What would you do if airport security agents demanded your phone password?

The Clamburglar said:
Except a lawyer, who is quoted in the OP, disagrees with you. It is not a clear cut case.

Any further responses will just be me quoting the article in the OP.
Click to expand...

Except you are not understanding the quote. The quote DOES NOT say there is any question whether or not he obstructed their investigation. He says that the issue hasn't been tested in Court, and that obstruction might be lawful under the circumstances. But go ahead, keep lying about the quote.
 
How do airort people have the right to do this?
 
Adamant said:
How do airort people have the right to do this?
Click to expand...
They don't, Border Services does. All goods are subject to inspection, it's in the Customs Act, warrants are not necessary because it's a matter of national security and goods have to be deemed admissible before entering the country. Child porn is illegal in Canada, so a phone containing child porn would be illegal. How do you check if there is or isn't child porn? By inspecting the contents of the phone.
 
jlagman said:
They don't, Border Services does. All goods are subject to inspection, it's in the Customs Act, warrants are not necessary because it's a matter of national security and goods have to be deemed admissible before entering the country. Child porn is illegal in Canada, so a phone containing child porn would be illegal. How do you check if there is or isn't child porn? By inspecting the contents of the phone.
Click to expand...

Does this always happen? Do they always search your phone?
 
Shoemaker said:
How is it any different than me not opening a locked door in my home? From what I understand they have a right to view anything in plain sight without a warrant. If I've put a lock on my phone, then nothing on that phone is in plain sight.



Oh yeah, once you got in there you could drum up ALL KINDS of bullshit reasons. But I go hiking all the time without taking pictures. Probable cause needs to exist before the search. Not being facetious, but isn't that the law?
Click to expand...

I know in Aus they stop backpackers all the time in customs and won't let them in without checking their phone if they're on a holiday visa to make sure they don't have work lined up.
 
Jmarc said:
Except you are not understanding the quote. The quote DOES NOT say there is any question whether or not he obstructed their investigation. He says that the issue hasn't been tested in Court, and that obstruction might be lawful under the circumstances. But go ahead, keep lying about the quote.
Click to expand...

You're off base here. The issue of whether or not disclosure of passwords and decryption keys is obstruction is very much not clear cut.

"Obstruction" in the legal sense can only happen if you impede or interfere with a lawful proceeding. You can't legally be in obstruction if you do not comply in a situation in which you can't be legally compelled to do so.

In the US and in most English common law countries, you cannot be compelled to incriminate/testify against yourself. There is conflicting case law on whether or not a password is testimony, but its starting to look like it is, so at least in the US, you wouldn't be obstructing justice. Laws in certain countries define this one way or another, but in Canada, if the question hasn't been legally settled, you can't go around saying that it clearly is or it clearly isn't based on a dictionary definition of the word.
 
Doughbelly said:
You're off base here. The issue of whether or not disclosure of passwords and decryption keys is obstruction is very much not clear cut.

"Obstruction" in the legal sense can only happen if you impede or interfere with a lawful proceeding. You can't legally be in obstruction if you do not comply in a situation in which you can't be legally compelled to do so.

In the US and in most English common law countries, you cannot be compelled to incriminate/testify against yourself. There is conflicting case law on whether or not a password is testimony, but its starting to look like it is, so at least in the US, you wouldn't be obstructing justice. Laws in certain countries define this one way or another, but in Canada, if the question hasn't been legally settled, you can't go around saying that it clearly is or it clearly isn't based on a dictionary definition of the word.
Click to expand...

No. "In obstruction" is not a thing. You commit obstruction. Obstruction as a crime will obviously have different elements and defenses to it, depending on various jurisdictions, legislation, and other circumstances unique to each individual scenario. However, whether something is or isn't obstruction is very clear cut.

If you impede an investigation, you are obstructing the investigation. Refusing to provide a password is, without any shadow of a doubt, impeding the investigation. The obstruction is factual. However, as a defense to the obstruction, you may be able to claim that you were lawfully allowed to obstruct their investigation.

Whether or not the obstruction is lawful. The fact that obstruction was committed is not being argued. It is an accepted fact.

This case isn't about the obstruction itself. What it is about, is whether or not the officers have a legal right to search the contents of the phone itself. If they don't have a right to search the contents of his phone under the circumstances, he did not commit a crime by obstructing them. But he still did obstruct them.

You guys seem to think this case is somehow about whether or not he obstructed them, and that's what you still don't get. It's not. It never was. It never will be. The entire case is asking "are they legally entitled to search contents of a phone due to reasonable suspicion?"

