Canadian & American Border Agents to Share Information

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This drift into DUI laws got me wondering about how alcohol impairment compares to other impairments such as distracted driving or aggressive driving, neither of which result in the same cross border problems.

Statistically, .08 is about the same as driving after age 75.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

You are giving vast amounts of data to Google by simply viewing or posting here on CF and pretty much any other web site. Google tracks your web views and builds up a detailed personality profile on you even if you never visit google.com.

About the only way to avoid giving up personal information is to live in a cave and eat the lizards and bats living therein. It's silly to think you can hide your personal information from the government or pretty much anyone else even mildly determined to see it.

So, your response is, we might as well surrender?

Besides, you are incorrect. There are tools available to the average web user which go a long way to blocking this tracking. Ad blockers are a first good step. Then you can block all those background trackers that Google (and others) have on virtually websites. I can see six running (four are Google) on this reply page as I type. I’ve got them all blocked. Finally, running through a VPN is a great way to blind all the snoopers.

No… resistance is NOT futile. And NO it doesn’t mean we have to choose between living in a cave or having no privacy. This is exactly what the government and the Googles want you to believe. It ain’t so, but it does require people put some effort into saying NO.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Statistically, .08 is about the same as driving after age 75.

Interesting … so we should be banning all 75+ year olds from driving as well .

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Interesting … so we should be banning all 75+ year olds from driving as well .

Hi, Mike,
I think Jammer was just making the point about the ludicrous nature of DUI levels of intoxication which is a huge moneymaker for municipalities around our country and is definitely administered with Gestapo tactics from my friends who have experienced this misfortune. Good luck and safe sailing . . . Rognvald

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Hi, Mike,
I think Jammer was just making the point about the ludicrous nature of DUI levels of intoxication which is a huge moneymaker for municipalities around our country and is definitely administered with Gestapo tactics from my friends who have experienced this misfortune. Good luck and safe sailing . . . Rognvald

Yes, agreed. That’s what the was for .

The reason I raise the question of equavelent impairments is to point out that there are a lot of ways to affect the capacity of a driver. And while alcohol reduces a driver’s capacity, when it actually tips into impairment is far more varied than a simple 0.08 BAC suggests; just like someone being 75.

But I get it; laws are sledgehammers that don’t deal with individual subtlety very well. It’s why more people are charged with speeding vs aggressive, erratic driving, even though the latter leads to more accidents than the former.

[GordMay]

Another take on privacy invasion:
"The downside of giving app users too many superpowers"
Email startup “Superhuman” (‘s) pixel tracking let senders spy on recipients.
➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/p...king-1.5212508

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by rognvald

...the ludicrous nature of DUI levels of intoxication which is a huge moneymaker for municipalities around our country and is definitely administered with Gestapo tactics .

Are we to conclude that you think drinking and driving is kind of OK, then? Or do you think that there are better ways to address it?

[Mike OReilly]

Forget your phone or fitbits . Direct connection is where we’re all headed…

Musk unveils brain-on-a-chip, seeks human trials in 2020

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by john61ct

.08 is crazy high to me, is that really the norm in NA?

.08 is the general limit in all 50 states. There are lower limits that apply in various situations, such as commercial drivers. All 50 states also have general provisions against driving while impaired that are based on behavioral evidence rather than a specific BAC limit.

Many countries see DUI as truly criminal, deeply anti-social, more so than domestic violence for example.

Most parts of the USA don't have a functional public transit system. For various historical reasons the number of drinking establishments is limited in most jurisdictions so we have larger establishments that are widely separated and generally not in residential areas. As a result, most people don't live within walking distance of a drinking establishment. This has led to different attitudes and laws.

[john61ct]

Yes the "locking in" of private cars to US culture is a much greater crime than being soft on drunk driving. Same as allowing physical segregation by race and class, zoning and subsidizing home-ownership being multi-purpose tools, leading people to think it's gov's job to support property values.

And most definitely these failings must be corrected, with well over 80% of the population living in urban areas there's no excuse to keep designing communities around private cars.

They'll be going away anyway, let's make the best of it.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Are we to conclude that you think drinking and driving is kind of OK, then? Or do you think that there are better ways to address it?

