Canada once again reveals its despotic character :mad:
QuoteThe Cops Can Pretty Much Always Search Your Smartphone in Canada
On Monday night, Alain Philippon, a Canadian citizen, was passing through customs at a Nova Scotia airport when border patrol officers demanded that he provide the password to his smartphone. Philippon refused. He was promptly charged with obstructing border security, a criminal charge under the Canadian Customs Act, which he plans to fight in court.
Philippon's legal battle against this absurd abuse of power is principled and important. It is also probably futile. Canada's laws surrounding search and seizure are flimsy, malleable, and—by American standards—draconian. Nowhere is this fact more apparent than in Canadian law surrounding cellphone searches. Just months after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police officers need a warrant to search a smartphone, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled the exact opposite, holding that the invasion of privacy involved "was not particularly grave." Barring a shift in court personnel, a similar ruling is likely in Philippon's case.
Why is Canadian search-and-seizure law so awful? The problem traces back to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an analog to America's Bill of Rights. Whereas the Bill of Rights' Fourth Amendment declares flatly that "the right of the people" to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures ... shall not be violated," the Charter takes a more nuanced (that is, squishy) view. Section 8 gives everyone "the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure"—but Section 1 says this right is subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law" that are "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
This outward balancing of rights and limits, now called proportionality, essentially gives judges carte blanche to curtail rights when they believe a more pressing interest has arisen. Canadian judges need only show that the law abridging the right is necessary, rationally connected to a proper purpose, and significantly beneficial to society. In last year's case, the court decided that warrantless cellphone searches are constitutionally kosher because they "may serve important law enforcement objectives." If a warrantless search of a cellphone is OK post-arrest, it's probably also permissible at border patrol, where everyone's expectation of privacy is significantly diminished.
Defenders of the Canadian system like to point out that America's Fourth Amendment prohibits only "unreasonable searches and seizures," giving judges wide latitude to determine which searches are actually "reasonable." But the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the warrant requirement is the rule, and warrantless searches the exception, usually justified only by safety concerns in exigent circumstances. And even when a warrant is not required, law enforcement generally must still have "reasonable suspicion" that criminal activity is afoot before performing a search. Canada's Charter, by comparison, lets judges dispense with the warrant requirement pretty much willy-nilly, so long as they can articulate some plausible justification.
This distinction becomes exceedingly important in a situation like Philippon's. The leading American case on electronic border searches, issued by the 9th Circuit, dictates that law enforcement must have a "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity" before breaking into password-protected files. Current Canadian law, on the other hand, would seem to let custom agents force their way into any electronic device—sans warrant, sans reasonable suspicion—in the name of border security.
Both American and Canadian doctrines of privacy rights in a digital age are undergoing a sea change as judges grapple with increasingly tech-savvy criminals. (American judges have been especially stumped by the questions of self-incrimination when it comes to password protection and forced decryption; one court held that suspects can be forced to unlock a phone protected by fingerprint but not a phone protected by a written passcode.) At this point, however, it's pretty clear that the Canadian Charter is not nearly as protective of digital privacy as the Fourth Amendment. Even when they don't get it right, American judges are at least seriously thinking about how the Constitution protects our electronic devices from intrusive searches. Canadian judges seem to have put digital privacy roughly on par with free speech—a nice idea in theory, but just not worth it in fact.
Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University.
You have no expectation of privacy at the border. :contract:
If you're a citizen of the country that you're entering, there is no good reason you shouldn't.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 05:38:17 PM
If you're a citizen of the country that you're entering, there is no good reason you shouldn't.
It depends on whether the government of the country is willing to grant that expectation to its citizens. Remember that most countries are like Canada, where rights are given by the government, not like the US, where rights are human and the government only has the power to infringe on them that the people give it. Those are two completely different starting points.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2015, 05:43:02 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 05:38:17 PM
If you're a citizen of the country that you're entering, there is no good reason you shouldn't.
It depends on whether the government of the country is willing to grant that expectation to its citizens. Remember that most countries are like Canada, where rights are given by the government, not like the US, where rights are human and the government only has the power to infringe on them that the people give it. Those are two completely different starting points.
And that reminds my of one problem I had with the article above...it makes a big play comparing Canadian rights vis-a-vis U.S. rights to privacy...but I thought we also ignore those rights and allow searches of electronic devices at the border as well?
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 05:45:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2015, 05:43:02 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 05:38:17 PM
If you're a citizen of the country that you're entering, there is no good reason you shouldn't.
It depends on whether the government of the country is willing to grant that expectation to its citizens. Remember that most countries are like Canada, where rights are given by the government, not like the US, where rights are human and the government only has the power to infringe on them that the people give it. Those are two completely different starting points.
And that reminds my of one problem I had with the article above...it makes a big play comparing Canadian rights vis-a-vis U.S. rights to privacy...but I thought we also ignore those rights and allow searches of electronic devices at the border as well?
Or maybe I am wrong...
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/scotus-border-gadget-searches/
The cops != border agents.
The whole thing is predicated on border agents having powers the police do not, and that crossing the border is different from going about your everyday activities inside the country.
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2015, 05:48:29 PM
The cops != border agents.
The whole thing is predicated on border agents having powers the police do not, and that crossing the border is different from going about your everyday activities inside the country.
Meh, the way I see it, if you're a citizen of said country, and you're physically inside it, you should be under the same legal protections regardless of having just entered from outside.
Of course, call me a hippie, but this whole freedom thing should be pretty universal.
Border searches are not the issue, the article plainly says that the cops in Canada can search anyone's phone within Canada for virtually any reason.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 05:50:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2015, 05:48:29 PM
The cops != border agents.
The whole thing is predicated on border agents having powers the police do not, and that crossing the border is different from going about your everyday activities inside the country.
Meh, the way I see it, if you're a citizen of said country, and you're physically inside it, you should be under the same legal protections regardless of having just entered from outside.
Of course, call me a hippie, but this whole freedom thing should be pretty universal.
Sure.
But that does not make calling border agents "cops" convincing, nor does it change the fact that you can have all your possessions thoroughly searched, as an American, when you leave the country simply because the border agents feel like it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 08, 2015, 05:52:24 PM
Border searches are not the issue, the article plainly says that the cops in Canada can search anyone's phone within Canada for virtually any reason.
The article is suspect.
I did not call border agents "cops". :sleep: (though they are both agents of law enforcement, so I think it is kinda splitting hairs).
And I make no pretense of arguing facts, more for freedom in the philosophical sense. :P
Of course U.S. customs can search the possessions of Americans returning from outside the country mostly without cause. Should they able to? I don't believe they should have any more right to do so than any other law enforcement agent at any other time within the U.S.'s jurisdiction.
So you think customs laws should be nothing more than a suggestion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2015, 06:36:23 PM
So you think customs laws should be nothing more than a suggestion.
There is a big difference between searching my luggage where I could have an explosive, drugs, anthrax, or worst of all cuban cigars, and searching smartphone or laptop files.
I was responding to Tonto.
Something that has been bugging me, maybe a lawyer can answer.
I was coming back to the US. I go up to immigration.
Immigration guy: "What was the purpose of your visit?"
Me: "Tourism"
Immigration guy: "How long were you gone?"
Me: "one week"
Immigration guy: "What are some of the things you saw while you were over there?"
Me: "I hung out in the capital for a few days, then I rented a car and drove around the north of the country, then I went into the desert."
Immigration guy: "I've been checking people in on this flight for 2 years, and that is literally the vaguest answer anyone has ever given me. I suggest you get more specific with me or I'll refer you to some guys that will have you get a LOT more specific."
So from here I gave more details and went on my way. But what an asshole. I was just trying to give quick answers because I didn't want to hold up the line, usually they just pass me through with vague answers, and I don't see how it possibly matters whether I tell them about my trip to a museum.
But my question is this: what if I just said, "go fuck yourself, I'm an american with an american passport, I'm not telling you about my vacation." Am I really under an obligation to answer their questions to get back into the country?
You could try, but I hope you aren't alergic to latex gloves.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 08, 2015, 07:24:00 PM
Something that has been bugging me, maybe a lawyer can answer.
I was coming back to the US. I go up to immigration.
Immigration guy: "What was the purpose of your visit?"
Me: "Tourism"
Immigration guy: "How long were you gone?"
Me: "one week"
Immigration guy: "What are some of the things you saw while you were over there?"
Me: "I hung out in the capital for a few days, then I rented a car and drove around the north of the country, then I went into the desert."
Immigration guy: "I've been checking people in on this flight for 2 years, and that is literally the vaguest answer anyone has ever given me. I suggest you get more specific with me or I'll refer you to some guys that will have you get a LOT more specific."
So from here I gave more details and went on my way. But what an asshole. I was just trying to give quick answers because I didn't want to hold up the line, usually they just pass me through with vague answers, and I don't see how it possibly matters whether I tell them about my trip to a museum.
But my question is this: what if I just said, "go fuck yourself, I'm an american with an american passport, I'm not telling you about my vacation." Am I really under an obligation to answer their questions to get back into the country?
Should have responded "I've been flying drugs into the US on this flight for 2 years, and yours was the vaguest fucking question an Immigration officer has ever asked. If you want specific answers, ask specific questions!"
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 08, 2015, 05:52:24 PM
Border searches are not the issue, the article plainly says that the cops in Canada can search anyone's phone within Canada for virtually any reason.
And in doing so the article is wrong.
