homeland-security-stole-my-boat-today/
======
javajosh
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."

God bless the USA.

~~~
Cushman
> It sucks. It's a form of psychic bribery.

That seems like a terribly cynical way to view the idea that, if you're nice
to people, they will be nice to you.

~~~
javajosh
_> 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.

~~~
Cushman
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.”

~~~
tomjen3
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.

~~~
Cushman
Live your life however you want, but that sounds shitty to me.

~~~
pzxc
It sounds pragmatic to me.

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.

~~~
nviarnes
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....

------
sivers
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.

~~~
justin66
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.

~~~
melvinmt
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.

~~~
rrreese
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.

Not sure how that's racist or ageist?

~~~
barrkel
Because the US justice system disproportionately punishes black crime, and
older people are more likely to have had an encounter with the law.

------
edw519
_It’ll end by me bending over at some point._

Karma for this: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-asking-for-
hel...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-asking-for-
help-119-days-ago/)

~~~
znowi
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.

~~~
Peroni
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.

------
pg
There seem to be so many stories of this type. E.g. yesterday

[http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-a-united-airlines-
flight...](http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-a-united-airlines-flight-for-
taking-pictures.html)

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.

------
homosaur
DHS honestly makes me embarrassed to be an American. We could kill the whole
thing tomorrow and it would make zero difference to public safety.

~~~
tptacek
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?

~~~
homosaur
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.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
nitrogen
Why should everyone accept collective blame for decisions they didn't make or
support in any way?

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
nitrogen
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.

------
GiraffeNecktie
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.

~~~
Strang
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.

~~~
vacri
I don't think his _lawful_ possession of the boat starts until that form was
properly signed. Moral possession, sure.

~~~
Strang
Then whose boat was it, lawfully?

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.

~~~
vacri
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?

It does raise some interesting ideas.

------
jimrandomh
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.

~~~
OGinparadise
_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.

~~~
__david__
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.

~~~
vacri
He should have just amended it himself - "it's easier to get forgiveness than
permission"

------
einhverfr
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.

~~~
Swannie
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.

~~~
einhverfr
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....

------
harrylove
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.

1\.
[https://twitter.com/BrianKrantz/status/279015063661199360/ph...](https://twitter.com/BrianKrantz/status/279015063661199360/photo/1)

2\. [http://coastalcraft.com/coastal-craft-400-ips/boat-
specs-400...](http://coastalcraft.com/coastal-craft-400-ips/boat-
specs-400-ips/)

~~~
WatchDog
Heh, 1 mil doesn't buy much boat.

~~~
chm
New, no. Used, yes =)

------
raintrees
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.

~~~
Kiro
Why so overzealous? Would you be shocked if I said that I always sign stuff
without even reading it?

~~~
raintrees
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 :)

------
oasisbob
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.

------
yukoncornelius
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.

~~~
YokoZar
What on earth makes you think the agency wouldn't cover for her even if it
knew everything was true as stated?

~~~
yukoncornelius
If she acted as Mike suggests she likely has a history of being an idiot and
CBP will be happy to reprimand/release her.

------
duck
This reminded me of a situation Richard Stallman was involved in while
visiting a doctor's office: <http://stallman.org/articles/asked_to_lie.html>

------
pasbesoin
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.

------
marknutter
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.

------
jacques_chester
Some tactics that may or may _not_ work depending on jurisdiction and
circumstances:

1\. Mark the correction on the form. Sign underneath the correction, or mark
with your initials, in addition to the correct place to sign.

2\. When signing, write "Under Duress" underneath.

IANAL, TINLA.

------
chmike
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.

~~~
LancerSykera
They took it by force. If I took your car by force, what would you call it?

~~~
jmccree
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.

------
antidaily
They say you're better off taking the cash you'd pay for a boat and just
throwing it into the ocean.

~~~
ams6110
A boat makes you happy twice: when you buy it, and when you sell it.

------
charlieok
“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.”

I am inclined to believe this. Ugh. Makes me mad.

------
Pinatubo
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.

------
honorable_man
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.

------
robomartin
Hiring a lawyer will get your boat back. It will not fix the problem.

The problem is too much government.

Perhaps you should consider this:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism>

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.

~~~
Bud
Blah, blah, blah.

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.

Just fix or abolish Homeland Security.

~~~
robomartin
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?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST-eE4Ud7nw>

Right.

I wonder how much of that goes on that we never become aware of.

~~~
Dylan16807
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?

------
schiang
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.

------
damian2000
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.

------
justlearning
"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.

~~~
jdboyd
"A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" - 19th century proverb.

------
bloaf
If it had been me, I probably would have started singing the bureaucrat song
from Futurama:

People,

We didn't choose to be bureaucrats

No that's what our mighty Ja made us

We treat people like swine and make them stand in line

Even if nobody paid us

They say the world looks down on the bureaucrats

They say we're anal, compulsive and weird

But when push comes to shove you gotta do what you love

Even if it's not a good idea

------
tylerlh
Sounds like Mike had a pretty crappy day. Interested in seeing how this
unfolds.

------
fjarlq
Barry Schwartz laments the same kind of problem in his TED talk:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdo...](http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html)

------
riggins
This is why the founders wrote a constitution circumscribing the powers of
government.

This is man bites dog. Person in power (cop, bouncer, immigration officer,
DHS, whatever) abuses power. It's as typical as it gets.

~~~
unimpressive
>This is man bites dog.

I'm sorry, but you have it backwards, the point of that aphorism is that the
event is unusual.

[0]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_%28journalism%29>

~~~
riggins
doh! yes, I meant 'dog bites man'

------
boolean
Great timing: <http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/20/boatbound-aibnb-for-boats/>

------
jrs235
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.

~~~
jrs235
Really? A downvote?

Has anyone else ever heard of United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency)

I would not doubt that if you asked DHS if they seized his property that they
would say they haven't and that it is currently being held as evidence.

He'll probably get his boat back but not after a legal fight costing several
thousands of dollars.

------
fcatalan
They say a boat will make you happy just twice: The day you get it and the day
you get rid of it. This boat truly seems a complete failure.

~~~
lake_rogue
or this boat just made him happy twice in one day.

------
philwelch
Exactly which branch of DHS did this? I don't think the department itself has
agents, it's just an umbrella for other agencies.

------
dev360
The revolution will not be televised.

------
Rain_maker
Would Google Glass be able to solve this type of issues???

------
lubujackson
WTF does this have to do with tech news, in any way?

~~~
gdc
Some vague connection to a liquidity event.

------
gdg92989
2 + 2 = 5

~~~
nacker
You have to provide a link for some of the illiterate downvoters here. "2 + 2
= 5" was my 1st thought 2.

<http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-twoplustwo.htm>

------
huhsamovar
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.

Am I missing something?

~~~
dhimes
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.

This is all provable.

------
nirvana
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.)