Everyone has their own little special crime, Lake-Effect. Which of these have you done at some point in your life:


- Not had enough PFDs in your boat or dinghy
- Texted while driving
- Distributed contraband
- Operated a car, boat, etc. with a known safety defect that could result in injury to others
- Operated a car, boat, airplane, etc., without proper liability cover


These are all crimes just as serious as DUI depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances, and arguably pose the same kind of hazard to the public (or at least to rescuers). I don't think that any of them are "kind of OK," but neither do I think that isolated violations in the relatively distant past are a rational reason to deny people entry.

[Sailormantx]

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.

Senegal. I was electronically fingerprinted when clearing into Dakar a few months ago. Same kind of machines they use in the USA for the USCG license and TWIC cards.
Re the DUI discussion, there's a huge cultural difference between Canada and the USA. I have spent considerable time in Newfoundland and in the local pub that I frequented in CBS if someone had more than a beer or two they would call a taxi or family and leave their car in the parking lot. No hassle from the shopping centre or police for doing that. Never seen anything like that in the states.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Everyone has their own little special crime, Lake-Effect. Which of these have you done at some point in your life:


- Not had enough PFDs in your boat or dinghy
- Texted while driving
- Distributed contraband
- Operated a car, boat, etc. with a known safety defect that could result in injury to others
- Operated a car, boat, airplane, etc., without proper liability cover


These are all crimes just as serious as DUI depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances, and arguably pose the same kind of hazard to the public (or at least to rescuers). I don't think that any of them are "kind of OK," but neither do I think that isolated violations in the relatively distant past are a rational reason to deny people entry.

My scorecard: No (but I always had extras). Almost never; I ignore texts and calls, or pull over when I can. um no. I don't think so. and not to my knowledge (other than some teenage backroads in the country).

Not saying I'm perfect. Lots of stupid stuff in my youth. But I don't revere or condone all that as a some sort of halcyon rite of coming-of-range. It was stupid stuff, and I regret doing a lot of it.

Drinking and driving is a very specific behaviour, with serious cultural roots. It's voluntarily making yourself less capable of safe driving... then choosing to drive.

Until the drinking culture changes, detection, arbitrary standards and punishment is the only option. As Sailormantx just mentioned, there has been some culture change in Canada, so it is possible. Of course, other suggestions are most welcome.

And finally - in the context of the OP: border regulations - that's simply how it is, fair or not. Criminal convictions are grounds for refused entry.

[becrux]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

Yes. I think previous posters missed the point. The Canadian gov't has deemed that felons cannot enter the country (forgive me if felony isn't the right term) so as long as U.S. states convict drunk drivers as felons then that's that. I am pretty sure that is a reciprocal rule.

Ask any Canadian border agent.
Canada doesn't care whether your DUI was a misdemeanor or felony conviction. Under Canadian law DUI is a felony, and THAT is why they deny entry to anyone convicted of DUI.

From a long conversation with a lawyer friend:
Most first time offenders in the USA get "deferred prosecution." Keep your nose clean for, say, seven years and it mostly goes away. (Your local law enforcement agencies remember.) Canada never learns about these because there is no conviction. This may change...
Second time (assuming your deferred was actually deferred, i.e. you completed your 'probation') you probably get a misdemeanor conviction. Canada treats these as felony convictions. You may be deemed "rehabilitated" by Canada after ten years if there was only one conviction.
Third time, it gets ugly. Canada sees you as a repeat 2X felony offender. A visit to a Canadian consulate, accompanied by hefty fees - not to mention lawyer fees - is the only path forward, and does not guarantee success.

"Only fools and passengers drink at sea."

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by becrux

Ask any Canadian border agent.
Canada doesn't care whether your DUI was a misdemeanor or felony conviction. Under Canadian law DUI is a felony, and THAT is why they deny entry to anyone convicted of DUI.

Huh. That makes a weird sort of sense. I'd always heard it the other way around but I guess not. Thinking about it, I guess they have to do it with things like varying drug laws or pornography etc. It's the Canadian laws that need to hold precedence. The DUI thing would just be an extension of that philosophy.

Learn sumpthin' new every day..