segnosaur Posted March 6, 2015 Report Posted March 6, 2015 LOL! Wrong again there little buddy! This is not the Charter, it's WIKIPEDIA! The Charter makes no mention you have the right to privacy! Keep trying little buddy! LOL! WWWTT According to the privacy commissioner of Canada: https://www.priv.gc.ca/media/sp-d/archive/02_05_a_971030_e.asp The Supreme Court has tended to view privacy in its emanation as a human right, a Charter protected value. Some tensions exist in the natural course of events and the Supreme Court has become the forum for sorting the tension out: how to effect a balance between Canadians reasonable expectation of privacy, a right guaranteed implicitly by the Charter and the counter interests of the state, such as law enforcement. ... In Lawson Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc., the Supreme Court stated that a major purpose of the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the protection of the privacy of the individual. The key word there is the word "implicitly". While the Charter does not have the exact phrase "right to privacy", the supreme court has interpreted various sections (right against unlawful search, right to personal beliefs and opinions, right against self-incrimination) to mean that we have a functional right to privacy. Now, much of that involves government intrusion into our lives. But there are various laws that do enforce the privacy of an individual against other individuals. These have been ruled on by the appeals court. From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/personal-privacy-explaining-the-new-right-to-sue-1.1239077 ...the Ontario Court of Appeal broke new ground in the area of privacy law. It made it possible for individuals to sue each other for what it called an "intrusion into seclusion," an element of what most of us would call invasion of privacy. (While it hasn't reached the supreme court, the fact that it was ruled on by a court of appeal suggests that such an expectation of privacy against other individuals is also constitutional.) Quote
The_Squid Posted March 6, 2015 Report Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) The crying about "Charter of Rights" nonsense is simply that... nonsense. CBSA can search you any time. Here is a great explanation on CBC and Yahoo: The case of Alain Philippon, a Quebec man who was charged for refusing to give up his smartphone password at the Halifax airport, illustrates the differences in search-and-seizure powers of border agents and police, but may also signal a need to update such laws governing officials at the border. "If a police officer stops me on the street and says 'Empty out your bag' for no good reason [and] they don't allege I've committed an offence, that's patently illegal," said Benjamin Berger, an associate professor at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University. "And yet I habitually do it when I take an airplane. Why? Because no one has forced me to go to the airport." ----------------------------------------- In a statement to CBC News, a spokeswoman for the border agency said that the Customs Act authorizes officers to examine "all goods and conveyances including electronic devices, such as cellphones and laptops." "The principal difference between borders … and our day-to-day interactions with police is the voluntary engagement with a border," Berger said. "Because we have at some level chosen to attempt to cross a border, it's in a sense, us who has engaged our liberties, not the police having inserted themselves into our lives." http://www.cbc.ca/news/alain-philippon-phone-password-case-powers-of-border-agents-and-police-differ-1.2983841 Goldstein was asked by Yahoo Canada News about the case involving the Quebec man – and the differences between police and border searches.“Every Canadian has a right to re-entry, but your expectation of privacy against unreasonable search and seizure is lower because of the legitimate interest of the state to control what is coming across the border,” Goldstein said in an interview with Yahoo Canada News. “I think we can expect that you are going to have a lower expectation of privacy in your luggage, but the argument is that you have a higher argument of privacy in your phone even with what the Supreme Court said in the Fearon case. “If you are not a Canadian citizen, you have no right of re-entry, so you could refuse to hand over the password, and the remedy by the state is that they don’t have to let you in the country.” https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/courts-to-decide-whether-border-guards-can-force-164633868.html Edited March 6, 2015 by The_Squid Quote
The_Squid Posted March 6, 2015 Report Posted March 6, 2015 He doesnt get out of his moms basement. We should be able to tell since no one, not you me or anyone else tells a border guard to stop looking or taking pictures. He proves time this and again Exactly.... I don't believe for a second that there was any "tough guy" routine at the border or that he even crossed the border or went to China... the stories are completely unbelievable. Next I bet he'll tell us about the time coming back from China that he punched the border guard in the nose for asking for his passport... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 6, 2015 Report Posted March 6, 2015 No it's not. Im afraid WT is right on this one. Quote
WWWTT Posted March 6, 2015 Report Posted March 6, 2015 No it's not. Section 6.1 actually one of the most clearest, simplistic articles in the charter. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
The_Squid Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 No it's not. It is in there actually.... but that doesn't mean that they can't search your person, your bags and your phone/computer when you are in a customs area. Quote
