Huge Privacy Win As Court Restricts Searches Of Cell Phones/Laptops At The Border

[@jonshannow7808]

Oh well. What rights does one have if the government can violate them without penalty? None.

[@BawkBawkBawk666]

Establish your own rights. Stand your ground.

[@zorbakaput8537]

@@BawkBawkBawk666 That is so funny. In the old days that was called tilting at windmills!

[@natheyshiro4119]

​@@BawkBawkBawk666​ TF you think would happen? They shoot you... That's all you'll get from standing your ground vs the government. They have a monopoly on violence and you can be sure they will enforce it.

[@u.synlig]

@@zorbakaput8537 These days, that is known as 'self-cider by cop'.

[@eugenetswong]

Jon, I agree. This case seems to me to be a loss for privacy.

[@patdenney7046]

Too many people say oh well everything until it’s their time to be abused by the law.

[@chuck1804]

Welcome to Canada. Your rights have been suspended indefinitely.

[@shawnpitman876]

Funny how you're concerned about abusers being abused. Kinda sounds like you're afraid of being exposed for your "extra curricular" activities.

[@CptJistuce]

@@shawnpitman876 Some people are capable of seeing how a problem might affect more than one person. Others are incapable of seeing beyond the immediate current scenario.

[@fenral]

How is something a right if they can simply ignore it, and used what was gained by ignoring it to prove guilt?

[@Avenus112]

Thats Canadian rights for you. They only apply if it's convenient for them to. Daily reminder, Canada is not a real country. It's a revolving dictatorship with a sham constitution.

[@Oblithian]

It is done constantly. Like in court when a right has been violated in the course of a trial they generally say, "oops, let's continue". Sadly privacy is generally the one that gets ignored as a mere inconvenience. Like all those companies that recently posted personal information of all of their customers who submitted items for repair, in a way that was accessible online to everyone. The penalty was basically a slap on the wrist and No meaningful compensation was made to the individuals and this could be classified as beyond mere negligence, it wasn't even a security breach and a failure to adequately protect it.

[@laars0001]

Imagination vs evidence🫤

[@williamp6800]

Welcome to “rights” under the Canadian constitution, where nothing is fixed in stone because of the “Not withstanding” clause. If it’s in the constitution that your rights can be ignored if they have “a really good reason”, should we be surprised by any overreach the government takes?

[@oldmedstudent1750]

@@williamp6800 I get what you're saying, but the Not withstanding clause allows governments to suspend rights temporarily. Section 1 is the part that says no right is absolute and can be balanced against the best interest of society. Section 1 is why all the covid rules were allowed to proceed despite violating Canadians' rights.

[@Onegiantplantman]

So, what’s the point of having the rights if violations of them do not have consequences?

[@williamp6800]

It gives a warm fuzzy feeling to the people who don’t understand how ephemeral their “rights” are in this country? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@lanceloyer9147]

You know that the CBSA will ignore this ruling, they will do what they want without fear of prosecution.

[@EdwardGatey]

I'm thinking Attu, watching for commies.

[@tinyfistm.2607]

They'll just keep on doing what they've always done. "If you don't 'willingly' consent to searches on our terms, we'll just deny you entry to the country and your student visa _and_ non-refundable tuition will be gone."

[@lanceloyer9147]

@@tinyfistm.2607 CBSA stops legally entering Canadians from crossing the border but the RCMP will help terrorists carry their luggage while entering illegally. nHow do you know the system is corrupt and broken, just look at our laws.

[@yarrdayarrdayarrda]

@@tinyfistm.2607 I'm perfectly OK with our border agents doing a DEEP dive into ANY foreign citizen coming into Canada, it's a handy way of weeding out those who want to harm the country or it's citizens.

[@scottmacd37]

@@EdwardGatey As a Canadian Citizen, I can not be denied entry to my Country.

[@vincenzothegamer9636]

CBSA - You don’t need your phone to travel. What about during Covid?

[@kirm8137]

And then get a 5000 dollar fine for not having a cell phone. What a joke of a country.

[@gingernaut2550]

​@@kirm8137 Say again?

[@quasinfinity]

When my younger brother was 16, he was denied buying a lighter at 7-11. They said it was illegal. Long story short, it wasn't. It was just company policy, which can change overnight

[@Darcalpha]

Great episode. One of the rare channels that make litigation a legitimately fulfilling mental exercise and validates why a good lawyer is a MUST!

