| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2005 05:22:08 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
just as you can't sue a police officer who kicks in your door in the lawful pursuit of his/her duties, you will not prevail in this instance.
|
Ummm I know of several instances where the police kicked in the wrong door, ransacked the wrong house, holding families at gunpoint, looking for drugs that were never found where the victims sued and won.
(as an aside, scale that up and you have Iraq, although Saddam is a rat-bastard anyway.)
In some cases, the police simply went to the wrong address, in other cases, an informant gave them faulty info.
Maybe Canada is closer to being a police state than we're led to believe.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 05:25:18 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by IceRock:
Well a am not planing to go US ever dont like the government attitude have more important country to visit |
ha ha - your loss....
You'll never get to see the grand canyon (and there is not a single other canyon that is anywhere close to it....but hey, that's your perogative).
Interesting thing about the U.S. government - it changes over time. |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 05:51:12 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by IceRock:
Well a am not planing to go US ever dont like the government attitude have more important country to visit |
well we were discussing canadian customs. but hey man feel free to never visit and see some of the wonderful things here that Iceland does not have. and people call americans elitist! |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 05:59:18 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 |
I guess that depends on your definition of "essential". I think the key here is that the people in the U.S. and in Canada can change their customs laws if they need too. That's what I consider essential. I don't see the right to not have my stuff searched by customs in another country written in the constitution.
This wasn't a customs official impinging on anothers rights, but it was stupid and inconvenient, and will probably not stem the flow of child porn. If they can get drugs across, they can get DVD's full of all sorts of crap stuffed in their seats and trunks.
What I think is silly is that none of this started with a "threat issue" i.e.- terrorism suspicion on the part of customs, yet that is what the conversation devolved into.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 10:49:53 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
just as you can't sue a police officer who kicks in your door in the lawful pursuit of his/her duties, you will not prevail in this instance.
|
Ummm I know of several instances where the police kicked in the wrong door, ransacked the wrong house, holding families at gunpoint, looking for drugs that were never found where the victims sued and won.
(as an aside, scale that up and you have Iraq, although Saddam is a rat-bastard anyway.)
In some cases, the police simply went to the wrong address, in other cases, an informant gave them faulty info.
Maybe Canada is closer to being a police state than we're led to believe. |
Your comments relative to the searchng the wrong house are indeed valid, but we were NOT discussing such a scenario in this instance.
Your flippant comment abouT Canada being a police state does not even warrant an answer.
Ray
Message edited by author 2005-10-28 23:08:16. |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 11:01:09 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Seriously, if any of you fine folks want to visit the Ottawa area, just call me... I have an extra bedroom and would gladly show you around.
I know that there was one area I dearly wanted to visit and a very kind soul from DPC invited me to stay at his home ......and I did and had a wonderful time.
I would identify him, but fear that he would be inundated with requests.
Ray |
Hahaha! I don't mind being outed, I like fielding requests and accomodating people. I can't guarantee availability but I do like the company :-)
Robt.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 11:16:52 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Seriously, if any of you fine folks want to visit the Ottawa area, just call me... I have an extra bedroom and would gladly show you around.
I know that there was one area I dearly wanted to visit and a very kind soul from DPC invited me to stay at his home ......and I did and had a wonderful time.
I would identify him, but fear that he would be inundated with requests.
Ray |
Hahaha! I don't mind being outed, I like fielding requests and accomodating people. I can't guarantee availability but I do like the company :-)
Robt. |
Anyone wishing to enjoy the company of a very well read individual in a stunning environment, and partake of sumptious meals........be sure to call on Bear_Music.... You will not regret it.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 01:20:48 AM · #58 |
I guess it's just a sign of the times. They have been told to do a job and they're doing it. It's a bugger it held you up for so long though! |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 01:48:41 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
just as you can't sue a police officer who kicks in your door in the lawful pursuit of his/her duties, you will not prevail in this instance.
|
Ummm I know of several instances where the police kicked in the wrong door, ransacked the wrong house, holding families at gunpoint, looking for drugs that were never found where the victims sued and won.
(as an aside, scale that up and you have Iraq, although Saddam is a rat-bastard anyway.)