Argus Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) Section 6.1 actually one of the most clearest, simplistic articles in the charter. WWWTT There is no such thing as 'simplistic' when it comes to laws, particularly constitutional laws. You cannot simply read it and say, well 'that's that'. Like everything else in the Charter, it's application is determined by reasonableness and necessity. Thus while every Canadian has the right to remain in Canada, well... not necessarily. After all, a Canadian might want to stay here, but the government has extradition treaties with a number of countries, and the courts will allow the government to force him to leave anyway. Likewise, we know there are a number of individuals who've had their passports confiscated by the government over terrorist suspicions. And the courts have allowed that, too. Thus neither the right to stay, nor the right to leave are absolute. No matter what the Charter appears to say. Edited March 7, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 It is in there actually.... but that doesn't mean that they can't search your person, your bags and your phone/computer when you are in a customs area. Yes, so I see, but clearly it doesn't stop the government from removing your passport, which forces you to stay, nor does it stop the government from extraditing you to other countries, regardless of how much you'd really rather stay. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 Why would they have more power than the police? If you bring a locked box for which you have no key. They can seize the box but they can't force you to provide the key. They could break it open though. They do have more power than the police. It is a huge stretch to claim that the contents of his cellphone were necessary for them to perform their role. Whats next? Demanding access to his email accounts or his online banking information? Logically they could argue that anything is "necessary to perform their role" so some common sense limits are required. Let's put it this way: do you think that Obama should be charged if he refused to allow customs access to the presidential Blackberry? If not then why should the rules be different for normal people? I am sure the Chinese government would be delighted if it was internationally acceptable to demand laptop/cellphone passwords for every CEO or engineer entering the company. They would be able to cut their spy budget in half. Here's your problem: the word "should". Where, anywhere in my post am I talking about what "should" be ? The post you replied to isn't talking about that - it's an entirely different argument. That's why I asked you if you're talking about established legality or not. You respond as though you are, but here you're using the word "should". Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
TimG Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) That's why I asked you if you're talking about established legality or not. You respond as though you are, but here you're using the word "should".Well, this issue has never gone to court before so there is no legal precedent to refer to. The only reference is SCC on accessing cell phones by the police where the court ruled that unlocked cell phones could be viewed but placed limits: Safeguards must be added to the law of search of cell phones incident to arrest in order to make that power compliant with s. 8 of the Charter . Ultimately, the purpose of the exercise is to strike a balance that gives due weight to the important law enforcement objectives served by searches incidental to arrest and to the very significant privacy interests at stake in cell phone searches. Consequently, four conditions must be met in order for the search of a cell phone or similar device incidental to arrest to comply with... https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14502/index.do This is my basis for saying that it an unreasonably broad interpretation of the statute to say that it requires cell phone passwords be provided to customs agents. Edited March 7, 2015 by TimG Quote
The_Squid Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 Yes, so I see, but clearly it doesn't stop the government from removing your passport, which forces you to stay, nor does it stop the government from extraditing you to other countries, regardless of how much you'd really rather stay. Absolutely correct!! They can even look up your kilt if they want! They just have to get a border guard of the same sex as you... You can, essentially, come and go from Canada as you please.... that's a right. But that right is subject to search and all the restrictions about what you can and can't travel with, even if you have every right to have those items in Canada. Quote
WWWTT Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 There is no such thing as 'simplistic' when it comes to laws, particularly constitutional laws. You cannot simply read it and say, well 'that's that'. Like everything else in the Charter, it's application is determined by reasonableness and necessity. Thus while every Canadian has the right to remain in Canada, well... not necessarily. After all, a Canadian might want to stay here, but the government has extradition treaties with a number of countries, and the courts will allow the government to force him to leave anyway. Likewise, we know there are a number of individuals who've had their passports confiscated by the government over terrorist suspicions. And the courts have allowed that, too. Thus neither the right to stay, nor the right to leave are absolute. No matter what the Charter appears to say. Thats only if you are found guilty of breaking the law. This as well is clearly written and understood. Don't think anyone here is implying this is/was the case. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Argus Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 Thats only if you are found guilty of breaking the law. This as well is clearly written and understood. Don't think anyone here is implying this is/was the case. WWWTT Actually, you'll be extradited to face trial. So you won't have been convicted of breaking any law at the time the government forces you out of the country. Nor have I heard anything about people having to face a trial before having their passports confiscated. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
WWWTT Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 Actually, you'll be extradited to face trial. So you won't have been convicted of breaking any law at the time the government forces you out of the country. Nor have I heard anything about people having to face a trial before having their passports confiscated. Ok whatever. Not my argument. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
jacee Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 Thats only if you are found guilty of breaking the law. This as well is clearly written and understood. Don't think anyone here is implying this is/was the case. WWWTT Unfortunately, it seems it's true at the border if you are 'suspicious' ... and refusing to provide a phone password makes you look 'suspicious' ... being anything less than submissive and groveling makes you look 'suspicious' I guess. That's what we pay them for apparently. ... :/ Quote
LemonPureLeaf Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 Unfortunately, it seems it's true at the border if you are 'suspicious' ... and refusing to provide a phone password makes you look 'suspicious' ... being anything less than submissive and groveling makes you look 'suspicious' I guess. That's what we pay them for apparently. ... :/ we need to stay safe. If you don't like the rules don't travel. Quote
