On Guard for Thee Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 This is absolutely ironic coming from the poster who has spent the most time saying the laws ARE in fact black and white and that judges are reading into them things that aren't there. Good point. You beat me to it. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 Please summarize the findings of this case that you provided us. I among others trust your judgement so please in your own words WWWTT When police are searching you they can demand your password and you're obligated to give it. They don't need a warrant. The findings from this case have nothing to do with CBSA, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that CBSA, whose job it is to search you, wouldn't also be able to demand your password to unlock the phone. Essentially, if you're being searched, they don't need a warrant to go through your phone, even if it's locked. All of the usual rules for searches remain the same. Quote
WWWTT Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 The decision has already been made by the SCC. R v Fearon: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14502/index.do Oh ok I just read you reply to GH where you go into more detail. I never claimed that we have a right to privacy. But it looks like somehow section 8 of the charter got thrown into this debate and caused some confusion from at least several debaters in this thread. Section 8 uses language such as "unreasonable" that are relative terms and can be defined differently from person to person, day to day. 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!
Big Guy Posted March 8, 2015 Author Report Posted March 8, 2015 To cybercoma - You stated "It was a BS decision by the supreme court, likely due to ... ". I do not believe that a Supreme Court of Canada can make a BS decision. I equate SC decisions to an umpire calling balls and strikes during a baseball game. The description of a strike is between the armpits and knees and home plate. But the definition of a strike is what an umpire calls a strike. The pitcher might nail a hot dog vendor with a ball but if the umpire calls it a strike then it is a strike. When the SC makes a decision of law then that decision stands - there is no appeal. Anyone may disagree with an umpires call or a SC decision depending on their sensibilities but that is only their opinion. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 To cybercoma - You stated "It was a BS decision by the supreme court, likely due to ... ". I do not believe that a Supreme Court of Canada can make a BS decision. A decision is no less wrong simply because the decider can make any choice he wishes to. Refusing to condemn a wrong decision on the basis that there is no appeal is a forfeiture of the basic right and duty of every citize to assess the rightness or wrongness of a governmental decision. 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 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 I do not believe that a Supreme Court of Canada can make a BS decision. No no no no! Cyber is very right! But so are you! As I have stated, section 8 uses a term that can not be trusted! And it may be manipulated. I just don't trust it and give no credit to section 8 of the charter! I completely set it aside as if it does not exist. And that's a real shame because it devalues our 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!
On Guard for Thee Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 To cybercoma - You stated "It was a BS decision by the supreme court, likely due to ... ". I do not believe that a Supreme Court of Canada can make a BS decision. I equate SC decisions to an umpire calling balls and strikes during a baseball game. The description of a strike is between the armpits and knees and home plate. But the definition of a strike is what an umpire calls a strike. The pitcher might nail a hot dog vendor with a ball but if the umpire calls it a strike then it is a strike. When the SC makes a decision of law then that decision stands - there is no appeal. Anyone may disagree with an umpires call or a SC decision depending on their sensibilities but that is only their opinion. Your baseball comparison is rather weak and you contradict yourself. But to stay with it, the SC job is to make sure the (ball) stays within the definition outlined in the constitution. If it falls outside that, then it gets chucked out, or back to the legislature. But you are right, there is no appeal beyond the SC, unless the gov.of the day wants to use notwithstanding. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 Only the first part will happen, and only if they have some reason to eblieve it may contain something illegal such as child porn. Once CBSA has determined your identity/CDN citizenship and seized the phone/computer while they obtain a warrant o search it- you'll be released. Of course, they will have to provide evdience before a court to get a warrqant to break into the phone/computer. Charges may come from failing to provide a passowrd, or from the actaul contents of the device, but they cannot detain you more than a short time. The CBSA doesn't need a warrant to search anything crossing international borders..... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 It was a BS decision by the Supreme Court, likely due to significant ignorance around the use of cellphones. They don't see text messages and emails like they see letter mail and they should. Nevertheless, as it stands now, you must provide your password to both police while you're under arrest and it's extremely likely that the same will apply to CBSA should this one go to court. The CBSA though, unlike police, don't require judicial consent to search international mail/parcels (and do it daily), so I don't see why electronic mail would be any different. