It's a bullshit excuse because "protecting the children" are items #1 and #2 on the list of "flimsy justifications for surveillance overreach", right next to "preventing terrorism" at #3.
I'm serious. Any time you hear those terms and the discussion is not about speed limits in a school zone, red flags should be going up in your mind.
It's not about how many people they catch - even if they had a 100% success rate at nabbing every abuser that crossed the border, it's about civil liberties.
I was simply pointing out the reason for the searches. As it stands, the law currently lets them do these searches, and I was explaining the reasoning behind these searches (which should be pretty obvious to anyone who has watched those TV shows).
As for why they want to search for pedophiles at airports: the reason is presumably because there is a serious problem of child sex tourism in certain countries (Thailand for example).
You could use the same argument about guns or drugs -- why search people who they suspect are carrying guns or drugs? The reasoning is presumably that stopping these at the border prevents them from coming into the country.
To be honest I don't have a problem with being searched at airports. IMO the small inconvenience is outweighed by the benefit of putting the occasional pedophile in jail, preventing diseases from fruit/meat entering our country, and criminals bringing machine guns into the country, etc. I guess from the downvotes and comments that a lot of HN posters have a different opinion.
The fact of the matter is they don't. What they want to do is go fishing through your papers and they cynically use this catch all excuse when challenged.
In Canada it isn't legal to arbitrarily search people even at the border. Reasonable cause is necessary:
From what I can see on programmes like Border Security, they do catch a lot of people this way, and they do always have reasonable grounds for the search.
Also, how does that law allow random searches at airports (which are presumably legal)? Is there another law which permits those?
You know those shows are 100% PR right? Do you really think they would be invited back if they showed unedited footage? I would bet money that the agencies involved get the final say on whether an episode airs or not.
I can't stand those shows, I have to change the channel, they literally make me angry. Thinking that there are people out there who actually fall for it makes it worse.
> I can't stand those shows, I have to change the channel, they literally make me angry. Thinking that there are people out there who actually fall for it makes it worse.
If HN sold gold stars I'd buy you one.
Sadly, the propaganda is effective and enough people agree with cpncrunch: Being treated without dignity, like a prisoner, is totally worth it if maybe it catches a few evil boogeymen.
Shows like that are pure PR. Border guards aren't going to break the rules while they're on camera. And even if they did, the shows producers aren't likely to include it.
Random searches are not legal in Canada. Border guards take advantage of the fact that nobody wants to look guilty by refusing to be searched. They exploit the public's ignorance of the law and use intimidation.
Actually, it is legal in Canada for border officers to inspect any goods being carried across the border -- not even suspicion of illegal activity is needed. See section 99(1)a of the customs act.
I don't think this would allow them to search your phone. However that may be permitted if they have reasonable suspicion.
There's a very important difference between inspecting the goods and searching your person and papers. (These details matter. Note your comment about random searches at airports. Did you mean borders, or airports?) Try reading the entire Act. I did, and found some interesting stuff in there. Then go watch "Border Security".
When a Canadian enters Canada it's acceptable for the government to say, "Show me all of your apples." It can even say, "Give me the bill of sale for those apples." That's inspecting goods.
It's not acceptable for the government to say, "Show me all of your text messages, emails, pictures, and personal journals." That's a warrantless search.
It is illegal, and it should remain illegal regardless of what good deeds a government bureaucrat might be able to do with that information.
If the government wants to conduct a search like that, it needs to accuse you of a specific crime and set out the reasons why it believes getting those items will prove it. Any just government must assign different people who act at arms length from each other to make the request and to decide if the request is justified. (eg. Police, Prosecutor, and Judge) This is necessary in order to prevent any individual human agent acting with the power of the government from abusing that power.
Just governments do not search everyone because some of them might be guilty. Just governments don't say, "Show me your apples. OK, that's fine. Now give me your passwords because you might be a pedophile and I need to make sure I can't find any evidence that you are." Just governments don't say, "Show me your journals, emails, and pictures, then and then we'll see if we can charge you with a crime."
I wouldn't give up living under a just and fair government even if that meant we could catch all of the criminals... which of course we couldn't.
Actually, according to the Act they can do those searches (without a warrant) if they have reasonable suspicion. These aren't random searches -- they do them if they have a suspicion that the person is doing something illegal after talking to them.
There's nothing wrong with acting on reasonable suspicion. The problem is customs has a policy of exceeding their lawful authority in questioning travellers. I don't have any obligation to answer questions such as, "What do you do for work?" or "Do you have any friends in Paris?". Yet these questions are routinely asked, and refusing to answer them will result in punishment.
That's what happened in this case. Customs demanded irrelevant information in order to go fishing, the returning Canadian declined, as is his right to do, and is being punished for it.
Take a look at the Nexus program. It asks travelers to waive their rights voluntary in exchange for being permitted to avoid being coerced into waiving them at each crossing. If more people were aware of the rules and pushed back there would be no need for such programs.
Imagine how many more criminals we could catch if we could search their homes at will! Or listen in to every single conversation. Why stop there, perhaps make citizens check-in every 15 minutes with a quick video?
This is one of the main points of having civil liberties.
