Slashdot Mirror
Do Not Flush Your iPod
realjordanna writes "Clearly the bar for what is deemed as a security threat has had to be lowered — but should it be this low? When a rather embarrassed passenger loses his iPod in the lavatory — even admits to the crew his mistake, the plane is diverted to Ottawa and a bomb squad is brought in to investigate. Read the iPod owner's story and take one lesson from this kid's plight — clearly the iPod is not flushable."
Besides, and this is on a different note, if I'd be honest, I'd answer "it's sad, but it didn't affect my life as a foreigner much" to "What do you think about 9/11?", "yes" to "Do you think government is too big, too powerful?", and perhaps even "maybe by demonstrating sometime" to "Would you ever "make a point?"".
What I wonder is what they would do if I did tell them that?
It would be interesting to see the response if he had done so.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I hardly see why the fact that there is no absolute proof that he was the one involved means that it shouldn't be posted here. No, it wasn't on a news site, but he does go into a lot of detail involving the story. Enough so that I have no reason to doubt him. Besides, he would have to be very desperate for attention to make up such a story, and if he did, he really should consider a career in writing, because it was quite enjoyable to read. It's a story that is of interest, and hence is perfectly worthy of a post on slashdot.
Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world.
-- Mary Shafer, risks researcher, NASA
As a Canadian I was ABSOLUTELY APALLED by the manner in which he was treated. After politely explaining the situation as he did, I'd have told them all to fuck off in no uncertain terms long before I got to this cutoms jerk. The routine should be ... amd I under arrest .. what is the charge .. get me a lawyer ... or go screw yourselves.
... god help them if its ever me ... I've told customs to go take a hike before, and wouldn't hesitate to do it again.
The questions were completely irrelevant, uncalled for, and he was under no obligation to answer such crap. I'm terribly upset at the pompous security asses and my government
Grrrrr.
Two points about this.
First, just FYI, hate propaganda is not "protected speech" in Canada. Indeed, the concept of "protected speech" is not part of Canadian constitutional or rights laws; "protected speech" is a concept that comes from American court cases related to free speech laws and the First Amendment. In Canada, there is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects one's "freedom of expression", but that same document also protects people from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc. Generally, freedom of expression is protected in Canada only within such reasonable limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society. Within this framework, the Canadian Criminal Code has laws against "hate" crimes -- primarily in cases where one's activities can be described as an "incitement to violence". In Canadian law, therefore, the individual right to free expression does not trump the group right of protection from hate speech. Both are present and both may apply to the same speech at the same time, so the question of whether "hate speech" is illegal or not depends upon the specific circumstances of the communication and on a localized intrepretation of events connected to the use of those words.
Second, if I'm not mistaken, border guards from both Canada and the U.S. are indeed empowered to make decisions on the spot about what or who can come into either country. There is little difference between Canada and the U.S. about this. In both cases, customs officials are given sweeping powers that allow them to make choices without having to justify those choices to a court. There is a long history of abuse of this power on both sides of the border that has led to the improper seizure of literature associated with radical, leftist, or communist causes (as well as fascist hate propaganda) and of pornographic material associated with gay, lesbian, or BSMD lifestyles (as well as child porn or other clearly objectionable materials). Lots of brown-skinned muslims travelling these days will be quick to confirm from experience that when you are at the border, you really don't have any rights at all, and you have very little recourse if you are mistreated. It's only people who have never run into problems at the border who live under the illusion that their "rights" are robust and in full force at the border. This does not mean one should not object to mistreatment, but border guards really are empowered to make decisions about what comes into your country, and if you are going to dispute their choices, you had better be ready for a long, miserable experience...and you had better be sure that you know the law of the particular country you intend to object to!
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
Summary of Hate Crime Legislation
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/
At least one airline, QANTAS, has banned using dell laptops on battery power in flight for this very reason.
IANAL- but I am a Constitutional Law scholar and I think poster may have a case for his rights being violated, namely with the laptop. Assuming of course this flight was aboard an American carrier and that customs official digging through his laptop was also an American. Poster was informed he would be released before the customs official went through his laptop looking for contraband. It is somewhat hazy but generally computers fall under the 4th Amendment's guarantee against undue search and seizure. If the guy wants to look- he damn well better have a search warrant from a judge. Seeing as he is to be released for lack of evidence- there is no basis for the search.
Now, if the customs official was Canadian, or an agent of the Canadian government it gets a lot more murky. True- what I am assuming are American and Canadian authorities have decided to let him go, but poster is passing through the customs of another country. However, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also guarantees against undue search (Article 8) and puts forth the right to consul (U.S. Escobedo and Miranda) (Canada: CoRaF Article 10). Poster was clearly not given those.
Surely, the argument I have just made can be reconstructed by the other side of the argument- in the name of national security or some other erosion of rights. Allow me to quote Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". On that note- I encourage poster to contact the ACLU or its Canadian equivalent and bring suit (the ACLU will do all the work for you on a pro bono basis). Such a case has the possibility to clarify rights in the paranoid stripping of rights that is the War on Terror.