[@Pupperski]

Runkle is the best

[@uneetudiant]

Lawyers are the problem my friend ,there not on your side ,they work for the crown ,and will do as the crown tells them to do ,it's called making a deal ,all parties in the back door are playing it out .

[@Pupperski]

@@uneetudiant You must be mistaken. This is Mr Runkle you speak of

[@uneetudiant]

@@Pupperski mistaken of what ?

[@CaseyBDook]

​@@uneetudiantcrown lawers work for the crown. Police work for the crown. If you get a lawyer, for some reason, they work in your interest. The fact that your best hope in court is a deal has more to do with the reality that you tied their hands by talking to the police or you committed a crime and you did it in front of a camera or witnesses. I did my time in a provincial institution rather than federal because of my lawyer. Your comment sounds like every two-bit lifer who keeps doing stupid shite then complains that they got another 6 months again after being out for a couple of months. That's the attitude of guys who do 9 months a year in provincial for 20 or 30 years. Just commit a real crime and get a real sentence. If I did the same thing I did previously I would definitely get federal time. My clean record saved me. Once you have been in once or twice for anything the only thing you have left is a deal with the crown. That was everyone I knew as a teenager, including myself.

[@8bitshinobi598]

Scary times we are living in.

[@LaOwlett]

The last time I flew out of country was in 2009 to visit a boyfriend who was going to FSU. Upon re-entry, I (a female in her 20's) was taken into back room where a police officer took my laptop, and inserted a disc that would collect all images and videos - and made me sit there as he went through the images with me. Having a boyfriend away at school - you could imagine what he saw. I told him I felt s-ually violated, and that I would never fly anywhere again. I haven't stepped foot in an airport since. I feel sick to my stomach remembering it.

[@dazzlingzebra]

😢😢😢

[@kevinhook6000]

That is awful. That man was nothing but evil! So srry

[@cocoloco40]

I’m so sorry that happened to you. A vile abuse of power.

[@kirm8137]

Every time I've returned to this country I've been treated poorly by Customs. One time I was accused of being a chomo, without the slightest evidence. Of course, when no evidence of this heinous crime was found, there was no apology...of course. That was extremely painful to me and I've hated this country and its border guards ever since. It won't stop me from flying though. Especially the flight I take out of this country for the last time.

[@davewanless1569]

@@kirm8137

[@jenniekoellergarcia280]

Canadian laws are a little scary...just saying 😊

[@notlikely4468]

Well...we went with Hobbes...not Locke Looking south....I'm not unhappy with that

[@lindsayder]

American privacy laws are less strict than Canadian laws. The US Patriot Act allows the government access to whatever they want. In BC, you actually have to put a disclaimer to warn people if using anything that stores their data in the USA, like Amazon, Google, etc that have servers in the USA, because of it.

[@CptJistuce]

​@@lindsayder That's NOT what the PATRIOT Act says. Also, many of the law's clauses have been ruled unconstitutional and struck down. Because in America, when you violate someone's rights, you don't get to say "It's okay, though, we had a good reason". Furthermore, as of this point, all portions of the law that were not struck down by the courts have expired, as they all contained expiration dates. (Some of them were subsequently reimplemented in other bills.)

[@canuckseven]

I'm satisfied with the reasoning and decision by the Court. I'm even more happy with the fact that you exist, Runkle, and covered the case. I hadn't heard about this in any other media, yet it seems a super important, dare I even say "game changing" aspect of privacy expectations at the border. Why would this not be front page news, I don't know. Thanks again for being there for us!

[@TheJunkFarm]

They have been doing this a LONGGGG time. I was stopped at the border close to a decade ago, held about 5 hours and asked some really weird questions about who I was meeting in Canada and my dating profile…. Well, turns out they fully searched my iPad, saw that I’d LOOKED at singles in Vancouver, and there you go. I was so miffed about it I just turned around and drove back. And of course I was naturally searched again by the Americans who thought it was ‘suspicious’ that I only spent 30 minutes in Canada lol.

[@ReinManYYC]

So the CBSA got *really* lucky and nabbed this perv. I would much rather have crimes solved by competent police work than blind luck... 🤷

[@orbyfan]

That's one of the reasons Arthur Conan Doyle created Sherlock Holmes; he was tired of reading detective stories where the crime was solved by luck, or the detective solved it without explaining his reasoning.

