[karajorma]

To be honest if the case went to court I think a jury would convict him anyway. His unwillingness to unencrypt the drive would sink him.

[TrashMan]

child pornography....burn him. Twice.

[Snail]

Y'know what they say. What you can do once you can do again. Killim twice.

[Prophet]

The officers inspected it and found thousands of images on his PC, some pornographic. They also found some files with very graphic names containing references to child porn.

???

I bet there isn't child porn at all... Just some 25 year old spreading her twat in a schoolgirls outfit. And the pictures are named "preteen schoolgirl babysitter suck cock britney spears angelina jolie doggy gay lesbian porn sex". Nothing clearly indicates there is child porn. All there is, is a word of some border barney who thought he saw some references to questionable material.

His unwillingness to give the password can be explained by his fear of the american legal system and the religious nutjobs inhabiting said country.


The fact that some people have a right to go and rummage trough otherones computer and all the files within without any particular reason is just sick.

[Hippo]

The fact that some people have a right to go and rummage trough otherones computer and all the files within without any particular reason is just sick.

this

[Kazan]

The officers inspected it and found thousands of images on his PC, some pornographic. They also found some files with very graphic names containing references to child porn.

???

I bet there isn't child porn at all... Just some 25 year old spreading her twat in a schoolgirls outfit. And the pictures are named "preteen schoolgirl babysitter suck cock britney spears angelina jolie doggy gay lesbian porn sex". Nothing clearly indicates there is child porn. All there is, is a word of some border barney who thought he saw some references to questionable material.

His unwillingness to give the password can be explained by his fear of the american legal system and the religious nutjobs inhabiting said country.


The fact that some people have a right to go and rummage trough otherones computer and all the files within without any particular reason is just sick.

 

karajorma: they basically cannot prosecute without the encrypted data - they don't have any substantial evidence

[MP-Ryan]

OK, a whole bunch of things:

If you read the article, they found both pornography and suspected child pornography on the unencrypted part of the drive.  That's grounds right there for detailed search.  The amount of child pornography also plays a role in court cases though, which is why they need access to the encrypted drive.

To be honest if the case went to court I think a jury would convict him anyway. His unwillingness to unencrypt the drive would sink him.

Maybe.  Law enforcement doesn't like to take that risk.

I bet there isn't child porn at all... Just some 25 year old spreading her twat in a schoolgirls outfit. And the pictures are named "preteen schoolgirl babysitter suck cock britney spears angelina jolie doggy gay lesbian porn sex". Nothing clearly indicates there is child porn. All there is, is a word of some border barney who thought he saw some references to questionable material.

"Some border barney"?  These guys see more of the worst side of humanity in their average day than you have in your entire life.  Until you've done the job, shut your mouth.

The fact that some people have a right to go and rummage trough otherones computer and all the files within without any particular reason is just sick.

You ever seen child pornography?  I have - because of my job.  It's the single most disgusting thing you will ever seen in your entire life, and it will give even the most hardened guy nightmares.  We aren't talking some little girl smiling on the bed fully clothed - we are talking about the nastiest, most hardcore pornography imaginable done to pre-pubescent children, even infants in some cases.  Children exploited for the sexual pleasure of paying adults who seem to think they're doing nothing wrong.

As for examining a computer... it's not without reason.  You are crossing an international border.  Don't want your stuff looked at?  Simple - stay in your own country, subject to your own laws on search and seizure.

This isn't about the Americans being unreasonable; the same thing can happen at any international border in any country (in fact, the same thing would have happened on the Canadian side too).  Border officials have the power to examine goods entering the country for good reason - to stop material like this from crossing international boundaries and start catching the bastards who profit from it.

Statements like yours totally disgust me because you have no ****ing clue.  Like I said, until you do a job like that, shut your mouth because you honestly have no idea whatsoever.  None.

[karajorma]

Maybe.  Law enforcement doesn't like to take that risk.

I know. Best to build as strong a case as you can now cause of double jeopardy.

But like I said as the case is they're still going to be able to convict him.

[Prophet]

"Some border barney"?  These guys see more of the worst side of humanity in their average day than you have in your entire life.  Until you've done the job, shut your mouth.

I have an idea of what these people do. Though I mostly know about the **** they have to deal with on the Russian border. I don't know what kind of borderwars they have in america. But I suspect you are full of ****. These guys aren't some romantic knights heroically standing vigilant over the bastion of hope that is the US of A. I suspect a police officer has a more dangerous job. But whatever the case, you better wake up and smell what you're shovelling. You come down on me without knowing anything about me or what I do, or have done for living. And no one's disrespecting border guards or their job here.