In some cases, the police simply went to the wrong address, in other cases, an informant gave them faulty info.
Maybe Canada is closer to being a police state than we're led to believe. |
Your comments relative to the searchng the wrong house are indeed valid, but we were NOT discussing such a scenario in this instance.
Your flippant comment abouT Canada being a police state does not even warrant an answer.
Ray |
Yet in all these instances, the police were just doing what they do, legal or otherwise... Just because a policeman decides to do something, then does it, doesn't make it right. Policemen step over the line all the time.
My comment about the Canadian Police State was not made in seriousness and may not warrant an answer, but I find it quite humorous that you did just that. Sometimes you Canadians are so touchy....
Message edited by author 2005-10-29 01:56:05.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 02:13:54 AM · #60 |
| Bear I will have to come up there sometime and try to get some landscape shots like you do. When I get the $ and time for an extra flight. |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 04:53:39 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
Bear I will have to come up there sometime and try to get some landscape shots like you do. When I get the $ and time for an extra flight. |
Any time, Peter. Just say when.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 10:07:53 AM · #62 |
| Maybe they all just were so enamoured with your pictures that they wanted to look at them all? |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 11:22:12 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by NathanW:
Maybe they all just were so enamoured with your pictures that they wanted to look at them all? |
Dude...
it was late at night (after 10) and during the whole two hours that I was there, something like five people came through that secondary customs room... slow, to say the least.
I got the strong sense after a while that I was nothing more than their entertainment, as they conducted numerous, redundant searches...
oh well
Having spoken to a relative of mine who is a Canadian Customs officer, I think I may have a case for a complaint. This guy says that the search was definitely out of line and overboard, despite the fact that they were not doing anything technically wrong. It still reeks of abuse of authority. |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 11:45:18 PM · #64 |
| I must look like I have something to hide because whenever I travel I am always searched. About 2 years ago I travelled with my 2 daughters around the world. I was greeted with "You have been selected for a random search" at nearly every stop and searched for explosives walking in a secure zone between planes. I began to think it wasn't random after the 6th or 7th time. But you know, when I travel again in about a years time I will be quite happy to be searched...in fact I'll insist on it just so that nothing can be put into my suitcases without me knowing. If Schapelle Corby's bags had been searched at the beginning she may not be in jail. So while it's a pain, I'm going to be searched...whether that want to or not!! |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 11:58:09 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
Having spoken to a relative of mine who is a Canadian Customs officer, I think I may have a case for a complaint. This guy says that the search was definitely out of line and overboard, despite the fact that they were not doing anything technically wrong. It still reeks of abuse of authority. |
Keep us updated on any follow up. I'll be interested.
You know, here's an interesting thought. It does not seem possible that they went through 17,000 files. At 1 file a second it would take 4.7 hours to do that. So this leads to further questions. Why 2 hours? If it's "worth it" to do 2 hours, isn't it worth it to do the whole thing? And if it isn't, why not do a 15 minute cursory check? Who knows what they were doing back there. They may have just gone on break for 2 hours for all you know.
I bet you could really get a supervisor over a barrel with that dilemma. Ask why it took 2 hours to scan the files. If he says they had to look at them all, say it was not possible and why aren't you doing a thorough job keeping kiddie porn out of the country; if he says they only looked at a portion, ask why the excessive time when they could likely have gotten just as good an idea in 15 minutes.
Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely. I know better than to mouth off to a police officer on a traffic infraction, but you just know they act with impunity.
Message edited by author 2005-10-30 00:05:31. |
|
|
|
10/30/2005 12:15:26 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Child porn should NOT be checked for in an airport. Sorry. I tend to hate porn in general. But to put a 2 hr delay on anyone with a laptop is foolish. Why not bus-stations? How soon till while you're walking down the street?
Considering most of these sites can be easily located. And the governments can usually access the IPs and logon histories. Would not that pursuit be much more productive? I'd wager that they could catch 10000x the child-porn holders that way than via airports. And with no inconvenience to non-offending citizens & business interests. |
How foolish. Child porn, should be checked everywhere. |
|
|
|
10/30/2005 01:05:54 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by mpemberton:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Child porn should NOT be checked for in an airport. Sorry. I tend to hate porn in general. But to put a 2 hr delay on anyone with a laptop is foolish. Why not bus-stations? How soon till while you're walking down the street? |
How foolish. Child porn, should be checked everywhere. |
Oh really, so like um....we should stop cars on the middle of the highway to check for child porn? we should stop sailboat and check for child pron? we must even stop sky-divers on their way down...just on the off chance that they have child porn!