I like Mounties
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2015, 07:33:55 PM
Should have responded "I've been flying drugs into the US on this flight for 2 years, and yours was the vaguest fucking question an Immigration officer has ever asked. If you want specific answers, ask specific questions!"
What would totally punk them is if I said that, and then on my smartphone had loaded a bunch of fetish porn featuring gay latex butt exams.
They would have one guy doing a cavity search, while another is searching the smartphone..."Oh My God! Its a trap! He tricked us! STOP THE EXAM! ITS WHAT HE WANTS!"
Here's the latest case law straight from the Supremes in the last 12 months on police powers to search your cellphone.
Canadian police may have more expansive rights than American police, but it most certainly is not "for any reason", and is constrained in a number of different ways.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014/2014scc77/2014scc77.html
Personally, I think it's one of those cases that superficially is a ruling in favour of the Crown, but when you drill down into the specifics is actually a major win for the defence bar.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 08, 2015, 07:43:57 PM
What would totally punk them is if I said that, and then on my smartphone had loaded a bunch of fetish porn featuring gay latex butt exams.
They would have one guy doing a cavity search, while another is searching the smartphone..."Oh My God! Its a trap! He tricked us! STOP THE EXAM! ITS WHAT HE WANTS!"
Your most cunning grift ever Dorsey. :thumbsup:
Quote from: alfred russel on March 08, 2015, 07:24:00 PM
But my question is this: what if I just said, "go fuck yourself, I'm an american with an american passport, I'm not telling you about my vacation." Am I really under an obligation to answer their questions to get back into the country?
You, as an American citizen, have the right to enter the country.
The stuff you're bringing with you is an entirely different matter.
So you could strip down naked, say "go fuck yourself" and they would, eventually be forced to let you into the country.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2015, 06:36:23 PM
So you think customs laws should be nothing more than a suggestion.
I'll take your strawman bait...
No, they should be enforced properly.
That being said, I think returning citizens should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is probable cause/reasonable suspicion (the same rules as on-the-street police officers) to go beyond that. There is no conflict with that ideal and existing customs laws.
And AR's anecdote shows what is wrong with most customs agents, and heck, most law enforcement agents of all stripes...they should be competent, polite, and professional, not rude and cynical and making threats.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 08:45:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2015, 06:36:23 PM
So you think customs laws should be nothing more than a suggestion.
I'll take your strawman bait...
No, they should be enforced properly.
That being said, I think returning citizens should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is probable cause/reasonable suspicion (the same rules as on-the-street police officers) to go beyond that. There is no conflict with that ideal and existing customs laws.
And AR's anecdote shows what is wrong with most customs agents, and heck, most law enforcement agents of all stripes...they should be competent, polite, and professional, not rude and cynical and making threats.
The officer was competent, polite and professional. AR's answer was indeed vague bullshit. And the officer is right, AR can either go into specifics with him, or into specifics at a secondary screening.
Saying "we can do this the easy way, or the hard way" is not a threat - it's clearly laying out two possible courses of action, and the pros and cons of each.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 08:45:18 PM
I'll take your strawman bait...
No, they should be enforced properly.
That being said, I think returning citizens should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is probable cause/reasonable suspicion (the same rules as on-the-street police officers) to go beyond that. There is no conflict with that ideal and existing customs laws.
What could possibly constitute reasonable cause apart from an informant's tip?
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2015, 08:54:01 PM
The officer was competent, polite and professional. AR's answer was indeed vague bullshit. And the officer is right, AR can either go into specifics with him, or into specifics at a secondary screening.
Saying "we can do this the easy way, or the hard way" is not a threat - it's clearly laying out two possible courses of action, and the pros and cons of each.
Totally disagree. All he had to do was ask Dorsey to be more specific.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2015, 08:54:01 PM
The officer was competent, polite and professional. AR's answer was indeed vague bullshit. And the officer is right, AR can either go into specifics with him, or into specifics at a secondary screening.
Saying "we can do this the easy way, or the hard way" is not a threat - it's clearly laying out two possible courses of action, and the pros and cons of each.
I'll toss you a bone and disagree with Tonitrus that most immigration people are rude. I think most are polite.
But I really don't think my answer was vague bullshit. They always ask the same questions, I always answer in similar ways, sometimes they just say "welcome home" and sometimes they ask a follow up or two. I'm not sure how he wanted me to answer. I really doubt he wanted a day by day description of what I was doing, so should I just have picked a couple days and told him about those?
I also highly doubt he was being truthful in telling me that in two years that was the most vague answer he has heard.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2015, 08:54:01 PM
The officer was competent, polite and professional. AR's answer was indeed vague bullshit. And the officer is right, AR can either go into specifics with him, or into specifics at a secondary screening.
Saying "we can do this the easy way, or the hard way" is not a threat - it's clearly laying out two possible courses of action, and the pros and cons of each.
He was polite? Man, your job is really getting to you, you no longer understand how humans perceive things.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2015, 08:54:01 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 08:45:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2015, 06:36:23 PM
So you think customs laws should be nothing more than a suggestion.
I'll take your strawman bait...
No, they should be enforced properly.
That being said, I think returning citizens should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is probable cause/reasonable suspicion (the same rules as on-the-street police officers) to go beyond that. There is no conflict with that ideal and existing customs laws.
And AR's anecdote shows what is wrong with most customs agents, and heck, most law enforcement agents of all stripes...they should be competent, polite, and professional, not rude and cynical and making threats.
The officer was competent, polite and professional. AR's answer was indeed vague bullshit. And the officer is right, AR can either go into specifics with him, or into specifics at a secondary screening.
Saying "we can do this the easy way, or the hard way" is not a threat - it's clearly laying out two possible courses of action, and the pros and cons of each.
Completely disagree. His initial answers were about what I would expect the average person would give in response to do what they did on a touristy vacation.
Giving the "in two years those were the most vaguest answers" line shows obvious disrespect and suspicion. Suspicion is fine, that's part of the job, but showing it off is unprofessional if the person being questioned is not a suspect in a crime.
It may not be a direct "threat", but it is an attempt at unsubtle coercion, again pretty damned unprofessional to a non-suspect.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 08, 2015, 09:18:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2015, 08:54:01 PM
The officer was competent, polite and professional. AR's answer was indeed vague bullshit. And the officer is right, AR can either go into specifics with him, or into specifics at a secondary screening.
Saying "we can do this the easy way, or the hard way" is not a threat - it's clearly laying out two possible courses of action, and the pros and cons of each.
I'll toss you a bone and disagree with Tonitrus that most immigration people are rude. I think most are polite.
I'll give you that one.
For my personal experience:
Canada = 1 out of 3
U.S. = also 1 out of 3
Japan = ? out of 1 (practically invisible).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2015, 09:00:32 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 08:45:18 PM
I'll take your strawman bait...
No, they should be enforced properly.
That being said, I think returning citizens should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is probable cause/reasonable suspicion (the same rules as on-the-street police officers) to go beyond that. There is no conflict with that ideal and existing customs laws.
What could possibly constitute reasonable cause apart from an informant's tip?
The same standards that police officers apply at traffic stops or stopping someone on the street.
That being said, applying higher standards to non-U.S. citizens entering the country is fine, though some decency and common sense should still apply. But U.S. citizens should be treated as if with anywhere else in the U.S.; returning from outside the country should not, by itself, be immediate grounds for a higher suspicion of criminal activity.
Quote from: Jacob on March 08, 2015, 05:55:28 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 08, 2015, 05:52:24 PM
Border searches are not the issue, the article plainly says that the cops in Canada can search anyone's phone within Canada for virtually any reason.
The article is suspect.
Are you suggesting that an article from a site that is Slate's partner is in any way not meeting the highest standards of journalist credibility? :P
I like how this thread quickly turned into "Barrister Boy is a Formalistic Asshole Out of Touch With Reality: Case Study no. 3648". :lol:
QuoteHe was polite? Man, your job is really getting to you, you no longer understand how humans perceive things.
Quote from: Martinus on March 09, 2015, 01:20:43 AM
I like how this thread quickly turned into "Barrister Boy is a Formalistic Asshole Out of Touch With Reality: Case Study no. 3648". :lol:
No need to make things personal. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 10:24:19 PM
The same standards that police officers apply at traffic stops or stopping someone on the street.
Someone on the street is only going to get searched if they're seen committing a crime, Bloomberg's stop and frisk being a notable exception. Unless someone tries to sell a kilo of smack to the person behind them in the ICE line, what you're proposing does in fact turn customs laws into a suggestion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2015, 02:45:45 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 10:24:19 PM
The same standards that police officers apply at traffic stops or stopping someone on the street.
Someone on the street is only going to get searched if they're seen committing a crime, Bloomberg's stop and frisk being a notable exception. Unless someone tries to sell a kilo of smack to the person behind them in the ICE line, what you're proposing does in fact turn customs laws into a suggestion.
Should we assume every citizen re-entering the country is smuggling smack?
Quote from: sbr on March 09, 2015, 02:51:06 AM
Should we assume every citizen re-entering the country is smuggling smack?
That would be a patently false assumption.
I agree.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2015, 02:45:45 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 10:24:19 PM
The same standards that police officers apply at traffic stops or stopping someone on the street.
Someone on the street is only going to get searched if they're seen committing a crime, Bloomberg's stop and frisk being a notable exception.
Stop and Frisk is not a search, and plenty of agencies do it.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2015, 05:43:02 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 05:38:17 PM
If you're a citizen of the country that you're entering, there is no good reason you shouldn't.
