Canadian & American Border Agents to Share Information

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Since border guards can now demand device and cloud/SM account passwords, and use automated devices that extract all your data while detaining you at the border,

those engaging in journalistic and activist projects being suppressed by the authorities should have been transitioning to full-on spycraft-level infosec techniques.

Anti- fossil-fuels and other Green issues, anti-racism, anti-fascism, animal rights, indigenous rights, especially immigration policy these days, all are being targeted as if "national security" is at stake.

Actually, a vast majority of those whose devices were seized have been long watched for illicit activities.

Anecdotal reports of seizures of property of innocent travelers has been, to my observation, business persons who POd somebody politically connected or who did nothing wrong but the government doesn’t like them. The key link here is “business traveller”

Having followed this issue for a long time, I have yet to observe the target being a so-called journalist or leftist activist. Typically the govt harasses them by other means.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Jammer

It's called a Nexus card. You have to make an appointment well in advance and appear in person at one of a handful of land border crossings for a joint interview with US and Canadian authorities. It's good for five years. Not everyone qualifies. They've made a great show of banning people for life from the program for bringing in an apple without declaring it.

I haven’t (and don’t plan to) go through the Nexus process b/c in doing so I would voluntarily hand over a huge amount of personal data to the state governments (Canada/USA). You are finger printed, you go through a thorough background and security check, and then you are interviewed by both border systems.

I used to travel quite a lot for work. It would have made my life a lot easier, but that’s the seduction that gets people to hand over their data. It’s the same type of exchange we make with Facebook, or CF . I try hard not to be complicit.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

My view is that computing power has now broken this protective barrier of information overload. And with AIs processing the vast majority of it these days, human limitations are rapidly becoming irrelevant.

This is why I say resistance is never futile. We can no longer rely on information overload to protect our privacy. The only way forward is to define strict legal limitations on what governments, and more importantly, corporations can do with our personal data.

Europe is already far ahead of us in North America in doing some of this. But much more needs to be put in place. So many Internet companies now rely on a business model of extracting and monitoring our personal data (and I don’t just mean FB or Google — it’s everywhere, even here at CF). And I hope we all recognizer the dangers inherent in the expansion of the security state.

I hate to sound like a nut case, but as they say, it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

It is not paranoia. It is a natural reaction when one looks at how bureaucracies and politicians have abused it. When seat belt laws first came out, they said it would never be used to stop someone but tickets would only be issued if there was a stop for some other infraction. That lasted only a year or two then it was another excuse to stop someone. When the attacks happened on 11 September, we were told that they would not listen, but only collect data looking for patterns. Now we have learned that they were listening and reading the e-mails.

You are correct that we must push back.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Approximately 17% of adults in the USA have a DUI conviction. Over the years, the definition of DUI has expanded and the standard of proof has declined. You can be convicted of DUI for riding a bicycle in half the states. Or riding a horse. Or driving a golf cart. People between the ages of 18-21 can be convicted of DUI for any detectable amount of alcohol in the bloodstream in some states. DUI is a municipal offense or petty misdemeanor in some jurisdictions which means that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not necessary to secure a conviction.

It is predominantly poorer people who are convicted of DUI. The reasons for this are not well understood but have much to do with the way police patrol for violations. Nearly all arrests involve people leaving a bar or a large public event (concert/ballgame); people of means are more likely to drink at home, at a friend's home, or a private event. Many arrests start with pretext stops for things like equipment violations (tail light out, window tint, etc); people of means aren't as susceptible to this as they drive newer cars.

Great observations, and accurate. I should also point out that the new .08 limit is not about prevention, it is about allowing for more arrests and supporting the criminal justice industry.

I worked on a paramedic ambulance for six years. I have seen my fair share of what DUIs/DWIs do. I am not advocating that drinking and driving is good, but what we are doing today is quite often an abuse of the system.

First, all the current system does is make criminals out of average people. The repeat offender is the issue, for they don't care. These are the ones who have numerous DUIs and no license. Arrest them and they will do it again. I should point out that they are also the ones who are usually far more intoxicated than the average person. Despite this, the law treats the first time offender and the bombed person the same.

Second, DUIs are not all the the same. There is a vast difference between someone who is in a city where they just can't go that fast and is slightly tipsy versus someone on a highway who is bombed out of their mind. Nonetheless, the law treats them all the same.

In most cases, the first time offender who is not a problem drinker usually learns just from getting pulled over. The repeat offender never learns.

