I think this type of argument only comes from egocentric people. Nobody cares about what you are doing, and you will most likely not be screened. If you are arguing online about civil rights you are not exactly the type of person they are trying to catch at the border.
In my country of origin there is no way to train with military weapons. People travel to other places and learn it there, all while being indoctrinated to perform acts of terrorism.
When IT-driven heuristics determine that you fit that profile, society is better off when you are intensively screened and searched upon reentry.
I bet people can train with trucks in your country, right? We've seen that those can be potent weapons.
Why does your argument not apply to the other scenarios I listed? If I'm unlikely to be screened at the border, then surely I'm unlikely to be screened at an internal checkpoint, or to have my house searched. I'm not likely to suffer from government key escrow.
The only thing that's ridiculous is making arguments for border searches that apply just as well inside the country, and then crying foul when I point that out.
These kinds of searches are also needed within the country, but the profiling heuristics can be implemented much better at centralized border crossings.
As I said, your profile obviously does not fit that of a terrorist, and I can tell that from two comments on hacker news.
If someone with a criminal record travels a wartorn country for 8 weeks they better be thoroughly searched when they come back and monitored afterwards.
In my country of origin there is no way to train with military weapons. People travel to other places and learn it there, all while being indoctrinated to perform acts of terrorism.
When IT-driven heuristics determine that you fit that profile, society is better off when you are intensively screened and searched upon reentry.