[@bernieo.5645]

Competent p olice, hahaha

[@MsPhoebus]

Good luck with that. That’s only if you don’t have dirty cops right?

[@ChufinLive]

They were probably tipped off by five eyes.

[@bluemark009]

38% of the time they were correct, 62% of the time they weren't. I wouldn't say it was "really lucky", but moreso just over 1/3 media searches find illegal things. :O

[@RodBatten]

Border control areas like airports have for too long been places where human rights took a backseat to the whims of the shallow end of the Canadian law enforcement pool. About time they came under rigorous scrutiny.

[@newsnowwyoming1757]

I prefer the US version where evidence is blocked. What stops the cops from continuing the action as long as it results in a conviction? I don't care what crime they are charged with. As I have heard many times now from others "we need to protect the rights of the worst of us to keep them for ourselves." I am appears to not care on the basis of the crime these men committed.

[@kirm8137]

If KZbin videos have taught me anything, it's that the US have much stronger civic rights. Your example is one facet but there are others.

[@jflabeets1]

In the US this would have been recognized as reasonable suspicion given the fact pattern. He had a history of X during the activity Y, he went to do Y somewhere else so they looked for X. 😮

[@yellingintothewind]

So you have no privacy rights in Canada... They search you without particular reason. If they find nothing, you get no damages because they found nothing. If they find something, you get nothing because they found something. The penalty for rights violations ought to be steep, and fall solidly on the individuals involved. Say somewhere between 10k and 250k depending on the severity of the outrage. Then you can still take bad people off the streets in cases like this, but your officers don't get to just do as they please with no consequence.

[@Y2KNW]

"but your officers don't get to just do as they please with no consequence." They pretty much do, tho. It takes something really egregious to make an officer suffer the consequences of their actions. Like, driving homeless people out of a city and dropping them off on the side of the highway in the dead of winter for several years kind of egregious. Some RCMP officers in Newfoundland just let themselves into a house without knocking a few years back and scared the shit out of a woman sleeping there because they knew they'd suffer no consequences for doing so. They kicked in doors in High River AB to confiscate firearms after people had been evacuated over flood concerns because they expected no consequences for doing so. Cops in this country can get away with almost anything because federal law enforcement departments exist to protect the gov't from the people and any help we get is either for public relations purposes or entirely accidental.

[@yellingintothewind]

@@Y2KNW Oh I agree completely with your assessment of the current situation. Nor do I think the government would _actually_ ever implement personal responsibility for the officers (and if they say they do, it will be something else masquerading as accountability). Unfortunately, theoretical solutions only solve theoretical problems. I don't see the situation improving without mass noncompliance, which will come with its own trouble.

[@ralfvandeven3155]

@@Y2KNW I feel rather different in some respect. In case of breaching rights, the victim of an agency you should sue the agency. The agency has deeper pockets and don't need to worry if the officer can pay the judgment. The agency should hold the officer accountable, in most cases by firing the officers involved. That would be the case for your 2nd example. The 1st example seems like a criminal act, it would be here, and that means accountability. Committing crimes is by definition out of te scope of their work and makes them personally accountable for their actions.

[@communismisadisease4498]

​@@yellingintothewindItll take more than that.

[@aywitb911]

@@ralfvandeven3155 if its the govt then it taxpayers money that is payed to the victim.

[@55MarieL]

Your example about the attractive woman and the agents wondering if she took pictures of herself…. Happens very often!!!! LOL!

[@monkfoobar]

Full disk encryption is a thing.

[@ThaexakaMavro]

Always bring a burner phone at the borders

[@edwardlenovo3240]

The choosing to travel with a device.... yeah remember that time not so long ago when the government made it very difficult to travel without a device because you were required to use their gestapo app..... yeah about that.

[@ruspj]

makes sence that customs agents should be allowed to search phones and laptops. if they have a reason to suspect something like the battery being modefird to contain something like drugs they should be able to search them. cant imagine any resoun they should be allowed to search anything digital like files/documens stored on them. if theres was ever a valid reason to ever examine these customers agents would also need to search every file entering the country over the internet. surely there would be a list of what customers agents should be looking and stopping people carrying/smuggleing into the country. i doubt any of these are stored digitally on devices.

