Jump to content

BlockedQuebecois

Members
  • Content Count

    5910
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by BlockedQuebecois

  1. The fact that people with B averages got hired.
  2. The internet kinda sucks. Could you imagine going to a real-life networking event, and asking people in PE / PE-adjacent fields "how do I get into PE", only to have an SP in an unrelated field jump in question your motives for wanting to pursue a certain field? And not only jump in and question your motives, but demand you answer ("OP needs to be more specific than this"). Jesus.
  3. The 1L recruit was whack this year.
  4. You're free to bring up 9/11. But bringing up some future, entirely hypothetical next-9/11 in order to argue for political changes now is just as speculative and specious as bringing up the next-9/11 in order to justify restrictive immigration procedures. But hey, if you think it's game for others to argue for restrictive immigration policies based on hypothetical, speculative mass tragedies, please continue using them for your own rhetorical purposes.
  5. I would never ask someone close to me to cosign my law school loan. If my parents were wealthy enough to cover 100k in debt without problem, I'm sure they'd pay for my education. OP, if they still require a cosigner, ask around at other banks. I think the Scotiabank package is the best because of its perks, but those perks aren't worth putting someone else on the hook for your debt (in my opinion).
  6. I've repeated myself enough on your first point too, and you similarly aren't grasping it, so let's drop it. They don't have a residual expectation or privacy when they hand over their passwords. The same way they don't have a residual expectation of privacy when they hand their keys over to the CBSA officer during a vehicle search. The expectation of privacy exists up until the officer forms the requisite suspicion to conduct a search. There's no residual interest. To put it in simpler terms for you, no expectation of privacy would be being requiring you to hand over your cellphone and password once you hit the border. A reduced expectation of privacy is not having to do so unless the CBSA officer forms reasonable suspicion and decides to conduct a search.
  7. I would think that immediate review is quite good for the victims of racial profiling or when the CBSA officer who decides to conduct a search does so in contravention of the CBSA policies. At its worst, it's ineffective. At its best, it stops the individual from being the victim of racial profiling or a search in contravention of the CBSA policies. And if the senior CBSA officer is also racist or also decides to breach CBSA policies, the individual still can bring the matter to the courts.
  8. The CBSA policy's effect isn't that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy. It's that there's a greatly reduced expectation of privacy, in line with the expectation of privacy you retain in goods you bring across the border or on your person. Characterizing it as no privacy whatsoever is just plain incorrect (not to mention a characterization that has been roundly rejected by the courts). Sure, the common law could evolve. It hasn't yet. I haven't seen a single lower court decision suggesting the courts want to stop CBSA agents from searching cellphones, laptops, etc at the border, despite the fact that those objects have been crossing the border and been subject to search for decades. If you have, I'd love to read it. I've read Marakah, and plenty of other section 8 cases. I can easily distinguish them all based on the fact that the courts have seriously hamstrung section eight's applicability at the border. As above, none of them seem to indicate the court is ready to backtrack on its jurisprudence surrounding section 8 rights at the border. Again, if you've got something to support that proposition, feel free to cite it.
  9. Nobody is arguing for no expectation of privacy at all. That's not what the CBSA policy is. The CBSA policy is that cellphones are goods, and may be searched by a CBSA officer under the same circumstances as other goods being transported across the border: specifically, when there are grounds for suspecting the individual has made a false declaration. There's also due process in border crossing procedures — the CBSA officer makes a decision, and said decision is immediately reviewable upon request. This is all settled law, and has been for literally decades. I'm not sure if you're just ignorant of the law or simply trying to build a strawman to knock over, but either way, the central premises of your post are simply wrong.
  10. You can't argue that just laws are unjust because if some future hypothetical tragedy happens, the government may want to enact an unjust law. You have to actually challenge the law as being unjust. You're arguing in absurdities here, providence. You've gone from analogizing border searches with racist and unconstitutional traffic stops to analogizing border searches with rape to bringing up the spectre of 9/11 (a spectre that I'm positive you hate being brought up in other contexts, such as the muslim ban).
  11. Aside, this is all getting silly. If your argument is that post-next-9/11 the courts and the government are going to massively expand CBSA powers to include warrantless searches of cloud data, it doesn't matter what the law should be right now. That's going to happen regardless of whether or not we put restrictions in place now. Your argument renders your own argument moot, too.