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 That's wrong. There was a Supreme Court ruling in December that allows police to search your cellphone without a warrant. CBSA has the authority to search you when you enter the country. Therefore, CBSA has the right to search your cellphone without a warrant and you are required to offer up the password. Failure to do so is obstructing a Border Service Officer and is illegal. It was a BS decision by the Supreme Court, likely due to significant ignorance around the use of cellphones. They don't see text messages and emails like they see letter mail and they should. Nevertheless, as it stands now, you must provide your password to both police while you're under arrest and it's extremely likely that the same will apply to CBSA should this one go to court. I get that. Talking to friends last night that experience this since they travel a lot. It is a bad decision to allow warrant less searches. If you are not a Canadian, then I don't see an issue with asking the password. But I guess this is another example of how rules change to make something illegal now legal. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 I get that. Talking to friends last night that experience this since they travel a lot. It is a bad decision to allow warrant less searches. If you are not a Canadian, then I don't see an issue with asking the password. But I guess this is another example of how rules change to make something illegal now legal. Warrant less searches have been apart of the Customs Act since it was brought into effect 30+ years ago: Search of the person 98. (1) An officer may search (a) any person who has arrived in Canada, within a reasonable time after his arrival in Canada, (b ) any person who is about to leave Canada, at any time prior to his departure, or (c) any person who has had access to an area designated for use by persons about to leave Canada and who leaves the area but does not leave Canada, within a reasonable time after he leaves the area, if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has secreted on or about his person anything in respect of which this Act has been or might be contravened, anything that would afford evidence with respect to a contravention of this Act or any goods the importation or exportation of which is prohibited, controlled or regulated under this or any other Act of Parliament. Quote
overthere Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 The CBSA doesn't need a warrant to search anything crossing international borders..... They'll need a warrant to force me to reveal my password, since they will not get past the encryption. I did not say they could not search it, but when they are unavble to do so they'll have to do something other than shout at me. In the meantime they cannot detain me because i refuse to reveal my passwords. Charge me, yes, but there is no reason to detain me because the crime is not worthy of detention for a citizen and we both know it. And of course, they simply cannot deny entry to a Candian citizen returning home. Delay briefly, but they cannot stop it. I don't respond to their liking to many fo their questions, but they give up when they realize a) I am not a criminal and more inportantly, I am not intimidated by them. It is the oldest cop trick in the book, to buly and attempt to fluster people. There is no Plan B for them when that fails, though when it does work(almost always) it is very effective. Answering questions from a CBSA officer is no different than those of any peace officer, as long as you are a citizen and cannot be denied entry. You do not have to explain where you've been or what you were doing. You do have to explain how long you were gone, since it has a bearing on customs duties. All the info they need to process you is on two documents: your passport and the entry card you are obliged to fill out. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Derek 2.0 Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 They'll need a warrant to force me to reveal my password, since they will not get past the encryption. I did not say they could not search it, but when they are unavble to do so they'll have to do something other than shout at me. In the meantime they cannot detain me because i refuse to reveal my passwords. Charge me, yes, but there is no reason to detain me because the crime is not worthy of detention for a citizen and we both know it. And of course, they simply cannot deny entry to a Candian citizen returning home. Delay briefly, but they cannot stop it. I don't respond to their liking to many fo their questions, but they give up when they realize a) I am not a criminal and more inportantly, I am not intimidated by them. It is the oldest cop trick in the book, to buly and attempt to fluster people. There is no Plan B for them when that fails, though when it does work(almost always) it is very effective. Answering questions from a CBSA officer is no different than those of any peace officer, as long as you are a citizen and cannot be denied entry. You do not have to explain where you've been or what you were doing. You do have to explain how long you were gone, since it has a bearing on customs duties. All the info they need to process you is on two documents: your passport and the entry card you are obliged to fill out. Whatever gets you through the night......but in the real World: Power to stop99.1 (1) If an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has entered Canada without presenting himself or herself in accordance with subsection 11(1), the officer may stop that person within a reasonable time after the person has entered Canada. Marginal note:Powers of officer(2) An officer who stops a person referred to in subsection (1) may (a) question the person; and (b) in respect of goods imported by that person, examine them, cause to be opened any package or container of the imported goods and take samples of them in reasonable amounts. 2001, c. 25, s. 60. Marginal note:Search of persons99.2 (1) An officer may search any person who is in or is leaving a customs controlled area, other than a prescribed person or a member of a prescribed class of persons who may be searched under subsection (2), if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has secreted on or about their person anything in respect of which this Act or the regulations have been or might be contravened, anything that would afford evidence with respect to a contravention of this Act or the regulations or any goods the importation or exportation of which is prohibited, controlled or regulated under this or any other Act of Parliament. So unless you're a diplomat, have fun with that..... Quote