After they decide that, the obstruction is already accepted fact, so he would be found Guilty.

But please, I beg of you guys, stop trying to say he didn't obstruct their investigation. It is factual that he did.
 
Jmarc said:
No. "In obstruction" is not a thing. You commit obstruction. Obstruction as a crime will obviously have different elements and defenses to it, depending on various jurisdictions, legislation, and other circumstances unique to each individual scenario. However, whether something is or isn't obstruction is very clear cut.

If you impede an investigation, you are obstructing the investigation. Refusing to provide a password is, without any shadow of a doubt, impeding the investigation. The obstruction is factual. However, as a defense to the obstruction, you may be able to claim that you were lawfully allowed to obstruct their investigation.

Whether or not the obstruction is lawful. The fact that obstruction was committed is not being argued. It is an accepted fact.

This case isn't about the obstruction itself. What it is about, is whether or not the officers have a legal right to search the contents of the phone itself. If they don't have a right to search the contents of his phone under the circumstances, he did not commit a crime by obstructing them. But he still did obstruct them.

You guys seem to think this case is somehow about whether or not he obstructed them, and that's what you still don't get. It's not. It never was. It never will be. The entire case is asking "are they legally entitled to search contents of a phone due to reasonable suspicion?"

After they decide that, the obstruction is already accepted fact, so he would be found Guilty.

But please, I beg of you guys, stop trying to say he didn't obstruct their investigation. It is factual that he did.
Click to expand...

Makes sense.

But is not providing information/testimony obstructing?
 
It appears you must be arrested to allow them to search your phone but they do not need a warrant (in Canada) once you are arrested. They however cannot just search random people’s phones.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1721144/police-can-search-cellphones-without-warrant-during-arrest-court/

http://www.slashgear.com/canadian-s...-search-cell-phones-without-warrant-13359391/

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/12/...y-warrantless-phone-searches-incident-arrest/


Well my mistake it appears the boarder patrols can in fact do this.

https://www.priv.gc.ca/resource/fs-fi/02_05_d_45_e.asp

And it appears they can do this in the US also with a little more limitation but with the new ruling by the Supreme Court that may change in the US.

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/supreme-court-phone-warrant-us-border/
 
Last edited:
7437 said:
I America you cant be compelled to give a password without a warrant, so they can fuck off. If that means I cant fly, so be it. If they lock me up, cool. I just hit the civil suit jackpot.

In a foreign country, even Canada, I dont know the exact law, and will cough my shit up in a heartbeat. nothing incriminating on there, and I dont want to rot in some jail.
Click to expand...

LOL- OK Perry Mason.

If they really wanted your password and you refused, they most likely would not lock you up. They would just confiscate your phone. That they can do. Particularly if it is 'out of juice'

This happens more frequently at airports that have international flights.

And by the way, they are most likely not trying to look at your call history or emails. They are probably just checking to make sure your phone is not a bomb or a detonator.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/07/cellphone-juice-tsa-confiscate/12283785/
 
oldshadow said:
It appears you must be arrested to allow them to search your phone but they do not need a warrant (in Canada) once you are arrested. They however cannot just search random people
Click to expand...
 
cooks1 said:
LOL- OK Perry Mason.

If they really wanted your password and you refused, they most likely would not lock you up. They would just confiscate your phone. That they can do. Particularly if it is 'out of juice'

This happens more frequently at airports that have international flights.

And by the way, they are most likely not trying to look at your call history or emails. They are probably just checking to make sure your phone is not a bomb or a detonator.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/07/cellphone-juice-tsa-confiscate/12283785/
Click to expand...

Actually, when I inspect someone's phone; call history, text messages and pictures are the first places I look.

I need to reiterate, as this point seems to be missed continuously by people in this thread, CBSA =/= CATSA in the same was that CBP =/= TSA. The former are federal law enforcement agencies who deal with matters of national security, customs and immigration at the border. The latter are basically private security guards who keep dangerous shit off of planes.
 
jlagman said:
Those are for more "conventional" forms of law enforcement in Canada, it's a different animal at the Border as all goods entering Canada can be subject to inspection.
Click to expand...

Yep I corrected that.
 
There isn't anything on my phone that I'd be worried about anyone seeing . . .
 
If they wanna see pictures of my dick that's fine. I take them for others to enjoy anyway.
 
Luger said:
I just travel with my reliable nokia 5110
It has never created any problems

5110-r.jpg
Click to expand...

SNAKE!!!!

Was the bomb on that phone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,801
Messages
55,517,936
Members
174,807
Latest member
Mapichtli

Share this page

Back
Top