  12. What indefinite detentions are you talking about?
  13. I didn't say electronic devices are physical goods. Please don't put words in my mouth.
  14. There's absolutely no way that the courts are going to allow warrantless searches of password-protected information stored solely on the cloud at the border, ever. It's just not going to happen.
  15. Requiring probable cause to search physical goods entering Canada would cripple our border security. I think this is a terrible idea. Under your system, I could ship literal truckloads of illegal firearms up from the US in the covered bed of my truck without concern, because there's no way a CBSA agent could form probable cause to search the back of my truck. Call me crazy, but I think a system that allows that is a bad system. The arguments for reduced privacy rights at borders have been discussed at length elsewhere – I don't think there's much value in debating it here. Suffice it to say that every developed country in the world has accepted that the appropriate balancing of national security considerations – including but not limited to preventing terrorism, enforcing a country's immigration laws, preventing human trafficking, and preventing the flow of illicit and dangerous objects across the border – with personal privacy rights results in a reduced expectation of privacy at borders.
  16. Lots of opinions that are different from my own aren’t dumb. Lots of my opinions are probably dumb. It’s even conceivable that my opinion here is dumb, and the CBSA actually can search the local data of laptops stored in Canada by logging into them via Remote Desktop from a device crossing the border. It’s even conceivable that my conception of the internet as a global system of interconnected computer networks is wrong, and the internet is actually a magical thing that is integral to a single functioning cellphone and requires no outside connection to other things, and thus a cellphone battery and the internet actually are equivalent. But until a court says that, I’m going to keep saying those are dumb opinions. And honestly, if a court says that, I’ll probably say he court has a dumb opinion. What can I say, I’m stubborn.
  17. A wifi receiver doesn’t do anything without access to the internet. The internet is data readable by a fully functioning phone with a connection to the internet. Information on a hard drive is data readable by a fully functioning phone by itself. I really don’t think that distinction is too complicated, I’m not sure why you’re struggling with it so much. I’m not interested in debating this further. I think it’s a dumb argument to suggest that the CBSA may lawfully use their power to search goods coming into Canada to remotely access goods already in Canada and explore their contents. I think it’s equally dumb to not differentiate between locally stored information readable by a cellphone itself and information that cannot be read by a cellphone by itself. You clearly, for whatever reason, think those are actually good arguments. We can agree to disagree.
  18. A battery is part of a cellphone. The internet is not part of a cellphone. Yes, the argument that the CBSA can lawfully search a computer stored hundreds of miles away, or, by logical extension, any computer in the world by hacking into it using someone’s laptop or cellphone at the border, via the internet is a dumb argument.
  19. Sure, if you want to be needlessly technical. It’s not technically illegal, just in breach of their own policies. But besides that, there’s a significant difference between cloud data and local data. My phone can log onto my home computer. Nobody is arguing that the CBSA can search my home computer because my phone can connect to it via the internet. That would be a dumb argument, precisely because there is a meaningful distinction between cloud data and local data.
  20. Except the CBSA can’t legally access information on the cloud as part of an initial search. So there is a significant difference.
  21. I think that’s silly. I’m all for procedural safeguards, but saying physical goods can be searched no-problemo, but electronic devices can only be searched with a warrant (and presumably some threshold?) is weird to me. Not to mention that you’re going to encourage prolonged detentions at the border if CBSA needs to establish reasonable or probable grounds in order to search a device.
  22. Except routine inspections of cellphones at the border are a straw man – they’re not happening. There’s no evidence of abuse of process here.
  23. So now we’re arguing about whether the CBSA is abusing their powers, and accepting that their powers are fine? That seems novel based on the rest of the thread.
  24. Analogizing presenting yourself at the border with a bunch of confidential documents with driving a luxury car as a radicalized individual is quite literally the stupidest analogy I have ever heard. The headline reason for that is that the CBSA has the right to inspect your documents and the police don’t have the right to stop you because you’re black, but there are a bunch of downstream reasons it’s a dumb analogy, too. ETA: oh no, I was wrong. Analogizing presenting yourself at the border and having your cellphone lawfully searched with being raped is worse. I didn’t get to that one when I posted this, but the rape one is worse. And to prove the point, I don’t thing the advice to not go somewhere rape is completely legal (as cellphone searches at the border are) is particularly bad or offensive advice.
×
×
  • Create New...