The Cops Can Pretty Much Always Search Your Smartphone in Canada

[Berkut]

It is nice when  they are polite, but I don't think it is their job to be polite - if they get a little short, then that is your cue to provide whatever it is they are looking for. I don't think the interaction Dorsey described was a at all over any line.

I don't know. Other than maybe the DMV (and sometimes post office) who else to we allow us to treat us in a rude fashion?

Nobody else is given the responsibility of protecting a border crossing.  If a little rudeness occurs now and then that is a pretty small price to pay.

Especially when we define "rudeness" as loosely as the story in question.

That wasn't all that rude at all, to be honest.

I generally consider threats to be rude. YMMV, of course.

I think about the context.

This guy's job is to try to pick out the .5% of people coming through his line who are trying to hide something. Being a little rude at times to some of the other 99.5% is probably necessary. The person in questions job is to protect other people. Sure, it would be great if they were all unfailingly polite at all times, but probably also both completely unrealistic, and the need to err on the side of politeness is likely to negatively impact their job performance.

Quite simply, the tiny percentage of "bad guys" they are trying to find will take advantage of any pre-conceived idea that the border patrol MUST always be nice and polite to everyone. So, now and again, they are going to be less than entirely polite. So be it.

[crazy canuck]

It is nice when  they are polite, but I don't think it is their job to be polite - if they get a little short, then that is your cue to provide whatever it is they are looking for. I don't think the interaction Dorsey described was a at all over any line.

I don't know. Other than maybe the DMV (and sometimes post office) who else to we allow us to treat us in a rude fashion?

Nobody else is given the responsibility of protecting a border crossing.  If a little rudeness occurs now and then that is a pretty small price to pay.

Sounds like an unnecessary one though. A little civility can go a long way and wouldn't hamper their effectiveness.

But there are circumstances in which it might.  BB's anecdote is a very good one to demonstrate the point.

The objective of border security is not to provide a service.  It is to protect the border.  That is where your analogy to other government services doesn't hold.

[garbon]

It is nice when  they are polite, but I don't think it is their job to be polite - if they get a little short, then that is your cue to provide whatever it is they are looking for. I don't think the interaction Dorsey described was a at all over any line.

I don't know. Other than maybe the DMV (and sometimes post office) who else to we allow us to treat us in a rude fashion?

Nobody else is given the responsibility of protecting a border crossing.  If a little rudeness occurs now and then that is a pretty small price to pay.

Especially when we define "rudeness" as loosely as the story in question.

That wasn't all that rude at all, to be honest.

I generally consider threats to be rude. YMMV, of course.

I think about the context.

This guy's job is to try to pick out the .5% of people coming through his line who are trying to hide something. Being a little rude at times to some of the other 99.5% is probably necessary. The person in questions job is to protect other people. Sure, it would be great if they were all unfailingly polite at all times, but probably also both completely unrealistic, and the need to err on the side of politeness is likely to negatively impact their job performance.

Quite simply, the tiny percentage of "bad guys" they are trying to find will take advantage of any pre-conceived idea that the border patrol MUST always be nice and polite to everyone. So, now and again, they are going to be less than entirely polite. So be it.

So it would be an imposition for him to say instead "You know that answer you gave was rather vague. Can you please provide more detail on what you were doing?"

[Syt]

I've heard many horror stories about how rude/pissy people in public administration or similar positions can be.

Personally, I've rarely met those people. Then again I try to approach them openly, friendly/positively, patiently and treating them like normal people, and that seems to go over well most of the time.

[garbon]

It is nice when  they are polite, but I don't think it is their job to be polite - if they get a little short, then that is your cue to provide whatever it is they are looking for. I don't think the interaction Dorsey described was a at all over any line.

I don't know. Other than maybe the DMV (and sometimes post office) who else to we allow us to treat us in a rude fashion?

Nobody else is given the responsibility of protecting a border crossing.  If a little rudeness occurs now and then that is a pretty small price to pay.

Sounds like an unnecessary one though. A little civility can go a long way and wouldn't hamper their effectiveness.

But there are circumstances in which it might.  BB's anecdote is a very good one to demonstrate the point.

It sounded more like an example of someone who didn't know how to do his job. Being civil doesn't mean you can't ask direct questions.

[alfred russel]

I think about the context.

This guy's job is to try to pick out the .5% of people coming through his line who are trying to hide something. Being a little rude at times to some of the other 99.5% is probably necessary. The person in questions job is to protect other people. Sure, it would be great if they were all unfailingly polite at all times, but probably also both completely unrealistic, and the need to err on the side of politeness is likely to negatively impact their job performance.

Quite simply, the tiny percentage of "bad guys" they are trying to find will take advantage of any pre-conceived idea that the border patrol MUST always be nice and polite to everyone. So, now and again, they are going to be less than entirely polite. So be it.

An opposite story, going into the UK.

I walk up to immigration:

Immigration guy: "What is the purpose of your visit?"
Me: "Tourism."
Immigration guy: "Do you have any tours planned?"
Me: "No"
Immigration guy: stamps my passport "ok, go ahead then"

I thought, LOL, that was way too easy, what a joke. But then after I collected my luggage, they had a guy waiting for me that asked me a bunch more questions, took my passport and quizzed me a bit about my travel history, and then had me substantiate some things I said. Completely polite and conversational.