It depends on whether the government of the country is willing to grant that expectation to its citizens. Remember that most countries are like Canada, where rights are given by the government, not like the US, where rights are human and the government only has the power to infringe on them that the people give it. Those are two completely different starting points.
:lol:
The US of A. Where corporations and now rights are human.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2015, 09:01:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2015, 08:54:01 PM
The officer was competent, polite and professional. AR's answer was indeed vague bullshit. And the officer is right, AR can either go into specifics with him, or into specifics at a secondary screening.
Saying "we can do this the easy way, or the hard way" is not a threat - it's clearly laying out two possible courses of action, and the pros and cons of each.
Totally disagree. All he had to do was ask Dorsey to be more specific.
I dunno. I always think back to a police interview I remember watching. Crack had been found in the back seat of the car, and police were interviewing the occupants about it.
First officer starts much as you guys suggest - very polite and non-assertive. And this lady spent a good hour rambling about nothing at all.
Then a second officer comes in. He was very professional, but very direct. He didn't put up with bullshit and said so. Lady admitted everything (or at least enough for a conviction) within 10 minutes.
Law enforcement officers should always be respectful, but they are not their for a social visit. Their questions should be answered directly, and they will often need to be quite blunt in their responses.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 10:24:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2015, 09:00:32 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 08:45:18 PM
I'll take your strawman bait...
No, they should be enforced properly.
That being said, I think returning citizens should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is probable cause/reasonable suspicion (the same rules as on-the-street police officers) to go beyond that. There is no conflict with that ideal and existing customs laws.
What could possibly constitute reasonable cause apart from an informant's tip?
The same standards that police officers apply at traffic stops or stopping someone on the street.
That being said, applying higher standards to non-U.S. citizens entering the country is fine, though some decency and common sense should still apply. But U.S. citizens should be treated as if with anywhere else in the U.S.; returning from outside the country should not, by itself, be immediate grounds for a higher suspicion of criminal activity.
Do you think non Americans are more apt to smuggle things into the country than Americans?
Yeah, I've been through border control so many times now it isn't funny.
You never know what you are going to get - sometimes it is entirely cursory, most times in fact, sometimes not so much. I don't see any problem with any of that.
It is not "unreasonable" to expect that when crossing a border you will be searched to make sure you are not bringing in anything you should not.
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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.
They're not looking for crack.
They're looking for kiddie porn. And they find it in surprising quantities.
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 09:41:54 AM
I dunno. I always think back to a police interview I remember watching. Crack had been found in the back seat of the car, and police were interviewing the occupants about it.
First officer starts much as you guys suggest - very polite and non-assertive. And this lady spent a good hour rambling about nothing at all.
Then a second officer comes in. He was very professional, but very direct. He didn't put up with bullshit and said so. Lady admitted everything (or at least enough for a conviction) within 10 minutes.
Law enforcement officers should always be respectful, but they are not their for a social visit. Their questions should be answered directly, and they will often need to be quite blunt in their responses.
If they found crack in my backpack that might be an analogous story.
The odds I'm a spy or a terrorist are exceedingly small, and even if I was, asking me what I was doing while out of the country a week seems quite unlikely to detect that.
I'm not certain what else they are asking about. If I was on a crime spree in a foreign country, that typically isn't a crime here.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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?
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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".
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 09:56:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 09:41:54 AM
I dunno. I always think back to a police interview I remember watching. Crack had been found in the back seat of the car, and police were interviewing the occupants about it.
First officer starts much as you guys suggest - very polite and non-assertive. And this lady spent a good hour rambling about nothing at all.
Then a second officer comes in. He was very professional, but very direct. He didn't put up with bullshit and said so. Lady admitted everything (or at least enough for a conviction) within 10 minutes.
Law enforcement officers should always be respectful, but they are not their for a social visit. Their questions should be answered directly, and they will often need to be quite blunt in their responses.
If they found crack in my backpack that might be an analogous story.
The odds I'm a spy or a terrorist are exceedingly small, and even if I was, asking me what I was doing while out of the country a week seems quite unlikely to detect that.
I'm not certain what else they are asking about. If I was on a crime spree in a foreign country, that typically isn't a crime here.
The point was that direct and to the point can often be more effective than polite and non-confrontational.
The point of asking those kinds of questions is to determine whether or not to send you to secondary screening. There's not necessarily any right or wrong answers - it's more in how you answer them.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 09:56:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 09:41:54 AM
I dunno. I always think back to a police interview I remember watching. Crack had been found in the back seat of the car, and police were interviewing the occupants about it.
First officer starts much as you guys suggest - very polite and non-assertive. And this lady spent a good hour rambling about nothing at all.
Then a second officer comes in. He was very professional, but very direct. He didn't put up with bullshit and said so. Lady admitted everything (or at least enough for a conviction) within 10 minutes.
Law enforcement officers should always be respectful, but they are not their for a social visit. Their questions should be answered directly, and they will often need to be quite blunt in their responses.
If they found crack in my backpack that might be an analogous story.
The odds I'm a spy or a terrorist are exceedingly small, and even if I was, asking me what I was doing while out of the country a week seems quite unlikely to detect that.
I'm not certain what else they are asking about. If I was on a crime spree in a foreign country, that typically isn't a crime here.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:02:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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!!!!
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:05:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
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, but I am happy to defer to the people who are trained and professionals at doing the job, barring some reason to suspect otherwise.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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.
Actually, it is the sort of thing that I've seen a lot of with rude government employees. Maybe part of the issue is that while they are working there on a daily basis (and thus know the full drill and what they need), for many of us, interacting with them is on an occasional basis. Many of the blunder on our part are because we don't really know the full process and the role we are expected to play (thinking about how rude many of the employees were when I went to have my biometric data taken).
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:07:16 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:05:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
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.
You pass through a border infrequently. The border agent sees hundreds of people in a day at a busy port of entry. It doesn't take long to gain the ability to pick out someone who is acting odd compared to the rest of the people on that flight or crossing at that time. The Israelis trust this sort of judgment more than technology designed to detect threats.
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:10:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:07:16 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:10:30 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:15:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:10:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:07:16 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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?" :hmm:
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:18:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:10:30 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:02:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:15:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:15:28 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 10:22:30 AM
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?
Pretty sure we try to smuggle guns into the UK, so they can resist the oppression of the King.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:26:50 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 10:22:30 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:05:12 AM
"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.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 10:31:07 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:26:50 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 10:22:30 AM
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).
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.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:05:12 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:02:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 09:52:32 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 10:05:23 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 10:31:07 AM
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.
not really odd. Someone doing this for the 1st time would likely be nervous and make mistakes between different stories. You don't necessarly have the goods with you, you could be there for some other purpose too, or pick up the goods left by someone else. So yeah, casual conversation helps detect a lot of things. Doesn't prevent professionnals from doing their stuff, but it's not exactly why we have border control agents in our countries, this is left to other pros of counter-espionnage.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:14:51 AM
The Israelis trust this sort of judgment more than technology designed to detect threats.
The Israelis are also operating under much looser controls, a less diverse population and are permitted to engage in active and aggressive profiling. A well-dressed and well-shaved Palestinian is a cause for concern, and will be jacked the fuck up.
Of course it can be done, it is done all the time.
Like I said, I probably went through border control at least a dozen times last year. At no time did I ever feel like they were being unreasonable with me, impolite, or anything of the kind.
Which doesn't mean they were all the same. Some of them were downright pleasant, some of them were rather curt, some of them seemed like they needed a break.
There are hundreds of agents working a tedious and boring job with serious stakes. I don't pretend to understand their job, not can I reasonably evaluate how "nice" they need to be at all times. Some of them, I am sure, are rude when they don't need to be. Shrug. To expect every person working every job to be perfect is a good way to make yourself pissed off all the time.
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:49:12 AM
Of course it can be done, it is done all the time.
Like I said, I probably went through border control at least a dozen times last year. At no time did I ever feel like they were being unreasonable with me, impolite, or anything of the kind.
Which doesn't mean they were all the same. Some of them were downright pleasant, some of them were rather curt, some of them seemed like they needed a break.
There are hundreds of agents working a tedious and boring job with serious stakes. I don't pretend to understand their job, not can I reasonably evaluate how "nice" they need to be at all times. Some of them, I am sure, are rude when they don't need to be. Shrug. To expect every person working every job to be perfect is a good way to make yourself pissed off all the time.
Yeah, the vast majority of experiences I have with both Canadian and US border agents are fine.
The only complaint I have is that I often get selected for "random" checks - I strongly suspect that is because I hit a number of important demographics to even out the stats to ensure they are not accused of profiling.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:53:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:49:12 AM
Of course it can be done, it is done all the time.
Like I said, I probably went through border control at least a dozen times last year. At no time did I ever feel like they were being unreasonable with me, impolite, or anything of the kind.
Which doesn't mean they were all the same. Some of them were downright pleasant, some of them were rather curt, some of them seemed like they needed a break.
There are hundreds of agents working a tedious and boring job with serious stakes. I don't pretend to understand their job, not can I reasonably evaluate how "nice" they need to be at all times. Some of them, I am sure, are rude when they don't need to be. Shrug. To expect every person working every job to be perfect is a good way to make yourself pissed off all the time.
Yeah, the vast majority of experiences I have with both Canadian and US border agents are fine.
The only complaint I have is that I often get selected for "random" checks - I strongly suspect that is because I hit a number of important demographics to even out the stats to ensure they are not accused of profiling.
LOL - you are the "anti-profiler".
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
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).