eyeball Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 A boycott probably is the most effective way to resist the state. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Moonlight Graham Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 They can seize the phone but you have no obligation to provide a password. Exactly, and I think he was coming into Canada too, right? Since it was Canadian border officials. Every Canadian has a constitution/Charter legal right to enter or leave Canada as they please (unless you have an active warrant or something). You don't have to say anything to Customs officials and can walk right through the Customs gate, but yes they can seize your property. I wouldn't give my cell or laptop passwords to Customs or police. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
WWWTT Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 Unfortunately, it seems it's true at the border if you are 'suspicious' ... and refusing to provide a phone password makes you look 'suspicious' ... being anything less than submissive and groveling makes you look 'suspicious' I guess. That's what we pay them for apparently. ... :/ Ya but Jacee that wasn't my point. I got sick and tired of those clowns and said enough is enough and ripped my freekin pound of flesh right off of their arrogant backs in front of everyone! I willingly let them do their search in useless vain to prove the point that their line of questioning is humiliating and degrading to it's own citizens, the taxpayers! All they found was clothes and books and other relatively useless personal belongings. It got to the point that even one guard became embarrassed, stopped searching and tried to convince me that I should make my complaint against the initial officer who red flagged me. If we don't make a stand, then who is? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 A boycott probably is the most effective way to resist the state. Ya bull crap passive attempt at nothing! You grab the bull by the horns and you do something! You get off your ass and get in their face and you tell them that their line of questioning is not called for! You act like a chicken, you deserve to get plucked like a chicken! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
jacee Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 Ya but Jacee that wasn't my point. I got sick and tired of those clowns and said enough is enough and ripped my freekin pound of flesh right off of their arrogant backs in front of everyone! I willingly let them do their search in useless vain to prove the point that their line of questioning is humiliating and degrading to it's own citizens, the taxpayers! All they found was clothes and books and other relatively useless personal belongings. It got to the point that even one guard became embarrassed, stopped searching and tried to convince me that I should make my complaint against the initial officer who red flagged me. If we don't make a stand, then who is? WWWTT Glad you didn't get sent to GitmoDuNord. You wouldn't want to be caught with a suspicious Google search on 'Canadian investment in Afghanistan uranium' or something 'suspicious' like "what is islam" "what is jihad" ... It becomes impossible ... 'suspicious' ... to educate yourself on the things that we are told to fear. Terrorism is real ... the question is do we fear it enough to give up our freedom? Do we perhaps fear the moose too little? Quote
nerve Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) we need to stay safe. If you don't like the rules don't travel.That comment is utterly offensive. I have a universal human right called mobility. There is a constitutional right allowing exit and entry from Canada.Sure border guards can waste a hell of a lot of you time delays connections jail you for extended periods without even breaking a law, but no hell no never surrender your rights or limit your legal activities. They are the ones going to hell at the end if the day for victimizing people. There is a line between good civil conduct and abuse. But no don't stop exercising your rights, that is the way everyone looses their rights. Unfortunately the wolrd is a ...... Place where good people get abused but never accept that abuse. Life is short enjoy it. IMO he was in Canada a search warrant was required to access info. Issue is blanket warrants. Gov is a police state that doesn't respect civil and human rights its that simple, big surprise. The courts are corrupt too. Selfish bastards don't start caring until it is their car cut into pieces on a suspicion. What's that its not even a tax write off? There is no public password it Is Art officer? No this one is mine go to the apple store? What 799 plus another 3000 for my nude photos of my peepee And we have a deal. Do I know you? View the gov as worse than nazis and soviets circa 1952 and you will be prepared for dealings with them. It is all whim. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc6794/2012onsc6794.html Edited March 7, 2015 by nerve Quote
jacee Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) Ya bull crap passive attempt at nothing! You grab the bull by the horns and you do something! You get off your ass and get in their face and you tell them that their line of questioning is not called for! You act like a chicken, you deserve to get plucked like a chicken! WWWTT Remember next time to remind them:"We pay your salary ... for THIS?!?!" Gets 'em every time. Especially in a confused and quizzical voice, peering at them over your reading glasses. . Edited March 7, 2015 by jacee Quote
eyeball Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) I have a universal human right called mobility. There is a constitutional right allowing exit and entry from Canada. There is a significant economic sector that depends on that universal right, a sector I depend on for my livelihood I might add. All the same I'd support a concerted effort to boycott travelling to countries, like ours, that maintain the sort of entry requirements one might expect of a borderline dictatorship. I'd rather sacrifice a little income now than deal with the pain of trying to eke out a living in a full-on dictatorship later. Edited March 7, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Derek 2.0 Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 Remember next time to remind them: "We pay your salary ... for THIS?!?!" Gets 'em every time. Especially in a confused and quizzical voice, peering at them over your reading glasses. . And the result, your phone/computer will be seized if enough of a scene is made, and the CBSA will put you in cells and obtain a warrant to legally unlock it themselves......that ought to learn them. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.