4 ms·

>Does anyone else have any tips/tricks/ideas here? The trick is to not worry about it so much. In fact, I'd say that worrying and looking nervous would make it

>Does anyone else have any tips/tricks/ideas here? The trick is to not worry about it so much. In fact, I'd say that worrying and looking nervous would make it more likely that you would be searched. I live on the US/Canadian border (on the US side) and go over probably 2 or 3 times per month. I regularly drive from New York state to Ottawa (going through Canadian customs), then fly into the US (through US customs) and then back again through Canada (Canadian customs again) driving home to the US (US customs again) with no problems. It's closer than the nearest commercial airport to me in the US and even with the customs delay, much more convenient. I also just go over to have fun in Ottawa and Montreal regularly. My vehicle has been searched 3 times in probably 6 years. My phone has always stayed with me, in my pocket, un-searched. I have only ever personally heard of one case of someone having their electronics searched, and the extent of the search was Canadian customs using the Windows search to look for files with "boy" or "girl" in the filename -- presumably looking for child porn. To be clear, I'm not saying this doesn't ever happen, or that it will 100% never happen to you, but the chances are very, very slim that they'll even ask you more than a few questions, let alone do any sort of search. Your mileage may vary, of course.

5ilv3r 9y ago
Looking at the list of people represented, I'm lead to believe there is a large chance of racial profiling being involved.
- iamatworknow 9y ago
  Absolutely a possibility.
- CWuestefeld 9y ago
  I'm lead to believe there is a large chance of racial profiling being involved. On whose part? The border patrol, so that the pool of potential plaintiffs is large? Or by the EFF and ACLU, choosing a diversity of plaintiffs to represent?
iamatworknow 9y ago
To perhaps back my point up even further, look at the link that the EFF posted showing CBP's data: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-statistics-electronic-device-searches-0 https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-rele... 189,594,422 people processed at the US border between October 2016 and March 2017 with 14,993 electronics searches. 0.008% of people processed had electronics searched.
- horsecaptin 9y ago
  Out of the number of people who crossed, how many were flagged for additional questioning? Out of those flagged, how many were carrying a cell-phone / laptop across the border?
- Canada 9y ago
  That would mean that in all of the ports of entry to the United States only 82 phones per day were searched. That's absolutely ridiculous. There are approximately that many international airports. Just airports. Nevermind the enormous flow of land traffic with Canada and Mexico or all sea traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_airports_by_country#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_airports... CBP is claiming that they searched, on average, less than one phone per day in each airport? Give me a break. Their claim is probably the number of times they've done some kind of deep analysis with forensic tools. Surely the number of times a border guard casually looked through emails and texts is far higher.
  - snowwrestler 9y ago
    EDIT: I'll leave my comment below up for the record, but I'm probably wrong, and Canada above is probably right. CBP is not clear about what kind of "searches" they are counting in these stats, and they could well be only counting forensic searches, not cursory (the quick scroll through). --------- That number sounds reasonable to me. CBP has no reason to hide their activities because they believe they are faithfully enforcing the law. Electronic searches are not something agents do casually; federal agents do very few things casually on the clock. They're far too busy. Typically it has to be either a decision in advance (targeting a specific person) or a big set of warning signals at once that create a suspicious profile. I could be wrong about this; I don't have personal experience. But I've discussed these sorts of cases with friends who are federal agents and prosecutors.
dawnerd 9y ago
Going into Canada as a US citizen is usually super easy anyways. Last few times I've been across it was maybe two questions, that's it.
- iamatworknow 9y ago
  It's always been easy for me, too. I recently got a Nexus card which makes it so I don't even have to talk to a real person when arriving in Canada (at least via air). Literally just two questions in a kiosk and hand someone a receipt. Of course that means the governments of Canada and the US did a background check and recorded my fingerprints and retinas, but I'm fine with that, personally.
  - dawnerd 9y ago
    I have global entry and feel the same. On the application they didn't ask for anything they didn't already have so it wasn't a big deal. Well worth it considering the included pre check.
    - iamatworknow 9y ago
      Agreed. In fact Nexus, which includes Global Entry and PreCheck costs less than PreCheck alone ($50/5 years versus $85/5 years).
ue_ 9y ago
You know, I have to say something about this: >I have only ever personally heard of one case of someone having their electronics searched, and the extent of the search was Canadian customs using the Windows search to look for files with "boy" or "girl" in the filename -- presumably looking for child porn. This is horrible - not beacuse of the child porn aspect, but because Canada has draconian laws (though so do Britain, Aus and NZ) which mean that drawings are prohibited. Drawings of fictional characters, that is. I read a story, though mere anectode, I hope it is relevant - about a man who was arrested beacuse they found they found drawings in his cache. He didn't even like the material. A US citizen that was crossing the border and searched beacuse he looked "suspicious". We should not excuse this violation of freedom of expression just because it happens/happened at the border. Canada has laws that it deserves to be called out on.
- Asooka 9y ago
  USA and Canada are democracies. The people (majority of people (actually the people claiming to represent the majority)) have spoken - fictional drawings of children are to be treated as crimeful as real ones. Court adjourned.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    >The people (majority of people (actually the people claiming to represent the majority)) have spoken Really, have they? Is there a poll showing that? And does agreement on laws mean that the laws are therefore not draconian? I'm sure many in, for example, Saudi Arabia would think that homosexuality should be prohbited. Does this mean that it should be that way? >fictional drawings of children are to be treated as crimeful as real ones That's not what the law says.