It isn't my suggestion to search every bag. But for what its worth, in the US (and other places) you have to go through a security screen upon arrival anyway.
You TSA golden boys, I have never been selected for a random check <_<
Border Agents and rudeness... yeah, some of them can be pretty obnoxious, and I'd prefer them not to be. At this time, however, I've accepted it as a fact of life. That said, I do think there's value in the "welcome to America, enjoy your visit" or "welcome home" you get from the pleasant ones once in a while... Border Agents are the first impression of a country, and it can be a stressful situation for travellers so the impression is magnified; and the perception of a country does matter (hence various PR campaigns etc), so I think it'd be pretty worthwhile to increase the amount of niceness from Border Agents (once you've passed the various screenings, naturally).
As for searching cell phones - especially "requiring passwords" - that seems pretty obnoxious to me. I can see arguments for and against, but I don't like it. Ultimately, I think it's something that should be explicitly legislated - ideally with expert input - rather than interpreted from legislation that date before the concept of "data on smartphones" was even conceived.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 11:01:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
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).
It isn't my suggestion to search every bag. But for what its worth, in the US (and other places) you have to go through a security screen upon arrival anyway.
You have lost me. What do you mean by a "security screen"?
Quote from: celedhring on March 09, 2015, 11:03:01 AM
You TSA golden boys, I have never been selected for a random check <_<
Obviously not swarthy enough. And to prevent being accused of profiling, they hit the little 84 year old white lady behind you.
Right after 9/11 the boys and girls in blue had clearly not figured out what an Ayrab looked like, because I was pulled out every single leg of every single flight I took.
Beeb: as I said before, there are more direct ways to say provide more details. Like saying "please provide more details."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2015, 11:17:01 AM
Right after 9/11 the boys and girls in blue had clearly not figured out what an Ayrab looked like, because I was pulled out every single leg of every single flight I took.
Beeb: as I said before, there are more direct ways to say provide more details. Like saying "please provide more details."
But it is not really the details they are after. They are looking at how the person is responding to the question. For example, it would be odd for someone not to react somewhat negatively to a question which is asked in a rude manner.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 10:31:07 AM
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.
Heh, the one time I ever left this country for another bullshit country, on the way back I told my girlfriend that we were going to be stopped by Customs simply because we were the youngest couple on the flight. She didn't believe me until we were asked to "step this way".
I would've been sorely disappointed if we--the youngest couple on a flight from Jamaica--weren't queried. Sometimes you just fit what needs to be checked, it's not personal.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 11:12:40 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 11:01:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
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).
It isn't my suggestion to search every bag. But for what its worth, in the US (and other places) you have to go through a security screen upon arrival anyway.
You have lost me. What do you mean by a "security screen"?
Take things out of pockets, go through a naked scanner, take out laptops and electronics from bags, and basically stuff like getting on a plane.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2015, 11:17:01 AM
Right after 9/11 the boys and girls in blue had clearly not figured out what an Ayrab looked like, because I was pulled out every single leg of every single flight I took.
They didn't exist right after 9/11. :huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 11:21:26 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2015, 11:17:01 AM
Right after 9/11 the boys and girls in blue had clearly not figured out what an Ayrab looked like, because I was pulled out every single leg of every single flight I took.
Beeb: as I said before, there are more direct ways to say provide more details. Like saying "please provide more details."
But it is not really the details they are after. They are looking at how the person is responding to the question. For example, it would be odd for someone not to react somewhat negatively to a question which is asked in a rude manner.
I don't know, I probably wouldn't out of fear of pissing the officer off further.
As I said, though, border control officers have always been pretty nice to me, even when asking these kind of details.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 09, 2015, 11:26:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2015, 11:17:01 AM
Right after 9/11 the boys and girls in blue had clearly not figured out what an Ayrab looked like, because I was pulled out every single leg of every single flight I took.
They didn't exist right after 9/11. :huh:
YOU KNOW WHAT HE MEANS
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 11:26:25 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 11:12:40 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 11:01:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
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).
It isn't my suggestion to search every bag. But for what its worth, in the US (and other places) you have to go through a security screen upon arrival anyway.
You have lost me. What do you mean by a "security screen"?
Take things out of pockets, go through a naked scanner, take out laptops and electronics from bags, and basically stuff like getting on a plane.
That's entirely separate, done by a separate agency.
That's done by CATSA in Canada, by officials who are little more trained than mall security cops. They're only looking to prevent weapons from being transported on planes. It's done at the start of your flight.
The search you're complaining about is done by border guards. They're they are looking for any contraband being brought into the country. It's done at the end of your flight.
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 11:30:11 AM
That's entirely separate, done by a separate agency.
That's done by CATSA in Canada, by officials who are little more trained than mall security cops. They're only looking to prevent weapons from being transported on planes. It's done at the start of your flight.
The search you're complaining about is done by border guards. They're they are looking for any contraband being brought into the country. It's done at the end of your flight.
I do recognize the distinction, but if you are going to screen people entering the country because you don't trust the screening the foreigners did, you could integrate the border guards into the process.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 11:26:25 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 11:12:40 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 11:01:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
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).
It isn't my suggestion to search every bag. But for what its worth, in the US (and other places) you have to go through a security screen upon arrival anyway.
You have lost me. What do you mean by a "security screen"?
Take things out of pockets, go through a naked scanner, take out laptops and electronics from bags, and basically stuff like getting on a plane.
But that has nothing to do with a determination of whether you are smuggling goods in your baggage - whether it be carry on or checked.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 11:34:02 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 11:30:11 AM
That's entirely separate, done by a separate agency.
That's done by CATSA in Canada, by officials who are little more trained than mall security cops. They're only looking to prevent weapons from being transported on planes. It's done at the start of your flight.
The search you're complaining about is done by border guards. They're they are looking for any contraband being brought into the country. It's done at the end of your flight.
I do recognize the distinction, but if you are going to screen people entering the country because you don't trust the screening the foreigners did, you could integrate the border guards into the process.
The screening isn't to enter a country. The screening is to allow you onto the plane and it is often done by an agency completely unrelated to the country you will attempt to enter. ie it has nothing to do with your ability to enter a country at the other end of the flight.
Yeah, the pre-flight security screen isn't intended to find cocaine in your luggage, and the exit-the-airport screen is unconcerned with bottles of water, lighters et. al.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 11:04:03 AM
Border Agents and rudeness... yeah, some of them can be pretty obnoxious, and I'd prefer them not to be. At this time, however, I've accepted it as a fact of life. That said, I do think there's value in the "welcome to America, enjoy your visit" or "welcome home" you get from the pleasant ones once in a while... Border Agents are the first impression of a country, and it can be a stressful situation for travellers so the impression is magnified; and the perception of a country does matter (hence various PR campaigns etc), so I think it'd be pretty worthwhile to increase the amount of niceness from Border Agents (once you've passed the various screenings, naturally).
Yeah, my initial impression of Quebec was tainted by rudeness at the border. Of course, later I met someone who told me that he was one of the managers along the border and it sound like they had been unusually dickish. :D
Which I can attest to as never was quite the same on my later visits. :cool:
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 11:39:56 AM
Yeah, the pre-flight security screen isn't intended to find cocaine in your luggage, and the exit-the-airport screen is unconcerned with bottles of water, lighters et. al.
In the US the exit screens are also concerned with water, lighters, etc.
However, I'm not sure if that is universal, or if it is just because I have had a connecting flight in the US or some airports are designed so that people arriving at their final destination mix with people that are connecting after clearing the screening.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 11:39:56 AM
Yeah, the pre-flight security screen isn't intended to find cocaine in your luggage, and the exit-the-airport screen is unconcerned with bottles of water, lighters et. al.
In the US the exit screens are also concerned with water, lighters, etc.
However, I'm not sure if that is universal, or if it is just because I have had a connecting flight in the US or some airports are designed so that people arriving at their final destination mix with people that are connecting after clearing the screening.
Sorry, bad terminology on my part. I meant "customs and immigration" is not concerned with water and lighters.
Though, as you say, if you are entering a part of the airport where you're not supposed to have outside water and lighters etc after clearing customs, I suppose someone will screen you for those items. But I'm pretty sure that the customs agents don't care about bottled water.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2015, 11:17:01 AM
Right after 9/11 the boys and girls in blue had clearly not figured out what an Ayrab looked like, because I was pulled out every single leg of every single flight I took.
Beeb: as I said before, there are more direct ways to say provide more details. Like saying "please provide more details."
Half a year after 9/11 my Mom carried a suitcase full of undeclared German food (about half of which was some sort of meat product - pork ham, sausages, cold cuts, bratwursts...) through U.S. customs without a hitch.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 12:00:54 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 11:39:56 AM
Yeah, the pre-flight security screen isn't intended to find cocaine in your luggage, and the exit-the-airport screen is unconcerned with bottles of water, lighters et. al.
In the US the exit screens are also concerned with water, lighters, etc.
However, I'm not sure if that is universal, or if it is just because I have had a connecting flight in the US or some airports are designed so that people arriving at their final destination mix with people that are connecting after clearing the screening.
Sorry, bad terminology on my part. I meant "customs and immigration" is not concerned with water and lighters.
Though, as you say, if you are entering a part of the airport where you're not supposed to have outside water and lighters etc after clearing customs, I suppose someone will screen you for those items. But I'm pretty sure that the customs agents don't care about bottled water.
My point is that customs agents, the police, security, etc. are all agents of the government. I do believe it is possible to leverage processes already in place and still achieve the government's objectives.