You ever seen child pornography?  I have - because of my job.  It's the single most disgusting thing you will ever seen in your entire life, and it will give even the most hardened guy nightmares.  We aren't talking some little girl smiling on the bed fully clothed - we are talking about the nastiest, most hardcore pornography imaginable done to pre-pubescent children, even infants in some cases.  Children exploited for the sexual pleasure of paying adults who seem to think they're doing nothing wrong.

Oh please! Explain me this child pornography! You really think I'm a child? Or maybe you think I'm just a complete ****ing moron? If so, then say it. Because I know what child porn is about. I dear say you can't find an adult anywhere who doesn't know what it is about. Everyone on this board knows what's it about. But you don't know if the guy in question had hardcore child porn. ****ing references to child porn means jack ****. Not to mention that these alledged "references to child porn" got this guys name on tabloids. 50-50 chance he is innocent and has nothing but ordinary naked pictures, but his life pretty much ruined. You want to be touchy about this? Fine, do it. But don't ****ing direct it at me.

As for examining a computer... it's not without reason.  You are crossing an international border.  Don't want your stuff looked at?  Simple - stay in your own country, subject to your own laws on search and seizure.

Ripping ones personal life open just because you're going somewhere is wrong in my book. But then again, what do I know? Lived in a free country my whole life. But just so that you know, I can go in to Sweden without my personal files inspected or my balls searched and nutsweat tested. Russian border guards can get a little dodgy if you're unlucky, so I wouldn't take a laptop with me if I can avoid it...

Statements like yours totally disgust me because you have no ****ing clue.  Like I said, until you do a job like that, shut your mouth because you honestly have no idea whatsoever.  None.

Posts like yours annoy me. You think you know everything better and have the right to boss others as you like. Don't come tell anyone to shut up because they have a difference of opinion. You need to go home and grow up now.

[MP-Ryan]

Prophet, you're the one essentially arguing that the situation isn't serious without having a damn clue what you're talking about.  I've worked on the Canada-US border, alright?  I've done the job.  I know what it's about.  I know the procedures.  I know the policies these guys are following.  And I've got news - the case wouldn't have gotten where it is if these weren't serious allegations with child pornography involved.

And no one's disrespecting border guards or their job here.

Really?  What was this then:  "All there is, is a word of some border barney who thought he saw some references to questionable material."  That seems to me like you're disrespecting border guards AND their job.

Because I know what child porn is about.

Clearly you don't, or you wouldn't be questioning whether or not an officer who is trained on its identification can tell the difference between ordinary pornography and prohibited, internationally illegal material.

50-50 chance he is innocent and has nothing but ordinary naked pictures, but his life pretty much ruined.

This is why I know you're mouthing off without a clue:  the guy wouldn't be sitting in court for two years if he hadn't had material that officers determined to be, without a doubt, child pornography.  That's a requirement of the US legal system.  Ditto for Canada.  But don't let that stop you from ranting on about how the officers don't know what their doing when you're basing everything you know about it on one newspaper article.

Ripping ones personal life open just because you're going somewhere is wrong in my book.

That's nice.  And?

Customs legislation the world over allows Customs officers to examine any baggage and question any person when they cross the border.  Scanning a laptop for child pornography is part of baggage examination.  And for the record, officers don't do it randomly; they must provide 'indicators' which lead them to believe there may be prohibited material present.  They will be documented in the officer's notebooks, as a result of verbal interviews with the subject.  And no, the media won't print that part of the story, because only the legal process has access to those notes.

You may think that the procedure is unreasonable, but remember that border officers intercept illegal pornography, weapons, drugs, currency, and migrants on a regular basis.  The legislative tools are there to allow them to do their jobs - and guess what, I'm sure your country (Finland, IIRC?) has the same sorts of laws in place.  They're not there for officers to pry into personal lives - they're there to intercept illegal or prohibited goods.. which includes child pornography.

Like I said, you don't actually have a clue.  You're mouthing off based on a single media story and in the process slamming the officers involved and the job they do based on your personal opinion - and you're damn right I'm going to call you out for that kind of bull****.  So - either do the legal research to understand what's going on, or shut your trap and listen to the people that do.  Like I said, I've been there, done that, and I've posted two pieces of legislation in this thread alone to demonstrate comparative policies and why they exist.  All I've seen out of you is unconstructive criticism of the officers involved and excuses.

[Prophet]

Well you do make valid points.

Really?  What was this then:  "All there is, is a word of some border barney who thought he saw some references to questionable material."  That seems to me like you're disrespecting border guards AND their job.

Let me make this clear. I do not disrespect border guards or their job. My opinion however is that the acts of those with authority should be questioned, especially in uncertain situations, until certainty is achieved. Which is what I meant in this case.