[@johnc4814]

No censorship...no mass immigration

[@nonyabisness6306]

electronic devices deserve the same protections as the home and car.

[@These_Old_Engines]

Im willing to bet the crown pretty much always finds that the cases should move forward despite rights violations..... Why even have those rights? If the state can easily justify walking across your rights with its jack boots its a privilege, not a right. The reason the case is thrown out in the US is that it punishes the rights violation. Don't want criminals to get away? do your jobs within the bounds of the rights of your citizens. Anyone who thinks Canada is a place to be revered just isnt looking and listening.

[@DontCryAboutIt]

That would assume they actually have the intelligence to understand what they are seeing and hearing.

[@larryscarr3897]

​@@DontCryAboutItstill no Trump here, we must not be that stupid.😅😅

[@gwyn1056]

@@larryscarr3897 We have Trudeau. Objectively worse.

[@larryscarr3897]

@@gwyn1056 no it is not, you are a joke.

[@larryscarr3897]

@@gwyn1056 so... You don't know how objectively works?

[@MelMejia-kz7vw]

Time to get off of digital devices as much as possible!!!!!

[@Khahtt13]

The idea of Trooper Proctor ending up at a boarder somewhere is both laughable and scary.

[@williamp6800]

The idea of Trooper Proctor having any authority to do anything, anywhere, is laughable and scary.

[@adanieltorres]

How is there not a constitutionality test done on every law? It makes no sense that a government could, theoretically, pass a series of unconstitutional laws that never get overturned unless someone challenges them, and even then government can go right back and write another unconstitutional replacement, over and over.

[@MrGrumblier]

Often times, the provincial courts will decline to appeal acquittals on constitutional grounds because they don't want them to go to the SCC. Provincial courts cannot quash a law while the SCC can so they will let the occasional case go in order to continue to use an unconstitutional law.

[@adanieltorres]

@@MrGrumbliermaybe it should be illegal to pass unconstitutional laws...

[@MrGrumblier]

@@adanieltorres I think that would be unconstitutional.

[@adanieltorres]

@@MrGrumblier so, ironically, they could pass it. :)

[@MrGrumblier]

@@adanieltorres Parliament can pass any law they want as long as they get enough votes in both Houses to pass it. The problem is that it is up to those prosecuted under those laws to challenge them. Far too many people accept plea deals rather than defend themselves against unconstitutional laws. Even when the law is ruled unconstitutional, it doesn't change anything unless it gets appealed up to the Supreme Court of Canada since decisions of the lower courts are unable to affect the criminal code except to provide precedent. If 100 cases are not challenged and 1 case is found to be unconstitutional, then the 1 is ignored unless the SCC rules on it. I think any time a lower court finds a law to be in violation of the Charter, it should trigger an automatic review by the SCC.

[@jimviau327]

Born in the 60s, I lived through the whole computer era since its beginning, which was inspirational enough to realize how insidious these phones are. This is why I do not have a portable phone. In my car I carry an emergency phone for which the battery is removable. No tracking for me. Thanks but no thanks 🙃

[@edrimeikis9270]

Does your car have a digital compass? There you go…

[@theoryneutral]

When that phone stops working, let me know where to get a new one.

[@mr.behaving]

the government has been getting far too comfortable finding ways into our personal effects by force or coersion. where are all those 'slippery slope' denyers now huh?

[@CedroCron]

Thanks! I would become a patreon supporter or support regularly because I really enjoy the content and the work you are doing on educating the public, however, I just found myself in an unfortunate accident and on disability for the rest of my life so I'm kind of limited. That said I wanted to send you what I could afford, as a token of my appreciation. Thanks for the work you do for the Canadian public. Regards, Steve

[@erniefedorowych5955]

Dido: "Great episode. One of the rare channels that make litigation a legitimately fulfilling mental exercise and validates why a good lawyer is a MUST!"

[@janissaryone1906]

What would happen if one doesn't unlock their device for them to search or accidently on purpose, wipe their device?