Quote from: Syt on March 09, 2015, 12:12:55 PM
Half a year after 9/11 my Mom carried a suitcase full of undeclared German food (about half of which was some sort of meat product - pork ham, sausages, cold cuts, bratwursts...) through U.S. customs without a hitch.
I have never had anything happen at US customs besides very cursory conversation.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 11:39:56 AM
Yeah, the pre-flight security screen isn't intended to find cocaine in your luggage, and the exit-the-airport screen is unconcerned with bottles of water, lighters et. al.
In the US the exit screens are also concerned with water, lighters, etc.
However, I'm not sure if that is universal, or if it is just because I have had a connecting flight in the US or some airports are designed so that people arriving at their final destination mix with people that are connecting after clearing the screening.
I think you are getting confused by arrangements the US government has made in certain foreign airports to arrange pre-boarding customs and immigration clearance for passengers boarding the flight. So for example, for certain flights, I can clear customs and immigration for entry into the US at the Vancouver airport. But when that occurs I first clear security and then I pass through US customs and immigration officers. They are two separate stops and they perform two very different functions.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 12:13:49 PM
My point is that customs agents, the police, security, etc. are all agents of the government. I do believe it is possible to leverage processes already in place and still achieve the government's objectives.
You should set up a consultancy. You seem to be well placed to establish benchmarks and deliverables that can leverage existing assets and create win-win situations for all stakeholders.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 12:13:49 PM
My point is that customs agents, the police, security, etc. are all agents of the government. I do believe it is possible to leverage processes already in place and still achieve the government's objectives.
You should set up a consultancy. You seem to be well placed to establish benchmarks and deliverables that can leverage existing assets and create win-win situations for all stakeholders.
:lol:
Well played
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 12:13:49 PM
My point is that customs agents, the police, security, etc. are all agents of the government. I do believe it is possible to leverage processes already in place and still achieve the government's objectives.
You should set up a consultancy. You seem to be well placed to establish benchmarks and deliverables that can leverage existing assets and create win-win situations for all stakeholders.
I'll settle for them not being rude to me when I get off my flight.
If that isn't possible, I'd ask that they stop giggling every time I go through the naked scanner.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 12:17:10 PM
You seem to be well placed to establish benchmarks and deliverables that can leverage existing assets and create win-win situations for all stakeholders.
:lmfao:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 12:16:05 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 11:39:56 AM
Yeah, the pre-flight security screen isn't intended to find cocaine in your luggage, and the exit-the-airport screen is unconcerned with bottles of water, lighters et. al.
In the US the exit screens are also concerned with water, lighters, etc.
However, I'm not sure if that is universal, or if it is just because I have had a connecting flight in the US or some airports are designed so that people arriving at their final destination mix with people that are connecting after clearing the screening.
I think you are getting confused by arrangements the US government has made in certain foreign airports to arrange pre-boarding customs and immigration clearance for passengers boarding the flight. So for example, for certain flights, I can clear customs and immigration for entry into the US at the Vancouver airport. But when that occurs I first clear security and then I pass through US customs and immigration officers. They are two separate stops and they perform two very different functions.
No--I'm discussing arrivals in American airports.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 12:13:49 PM
My point is that customs agents, the police, security, etc. are all agents of the government. I do believe it is possible to leverage processes already in place and still achieve the government's objectives.
You should set up a consultancy. You seem to be well placed to establish benchmarks and deliverables that can leverage existing assets and create win-win situations for all stakeholders.
Jacob wins the thread.
Also, my corporate BS Bingo card is now full. :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 12:15:13 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 09, 2015, 12:12:55 PM
Half a year after 9/11 my Mom carried a suitcase full of undeclared German food (about half of which was some sort of meat product - pork ham, sausages, cold cuts, bratwursts...) through U.S. customs without a hitch.
I have never had anything happen at US customs besides very cursory conversation.
My three (barely) amusing customs stories:
1. Driving into Alaska at Beaver Creek Yukon, probably in 2003. My only ID was a drivers license. When asked if I had anything else I was told as I was a "bad Canadian!", lectured I should bring proof of citizenship, and then let into the US.
2. Driving towards Skagway, Alaska for the 4th of July. Border Guard was very helpful, gave us a map, told us the best places to go.
3. Flying into Miami from Brazil, with two strollers in tow. There's an ENORMOUS line-up for customs for visitors to the US, and a tiny line-up for US citizens. We start to line up in the enormous line. We get asked if we're Americans, we reply "no, we're Canadians". We promptly get waived over to the US citizens line. Felt vaguely racist, but we weren't going to argue.
4. Driving back from Sakgway on a different visit. Canadian border guard asks if I have anything to declare, I say "yes a case of beer". Guy starts to lecture me that you can't bring back beer unless you've been in the US for 48 hours, to which I reply "...unless you're willing to pay duty". For some reason the guy switches to asking what kind of work me and my wife do, to which we reply "Crown Prosecutor" and "corrections officer". Dejectedly, he just waives us through, not even asking for the duty money.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 12:21:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 12:16:05 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 11:39:56 AM
Yeah, the pre-flight security screen isn't intended to find cocaine in your luggage, and the exit-the-airport screen is unconcerned with bottles of water, lighters et. al.
In the US the exit screens are also concerned with water, lighters, etc.
However, I'm not sure if that is universal, or if it is just because I have had a connecting flight in the US or some airports are designed so that people arriving at their final destination mix with people that are connecting after clearing the screening.
I think you are getting confused by arrangements the US government has made in certain foreign airports to arrange pre-boarding customs and immigration clearance for passengers boarding the flight. So for example, for certain flights, I can clear customs and immigration for entry into the US at the Vancouver airport. But when that occurs I first clear security and then I pass through US customs and immigration officers. They are two separate stops and they perform two very different functions.
No--I'm discussing arrivals in American airports.
Well, every time you go from a secured area of an airport to an unsecured area you need to go through security screening again before boarding a flight. In many airports around the world you can make connections while remaining in a secured area. But I still have no idea what that has to do with customs and immigration officers protecting ports of entry.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 12:17:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 12:13:49 PM
My point is that customs agents, the police, security, etc. are all agents of the government. I do believe it is possible to leverage processes already in place and still achieve the government's objectives.
You should set up a consultancy. You seem to be well placed to establish benchmarks and deliverables that can leverage existing assets and create win-win situations for all stakeholders.
I was going to add synergy in there too but i thought it might be too much.
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 12:23:36 PM
4. Driving back from Sakgway on a different visit. Canadian border guard asks if I have anything to declare, I say "yes a case of beer". Guy starts to lecture me that you can't bring back beer unless you've been in the US for 48 hours, to which I reply "...unless you're willing to pay duty". For some reason the guy switches to asking what kind of work me and my wife do, to which we reply "Crown Prosecutor" and "corrections officer". Dejectedly, he just waives us through, not even asking for the duty money.
I always declare the wine I buy on trips to the US. I always get waved through without them collecting the duty. Its just not worth that paperwork for them. If I had lied about it though that 3x duty penalty starts to make it worth their while.
For some reason the two most relaxed US security agents I encountered where both in 2002, a couple of months after 9/11. While trying to get on our connecting flight in Chicago, the hand luggage scanner clearly showed a small knife (like an inch or an inch and a half) in my father's bag. The agent searched the whole bag and didn't find anything, so he let us pass so we could catch our connecting flight. We later found the knife in the lining of the bag. Oops. On the same trip, when re-entering the US from Tijuana, we didn't want to queue with all the Mexicans because that would have taken ages. So we went for the US citizens queue. The border guard saw our German passports and told us in flawless German how he had served with this and that unit in Germany for a couple of years and gave us some tips what to visit next before letting us pass.
Seems to me like it took the TSA some years to become the annoyance it is today...
One thing that is very noticeable at international airports is that Americans always take off their shoes for security scans which is typically not required anywhere except in the US.
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 12:38:43 PM
One thing that is very noticeable at international airports is that Americans always take off their shoes for security scans which is typically not required anywhere except in the US.
:yes:
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 12:38:43 PM
One thing that is very noticeable at international airports is that Americans always take off their shoes for security scans which is typically not required anywhere except in the US.
We are well trained.
Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2015, 12:41:09 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 12:38:43 PM
One thing that is very noticeable at international airports is that Americans always take off their shoes for security scans which is typically not required anywhere except in the US.
We are well trained.
The funny part is watching others around the American start to take off their shoes as well.
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 12:38:43 PM
One thing that is very noticeable at international airports is that Americans always take off their shoes for security scans which is typically not required anywhere except in the US.
Yeah, one shoe bomber on a US flight ruins it for everybody.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 11:04:03 AM
As for searching cell phones - especially "requiring passwords" - that seems pretty obnoxious to me. I can see arguments for and against, but I don't like it. Ultimately, I think it's something that should be explicitly legislated - ideally with expert input - rather than interpreted from legislation that date before the concept of "data on smartphones" was even conceived.
I think we could draw a parallel on previous legislations/rules, no? What were the specific procedures for checking one's camera before smartphones? Did they ask to check the negatives at customs? Did they force people to wait while they develop photographs if there was a hint of suspicion? If you had a video camera, could they ask you to show them what you filmed?
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 12:38:43 PM
One thing that is very noticeable at international airports is that Americans always take off their shoes for security scans which is typically not required anywhere except in the US.
It's the polite thing to do. We don't want to dirty the floors :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2015, 12:42:43 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 12:38:43 PM
One thing that is very noticeable at international airports is that Americans always take off their shoes for security scans which is typically not required anywhere except in the US.