Come on, it's not foolishness...it's wisdom. ie: if you want a fish you go to a river, lake or ocean...you don't go to a dessert.
Likewise, the expenditure of taxdollar $$$ is frivilous and has minimal results. Sure, there was a case of a guy who was caught by airline searchers. The reason that was in the news was cause it was the exception and not the norm. Now, all the others who were caught thru other standardized means which do not get media attention cause there the normal and more effective means. |
|
|
|
10/30/2005 01:10:25 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
Having spoken to a relative of mine who is a Canadian Customs officer, I think I may have a case for a complaint. This guy says that the search was definitely out of line and overboard, despite the fact that they were not doing anything technically wrong. It still reeks of abuse of authority. |
A "well-placed source" advises It's better {to} file a formal complaint with the site superintendent or chief. We get complaints all the time. One of my colleagues was recently called "culturally illiterate" by an ethnic traveller who thought he was being unfairly targetted. Happens all the time and comes with the job. |
|
|
|
10/30/2005 01:18:41 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely. I know better than to mouth off to a police officer on a traffic infraction, but you just know they act with impunity. |
Rather sad that you would make such a generalized statement about the police environment. If I encounter a physician that I don't particularly care for... I do strive to limit my comments to that one individual and not paint the whole medical community with same brush.
To suggest that people in these positions have.....absolute power.. and can act with impunity .... is ludicrous at best. There do exist checks and balances in place to ensure that individuals in these positions DO NOT overstep their boundaries.
By all means.....I would encourage Mycelium to submit a complaint. That is how issues of this nature are resolved. If indeed the customs officer went beyond what is reasonable, then they should be dealt with.
I do not know the reasons why Mycelium was detained, nor do I wish to speculate as to why the process took as long as it did. However, I am not about to cast aspersions on those who undertook this search, nor engage in character assassination, since all we know is what we were told, and none of us truly know the reasons this monumental delay.
Would I be upset if it happened to me.....you bet, and I would in all probability opt for the course of action that Mycelium seems to indicate he will pursue....that of a formal complaint.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/30/2005 01:39:53 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely. I know better than to mouth off to a police officer on a traffic infraction, but you just know they act with impunity. |
Rather sad that you would make such a generalized statement about the police environment. If I encounter a physician that I don't particularly care for... I do strive to limit my comments to that one individual and not paint the whole medical community with same brush.
To suggest that people in these positions have.....absolute power.. and can act with impunity .... is ludicrous at best. There do exist checks and balances in place to ensure that individuals in these positions DO NOT overstep their boundaries.
By all means.....I would encourage Mycelium to submit a complaint. That is how issues of this nature are resolved. If indeed the customs officer went beyond what is reasonable, then they should be dealt with.
I do not know the reasons why Mycelium was detained, nor do I wish to speculate as to why the process took as long as it did. However, I am not about to cast aspersions on those who undertook this search, nor engage in character assassination, since all we know is what we were told, and none of us truly know the reasons this monumental delay.
Would I be upset if it happened to me.....you bet, and I would in all probability opt for the course of action that Mycelium seems to indicate he will pursue....that of a formal complaint.
Ray |
You're right Ray, I overstepped here and did generalize. I'm sure being a police officer is a difficult job in the best of times. I've just had too many instances in the past (it's been a while since I've been pulled over) where I was trying hard to be compliant with an officer and at the same time maintaining my dignity and it just didn't fly.
However, my quote about power is well known and it's obvious I meant that some positions are further along that spectrum than others. Checks and balances may exist, but do little good in the heat of the moment. Physicians are in no less position of power and can (and do) overstep their bounds. If this happened to you, would you gain solace knowing that "checks and balances" were in place.