[@suzanneeckstein13]

Awesome thanks for covering this Ian

[@delta3244]

I hate Canada for allowing in evidence despite rights violations, even in cases like this. I don't see how this discourages the govt. from passing laws that are clearly unconstitutional (imo), because yeah sure the law didn't last forever, but there were no actual consequences for it. If we're going to keep telling govt. "yeah, you did wrong and harmed a bunch of innocent people, but we're not going to let that get in the way of you harming criminals with those bad methods, and we'll give you time to adjust to our ruling where you can continue doing the same things," I don't see why govt. should _care_ whether their laws are constitutional or not. They can leave it to the courts to figure out, after many innocent people have already been harmed, with no risk that anything especially bad will come from it.

[@davidmorley6986]

Great episode. It makes me think that we need a grass roots movement to step away from the law to assess what is morally in the interests of society and then propose and promote changes to the laws to limit the legal system that has extended the rights of the state into areas that did not even exist only a few decades ago. This creeping invasion of our right to privacy should be alarming.

[@kirm8137]

The rights of the individual is all that should count. All other roads lead to socialism/communism, IMO. Look at the last three years regarding individual rights. Not a pretty picture and based on "the interests of society", which it turns out was mostly bunk.

[@77gravity]

29:58 finding "things" 38% of all searches is a VERY high level. Sure, it's less than 50%, but I don't see that as a hard threshold, that's just "less often than more". If the rate of finding "contraband" was (e.g.) 10%, then THAT is a low rate. 38% is, quite frankly, a shockingly HIGH rate of misconduct by travellers. I entered Canada twice this year, once from Australia into Vancouver, once from Alaska (plus, technically, a 3rd time when our return flight to Australia was cancelled after we boarded). I know that I did not have anything on my phone or laptop, or in my luggage, that would cause any concerns. I still would have been VERY unhappy if asked to unlock either of my devices. I'm somewhat stunned to think that 38% of those I shared the flight with may have been "carrying contraband" - and this despite people KNOWING they were subject to searches. PLEASE NOTE: I am not taking a POSITION on the Law, the Practices, or anything else.

[@bluemark009]

38% is a very high rate to find misconduct/offenses! It definitely wouldn't be random or with no justification, but instead with some level of belief there is an offense there. If I could win the lottery 38% of the time, I'd be playing every day.

[@Oblithian]

Hmmm, this makes me more suspicious of when the officer pulled me over and demanded a breathalyzer test despite no evidence of my drinking and him saying I didn't do anything wrong, and couldn't specify anything about what was 'erratic' other than noting that I changed lanes (safely).

[@johnolsen7073]

If you travel, do not put stuff on your devices that can get you in deep s=it. If you come across a border and you're at 47 hours and have a bottle of booze, declare it, or an extra pack of smokes, declare it. Chances are customs will give you a pass. If you hide it they will not be nice. This has been my experience as aircrew. I have seen a lot of people paint the bullseye on their ass and get kicked.

[@GorgeGeorg]

But 'are they amending the law' ? Will they rewrite this law or just remove it?

[@xargothunter5746]

At my last visit to Canada in 2022 I had no choice but to bring my cell phone as it was my only mean of proving my vaccine and test status as i only got the results and proof of vaccines electronically through an app. There were no way to get a legal paper copy of those data. Sometimes you also no longer get any physical copy of eg your plane tickets and so on. So no, it is no longer a choice to bring it when you travel.

[@henrysmith180]

One way to get a physical copy is to screenshot the info and then print the screenshot. Or, download the file/document and then print that. It may or may not be accepted, but it's worth a try and find out.

[@xargothunter5746]

@@henrysmith180 with the vaccine stuff, no neither option would be accepted as a legal document. I did look into that as my phone at the time was on its last leg and the trip could not be postponed or moved. I turned off my phone except to show it to the border staff in Canada and the country we had a layover in. In worst case I could have logged in through my husbands phone, but going with no phone at all was not an option at the time. I guess we could have printed tickets out, but they really do not like it at the airport when presented with paper. XD

[@jameswubbolt7787]

About time.Thanks.

[@zanderman2009]

they can buy the data from data brokers now anyway, this doesnt even matter... most modern cars violate your rights every time you get in it. who thought car manufacturers would be the modern stalkers?

[@stefanocappella9612]

Always use duck duck go. Burn the search history 😂

[@johng7227]

What if I turn my phone off before entering the border crossing and refuse to assist the Agency to assess the contents?

[@Jamesaepp]

Around 14:54 - I would like an explanation from the court of how an intangible document (such as in the case of digital records) can be considered to have "form".