5ilv3r 9y ago

Looking at the list of people represented, I'm lead to believe there is a large chance of racial profiling being involved.

iamatworknow 9y ago
Absolutely a possibility.
CWuestefeld 9y ago
I'm lead to believe there is a large chance of racial profiling being involved. On whose part? The border patrol, so that the pool of potential plaintiffs is large? Or by the EFF and ACLU, choosing a diversity of plaintiffs to represent?

iamatworknow 9y ago

To perhaps back my point up even further, look at the link that the EFF posted showing CBP's data: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-statistics-electronic-device-searches-0 https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-rele... 189,594,422 people processed at the US border between October 2016 and March 2017 with 14,993 electronics searches. 0.008% of people processed had electronics searched.

horsecaptin 9y ago
Out of the number of people who crossed, how many were flagged for additional questioning? Out of those flagged, how many were carrying a cell-phone / laptop across the border?
Canada 9y ago
That would mean that in all of the ports of entry to the United States only 82 phones per day were searched. That's absolutely ridiculous. There are approximately that many international airports. Just airports. Nevermind the enormous flow of land traffic with Canada and Mexico or all sea traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_airports_by_country#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_airports... CBP is claiming that they searched, on average, less than one phone per day in each airport? Give me a break. Their claim is probably the number of times they've done some kind of deep analysis with forensic tools. Surely the number of times a border guard casually looked through emails and texts is far higher.
- snowwrestler 9y ago
  EDIT: I'll leave my comment below up for the record, but I'm probably wrong, and Canada above is probably right. CBP is not clear about what kind of "searches" they are counting in these stats, and they could well be only counting forensic searches, not cursory (the quick scroll through). --------- That number sounds reasonable to me. CBP has no reason to hide their activities because they believe they are faithfully enforcing the law. Electronic searches are not something agents do casually; federal agents do very few things casually on the clock. They're far too busy. Typically it has to be either a decision in advance (targeting a specific person) or a big set of warning signals at once that create a suspicious profile. I could be wrong about this; I don't have personal experience. But I've discussed these sorts of cases with friends who are federal agents and prosecutors.

dawnerd 9y ago

Going into Canada as a US citizen is usually super easy anyways. Last few times I've been across it was maybe two questions, that's it.

iamatworknow 9y ago
It's always been easy for me, too. I recently got a Nexus card which makes it so I don't even have to talk to a real person when arriving in Canada (at least via air). Literally just two questions in a kiosk and hand someone a receipt. Of course that means the governments of Canada and the US did a background check and recorded my fingerprints and retinas, but I'm fine with that, personally.
- dawnerd 9y ago
  I have global entry and feel the same. On the application they didn't ask for anything they didn't already have so it wasn't a big deal. Well worth it considering the included pre check.
  - iamatworknow 9y ago
    Agreed. In fact Nexus, which includes Global Entry and PreCheck costs less than PreCheck alone ($50/5 years versus $85/5 years).

ue_ 9y ago

You know, I have to say something about this: >I have only ever personally heard of one case of someone having their electronics searched, and the extent of the search was Canadian customs using the Windows search to look for files with "boy" or "girl" in the filename -- presumably looking for child porn. This is horrible - not beacuse of the child porn aspect, but because Canada has draconian laws (though so do Britain, Aus and NZ) which mean that drawings are prohibited. Drawings of fictional characters, that is. I read a story, though mere anectode, I hope it is relevant - about a man who was arrested beacuse they found they found drawings in his cache. He didn't even like the material. A US citizen that was crossing the border and searched beacuse he looked "suspicious". We should not excuse this violation of freedom of expression just because it happens/happened at the border. Canada has laws that it deserves to be called out on.

Asooka 9y ago
USA and Canada are democracies. The people (majority of people (actually the people claiming to represent the majority)) have spoken - fictional drawings of children are to be treated as crimeful as real ones. Court adjourned.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >The people (majority of people (actually the people claiming to represent the majority)) have spoken Really, have they? Is there a poll showing that? And does agreement on laws mean that the laws are therefore not draconian? I'm sure many in, for example, Saudi Arabia would think that homosexuality should be prohbited. Does this mean that it should be that way? >fictional drawings of children are to be treated as crimeful as real ones That's not what the law says.