Years ago police officers used to use their discretion. Often they would have one park or follow/escort them to the offender's home. Today there is zero tolerance. One department I know pays a bounty of $500 US for each DUI the issue. This is no longer about safety but rather it is about ENFORCEMENT regardless of circumstances.

Back to the .08 limit. A number of years ago various authorities, in an attempt to demonstrate the evilness of drinking and driving set up demonstrations. Drivers drove an obstacle course sober, then again after a drink or two. They stopped this when those with a drink or two usually did a little better. Oops.

In many of the accidents I responded to, the drinking really wasn't the issue. In some cases the DUI/DWI was hit by a sober person who ran the light, or slid on snow. In other cases it was just stupidity. In yet other cases the person was sleeping it off while parked, but because the car was running (for hear or AC) or they were in the driver's seat, they were arrested.

Again, I am not advocating that we drink and drive, but to say that all should be harshly punished is absurd and I thank you for pointing out the absurdity of the current system.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

Having followed this issue for a long time, I have yet to observe the target being a so-called journalist or leftist activist. Typically the govt harasses them by other means.

Then you have not been following the issue lately.

Specific journalists and activists considered opposed to administration policies are being targeted, harassed and surveilled. In the caregories outlined above.

My point is these tools should not be permitted at all. And why would you think the examples you gave are more "acceptable"?

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I haven’t (and don’t plan to) go through the Nexus process b/c in doing so I would voluntarily hand over a huge amount of personal data to the state governments (Canada/USA). You are finger printed, you go through a thorough background and security check, and then you are interviewed by both border systems.

I used to travel quite a lot for work. It would have made my life a lot easier, but that’s the seduction that gets people to hand over their data. It’s the same type of exchange we make with Facebook, or CF . I try hard not to be complicit.

It is my experience that the interview process does not actually give them anything they do not already have. They simply collect it in advance rather than when you show up at the border (where they may require fingerprints, and in increasing numbers of cases, do in fact collect them).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

Great observations, and accurate. I should also point out that the new .08 limit is not about prevention, it is about allowing for more arrests and supporting the criminal justice industry.
...
Again, I am not advocating that we drink and drive, but to say that all should be harshly punished is absurd and I thank you for pointing out the absurdity of the current system.

Um, look. Just about all of us of a certain age... drove drunk at some point. It's a f'ing miracle that I didn't kill someone else or myself. Yet even now there's still this cultural thing that it's all part of growing up and that offenders should be cut some slack, that having a designated driver is wussy... there's still this protective culture around drinking irresponsibly. If you disagree with the current enforcement regimes, your ideas are welcome.

Anyway to take this back to the issue of border crossings: the onus is on the person to determine their eligibility to cross borders, and for common situations like DUIs there are almost always established processes to clear your record or to get special permission or a visa. Might take time and effort, you might be dropping a grand or two on a lawyer. Sailors at an international racing event generally have the smarts and means to sort this all out; it's not the foreign country's fault if they haven't but risked the crossing anyways.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Anyway to take this back to the issue of border crossings: the onus is on the person to determine their eligibility to cross borders, and for common situations like DUIs there are almost always established processes to clear your record or to get special permission or a visa. Might take time and effort, you might be dropping a grand or two on a lawyer. Sailors at an international racing event generally have the smarts and means to sort this all out; it's not the foreign country's fault if they haven't but risked the crossing anyways.

I fail to understand what useful public purpose is achieved by disallowing all people with a prior DUI conviction to cross the border freely unless they are willing to spend thousands of dollars in government fees and attorney's costs.


I'm not affected (and I will let you speculate what combination of good judgment and good fortune has led to that) and have one of the preclearance cards that let you cut in line or clear remotely via a phone call.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Jammer

I fail to understand what useful public purpose is achieved by disallowing all people with a prior DUI conviction to cross the border freely unless they are willing to spend thousands of dollars in government fees and attorney's costs.

In other words, a DUI is no big deal, right? Do you see the problem now?

If more people were aware of this potential consequence, perhaps they would be less inclined to drive impaired. Just a hunch.

Anyway, it's not like the border regulations are models of reason and logic. Just ask the Canadians who told the truth when asked by US agents if they'd EVER smoked marijuana.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you disagree with the current enforcement regimes, your ideas are welcome.