[@rd-um4sp]

very rare for me to see a good decision from the court considering the evidence found. In my jurisdiction some courts would use this as "evidence" to give even more broader powers to border authorities

[@RapturianCitizen]

I presume when you say "the" court it means that your jurisdiction is in Canada?

[@Oblithian]

Thanks for the coverage, this is positive news. Albeit only a partial success. Great as always👌

[@charlespaine987]

A MAJOR PROBLEM in both U.S. AND COMMY CANADA IS NO {PUNISHMENT }FOR THE LAW BREAKING AGENTS OF THE STATES JUDICIARY OR INFORCEMENT AGENTS.

[@TRRILCS]

Listening with great inteterest. Waiting to hear if any reference to what happens IF you refuse to provide passwords or biometrics for access/unlock.

[@seanmellows1348]

Great analysis.

[@DITLASMR]

Rights are absolute. Any limitations mean they're privileges. Judges have got this wrong for years, they don't understand basic word meanings.

[@LyonByTheSea]

Thanks for more info, I think? The more I know the more I question things I never did before.😂 😤

[@smmmokin]

It is mind-blowing that they'd be allowed to do that in the first place. How as citizens we don't stand up against something that bad and just eat it is nuts.

[@smorgie7720]

The only way to legally stand up against bad laws is to get caught breaking that law and seeing it through to the Supreme Court on very costly appeals.

[@edwardlenovo3240]

@@smorgie7720 bingo. Also having the funds to mount said legal challenge and getting a lawyer willing to do it .

[@Matt-xc6sp]

It starts when you give up the right to self defense.

[@GuardianOfUltima]

Mussolini said that fascism is when the state and corporations work together. He invented the term public relations. We are a fascism.

[@Avenus112]

​@@smorgie7720 and even if you do take it that far the courts can just dismiss the challenge if they convince themselves doing so is in the interest of justice. Ie your rights exist unless it serves the courts' feelings about the greater good to dismiss them...

[@UnexpectedTokens]

citizens unwittingly in violation of knife laws cuz knives legally sold in stores were illegal, courts: "very bad, can't allow it, ignorance isn't a defense" government agency violate your rights cuz they didn't think it wasn't legal, courts: "ah, oh well, it's fine, they didn't know"

[@chinovaldez3441]

Few yrs ago I was showing CBSA a receipt on my phone, and they grabbed if from my hand while unlocked and ran back to their office to search it for 30 mins(I assume they downloaded the entire phones content). Gave it back with no explanation and sent me on my way. Very upsetting and felt illegal. I complained to the privacy commissioner and asked for a copy of all info and CBSA video footage from that afternoon via freedom of info. I paid..and they sent a disc and letter stating "ALL THE SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS AT THE PIGEON RIVER BORDER CROSSING WERE OUT OF ORDER THAT DAY". LOL...so they are not following any rules over there. To this day, I get "randomly picked" for a search most times I cross.

[@YammoYammamoto]

If they have a right to search - they have the ability to plant. I'd rather go to North Korea, than Trudeau's Canada.

[@TheRedneckPreppy]

Ah, I see my comment was Guantanimo'ed. Oh well.

[@LiLHarOak]

YT only eats the good ones when they are really hungry for knowledge! Musta been a good one! 😂

[@curteaton]

Happens all the time. It the future please think approximately.

[@LyonByTheSea]

Yes I have noticed it happening even more lately. 😢

[@TheRedneckPreppy]

@@LiLHarOak I didn't think so but here we are.

[@glendekoker3682]

Laws have become un just

[@TheQuickSilver101]

I have always found the approach to rights at the border to be unsavoury. Just because Joe Schmo leaves the country doesn't mean that he's a criminal and should immediately be treated as such. I suspect that parliament will use the next 6 months to not only fill that hole but make things much worse

[@john0270]

I dont know why its so hard to comprehend that us citizens are still subjects of the crown....

[@CheekieCharlie]

So the thing I was worried about going into China? Wow

[@BradyPatterson]

I feel like it's more likely they say this restriction will exist, but they'll find or create the loophole to bypass it

[@gregspeakman9337]

A good vid on digital searches at border entry points.

[@Delete_85]

Reminds me of that scene at the beginning of airplane where they had the goofy x-ray

[@jemla7506]

You know the more i learn about Canadian law..and my so called "rights". The more i am appalled by the total lack of accountability of our government. And that without accountability there are no rights in Canada.