Yeah, one shoe bomber on a US flight ruins it for everybody.
Except it was a Paris-US flight, and the bomber was British.
ANyways, it's just funny to note the discrepancy.
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 11:43:39 AM
Yeah, my initial impression of Quebec was tainted by rudeness at the border. Of course, later I met someone who told me that he was one of the managers along the border and it sound like they had been unusually dickish. :D
Which I can attest to as never was quite the same on my later visits. :cool:
they probably worried about illegal US immigrants. It's quite a problem here, people fleeing this oppressive land where Obama is trying to seize all your guns and turn you into a communist haven.
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 12:46:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2015, 12:42:43 PM
Yeah, one shoe bomber on a US flight ruins it for everybody.
Except it was a Paris-US flight, and the bomber was British.
ANyways, it's just funny to note the discrepancy.
None of that makes it any less of a "US flight".
Lawyers. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2015, 01:09:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 12:46:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2015, 12:42:43 PM
Yeah, one shoe bomber on a US flight ruins it for everybody.
Except it was a Paris-US flight, and the bomber was British.
ANyways, it's just funny to note the discrepancy.
None of that makes it any less of a "US flight".
Lawyers. :rolleyes:
He has been a real square lately.
It's ridiculous that you folks' customs agents check your smartphone at the border. Canadian SIGINT must suck.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2015, 12:42:43 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 12:38:43 PM
One thing that is very noticeable at international airports is that Americans always take off their shoes for security scans which is typically not required anywhere except in the US.
Yeah, one shoe bomber on a US flight ruins it for everybody.
But we are aorta rolling that back - like when you get sorted to the quick lane.
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2015, 02:23:58 PM
But we are aorta rolling that back
Don't you touch my aorta! :o
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
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.
I think that your argument is valid up to the point that the immigrations guy goes into flaming asshole mode. He asks a casual, vague question, gets a casual, vague answer, and movies on. Unless he is looking to play the asshole, in which case he treats the casual answer to the casual question as an insult. There is no right answer for an asshole; you just have to complain later and hope his type gets weeded out.
Dorsey/AR/DGuller/Ted Bundy strikes me as the type that can flip a cop's "asshole" switch pretty fucking quickly.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2015, 02:40:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
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.
I think that your argument is valid up to the point that the immigrations guy goes into flaming asshole mode. He asks a casual, vague question, gets a casual, vague answer, and movies on. Unless he is looking to play the asshole, in which case he treats the casual answer to the casual question as an insult. There is no right answer for an asshole; you just have to complain later and hope his type gets weeded out.
Except AR gave him the right answer - he gave a more detailed answer, and was not chosen for secondary inspection and instead was waived on through.
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2015, 02:40:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
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.
I think that your argument is valid up to the point that the immigrations guy goes into flaming asshole mode. He asks a casual, vague question, gets a casual, vague answer, and movies on. Unless he is looking to play the asshole, in which case he treats the casual answer to the casual question as an insult. There is no right answer for an asshole; you just have to complain later and hope his type gets weeded out.
Except AR gave him the right answer - he gave a more detailed answer, and was not chosen for secondary inspection and instead was waived on through.
Agreed. Grumbler's point would have more validity if AR had been sent for a secondary search. But I do appreciate Grumbler's ability to read so much into AR's story and conclude that the border guard treated AR's answer as an insult. That is some mighty powerful mindreading right there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2015, 02:42:29 PM
Dorsey/AR/DGuller/Ted Bundy strikes me as the type that can flip a cop's "asshole" switch pretty fucking quickly.
:lol:
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2015, 02:40:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
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.
I think that your argument is valid up to the point that the immigrations guy goes into flaming asshole mode. He asks a casual, vague question, gets a casual, vague answer, and movies on. Unless he is looking to play the asshole, in which case he treats the casual answer to the casual question as an insult. There is no right answer for an asshole; you just have to complain later and hope his type gets weeded out.
Except AR gave him the right answer - he gave a more detailed answer, and was not chosen for secondary inspection and instead was waived on through.
In a sense, yes. He let the cops play his asshole game, and avoided the bullshit secondary inspection punishment for not playing the game and kissing the guy's ass. He didn't say anything about complaining, though, and enough people complaining is the only way to get guys like the immigration guy the shitcanning they deserve.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 02:55:33 PM
Agreed. Grumbler's point would have more validity if AR had been sent for a secondary search. But I do appreciate Grumbler's ability to read so much into AR's story and conclude that the border guard treated AR's answer as an insult. That is some mighty powerful mindreading right there.
Yes, reading is powerful. Not that you'd know, and not that you could learn it from reading this post, but still...
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2015, 03:34:58 PM
Yes, reading is powerful. Not that you'd know, and not that you could learn it from reading this post, but still...
Agreed. And once you learn how to read and, for example be able to distinguish between a "cop" and a border guard then perhaps you will have something useful to contribute to the conversation.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2015, 03:33:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2015, 02:40:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 09, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
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.
I think that your argument is valid up to the point that the immigrations guy goes into flaming asshole mode. He asks a casual, vague question, gets a casual, vague answer, and movies on. Unless he is looking to play the asshole, in which case he treats the casual answer to the casual question as an insult. There is no right answer for an asshole; you just have to complain later and hope his type gets weeded out.
Except AR gave him the right answer - he gave a more detailed answer, and was not chosen for secondary inspection and instead was waived on through.
In a sense, yes. He let the cops play his asshole game, and avoided the bullshit secondary inspection punishment for not playing the game and kissing the guy's ass. He didn't say anything about complaining, though, and enough people complaining is the only way to get guys like the immigration guy the shitcanning they deserve.
Just in case you didn't get the reference to a "cop" I thought I would save this for you lest it get lost along with the post where you said that rights were human. :)
I find people conflating police officers and border agents puzzling.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2015, 05:30:44 PM
You have no expectation of privacy at the border. :contract:
You always have an expectation of privacy. Especially from government agents. They should always need a plausible reason why they want to search you and you should always have a way to seek judicial oversight in case you disagree.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 03:46:16 PM
I find people conflating police officers and border agents puzzling.
Fair enough for Canada. But other countries may not distinguish between border guards and police officers, so that can explain why people conflate the two terms.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2015, 03:33:39 PM
In a sense, yes. He let the cops play his asshole game, and avoided the bullshit secondary inspection punishment for not playing the game and kissing the guy's ass. He didn't say anything about complaining, though, and enough people complaining is the only way to get guys like the immigration guy the shitcanning they deserve.
At the time I had a long layover to get home so I had a few hours to kill. Had I not been taken off guard, I would like to think I'd give a reply like, "sorry i'm vague, I spent most of my time completely hammered and don't remember much more than that." It would make a more amusing story, especially with whatever nonsense secondary inspection I could be punished with--definitely more memorable than a few hours in an airport.
I'll be ready next time, but in reality I'll probably never say anything like that because after a long flight I'm tired and just want to get through the nonsense.
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 03:54:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 03:46:16 PM
I find people conflating police officers and border agents puzzling.
Fair enough for Canada. But other countries may not distinguish between border guards and police officers, so that can explain why people conflate the two terms.
Interesting. What countries do not distinguish between the two?
The ones I'm familiar with all do, as far as I know.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 03:58:52 PM
Interesting. What countries do not distinguish between the two?
The ones I'm familiar with all do, as far as I know.
Germany
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 03:46:16 PM
I find people conflating police officers and border agents puzzling.
I find it puzzling that people quibble over the slight misuse of the word "cop." In what way does such a minor misuse change any arguments in the discussion?
Here in Warsaw cops are much nicer. They bring you mail and put out fires.
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 03:53:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2015, 05:30:44 PM
You have no expectation of privacy at the border. :contract:
You always have an expectation of privacy.
So if a customs officer asks you what you are bringing into the country a person should be able to tell them to mind their own business?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 03:57:44 PM
At the time I had a long layover to get home so I had a few hours to kill. Had I not been taken off guard, I would like to think I'd give a reply like, "sorry i'm vague, I spent most of my time completely hammered and don't remember much more than that." It would make a more amusing story, especially with whatever nonsense secondary inspection I could be punished with--definitely more memorable than a few hours in an airport.
I'll be ready next time, but in reality I'll probably never say anything like that because after a long flight I'm tired and just want to get through the nonsense.
I quite agree with your decision not to play games with the powertripping guy when he has all the cards. A word to your congressman about the incident, though, can have powerful effects for the good.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 04:03:59 PM
So if a customs officer asks you what you are bringing into the country a person should be able to tell them to mind their own business?
No. Which is why I wrote more than one sentence, but you selectively didn't quote those.
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 04:05:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 04:03:59 PM
So if a customs officer asks you what you are bringing into the country a person should be able to tell them to mind their own business?
No. Which is why I wrote more than one sentence, but you selectively didn't quote those.
\
I think they used big words. CC doesn't do big words.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2015, 04:02:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 03:46:16 PM
I find people conflating police officers and border agents puzzling.
I find it puzzling that people quibble over the slight misuse of the word "cop." In what way does such a minor misuse change any arguments in the discussion?
I find it amusing that you of all people are puzzled by quibbling over a word being misused slightly :hug:
In my understanding, the exigencies of border control and policing are different so carrying expectations from one area to the other muddies the water.
That said, as per Zanza apparently there are places where there is no distinction between the two which is interesting.
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 04:01:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 03:58:52 PM
Interesting. What countries do not distinguish between the two?
