Warning to all terbites crossing the border!!!

[fuji]

Being on terb is evidence of criminal activiity, as they can search your posts and see that you have engaged in prostitution, which is a crime in the US.

If the US border guards find your terb posting history then you could be found inadmissible if your posts reveal that you have used prostitutes in the US, or intend to. Also any admission of drug use, etc., the immigration act specifically bans anyone from entering the US for the purpose of prostitution, and anyone who admits to drug use is also banned.

Coming back to Canada assuming you are a citizen they are only looking for evidence of smuggling so your terb history is likely irrelevant unless you have been posting about your smuggling operation or something, seems unlikely.

 

[djk]

I went on a trip to Detroit by car recently, and was detained at the border.

When I arrived, the guy at the booth flagged my car, and told me to pull over. I did so, and then a border agent YELLED at me to put my keys on the dash, and to leave my cell phone in the car. The way he yelled at me was as if I was a criminal. I mean, I was shocked. Keep in mind that I have no criminal record.

The guy inside was much nicer and asked me in a civil way some further questions, and I was free to go.

HOWEVER, the reason the first guy ordered me to leave my cell phone in the car was so that he could search it for any signs of wrongdoing. After doing some research, I found out that BORDER OFFICERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO THROUGH ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES EVEN IF THERE IS NO SUSPICION OF WRONGDOING. THEY CAN GO THROUGH YOUR EMAIL, MESSAGES, CALL HISTORY, AND WEBSITE HISTORY.


Luckily, I had a pass lock on it. Otherwise, I could be sitting in jail now. Besides visiting terb, and asking about prostitutes and services, they can see my entire history of posts, since I remained logged in.

Also, I did several searches on highly illegal activities. HOWEVER, this does not mean I ever committed or would ever commit any crimes related to those searches. It was mostly out of curiosity. However, if border patrol had seen those searches, all hell would have broken loose.

Don't EVER cross the border with any kind of information you don't want border officers to see on any electronic device (cell, tablet, laptop, camera). They have the right to search it, and even confiscate it!!

Also, always apply a pass lock on all devices.

I think it's completely wrong that I was treated like a criminal for simply crossing the border. The officers was a power tripping asshole. They have no right to go through my phone and see all my private information. How can this be legal??

https://www.eff.org/wp/defending-privacy-us-border-guide-travelers-carrying-digital-devices

You're either with homeland security or you're with the terrorists.

 

[Handela]

You're either with homeland security or you're with the terrorists.

huh funny.

 

[I'm not here]

Being issued a "clean" laptop and cell is pretty standard when companies send executives are crossing borders. This has been going on for a long time.

 

[djk]

huh funny.

You'd be surprised how many people have this attitude.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Jesus, then I must 'move' all my folders of SPs and MPAs and other ladies that I've seen from my smart phone before travelling I guess. I have so many on my contact list too. (Is there a way to group all adult contacts in your smartphone contact list?)

 

[GPIDEAL]

Whether its illegal or not isn't your only problem. If they're convinced you've been engaged in illegal activity they can ban you outright. But they can also do so if they believe you're an undesirable entrant to the country and/or suspect you might be engaging in criminal activity.

If they see you're a member of escort sites, big red flag.

Legal porn is another red flag for them. It will likely cause them to look deeper into you to see if they can find anything else. Probably not as big an indicator as TERB though.

Remember, not all border guards are dicks and if you're cooperative your chances of entry go way up. But if you pull a Fuji and start trying to play Philadelphia lawyer, they'll fuck you so hard you'll be walking funny for days.

That Border Security show had lots of people who tried to play Philadelphia lawyer and every one of them got fucked in the ass. The guards know the ins and outs of the rules far better than you do so be forewarned.

I always have a good attitude with cops and immigration officers or border patrol. It reaps benefits.

 

[lomotil]

Prostitution is legal in Nevada, marijuana possession in Washington and Colorado If you are visiting these states non stop from Toronto to their airports them what? I guess the Federal law trumps state laws at borders? Would this be taken into consideration if those materials were found on your computer?

 

[elise]

Huh?

Elise, you should have a problem with it.

As DB suggests, the justification for giving border guards the authority to search without cause is because that might be the only way to stop a terrorist attack. Many say that the need to snag a terrorists` comrades even justifies torture.

But you want to use the border guards` special powers to combat child porn, and drugs? Presumably you would also include murder, rape, kidnapping?

In fact, think of all the unsolved murders and rapes that could be cleared up! Why don`t we give the police unlimited power to go into people`s homes and search anyone, anything, anytime? I don`t know what is the murder, rape, etc rate in North Korea, but I`m certain it`s a great deal lower than it is in countries where the police need a warrant to search for evidence for those crimes.

You should get into politics. With your casual disregard of basic human rights, you should fit right in.

Umm, sorry buttercup, but I don`t see what set you off.