[@Nick9drs]

So your devices are protected when entering Canada, but what happens when you enter the USA in relation to your device privacy?

[@PERSONA-NONGRATA-13]

its a good idea to back up all your personal data then factory reset your phone /computer. before leaving home, then once across just reload your back up's to your devices, take as little data across as possible. doing this is actually pretty good for cellphones and can increase your phones memory. to be honest they can read your phone before you even stop at the border via wifi location echoing (with the same or better equipment that the police use) so the less you take the less they can search. you don't want to be arguing at the border about your constitutional rights being violated with some goon with a badge, so just avoid it all by being proactive with your data security instead of appealing to the mercy of some idiot looking for an annual pay increase at your expense. i wonder if migrants are subject to the same scrutiny we are, i think the answer would not be a surprise at this point, good luck out there.

[@ILikeCatsMoreThanILikeYou]

I know a guy who was coming back into canada after a Romantic getaway with his very attractive girlfriend and the border guards demanded to search his digital camera. They found what they were looking for and smirked the whole time. She was understandably upset by the whole thing.

[@jasontodd3819]

So a charter right can be violated and there is no consequence for those who did the violating if they say ‘oops, my bad, I didn’t know’ whatever happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse? This should be more important when the ignorance is coming from a person tasked with enforcing the law.

[@mjgbabydragonlet]

Excellent info Ian!

[@corradoQC]

I think it's not impossible that critics of the state would see this kind of evidence planted on their device using the 5 eyes loophole they got going on.

[@pyssysankar1]

Finland is also Bilangual, but here we use only Finnish in legislation. Everything in swedish is just a translation.

[@Dstinct]

Doesn't really matter when other countries like the US allow it with non citizens. This is why I have a clean phone and laptop to travel with.

[@DanOnTheGo1]

Thanks for the really great analysis. I think the crowns argument that a electronic device is optional isn't true/ may have been true in the past. Now so many airlines no longer offer inflight entertainment and users are required to bring their own device to use those services, purchase food and drink on board, us as their boarding pass, or the fastest way to get flight change information as well at their destination they are used for hotel bookings, maps, translation etc. These are all things that now have limited or no alternatives.

[@aaronknight9759]

They will often search for “dissidents”. Then collect a database of associates. Classic bootlicker action.

[@IRQ1Conflict]

I'm pretty sure that they changed the law in Alberta a few years back that there is now a zero tolerance policy for drinking and driving now. They need to up the ante and steal more money from the populace. Remember, it's for your safety (TM).

[@deecee3320]

Just like free speech

[@MrGrumblier]

Considering the history of one of them, I'd say there was reasonable suspicion to search his device.

[@hillaryclinton1314]

Just get a stoopid warrant

[@reggyloisy2081]

All i can tell you is, if the TSA agent asked you to keep your belt on, remove it, it’s an ambush coming at you, they to find a reason to search your body. It’s disgusting, i do not like to be touched personally

[@glen3679]

Can that law be reviewed later. Also is the fruit of a bad tree doctrine is a thing in Canada

[@NooneAudit]

This is great for border crossing fairness, but I wonder if it will reflect in anyway in warrantless searches of law enforcement... I remember somewhere around 13 years ago, an officer slammed a citizen in BC to the ground. And a person was recording it, and the officer makes B line to the independent journalist and demands his phone as evidence... That was something rather scary to watch.

[@WilliamAshleyOnline]

One thing to consider though is that even though it is a law - if they still possess the devices, maybe just maybe they might be used. Laws are simply suggestions with possible repercussions. Police Security and Intelligence have been known to break rules. So it might be mindful to consider if it can be done, it will be done. If a law came with a destruction order for all the tools and mandatory jail time for anyone doing maybe just maybe I would think more likely that it is less likely to be done.

[@NicolaMaxwell]

Edward Snowden speaking out was eye opening to millions. Big brother is watching...

[@chrisjackson1215]

Oh please, dude wanted fame and he got it. I'm not sure why people keep trying to hold Snwden up as some Paragon when his first move was to defect to Russia (AKA one of the worst Autocracies when it comes to State surveilance). Yes, there's problems. There's lots of problems. But it;s amazing that we're talking about CANADIAN LAW and you;re mentioning an American Whistle Blower.