The ones I'm familiar with all do, as far as I know.
Germany
The Border guards in Germany have an interesting history. But it is also interesting to note that they are also something different from the police officers and so the distinction between the powers given to a Border Guard is different than a police officer even in Germany. In North American the difference is even more significant, making Grumbler's point even more mystifying.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 03:46:16 PM
I find people conflating police officers and border agents puzzling.
I don't. It's a common mistake for laypeople to make.
But it is a mistake to conflate the two, so I try to always point it out. :contract:
I have followed this board long enough to know to never side with Canadians.
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 04:11:27 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 03:46:16 PM
I find people conflating police officers and border agents puzzling.
I don't. It's a common mistake for laypeople to make.
But it is a mistake to conflate the two, so I try to always point it out. :contract:
And not a mistake of semantics. We have had people in this thread argue that border guards should be restricted to the same rules of search and seizure as normal police officers. I suppose if one wants to have an unsecure border that would be ok.
Quote from: Martinus on March 09, 2015, 04:12:37 PM
I have followed this board long enough to know to never side with Canadians.
Only do so if you want to be on the side of truth and justice
Quote from: Martinus on March 09, 2015, 04:12:37 PM
I have followed this board long enough to know to never side with Canadians.
Your "never" rarely lasts longer than twenty four hours.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2015, 05:43:02 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2015, 05:38:17 PM
If you're a citizen of the country that you're entering, there is no good reason you shouldn't.
It depends on whether the government of the country is willing to grant that expectation to its citizens. Remember that most countries are like Canada, where rights are given by the government, not like the US, where rights are human and the government only has the power to infringe on them that the people give it. Those are two completely different starting points.
You know, I wanted to reply to this at first, but I was on my phone and couldn't type out the response I wanted to.
It's simply not right to say that in Canada "rights are given by the government". Canada, of course, if heir to the British common law which long recognized all the basic human rights. The right to be free from unreasonable searches, the right to a fair trial, the right to due process - all existed in the common law.
Now what we did in Canada in 1982 is to codify those rights - instead of relying on vague and uncertain caselaw, we wrote them down. But those rights didn't spring into existince in 1982 - they had always existed in the law.
Quote from: Martinus on March 09, 2015, 04:12:37 PM
I have followed this board long enough to know to never side with Canadians.
You wouldn't want to ruin your record of being consistently wrong on every issue, I understand. :hug:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 10:26:50 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2015, 10:22:30 AM
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?
Yet he failed the initial screen and had to go through a secondary screen. But they were polite about it.
The fact, though, is that in almost any job, you're going to have some people who are rude and unpleasant. Unless the job is one that directly involves customer service, the person's supervisors aren't really going to care.
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 03:53:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2015, 05:30:44 PM
You have no expectation of privacy at the border. :contract:
You always have an expectation of privacy. Especially from government agents. They should always need a plausible reason why they want to search you and you should always have a way to seek judicial oversight in case you disagree.
The plausible reason is that you are bringing goods into the country. It's long been established the state can search goods being brought into the country in order to ensure that all applicable duties and taxes have been paid for. This is not a new development at law at all.
You do have the ability for judicial oversight. If something is found and you're subsequently charged, you have the right to challenge that search in court.
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 04:22:36 PM
The plausible reason is that you are bringing goods into the country. It's long been established the state can search goods being brought into the country in order to ensure that all applicable duties and taxes have been paid for. This is not a new development at law at all.
You do have the ability for judicial oversight. If something is found and you're subsequently charged, you have the right to challenge that search in court.
It's hard to argue that the contents of your cell-phone is "goods", IMO.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 04:24:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 04:22:36 PM
The plausible reason is that you are bringing goods into the country. It's long been established the state can search goods being brought into the country in order to ensure that all applicable duties and taxes have been paid for. This is not a new development at law at all.
You do have the ability for judicial oversight. If something is found and you're subsequently charged, you have the right to challenge that search in court.
It's hard to argue that the contents of your cell-phone is "goods", IMO.
The cell phone itself is a good.
And at law if you had a padlock on your goods you'd be obliged to open it for the border guards, so it's the same for your cellphone.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 04:10:44 PM
But it is also interesting to note that they are also something different from the police officers and so the distinction between the powers given to a Border Guard is different than a police officer even in Germany.
I am not exactly an expert on the police-related legislation of Germany's sixteen states and that of the federal government, but at least from my perspective there is no difference. The law establishing the federal police makes it explicit that it is a police task to guard borders and that the federal police has police powers. They also wear the same uniforms that say police.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvuKJgvo.jpg&hash=60370270e60617c1d09875364dedc875e8c18d23)
By the way, your luggage at the airport would be checked by a different agency in Germany, namely the Federal Customs Agency. They have only limited police powers and are not considered a police force. There are actually two different kind of borders: for persons and goods. You'll notice when you arrive at just about any international airport. You'll always be checked for your travel documents (persons border), but your luggage is typically only checked in your final destination (goods border). The US is rather the exception here again as they make you pick up your luggage, haul it past a disinterested customs officer and re-check it afterwards.
Quote from: Martinus on March 09, 2015, 04:03:42 PM
Here in Warsaw cops are much nicer. They bring you mail and put out fires.
Well the police in communist countries had lots of experience going through the mail and knowing where everyone lived so that makes sense.
I was just reminiscing about the time 2 friends and I got shook down really hard by Canadian border guards trying to go on a little jaunt through on Ontario in a very battered Oldsmobile filled with clothes and art supplies (long story).
One friend was gay and not quite out to the world, the other was wrestling with questions of faith, and I've always just been pursued by a bad conscience. The combined effect was that we came off so nervous, the officers really couldn't believe we weren't hiding anything, and tore the car apart for at least an hour.
I guess we all just felt like we didn't really deserve to be let into Canada, for our general moral failings rather than anything in particular.
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 04:26:16 PM
The cell phone itself is a good.
And at law if you had a padlock on your goods you'd be obliged to open it for the border guards, so it's the same for your cellphone.
No, it's not the same. If they ask you to take the battery out of your phone, that would be the same. To show them your correspondence, photos and whatever other information you have stored on your phone is not. Or is there a customs fee on information in Canada? Because if there isn't (as I assume), they don't have a plausible reason to search your phone. If you bought a new phone abroad, you might have to pay customs. If you received an e-mail abroad on your Canada-bought phone, that's none of their business.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 09, 2015, 04:35:06 PM
I was just reminiscing about the time 2 friends and I got shook down really hard by Canadian border guards trying to go on a little jaunt through on Ontario in a very battered Oldsmobile filled with clothes and art supplies (long story).
One friend was gay and not quite out to the world, the other was wrestling with questions of faith, and I've always just been pursued by a bad conscience. The combined effect was that we came off so nervous, the officers really couldn't believe we weren't hiding anything, and tore the car apart for at least an hour.
I guess we all just felt like we didn't really deserve to be let into Canada, for our general moral failings rather than anything in particular.
And instead Canada entered you. :console: :pinch:
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 04:28:33 PM
By the way, your luggage at the airport would be checked by a different agency in Germany, namely the Federal Customs Agency. They have only limited police powers and are not considered a police force. There are actually two different kind of borders: for persons and goods. You'll notice when you arrive at just about any international airport. You'll always be checked for your travel documents (persons border), but your luggage is typically only checked in your final destination (goods border). The US is rather the exception here again as they make you pick up your luggage, haul it past a disinterested customs officer and re-check it afterwards.
I would be shocked is the Federal Customs Agency didn't have the right to search your goods for any reason.
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 04:45:27 PM
I would be shocked is the Federal Customs Agency didn't have the right to search your goods for any reason.
German government agents may never do anything for "any reason". We have rule by law. Government agents may only ever act for the very specific reasons stated in laws. And even then only if the action is proportional to what they are supposed to do.
Quote from: The Brain on March 09, 2015, 04:40:45 PM
And instead Canada entered you. :console: :pinch:
Trust me when I tell you: it's a big country.
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 04:28:33 PM
By the way, your luggage at the airport would be checked by a different agency in Germany, namely the Federal Customs Agency. They have only limited police powers and are not considered a police force. There are actually two different kind of borders: for persons and goods. You'll notice when you arrive at just about any international airport. You'll always be checked for your travel documents (persons border), but your luggage is typically only checked in your final destination (goods border). The US is rather the exception here again as they make you pick up your luggage, haul it past a disinterested customs officer and re-check it afterwards.
Ah, that is important. So essentially in Germany the Federal Police are given the power of passport control but there is a separate body to deal with customs issues. In North America (and I think the UK) passport control and customs are dealt with by the same officer.
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 04:55:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 04:45:27 PM
I would be shocked is the Federal Customs Agency didn't have the right to search your goods for any reason.
German government agents may never do anything for "any reason". We have rule by law. Government agents may only ever act for the very specific reasons stated in laws. And even then only if the action is proportional to what they are supposed to do.
A quibble, but fair enough.
I would be shocked is the Federal Customs Agency didn't have the right to search your goods randomly or on mere suspicion.
Quote
Ah, that is important. So essentially in Germany the Federal Police are given the power of passport control but there is a separate body to deal with customs issues. In North America (and I think the UK) passport control and customs are dealt with by the same officer.
Haven't been in Canada for ages, but in the US it is definitely dine by different persons. Passport control happens before you even get your bags. Considering the multitude of law enforcement agencies in the US, I would be surprised to learn that the same agency does both.
