Canadian Politicians Negotiate to Join ACTA, Will Criminalize CD Copies, iPods at Border Crossings

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I'm gonna get off this thread, because I contributed to the threadjack.

NO it's not a thread jack..

My name's not jack, guy

My name's not guy, buddy.

 

[Fern]

I'm not sure what to make of this

It's seems a possible violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution (unreasonable search and seaizure and then lack of due process).

OTOH, it's Canada doing it. Our (US) Constitutional rights do not apply there.

But then, our Congress is involved?

While I understands the reasons against, and do not pirate myself this seems an extremely stupid and inefficient way of stopping pirated material from getting into your country (apparently Canada in this case). Pirated material is downloaded etc, not smuggled across the borders by *software/content* coyotes AFAIK.

Fern

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Atreus21

But the government isn't doing this. They're not doing random imprisoning of people with no reasoning.

I would argue that the government is randomly trashing individual rights. And the reason is preventative in nature, with zero suspicion of you carrying illegal content on your person or in your personal belongings.

Look at it this way...

At least they dont have police randomly pulling you over in your car to see if you have a terrorist in your back seat right??

OR

At least they don't have the police randomly walking down your street and knocking on your door or your neighbors door to see if you might be harboring fugitives..or TERRORISTS!

I'm gonna get off this thread, because I contributed to the threadjack.

NO it's not a thread jack..

These are the rights that have been brought into question. Where does it end Atreus??

Corporations and governments are in a CONSTANT struggle over individual rights. And now more than ever before we see the pendulum swinging away from individual protections to corporate or government protections.

do you see the point?

I see where you're going, but I disagree on a few points.

Individuals and governments are in a constant struggle over individual and governmental rights. That's the nature of the social contract. We can't have 100% freedom and expect the government to be able to effectively protect our rights.

Now.

Certainly we can't allow the government to run a police state. But they have to maintain some kind of control. That means some people will inevitably get mistreated, but that's the price we pay.

You're saying the government is stepping too far into the forbidden realm of individual rights, and that it portends the ultimate complete revocation of our rights in such a way as not to provoke a revolution. What I think you mean is that, because of what it might lead to, the government can not be allowed to freely detain and interrogate anyone with no reason.

While this may be true, we also can't expect the government to function on our behalf if we do not allow it to touch us in some way. This means that we must be willing to give up SOME freedoms. And the government, being far from infallible, will occasionally misuse the power we grant it.

Now, in the interest of not starting a revolution against what I believe is a good authority, I tend to give the government the benefit of the doubt when incidents like the guy being detained happen. If these start becoming commonplace, and increase in severity, then I'll complain. Until the government undertakes a severe breach of our rights, I'm going to reserve judgement.

My ultimate opinion is that terrorism's consequences go far beyond the initial death toll. A secondary casualty is civil liberties, and that's to be expected. The government, understandably, wants to avoid another terrorist attack. Are we scared of terrorists? Of course we are. After 911, I take them quite seriously. I think the government is right to use excessive caution at the expense of some people's non-essential civil liberties, even my own. If the FBI wanted to put cameras in and around my house because there was suspected terrorist activity, I'd allow them to do so, because I trust their motive.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Atreus21

How far does it have to go before you worry about it? When they decide that you can't have curtains or blinds in your house because "if you have nothing to hide.........."?

And we have to remember, border agents are not exactly the cream of the law enforcement crop either. Giving them wide discretion is not usually a good idea.

 

[babylon5]

*Hitler,Mussolini, Mao are weeping at their supporters here*

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I'm gonna get off this thread, because I contributed to the threadjack.

I bet he left because his terrorist meeting started.

 

[Colt45]

time for encryption i guess.

 

[jjones]

Encryption and passwords will not work. You refuse to comply and they will detain you, or at the very least keep custody of your laptop, etc. Border crossings have a different set of rules and you have practically no rights to privacy. If you play games, do not be surprised when life suddenly becomes difficult.

That being said, I find this whole aspect of electronic device searches at the border appalling. Even considering terrorism, there is absolutely no need for this kind of activity going on at our borders. It opens up personal and confidential data to McJob class employees and gives them the discretion to interpret vague enforcement instructions as the mood strikes them. In my opinion, this is a recipe for easy abuse of authority.