[@NicolaMaxwell]

@@chrisjackson1215 Chris, settle yourself down buddy, you don't need to let my opinion become personal... ☘

[@lukesmith8547]

Entrapment is also a form of breaking the law like using false narratives about someone's persona

[@ryan00101101]

Maybe it'll change unreasonable cell phone searches. I'll be still traveling with a "New" phone. With the passwords in my head.

[@jamesthompson7282]

Sounds reasonable. As a Canadian I think the end result in this case is what we'd all want. This kind of issue will become ever more important. Other instances are whether Canadians have a Constitutional Right to privacy if using an encrypted communications protocol & service like Telegram, or are using crypto currencies for large overseas remittances. Have Canadian courts ruled on these situations? Given the likelihood that organized crime is making use of both technologies specifically to circumvent law enforcement, it seems likely that Canada would seek to limit their use or be able to demand access to communications using them. France's recent arrest of Telegram's CEO suggests that the EU will push for increase access. I suspect the US already has such access. I assume Canadians have NO such rights when traveling into the US or other countries: as non-citizens even Constitutional rights wouldn't apply. Correct?

[@Epic-so3ek]

this is good I love privacy

[@alexdietz7362]

Oh, well i have locals that have hacked my devices. I have some evidence,but not enough to make a case. Any advice?

[@allenmaclean3258]

Unreasonable search and seizure. Regardless of content.

[@H3li0s_kun]

Proctor reference 😂😂

[@valerielevasseur8674]

In my misspent youth I was a ballet dancer (then modern, etc) and knew girls who had gone to scope out opportunities in the States and had their diaries read, where they'd written their real plans and not about a vacation. There weren't cell phones yet. Well, I guess they existed, but no one had one. I see people in the comments drawing the conclusion that Canadian border guards are the worst. American ones are the worst, and not because of the diaries. It's more about how later, when i was one of a handful of Canadians in an American PhD program, my 2 friends with South Asian heritage were regularly accused of supporting insurgencies.

[@pianotm]

The fact that they caught one or two bad guys literally means they violated countless innocent people first. That's why you defend the rights of the bad guy/

[@lyfandeth]

Using allegory and human ingenuity to pizzle the KZbin Mary Poppins is a wonderfully entertaining game. Those who might conjur a universe in severed days should consider joining the league and playing the sport semiprofessionally.

[@TheCynysterMind]

Back in 2016 I traveled through customs in Vancouver. (I was on my way home from a cruise in Alaska and had to go through customs short distance between the ship and the plane) Customs was seriously upset that they had me turn my laptop on and I had the whole computer secured with PGP whole disk encryption. NO ONE was getting any info off that computer... even if it was stolen from me (whether it was a criminal or the government) Customs then proceeded to sift through each and every article in my bags and my families bags... and they had to find something... Perfectly legit travel nail clippers... RME Those canuks really do not like American travelers... and I am well aware of the rumors of arrogant travelers from the USA... I am most certainly not one of those. We waited patiently and quietly while they ransacked our stuff... At least they didn't break anything.

[@eastlynburkholder3559]

Corrupt law enforcement officers do not just harass guilty persons. In some cases I saw and heard about bad cops preferentially harassing the one they did not think guilty and of you thinkbit over, the innocent law abiding citizen is a better target, easier to harass and less likely to raise an issue later.

[@slinginerd]

Question. So how would this all work if I did a factory reset before going through customs with the intention of then doing a full restore from a backup once out the building

[@MishaDaBear]

Nice to hear something positive. My thoughts are if there is a legal discrepancy between the French and English versions of a law the more lenient should be used regardless of the language group of the subject of concern. Example If the English DUI law said blood alcohol of 0.08% or greater but the French law said around 0.08%. around can be more stringent or more relaxed as an officer may decide that 0.07% is around and another may not charge until 0.09% or 0.10%. Of course in the 1990's in New Brunswick the English DUI law said 0.08% for everyone and the French law said 0.10% and 0.16% for officers of the court as well as that the officer had to greet the client in French first, if that was their mother tong, as the primary language was on the vehicle registration file. If one language was 0.08% and the other was 0.10% 0.10% should be used; also I feel if I was greeted in French first and my file identifies me as an Anglo the charge should be tossed just like it would be if the SOC was French and addressed in English.