Clearly you don't, or you wouldn't be questioning whether or not an officer who is trained on its identification can tell the difference between ordinary pornography and prohibited, internationally illegal material.

Yes. I don't know **** about what kind of training border guards go trough regarding pornography. But that doesn't have any bearing on MY ability to tell the difference.

This is why I know you're mouthing off without a clue:  the guy wouldn't be sitting in court for two years if he hadn't had material that officers determined to be, without a doubt, child pornography.  That's a requirement of the US legal system.  Ditto for Canada.  But don't let that stop you from ranting on about how the officers don't know what their doing when you're basing everything you know about it on one newspaper article.

Fine. I didn't notice him being in for two years. I missed one frigging sentence. Had this been a recent case, I would have stayed my point. But since this **** has been in the fan for two years, they might have something on him.


Fine. You won the argument. I might even congratulate you had it not been all those personal attacks. All I was working on, and was willing to work on, was that one news story. Because I was discussing about the story. I was questioning the story and if there really was a case against this man. And I remind you that this was when I mistakenly thought the case was recent. No it doesn't matter anymore because the fella is dead meat whether he's guilty or not. You however took my questioning the incident as a personal attack against the border guard, and responded quite aggressively. I did not appreciate that. I admit that I was angered, by your arrogant behaviour. And because of your behaviour I also didn't think you really had a good idea what you were talking about. Now it looks like you do have some idea. Which is really sad because I got riled up for nothing...

This would have gone much smoother if you'd have kept your cool in this post... They don't teach public relations in border school?

[Goober5000]

section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Yeah, but section 1 states:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

which strikes me as the legal equivalent of leaving a backdoor exploit in your source code.

You ever seen child pornography?  I have - because of my job.

[Asuko]

MP Ryan and Prophet, I didn't really intend for the topic to go off like that. I just wanted a discussion on the legalities of what would happen to him.

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.

Goober, this case is occurring in the U.S. I wonder if there is something like it in the U.S. law code though. It would kind of make sense.

[MP-Ryan]

Prophet, you've got some balls to start off the way you did in this thread and then have the audacity to complain about an aggressive response (which, you'll notice, questioned your understanding of the situation as opposed to attacking you as a person).

My response was arrogant and aggressive, as you put it, because that's the tone you decided to set in your analysis of the situation.  In my experience, that mindset only responds to its equal.  Next time, if you'd like a rational and calm response to your posturing on subjects you know little about, try starting off without acting like a know-it-all.  I can be a know-it-all too, I readily admit it - but only on subjects I know something about.

This would have gone much smoother if you'd have kept your cool in this post... They don't teach public relations in border school?

Like I said, I'm responding to the tone that was set.  And nothing that I've said here should reflect on my past employment experience... I'm posting entirely as a private citizen with some detailed knowledge of the subject.

I'm truly sorry if I've genuinely offended you or hurt your feelings, but the way you were going off you needed to be corrected as expediently as possible, and gently stating how wrong you were would not have done that - you would have ignored it and proceeded merrily on your way.

That said, no hard feelings.  It's not you as a personal that I was verbally smacking, it's the limited knowledge and understanding you were presenting of the situation and subject at hand.

which strikes me as the legal equivalent of leaving a backdoor exploit in your source code.

It can be - depends on the court's interpretation.  The situation would most likely not have occurred in this manner in Canada anyway.  The point is completely moot, however, as this case is in the USA and subject solely to its laws.

As for the raised eyebrow to the child porn thing, you can PM/ICQ me if you want to ask about it.

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.

[Stealth]

Prophet, i don't know you except for what i've read in this thread, but i think you're pretty damn stupid.  great first impression you give

that is all...

[Stealth]

also, i've got a legitimate question...

soooo if i ever want to cross the border to Canada... and i have my laptop with me... they're going to go through it?  I don't have anything illegal in that sense, but i do have a couple of MP3s :-/ does that count? :-/

[General Battuta]

I gotta say, Prophet, I think I'm with Stealth here. Sorry.

Good on you, MP-Ryan.

[MP-Ryan]

also, i've got a legitimate question...

soooo if i ever want to cross the border to Canada... and i have my laptop with me... they're going to go through it?  I don't have anything illegal in that sense, but i do have a couple of MP3s :-/ does that count? :-/

Not necessarily.  It depends on a whole host of factors, and major one of which is how you respond to the officers questions.  If you've got nothing seriously illegal, then you've got nothing to worry about.  Don't let a reminder of what Customs is legally allowed to do make you paranoid and believe that they will always do it =)

[Stealth]

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

[MP-Ryan]

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

I think you'll be OK, Stealth =)