I went back to see what the chat was about and it was regarding Fuji encrypting phones/laptops or whatever. DB123 hadn`t mentioned anything about border guards stopping terrorists anywhere in his previous posts so I don`t see where he suggests that. Since he replied with my quote I thought he was referring to stopping people at the border with drugs.

Let me reword what I said to see if that helps.
I don`t have a problem with the CBSA stopping drugs and child pornography at the border.
I also don`t have a problem with LE getting those who are responsible for child pornography, drugs, (murder, rape and kidnapping too). Do you?

I never said, or intended to suggest, that those powers that the CBSA has, should be extended to LE inside the country. Hell no. I think the powers the border guards have are already excessive (although probably necessary).

I too don`t have a problem with the CBSA or others hunting down child porn and drugs either.

Its when they go into God mode for tax collection that they become irritating. Especially when its not overly justified.

My point was I don`t like how the guards use those powers to shake down a cross border shopper for the government to get a few bucks in GST revenue. Didn`t you recently have a problem with getting nailed by the CBSA for duties and taxes from a courier? https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?475095-courier-duties-taxes-scam

I`m sure communist/non-democratic/totalitarian countries have lower crime rates. Probably a given in true police states, but it is at the expense of basic human freedoms. Does the end justify the means, maybe if you believe in Marxism or Stalinism.

You should get into politics.

Now THAT, was just mean, nasty and uncalled for.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I'm sure communist/non-democratic/totalitarian countries have lower crime rates. Probably a given in true police states, but it is at the expense of basic human freedoms. Does the end justify the means, maybe if you believe in Marxism or Stalinism.

Absolutely. More freedom means more opportunities for crime. However, we see an anomaly in Russia where the state is corrupt and allows oligarchies, so it has injustices beyond individual rights and general crime.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Citation needed.

Then go look it up, I'm not doing your homework for you. It'll be good for you. Clear up that inaccurate, misleading, and just plain wrong "information" you're spewing.

Besides, I really don't care about the opinions of dummies.

 

[fuji]

Then go look it up, I'm not doing your homework for you. It'll be good for you. Clear up that inaccurate, misleading, and just plain wrong "information" you're spewing.

Besides, I really don't care about the opinions of dummies.

I don't believe you. If you cannot cite this section of the regulation that allows them to declare people inadmissible for no reason at all, it doesn't exist. You made it up.

Border guards decisions may appear arbitrary, but in fact that are applying regulations. They do not exclude people for arbitrary reasons. They can choose to give you a break if they find you violating a regulation, but they cannot arbitrarily decide to exclude you if you are compliant.

 

[spankingman]

If you have nothing to be concerned about don't sweat it. Yes there are bad Customs,CBSA people as there are bad people in ALL jobs. I've crossed the border hundreds of times and only had one experience with US Customs which was clarified inside when the Customs Officer was called inside to explain WHY he sent me in for secondary inspection. I even got an apology!

However one time at the Airport in Fort Lauderdale returning from a cruise I recently had knee surgery and was using a cane and had a knee grace with metal in it. I had to put my cane which was aluminum through the X-ray before going through the inspection detector myself. I told the agent I needed my cane but wasn't allowed to get it which caused me a lot of pain hobbling around I told the agent my brace had metal,in it but they still sent me to secondary with a slip for inspection. The other agent made me take off my brace and inspected it them tossed it back to me and said I could go.
I did complain but it got me no where.

 

[djk]

It's much worse than that. The border guards have COMPLETE discretion when it comes to deciding whether to let you enter or not.

Pretty much. But DHS itself does override (eg. entry waiver) their discretion.

 

[djk]

Trust me CBSA can be just as big or bigger pricks than Customs/ Border Patrol. I do a fair bit of boarder hopping, born in Mexico but my parents were US citizens and have spent too much time in Canada (ex-wife is Canadian). I have lived and travelled in all three and my advice is have a hobby phone and clear it out or leave it at home. Laptops are checked more often then you think so instead of clearing browsing history use "in private" or secure setting that does not log cookies. To clean of a browsing history is a red flag to some of them. My advice is have typical stuff on there and no adult material stronger than Sports illustrated swimsuit or sunshine girl stuff. They can and will ask for the password and will look through emails, texts as well as any documents. They are checking for evidence of working without permits or criminal activity.

If you have a little black book, code it. If not for customs than at least the prying eyes of a S.O. Mine is done to look like rental car fuel mileage logs. Since 9/11 things have gotten worse as far as the intrusions on ordinary people. Remember that the job they have is challenging. They are not just looking for the next of Osama's martyrs but for drug and currency smuggling, weapons (CBSA), weapons of mass destruction (CBP), restricted technologies, banned products (food) and a ton of other things.

Key things to remember. #1 Have your documents ready, #2 Have where, why and how long you will be there for memorized and have it be logical and simple. #3 Eye contact and no sunglasses on. #4 Answer as simply as possible, if a yes or no will answer the question use yes or no. #5 Be cool, pretend it is the drive through. #6 Be polite, show respect to them, the A-holes crave that, if you deny them you are in for a rough ride. #6 Never offer a bribe.

