Slashdot Mirror
CBSA Reveals Some Laptop Search Info, But Not Much
gmcmullen writes "The Canada Border Service Agency took its time getting documents on its policy for border searches of laptops to the BC Civil Liberties Association in response to an Access to Information request the BCCLA filed in October 2009. When the reply did come through, there wasn't much there. The documents were heavily redacted and whole sections of the Access to Information request were ignored, including requests for information on the number of laptops searched and policies for copying data from electronic devices. We did learn that the CBSA knows that 500 megabytes is roughly equivalent to 'a pickup truck full of books,' and use Windows-only software called ICWhatUC to scan for images. Documents also revealed that the CBSA understands that most 'Japanese Anime' is not child pornography, and that your family photos (even with kids in the tub) aren't child pornography either. We've made the documents we did receive available online so you can see for yourself."
...and that your family photos (even with kids in the tub) aren't child pornography either.
Of course you'll wish they were confiscated when your parents decide to show them to anyone you date and embarrass you to no end.
Ok, if we're going to work with a blacklist, it'd be nice to actually have it. I don't mind starting the query for completion:
Check to include in blacklist:
- Non japanese anime.
- Family pictures of close friends with kids.
- Paintings.
- Family pictures of friends you should call more often but don't.
- 3D Computer generated renderings.
- Family pictures of work mates you drink beers with, from time to time.
So my jobs requires encrypted drives, and in addition I use Linux. What should I tell them when they want to search my drive ? "I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to let you snoop in that, please see my boss."...? Way to end in the slammer either way.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
No, no, no. It's a series of tubes.
The only software I have on my laptop is OpenVPN. All I do once connected is VPN in and RDP to my workstation.
Bloody Vikings.
Go away.
--
BMO
They seemed to enjoy their jobs. True story.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
The sad thing about all this is that when a government department or agency decides to thumb their nose at a Freedom of Information Request, few groups have the time and money to fight them all the way to the Supreme Court. And when they get there, the likelihood of a costs/damages finding big enough to really hurt the government is almost non-existent.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Refuse to cross borders which have unreasonable search policies.
If you don't, you're implicitly accepting them. It's your fault.
If that means you have to stay in your country entirely, so be it. Many people survive while staying in their own country.
If you lackeys would give up some of your iToys for a moment and stand up for what's right, even if it means a slight loss of comfort, the government would be forced to change.
Yes, I've stopped travelling by air. Yes, I've stopped travelling to America. I did both frequently and willingly before the post-11/9 intrusions, and loved going to the US. But I think in the long run it'll help both my country and yours if I make a stand, as long as others follow.
Can't get over the cheapy-ten-dollar shareware that is the program they use to look for infringing material. I've probably written better software that does the same job *accidentally* while working on other projects.
Just load up a goatese desktop, throw in the "Hey everybody I'm looking at porn" audio clip and stuff the hard drive with goatese/tubgirl images.
You're not so much naive as just ignorant of what the laws and precedents actually say. Nudity is not enough to make it a form of obscenity (in the US, at least). The SCOTUS and actual letter of the law are clear on this, the former, in part because obscenities by their very nature have "no artistic or scientific merit" as recognized by the federal judiciary and must appeal the to the "prurient nature." That means it must lack any independent merit AND be aimed at appealing to the lustful side of humanity. Simply taking pictures of every bath your kids take is not enough to get you convicted under the letter of the law or precedents, but it's enough to make you a target for a prosecutor who will (with some good reason) argue that you are a pervert.
Do they make any effort to see what Mp3's/music audio you have stored on your computer? Traveling with a hard drive full of p3's makes it a bit hard to prove you have all of the CD's sitting at home (assuming format-shifting is legal in canada)
Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
How is this off topic?
Absolutely right! Most so-called CP laws should be rescinded, because they have nothing whatsoever to do with CP.
The original purpose of CP laws was to protect children from sexual abuse. They were never meant to prevent parents from taking pictures of their kids playing at the waterpark; they should not force parents to undergo background checks before they can set foot in their kids' kindergarten, etc, etc. All of these extensions come at the price of the rights and freedom of the vast majority of innocent people, and do nothing whatsoever to prevent real crime.
Politicians and helicopter parents have pushed this whole area so far beyond common sense that we actually have people (like the poster below) who think the police should get involved if you have several dozen pictures of clothed children! As a coach of a kids team, as a school teacher, or maybe as a grandparent with lots of grandkids, am I going to get a very special interview? Gee, thanks...