I left thinking that was actually kind of cool. They had screening questions that I failed, and they had a system to get me to more questioning after I got my luggage (when they could substantiate what I said a bit better, and potentially tie into a search), but it was done in a way that was polite and minimized any apprehension they might create. The guy talking to me welcomed me to the country and I went on about my day.

I convinced this can be done.

[crazy canuck]

I think about the context.

This guy's job is to try to pick out the .5% of people coming through his line who are trying to hide something. Being a little rude at times to some of the other 99.5% is probably necessary. The person in questions job is to protect other people. Sure, it would be great if they were all unfailingly polite at all times, but probably also both completely unrealistic, and the need to err on the side of politeness is likely to negatively impact their job performance.

Quite simply, the tiny percentage of "bad guys" they are trying to find will take advantage of any pre-conceived idea that the border patrol MUST always be nice and polite to everyone. So, now and again, they are going to be less than entirely polite. So be it.

I agree, context is important.  I worked a summer job during university as a border guard at the Vancouver Airport.  There were a couple of flights that had very high percentages of people attempting to smuggle undeclared goods.  Did we ask more probing questions of those passengers?  Certainly?  Would those passengers have perceived that they were being treated more rudely than when they were on other flights?  Most likely.  On the other hand there were other flights where there was such a diminishingly small chance of anyone smuggling anything or of anyone attempting to enter the country illegally that we essentially waved them through.

Context is very important.

[crazy canuck]

An opposite story, going into the UK.

Do you understand that the chances of an American tourist trying to smuggle something into the UK is very small compared to a US citizen attempting to smuggle something in the US?

[Valmy]

Pretty sure we try to smuggle guns into the UK, so they can resist the oppression of the King.

[alfred russel]

An opposite story, going into the UK.

Do you understand that the chances of an American tourist trying to smuggle something into the UK is very small compared to a US citizen attempting to smuggle something in the US?

If you think I'm smuggling something, have me open up my bags. It seems odd to try to detect contraband by asking me to tell you about a vacation when you can just take my declaration form and compare it to what I'm bringing in.

[viper37]

"Child porn" sounds like a nicely emotive and convenient excuse to allow the police to go snooping. JUST THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! ZOMG!!!!

I guess it depends where you come from.  A single guy coming from Dominican Republic or East Asia would be more suspect of these kind of activities than a couple coming back from Europe.

[crazy canuck]

An opposite story, going into the UK.

Do you understand that the chances of an American tourist trying to smuggle something into the UK is very small compared to a US citizen attempting to smuggle something in the US?

If you think I'm smuggling something, have me open up my bags. It seems odd to try to detect contraband by asking me to tell you about a vacation when you can just take my declaration form and compare it to what I'm bringing in.

As BB has already said, the point of asking you the questions is to determine whether you should be sent for a secondary search where your bags will be searched.  Your suggestion that all citizens should be searched seems a bit draconian (if not entirely inefficient).

[celedhring]

Whenever I traveled into the US, they would ask me lots of questions about what I was going to do in the country, but they always did it politely - to the point it could be mistaken by genuine chit-chat as they checked my papers.

[crazy canuck]

However, the idea that border patrol should be allowed to search your phone without some kind of probably cause is clearly bullshit - there is no way you are smuggling crack into the country on your cellphone.

I am not sure what the difference is between checking luggage to see if a person is carrying child pornography and checking their electronic devices.  Border agents finding child porn which then provides evidence that can help the police find the producers of the material and perhaps assisting in the rescue the children involved is not "clearly bullshit".

That logic, however, applies to the cops checking anyone's electronic devices at any point and at any time. It has nothing to do with crossing a border.

"Child porn" sounds like a nicely emotive and convenient excuse to allow the police to go snooping. JUST THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! ZOMG!!!!

No, Border agents have more powers than police forces for the purpose of keeping illegal/smuggled goods out of the country.  Once they are in the country different rules apply so if anything that argues for more power for border agents, not less.

[Barrister]

They are asking you those questions because they want to see if you get nervous or flub the answers. This is completely normal "casual" interrogation techniques. The goal isn't to capture every secret agent, it is to just do some very basic spot checking to see if people can answer simple question as needed about what they are doing and where they are going.

How effective are these questions? I certainly know anecdotally of would-be criminals who have gotten caught but it seems like you would have a wonky signal-noise ratio. I've gotten flustered at customs and I haven't ever had anything to hide.

I don't know precisely.  I don't have the specific training they have.

They are aware that people may be slightly nervous when dealing with customs, and that they may be tired and cranky after a long flight.  This is perfectly normal for them.  What they're looking for is the abnormal.

It is also fully understood they aren't going to catch the majority of contraband entering the country.  The point though is that it acts as a deterrent.  If you're asked to smuggle drugs once, you'll probably get away with it.  Maybe the second and third time.  But if you keep pressing your luck you will get caught.  Which hopefully is enough of a deterrent to prevent people from trying in the first place.