GostHacked Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 Whatever gets you through the night......but in the real World: So unless you're a diplomat, have fun with that..... Why should diplomats be treated any different? Quote
cybercoma Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 To cybercoma - You stated "It was a BS decision by the supreme court, likely due to ... ". I do not believe that a Supreme Court of Canada can make a BS decision. [snip] Anyone may disagree with an umpires call or a SC decision depending on their sensibilities but that is only their opinion. Of course it's my opinion. I even explained why I think it's a bad decision. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) The CBSA though, unlike police, don't require judicial consent to search international mail/parcels (and do it daily), so I don't see why electronic mail would be any different.Fair enough. Edit: On second thought, the thing is cellphones are still different. They can search your entire phone, photos, texts, everything. It's not parcels crossing the border. Your text messages could be weeks or months old—sent and received in Canada—and they can still search them. It's like CBSA tapping your phone for weeks before you even travel. Edited March 8, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted March 8, 2015 Report Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) They'll need a warrant to force me to reveal my password, since they will not get past the encryption.By law they don't need a warrant. That's the point. If you refuse to provide it to them, then you'll be charged with obstruction. You might wish that they needed a warrant or believe that they ought to require a warrant (as do I), but the fact is they don't. Edited March 8, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted March 9, 2015 Report Posted March 9, 2015 Why should diplomats be treated any different? A centuries old international convention........but of course, someone with diplomatic immunity can still be refused entry or expelled. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted March 9, 2015 Report Posted March 9, 2015 Fair enough. Edit: On second thought, the thing is cellphones are still different. They can search your entire phone, photos, texts, everything. It's not parcels crossing the border. Your text messages could be weeks or months old—sent and received in Canada—and they can still search them. It's like CBSA tapping your phone for weeks before you even travel. Sure, but (for example) your phone/computer could contain pictures of you snorting heroin off the body of child sex slaves in Thailand........doesn't mater if it was from last years trip or the one you're returning from presently.....its still the international traffic of child porn. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 9, 2015 Report Posted March 9, 2015 A centuries old international convention........but of course, someone with diplomatic immunity can still be refused entry or expelled. So there are two rule sets. One that governs us, and one that governs them. Quote
WWWTT Posted March 9, 2015 Report Posted March 9, 2015 Answering questions from a CBSA officer is no different than those of any peace officer, as long as you are a citizen and cannot be denied entry. You do not have to explain where you've been or what you were doing. You do have to explain how long you were gone, since it has a bearing on customs duties. Duration? No I would not answer any questions of duration. Nothing in the charter about time limit restrictions. 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!
On Guard for Thee Posted March 9, 2015 Report Posted March 9, 2015 Duration? No I would not answer any questions of duration. Nothing in the charter about time limit restrictions. WWWTT Thats fine. They will then just charge you duty owed on everything you are importing. So telling how long you have been out of the country could save you money. But if you want to try and be some sort of tough goof, we welcome your contribution to public funds. Quote
WWWTT Posted March 9, 2015 Report Posted March 9, 2015 Thats fine. They will then just charge you duty owed on everything you are importing. So telling how long you have been out of the country could save you money. But if you want to try and be some sort of tough goof, we welcome your contribution to public funds. Innocent until proven guilty! Section 11.d They will have to prove the stuff you have was purchased outside of Canada. Good luck with that one! In my case, this would be very difficult and time consuming. And for what? The value of everything that I may bring in falls well below the allowed limit. Keep in mind, that the act of charging you for standing up for your constitutional rights may be interpreted as blackmailing! Blackmailing IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE in Canada! 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 9, 2015 Report Posted March 9, 2015 Innocent until proven guilty! Section 11.d They will have to prove the stuff you have was purchased outside of Canada. Good luck with that one! In my case, this would be very difficult and time consuming. And for what? The value of everything that I may bring in falls well below the allowed limit. Keep in mind, that the act of charging you for standing up for your constitutional rights may be interpreted as blackmailing! Blackmailing IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE in Canada! WWWTT It is painfully obvious that you have not travelled much, if at all.... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 9, 2015 Report Posted March 9, 2015 Innocent until proven guilty! Section 11.d They will have to prove the stuff you have was purchased outside of Canada. Good luck with that one! In my case, this would be very difficult and time consuming. And for what? The value of everything that I may bring in falls well below the allowed limit. Keep in mind, that the act of charging you for standing up for your constitutional rights may be interpreted as blackmailing! Blackmailing IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE in Canada! WWWTT And thats usually quite easy to do, and you will lose your stuff by being stupid. Carry on. 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.