If someone forces a child to do something sexual, that is a crime. The original CP laws said: if you purchase a picture of a sexual crime involving a minor, that too is a crime. The justification here is: even though the purchaser had nothing to do with the original crime, by criminalizing purchase, one might be able to dry up the market that supports the original crimes. This original idea was extended to cover possession (not just purchase), which already strays from the original justification.
In recent years, it has been stretched beyond all reason. It makes no sense at all to prohibit innocent pictures (i.e., kids taking a bath, kids at the beach), nor to prohibit activities that do not even involve children (like tasteless cartoons). This is legislating "good taste" and has nothing at all to do with either children or with crime prevention.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
The story is about Canada, so none of what I write below is direcly applicable. I've also written enough on this in the past on Slashdot for people to think I'm weird, so I'll keep this short. However, if you're interested in the way things work in the U.S., here's my perspective.
In the U.S., the definition of child porn is very flexible. Very. The definition isn't just in the statutes, it's in the case law. There are tests and ambiguity a-plenty.
Functionally, anything is child porn if the prosecutor says it's child porn. There doesn't have to be nudity. There doesn't have to be sexual acts. There doesn't have to be anything even remotely suggestive in any single particular picture.
When you get down to cases, the U.S. definition of child porn hinges on the state of mind of the person in possession. If the prosecutor can prove (sufficiently well to satisfy a jury) that you think dirty thoughts about little kids while you masturbate to the photos (or even, more controversially and more arguably, the drawings) of kids (or adults that look like kids but are believed by the possessor to be kids), then you're guilty of possessing child porn.
That sounds crazy but let me give you an example that will make it more clear, an example where the state of mind of the person in possession is already clearly established. If you've been convicted of molesting a child, it's a given that your thoughts about children are sexual. Assume you get probation and your probation officer decides to drop by to inspect your domicile. If the P.O. finds a single photo of a child, even if that child is bundled from head to toe in winter clothes, you'll go back to jail. You will have violated your probation for possessing child porn. You'll get a new case filed against you and you'll lose.
That situation, while it may be something that seems over the top, is at least understandable to most people.
The same standard is applied to all child porn cases. You can take naked pictures of children for legitimate medical research and you won't be prosecuted. If you've been previously adjudicated as a perv, owning a kids clothing catalog can get you a whole set of new convictions.
The difference is in what the prosecutor can prove to the jury about the state of mind of the person in possession of the media.
If the prosecutor can prove to a jury that you jerk off to McDonalds commercials featuring kids, then those McDonalds commercials, under U.S. law become child porn, but only if they are in your possession.
If you don't see the potential for abuse in this set-up, you're just not looking. It's a serious problem in the U.S.
....The current Conservative government in Canada promised to be more open and accountable to it's citizens. Just take a look at this YouTube video with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in it to see what I'm talking about. But it seems that they are practicing the exact opposite. Just look at this issue and another burning issue in Canada involving documents relating to how Canada handled Afghan prisoner transfers and the Conservatives unwillingness to hand them over to Parliament. This is even more troublesome when you consider that US Customs And Border Protection
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
On a related note: Are our customs officers traumatizing visitors?.
CRIMETHINK!
FTFA written material constitutes child porn. "A 12 year old fucked a 20 year old" I am now guilty of creating CP! arrest me!
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
I'm surprised that no one picked up on this, even though the discussion charged directly into the CP issue (perennial for /., I'm afraid.) If the scanning software they use is Windows-only, what would they do with a Linux (or even just a Mac) user? Unless the software comes packaged with drivers for various Unix and Unix-based filesystems, what will they do when it won't scan?
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
It's already accepted [among judges and, presumably, attourneys] that cases like that are entirely separate and come under a new, misdemeanor, charge dealing specifically with cases like that, unless blackmail is involved.
In any case, all cases that ever made it to court have ended up either downgraded or settled on some plea bargain involving a radically lessed sentence - because even the best prosector in the country knows that there's no way they would have gotten it past a jury.
Incidentally, the only people who ever supported such prosecutions in the first place were the people who stood to make money from it.
Nice try to relate to us slashdotters but that is not one of our standard units of measure. I mean, what kind of pickup is it; a subaru Brat/Baja, a Chevrolet El Camino, a Ford Ranger, or a Ford F-350 - and is it long bed or short bed, fleet side or step side? Is there a cap over the bed and is the space filled to the top?
Better yet, please convert the amount in the unit of either "volkswagens' or "libraries of congress." Other units of measure confuse us.
Thanks!
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Look up "pornography" and answer your own question.
Even a nude woman is not "pornography" unless the intent is to arouse the viewer. Do you get the difference?
Multiple "acai" in the link is kind of dead giveaway.