[Prophet]

At least I admitted I was wrong.

This post wasn't supposed to be confrontational, and I still don't see how it would be such to a normal person. It was there for questioning the incident (which I now see is not a valid point because of the timeframe as I explained in my previous post). And as I said MP-Ryan did chance my views of the situation, but I hate how he did it by telling me to shut off and **** off. I guess that makes me a bad man, and stupid apparently. Come and get me to be hanged by the pedophile if you must.

[karajorma]

Okay guys, calm down. And Stealth watch it with the flaming.

so MP3s i don't need to worry about?  cause they're illegal

As far as I know owning mp3s even mp3s of copyrighted material isn't illegal in the criminal sense. Copyright and trademark infringement are civil matters unless you're involved in widespread piracy. That's why RIAA is taking all those people to court rather than the police.

[WMCoolmon]

At least I admitted I was wrong.

This post wasn't supposed to be confrontational, and I still don't see how it would be such to a normal person. It was there for questioning the incident (which I now see is not a valid point because of the timeframe as I explained in my previous post). And as I said MP-Ryan did chance my views of the situation, but I hate how he did it by telling me to shut off and **** off. I guess that makes me a bad man, and stupid apparently. Come and get me to be hanged by the pedophile if you must.

Suck it up. MP-Ryan has been far more considerate and forgiving of you than I've basically ever seen on the internet (We're talking about 10+ years here, 5+ on HLP, and I do read or skim the debate threads). Hell, he apologized and told you there were no hard feelings, and explained himself to you. There is absolutely no reason he had to do any of that - he could have easily decided to ignore you from your second post on.

Being called stupid online does not equate to a death sentence, either. Being 'stupid' is only transient, up until the point you decide to refuse to learn or are incapable of learning anything further.

(I should probably also add that you can be called lots of colorful things on the internet without ever even knowing anybody who would fit the description.)

[Asuko]

Anyway... I'm going to move on.

According to MP, he was pulled aside for a second inspection because he was showing verbal hints of hiding the pr0n? Well at least I know the mechanism for how such searches are triggered.

Whoa hoss.  I said that's what might have happened.  Customs legislation provides for different types of secondary examinations which require different types of reasons.  You'd need to hear the specific details of this case in the court room and have an understanding of the US Customs legislation in use in order to determine exactly why this guy was pulled aside.  It's entirely context-dependent, and may even be determined by internal (and not publicly available) policies.

All I've really posted here is generic publicly-available information on the Customs process and how it works.  If you want to know more about it in relation to this case, I'd suggest consulting the USCBP website and the US Department of Justice website.

What sort of internal policies are enacted? Anything based off of what the person looks like or the manner-of-speech/accent of the person? This sort of stuff really interests me.

[MP-Ryan]

What sort of internal policies are enacted? Anything based off of what the person looks like or the manner-of-speech/accent of the person? This sort of stuff really interests me.

I don't know the US internal policies, but it is illegal to discriminate or profile based directly upon appearance or accent/manner of speech.  If you wanted to know how they select people for examination, you'd probably have to either file a Freedom of Information Act request or join the USCBP yourself =)

[Asuko]

Pity, I had assumed that you were in the USCBP. My bad but thanks for clarifying. It's just the manner of behavior the person has while in the interview.