I get hassled by CBSA more often than CBP and never by Aduanas Mexicanas.

Happy 4th of July!!!!

Spot on.

 

[djk]

Some info on password locks and locking your phone:

you should always lock your phone in case you leave it at a bar or on public transit etc. That's all the password is good for... to make sure nobody reads your stuff if they randomly find your phone.

This is of NO use at the border though. They do have devices to bypass the passwords. They usually don't have to do that... the threat of denying you entry, locking you up, and siezing all your stuff including your phone/tablet/car is usually enough to get people to give out their password.

They have a device the size of a small suitcase. It opens up and has about 100 connectors which allow the device to plug into any type of phone. They plug your phone in and bam, they have a copy of all your data. They can then go through it with the device at their leisure. It allows them to preload certain words (escort, gay, underage, etc.) and it can scan your phone for those words in seconds. Better hope you dont have a file called underage-hot-girl.jpg on your phone or you're screwed! Even the word appearing in an email is found very quickly.

Yeah. Tech companies have to include access for law enforcement in their products. The term is "lawful access" or "lawful compliance".

Here's a list of internal documents for online providers and law enforcement.

http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/online-spying.htm

Plus when you're using a password but not encrypting your device, the file system is not locked. Just access to it through the UI is. Encryption is the way to go.

http://www.cnet.com/news/homeland-security-we-can-seize-laptops-for-an-indefinite-period/
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/201...ch-your-laptop-at-the-border-without-warrant/

 

[nobody123]

Citation needed.

Here ya go fuj....

U.S. border guards are allowed to bar anyone they deem a threat to themselves, others or their property.

It's from an item about a woman who was refused entry because of her clinical depression. Full article here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...sed-u-s-entry-because-of-depression-1.2444960 The article focuses on whether cops have the right to share private information with US customs, but the money quote is:

U.S. border guards are allowed to bar anyone they deem a threat to themselves, others or their property.

"Oh look. That person seems upset about something (eg. the fact that we pulled them aside and are giving them a hard time for no reason). In my professional, border guard judgment, they could be a threat and should be denied entry." It happened to me personally in the late 90s and is the main reason I avoid going to the States to this day.

 

[fuji]

Here ya go fuj....

It's from an item about a woman who was refused entry because of her clinical depression. Full article here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadian-woman-refused-u-s-entry-because-of-depression-1.2444960 The article focuses on whether cops have the right to share private information with US customs, but the money quote is:

"Oh look. That person seems upset about something (eg. the fact that we pulled them aside and are giving them a hard time for no reason). In my professional, border guard judgment, they could be a threat and should be denied entry." It happened to me personally in the late 90s and is the main reason I avoid going to the States to this day.

Except they didn't bar her just because she looked upset, but because they had documented evidence that she was suicidal. How they got that evidence is controversial, but that is a Canadian problem (why did we share that info), the US guards acted in accordance with clear regulations.

The claim above was that if you used a scheme whereby you did not have the password to decrypt data, or anything else like that, they would get angry and use magical powers to bar your entry. There are no such magical powers. If they bar someone it is with respect to specific regulations and actual facts. And yes, you can appeal a refusal.

The case of that woman may be unfair at some level but she would lose the appeal because they really do have proof of her mental illness, even if Canada was wrong to give it to the Americans, they have it now.

 

[fuji]

did they have a citation when they recently refused Rob Ford entry to the States?

Yeah, he went on national television and confessed to using drugs. He is now inadmissible to the United States. He may be able to get a waiver if he travels for political business.

FWIW, George W. Bush is inadmissible to Canada because he has a drunk driving conviction, and needed a ministerial exemption to enter Canada on political business (which he was given by the Minister as a courtesy to the US).

 

[nobody123]

Except they didn't bar her just because she looked upset, but because they had documented evidence that she was suicidal. How they got that evidence is controversial, but that is a Canadian problem (why did we share that info), the US guards acted in accordance with clear regulations.

The claim above was that if you used a scheme whereby you did not have the password to decrypt data in your possession they would use magical powers to bar your entry.

There are no such magical powers. If they bar someone it is with respect to specific regulations and actual facts. And yes, you can appeal a refusal.

I knew you would get distracted by the shiny bauble of the article being about a tangentially related issue. Allow me to give you the money quote again. Take a deep breath. Forget where it comes from. And process these words and these words alone:

U.S. border guards are allowed to bar anyone they deem a threat to themselves, others or their property.

Got that? Here. Have another look...

U.S. border guards are allowed to bar anyone they deem a threat to themselves, others or their property.

Now I realise that in the previous post, I only wrote it two times and apparently that was a bit easy for you to miss. So here it is a third time...

U.S. border guards are allowed to bar anyone they deem a threat to themselves, others or their property.

Please, by all means, do tell me how that isn't carte blanche to reject whoever the fuck you want with no real justification whatsoever.