I am mainly reacting to the experience Mycelium had. It's fairly obvious there was some abuse here and (to me at least) this comes from a) power and b) a failure of the "checks and balances". I'm not sure which nerve I hit with you. Do you work in law enforcement? or are you worried I'm generalizing to Canadian government? either way, I guess I did go a little far, but didn't mean any offense to you. I was merely speaking out against an injustice. |
|
|
|
10/30/2005 01:44:29 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by mpemberton:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Child porn should NOT be checked for in an airport. Sorry. I tend to hate porn in general. But to put a 2 hr delay on anyone with a laptop is foolish. Why not bus-stations? How soon till while you're walking down the street? |
How foolish. Child porn, should be checked everywhere. |
Oh really, so like um....we should stop cars on the middle of the highway to check for child porn? we should stop sailboat and check for child pron? we must even stop sky-divers on their way down...just on the off chance that they have child porn!
|
So being an idiotic adult about this is your argument?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Come on, it's not foolishness...it's wisdom. ie: if you want a fish you go to a river, lake or ocean...you don't go to a dessert.
Likewise, the expenditure of taxdollar $$$ is frivilous and has minimal results. Sure, there was a case of a guy who was caught by airline searchers. The reason that was in the news was cause it was the exception and not the norm. Now, all the others who were caught thru other standardized means which do not get media attention cause there the normal and more effective means. |
Really, an exception to the norm. On who's authority? Sorry to see that the security of children is such an inconvenience to you.
Message edited by author 2005-10-30 01:45:11. |
|
|
|
10/30/2005 01:12:03 AM · #72 |
You know, I'd take a more tolerant view of all this security if they'd at least apologize when they screw up, and perhaps reimburse people when they cost them money out of pocket. Stranding someone $150 cab ride from safety at midnight is a crime in itself.
Random searches are the tool of fascism, not democracy -- we (in the US) believe (or used to) in the doctrine of probable cause; if there's no reason for anyone to be suspicious of you, you have the right to be left alone. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 04:54:17 PM · #73 |
| Any followup here? I wish we could find out what happened to these situations.... |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:14:21 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by "mpemberton":
So being an idiotic adult about this is your argument? Really, an exception to the norm. On who's authority? Sorry to see that the security of children is such an inconvenience to you. |
Lame...lame...lame....
Of course the safety of children is a concern to me. Many children die in car crashes. Should we ban children from being in a car? Of course not...
But we can take reasonable precautions (seatbelts, safe driving, etc.)
Likewise, one does not catch fish by sweeping a butterfly net thru the air. Nor does one catch butterflies by casting their fishing line into the ocean.
So if I am investing $100 into two different protective measures. In the first case, the $100 dollars saves 67 lives. And in the second case one life was saved and a great number were inconvenienced unnecessarily. I'd rather invest $200 in the first method. Especially, since it has the likelihood of capturing the second method's "1" offender as well. And to do such with little to no inconvenience to innoncent parties.
That's all, I just want intelligence. There is a reason the wheels on our cars are round. Flat wheels would be better for breaking thus making safer cars - however, they are not efficient nor reasonable choices for tires. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:20:28 PM · #75 |
You might have set off a drug sniffing dog or some such. They are very good but occationally get scents confused. I worked at the airport (a long time ago) but didn't want to even wear make-up with canabis products. (lotions/skin creams/hair products) etc.... Because those dogs are amazing! :-)
Originally posted by petrakka:
Dude, I've had my worst customs experience ever with Canadian officials. This was in Vancouver.
It was while I was in high school, and I was held up for 1.5 hours while they unpacked all my bags, seperately laying out every single item, unrolling socks, unfolding shirts, turning pants inside out. Looking through all my snowboard bags, opening up snowboard wax tins, taking apart my snowboard boots etc. All this because they said they 'knew' I had drugs. If I didn't tell them where I had my narcotics they would find it themselves and give me a more severe punishment than if I just fessed up to smuggling. It was rediculous. I was almost to the point of admitting to having drugs (had not even ever tried drugs) because I was badgered so much by this 6'5" scary drill sergeant man.
In the end they let me go, and they looked like idiots for wasting so much time. I can't think of anything I did to even make them suspicous besides being a high school kid on a snowboarding trip. Customs Suck! |
|
|