1. Focus the DUI policing effort on repeat offenders with higher BACs as they are the ones who pose the greatest risk to public safety. Exclude first-time offenses from the public record to reduce the thousands of dollars of knock-on consequences due to the way insurers, employers, and the immigration authorities in other countries will utilize the information for years to come.

2. Strengthen and enforce dram shop laws. Make serving establishments responsible when their customers are found driving with a high BAC even if no one is hurt. Some will close as a result -- they have built a business on overserving customers who have no way to get home except to drive. That's good.

3. Fund programs that get people home safely. They are effective but are easy political targets because they are perceived as subsidizing binge drinking.


4. Eliminate "gotcha" provisions that make enforcement easy but have nothing to do with public safety. Among these: DUI laws so broad they can apply to someone sleeping in a non-moving car, DUI laws that apply to people engaging in non-driving activities that pose no threat to the public such as bicycling, horseback riding, using a golf cart on a nonpublic road, etc.


5. Change zoning in favor of neighborhood pubs, you know, the kind within walking distance of places where people live.


6. Make regulatory changes and implement programs so that people can leave their car overnight if they make a mistake and drink too much. In many situations the prospect of a $300 towing and impound bill is enough to lead people to make bad decisions. (Programs for bikers, run by other bikers, to get both the person and the bike home safely have been notably successful, for example)


7. Put breathalyzers in every serving establishment. Require them to be accurate. Make them free for patrons to use.


8. Widely adopt regulations that have been shown to reduce overconsumption, such as disallowing 2-for-1s and pitchers.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In other words, a DUI is no big deal, right? Do you see the problem now?

In all matters of criminal justice, I believe the response should be proportional.

If more people were aware of this potential consequence, perhaps they would be less inclined to drive impaired. Just a hunch.

There is an extensive literature in psychology and criminology that shows that a swifter, surer response is a greater deterrent while a more draconian punishment is generally not. People who get busted for DUI generally do not believe they are over .08, some know they are but do not believe they will be caught.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Anyway to take this back to the issue of border crossings: the onus is on the person to determine their eligibility to cross borders, and for common situations like DUIs there are almost always established processes to clear your record or to get special permission or a visa. Might take time and effort, you might be dropping a grand or two on a lawyer. Sailors at an international racing event generally have the smarts and means to sort this all out; it's not the foreign country's fault if they haven't but risked the crossing anyways.

I completely agree with you. The phrase is "When in Rome..." and it never ceases to amaze me that people will not even think of the seriousness of visiting another country.


Having said that, I do think that we as citizens should at least make an effort to fix or mitigate draconian requirements. Those visiting are unlikely to be able to make this happen.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Jammer

It is my experience that the interview process does not actually give them anything they do not already have. They simply collect it in advance rather than when you show up at the border (where they may require fingerprints, and in increasing numbers of cases, do in fact collect them).

Probably right, but they do get your fingerprints up front. I’ve never heard of a routine border screening requiring finger printing … but I suppose I’m not surprised. Soon it will be a DNA sample, I’m sure. Like I said, it won’t be long before active continual tracking will become the norm.

No… I will not make it any easier than it already is for them to know all about me. I obey the laws, but I don’t volunteer more than is required.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Probably right, but they do get your fingerprints up front. I’ve never heard of a routine border screening requiring finger printing … but I suppose I’m not surprised. Soon it will be a DNA sample, I’m sure. Like I said, it won’t be long before active continual tracking will become the norm.

No… I will not make it any easier than it already is for them to know all about me. I obey the laws, but I don’t volunteer more than is required.

Sadly I know you are right. One thing I learned is that all branches of the government, and any bureaucracy is that they all are prone to mission creep. If a little is good, much more is better. They always do this using the "It's for the children" argument. If we track you it is for your safety. If we can stop one bad guy then we can save a child's life. The reality of course is quite different. All they do is end up making the average person's life more difficult, spend (waste is the more accurate word) massive amounts of money, and gain more control.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Jammer

[six interesting suggestions]

I appreciate the suggestions. You already know that some are more useful or possible than others.

Let me just say this: when a houseguest, or one of your buddies at the bar has had a few (but not necessarily hammered) but wants to drive, and everyone else gets up to prevent him/her from driving and they cooperate to figure out a better way to get that person and their car home, and that's the cultural norm... then the problem will have been mostly addressed, and the law will only have the alcoholic or supremely careless driver to punish.

The current culture is still mostly to wink at impaired driving and complain about the enforcement, but I see it changing, particularly among the young.

Now if only we could get some buggers to stop texting and driving...