Jump to content

BlockedQuebecois

Members
  • Content Count

    5895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by BlockedQuebecois

  1. I didn't say electronic devices are physical goods. Please don't put words in my mouth.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Except the CBSA can’t legally access information on the cloud as part of an initial search. So there is a significant difference.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. I think there's a lot wrong with our border enforcement system. I don't think calling the CBSA's powers abominable is a reasonable take.
  14. I agree with @Stark here. Regardless of whether or not you like the law, everyone and their dog knows that CBSA agents have the right to search goods coming into Canada, including cellphones. A lawyer who travels with physical files in their trunk whose trunk is searched is to blame if said physical files are viewed while the CBSA agents search the car. Similarly, a lawyer who travels with digital files on their phone, rather than in the cloud, is to blame if said digital files are viewed while the CBSA agents search the phone. It's incredibly easy for lawyers to put their files into the cloud while they cross the border and download them once over. If they fail to do so, that's on them.
  15. You're not seriously arguing that the power of CBSA agents to conduct a limited search of a phone's contents is abominable, are you?
  16. If what you're talking about is this program (https://get.atb.com/Personal/Borrow/Lines-of-Credit/Professional-Students-Line-of-Credit/p/2319), then it's not interest free for 1 year post-grad. It's interest-only payments from the date you access the line of credit through 1 year post-grad.
  17. Yes, and it clearly hasn't shifted into a debate on whether or not lawyers should have to hand over their phones with privileged information. I see that all five pages are filled with riveting discussion of how each poster backs up encrypts their sensitive information then wipes their phone immediately before crossing the border. This has been a debate about how the CBSA should handle privileged information from literally page one. Besides, you can't rely on the fact that the topic of the thread was X when you just said that you were arguing Y.
  18. Then for god sakes, make that argument. Nobody in this thread, except @epeeist, said "hey, this isn't a lawyer problem, it's a citizen problem." If what you're saying is that the rules are wrong as applied to everyone, you need to actually say that the rules are wrong as applied to everyone.
  19. That's why @Rashabon said, explicity, that it was an unrealistic example. The actual opportunity cost calculation here would be something like this: ((Lifetime earnings under scenario 1) - (Lifetime earnings under scenario 2)) + (the sum of the future value of all accelerated earnings, where future value equals = ((Present Value)[(1)(i/n)^((n)(t))], where: i = interest rate, n = number of compounding periods per year, and t = number of years). But I'm sure we can all see why Rashabon didn't want to walk through that whole analysis.
  20. There’s no evidence in this thread to suggest that OP is hyper focused on making money, or that the final four months of their undergraduate are going to make them a more relaxed, well rounded person. This is all an absurd conversation. Maybe OP will meet the love of their life in law school and wouldn’t have if they went a year later. Maybe they will meet their best friend, who will save their life by giving them a kidney. Maybe entering law school a year early will teach them better stress management skills that save them from suicide during a bout of depression in two years. Incalculable benefits weigh on both sides of the decision. Nothing indicates that one side has the advantage vis-a-vis the incalculable benefits. What does weigh in favour of one side is the calculable benefit of opportunity cost. You can’t live your life paralyzed by the hypothetical incalculable benefits of the road not taken, which is the end result of all this nonsense about possibly living decades longer by getting a BA. OP, if the incalculable benefits of getting a BA outweigh the incalculable benefits of starting your career earlier and saving potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars of opportunity cost, get your BA. But if the incalculable benefits of going to law school next year and saving hundreds of thousands of dollars of opportunity cost, go to law school. /thread
  21. Maybe they get hit by a bus walking to their final undergraduate exam, and they would have lived 80 more years if only they’d gone to law school earlier. Unless there’s some evidence that completing four more months of an undergraduate degree increases your mental or physical health post-professional school, it’s incredibly weird to argue that someone is going to burn out or die decades earlier if they don’t get their BA in Philosophy, of all things. Especially when weighed against the opportunity cost that we know they’ll pay, absent some freak accident.
  22. Reasonable suspicion that you’re a threat to Canadians isn’t the standard for searching someone’s phone at the border. CBSA officers can do an initial search of your device under their blanket power to search incoming goods. This is what I’m trying to get at: I think a bunch of pro-privilege people here are using the privilege argument to shield the fact that they actually just want higher thresholds for searches at the border (as @epeeist has tried to point out several times).
  23. Why should accessing a lawyer’s non-privileged content be subject to a higher standard than other travellers?
  24. To those on the side of being allowed to assert privilege, would you be fine with the CBSA going through your device so long as they do it in front of you and don't access your work email or documents?
×
×
  • Create New...