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 05:11:34 PM
Quote
Ah, that is important. So essentially in Germany the Federal Police are given the power of passport control but there is a separate body to deal with customs issues. In North America (and I think the UK) passport control and customs are dealt with by the same officer.
Haven't been in Canada for ages, but in the US it is definitely dine by different persons. Passport control happens before you even get your bags. Considering the multitude of law enforcement agencies in the US, I would be surprised to learn that the same agency does both.
No, what is happening is that you go to an officer who checks your passport and asks you questions about your trip. It is that person who initially decides whether you should be sent for a secondary search and your declaration card is coded accordingly. The people who conduct the secondary search are the same type of officer who you met at the first passport check point (during shift they will change places). When you turn in your coded card at the point of leaving the customs area and after you have collected your bags, you may also be selected for a secondary search regardless of how the first officer coded your card. For example if you are a returning resident and you noted on your declaration card that you bought nothing while away but you have numerous bulging bags, you will probably selected for a secondary inspection. But the point is all of that is being done by one group of officers - US border guards.
Quote from: Jacob on March 09, 2015, 04:09:59 PM
I find it amusing that you of all people are puzzled by quibbling over a word being misused slightly :hug:
*Yawn* Okay, you got your ad hom of the hour out of the way. Hope you feel better.
QuoteIn my understanding, the exigencies of border control and policing are different so carrying expectations from one area to the other muddies the water.
That said, as per Zanza apparently there are places where there is no distinction between the two which is interesting.
So, the answer to my question is "in no significant way does it matter." That's what I figured.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2015, 06:02:35 PM
So, the answer to my question is "in no significant way does it matter." That's what I figured.
:lol:
Since a "cop" and a border guard have very different powers to search and question it does make a difference but I suppose only if one pays attention to the facts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 09, 2015, 02:42:29 PM
Dorsey/AR/DGuller/Ted Bundy strikes me as the type that can flip a cop's "asshole" switch pretty fucking quickly.
:mad: I'm actually pretty submissive to authority figures when not posting on the Internet.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 06:05:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2015, 06:02:35 PM
So, the answer to my question is "in no significant way does it matter." That's what I figured.
:lol:
Since a "cop" and a border guard have very different powers to search and question it does make a difference but I suppose only if one pays attention to the facts.
Since neither of them are doing either thing on the board, the nits or errors over terminology here don't change their powers at all. :cool:
By the way, I love the fact that this is the cop story that is creating controversy on Languish this week.
Why are you not all up in arms about the Fergusson report?
Quote from: Martinus on March 10, 2015, 12:46:04 AM
By the way, I love the fact that this is the cop story that is creating controversy on Languish this week.
Why are you not all up in arms about the Fergusson report?
I posted in the Fergusson thread that the Justice Department allegations were absolutely devastating against that city.
I think nobody wanted to argue the contrary, and so the thread sank on Languish.
Well, derspiess and Yi were doing their racist shtick nonetheless.
Quote from: Martinus on March 10, 2015, 01:02:44 AM
Well, derspiess and Yi were doing their racist shtick nonetheless.
Derspeiss has occasionally descended to racist "schtick" (though misogynist "schtick" is more his usual style).
I don't think Yi has ever descended into "schtick".
So, your point is that their racism is genuine and not a shtick? :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2015, 01:01:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 10, 2015, 12:46:04 AM
By the way, I love the fact that this is the cop story that is creating controversy on Languish this week.
Why are you not all up in arms about the Fergusson report?
I posted in the Fergusson thread that the Justice Department allegations were absolutely devastating against that city.
I think nobody wanted to argue the contrary, and so the thread sank on Languish.
I found the mayor's reaction interesting, which amounted to little more than, "meh." But it seems not even the US media seem overly interested in the matter anymore.
Bill Maher thought this was the most important news piece of the last week. That being said, his show was the first place I heard about it, so you may be right.
It's amazing how such widespread and systemic (and, in all likelihood, not unique) abuse of power got so little coverage. To me this is much worse than cops killing unarmed people.
I thought the USBP was pretty limited in what they can ask you. I mean, wtf is it their business what I was doing in Germany or whatever. There are lots of youtube videos of people telling them to fuck off. I'm not sure there's actually any legal authority for them to ask you anything. It's just like a favor. If you want to talk about it, go ahead. If not, they can't make you.
Quote from: Martinus on March 10, 2015, 03:48:30 AM
Bill Maher thought this was the most important news piece of the last week. That being said, his show was the first place I heard about it, so you may be right.
It's amazing how such widespread and systemic (and, in all likelihood, not unique) abuse of power got so little coverage. To me this is much worse than cops killing unarmed people.
It was all over CNN. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on March 10, 2015, 12:46:04 AM
Why are you not all up in arms about the Fergusson report?
I thought we did talk about it. I want more of these investigations done. The more we seriously talk about this stuff the better and put pressure where appropriate.
For too long this stuff has been something we joked about, but I never found it very funny.
Quote from: Martinus on March 10, 2015, 03:48:30 AM
It's amazing how such widespread and systemic (and, in all likelihood, not unique) abuse of power got so little coverage. To me this is much worse than cops killing unarmed people.
You don't live here. How do you know how much coverage it is getting?
Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2015, 08:14:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 10, 2015, 03:48:30 AM
It's amazing how such widespread and systemic (and, in all likelihood, not unique) abuse of power got so little coverage. To me this is much worse than cops killing unarmed people.
You don't live here. How do you know how much coverage it is getting?
I live here. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 10, 2015, 03:48:30 AM
Bill Maher thought this was the most important news piece of the last week. That being said, his show was the first place I heard about it, so you may be right.
It's amazing how such widespread and systemic (and, in all likelihood, not unique) abuse of power got so little coverage. To me this is much worse than cops killing unarmed people.
Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2015, 06:02:35 PM
*Yawn* Okay, you got your ad hom of the hour out of the way. Hope you feel better.
I feel great, thanks for asking :)
I'm amused that you consider it an ad hom to imply that you quibble over precise word definitions. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means.
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2015, 09:57:20 AM
Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you.
See... this is much more of an ad hom, I would think.
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2015, 01:04:39 AM
Derspeiss has occasionally descended to racist "schtick" (though misogynist "schtick" is more his usual style).
Um, when was that? :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2015, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2015, 09:57:20 AM
Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you.
See... this is much more of an ad hom, I would think.
Well, Londo always was a bit of a jerk.
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2015, 10:43:52 AM
I feel great, thanks for asking :)
I'm amused that you consider it an ad hom to imply that you quibble over precise word definitions. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means.
I find it amusing that you cannot distinguish between debating word meaning when it is meaningful, and when it is mere quibbling unrelated to the point being made. But if that's the way your boat floats, I'm cool with it.
Quote from: derspiess on March 10, 2015, 11:30:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2015, 01:04:39 AM
Derspeiss has occasionally descended to racist "schtick" (though misogynist "schtick" is more his usual style).
Um, when was that? :huh:
I dunno, just a general recollection. I could be wrong. :)
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2015, 09:48:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2015, 10:43:52 AM
I feel great, thanks for asking :)
I'm amused that you consider it an ad hom to imply that you quibble over precise word definitions. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means.
I find it amusing that you cannot distinguish between debating word meaning when it is meaningful, and when it is mere quibbling unrelated to the point being made. But if that's the way your boat floats, I'm cool with it.
Excellent!
It's great that we are both getting something out of this exchange :hug:
Well, I am heading across the border tonight for a couple days in St. Catharines for business. Any border patrol crossing testing in either direction you guys need me to test?
Tell them you had a DUI a few months ago and see what happens.
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 04:28:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2015, 04:10:44 PM
But it is also interesting to note that they are also something different from the police officers and so the distinction between the powers given to a Border Guard is different than a police officer even in Germany.
I am not exactly an expert on the police-related legislation of Germany's sixteen states and that of the federal government, but at least from my perspective there is no difference. The law establishing the federal police makes it explicit that it is a police task to guard borders and that the federal police has police powers. They also wear the same uniforms that say police.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvuKJgvo.jpg&hash=60370270e60617c1d09875364dedc875e8c18d23)
By the way, your luggage at the airport would be checked by a different agency in Germany, namely the Federal Customs Agency. They have only limited police powers and are not considered a police force. There are actually two different kind of borders: for persons and goods. You'll notice when you arrive at just about any international airport. You'll always be checked for your travel documents (persons border), but your luggage is typically only checked in your final destination (goods border). The US is rather the exception here again as they make you pick up your luggage, haul it past a disinterested customs officer and re-check it afterwards.
Over here the system is the same Airport Police handles all police tasks on the airport + control of the paperwork for people leaving or entering Schengen + immigration. Luggage is checked by Customs for smuggling, Security firm (Secritas, G4s, ..) for arms, dangerous goods,...
Quote from: Zanza on March 09, 2015, 04:37:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2015, 04:26:16 PM
The cell phone itself is a good.
And at law if you had a padlock on your goods you'd be obliged to open it for the border guards, so it's the same for your cellphone.
No, it's not the same. If they ask you to take the battery out of your phone, that would be the same. To show them your correspondence, photos and whatever other information you have stored on your phone is not. Or is there a customs fee on information in Canada? Because if there isn't (as I assume), they don't have a plausible reason to search your phone. If you bought a new phone abroad, you might have to pay customs. If you received an e-mail abroad on your Canada-bought phone, that's none of their business.
Just got a training on this. Even an email can be considered an export if it contains data which may note be sent to an embargoed country. IMHO not reason enough to do a check at the border.