Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Canada Privacy Government Your Rights Online Politics

CBSA Reveals Some Laptop Search Info, But Not Much 151

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CBSA Reveals Some Laptop Search Info, But Not Much

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, look, Spam. (Score:3, Informative)

    by bmo ( 77928 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @06:19AM (#32095856)

    Bloody Vikings.

    Go away.


  • by Diantre ( 1791892 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @06:48AM (#32095990)
    This is, in fact, the law in most countries (UK and the US, at least). Photos of nude children just being "nude children", without sexual intent in the picture, are legal. For it to be considered "Child Pornography", there has to be sexual activity or suggestive content.
  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @09:06AM (#32096854) Homepage

    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 Most so-called CP laws should be rescinded, because they have nothing whatsoever to do with CP.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.

  • Re:Encryption (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @09:37AM (#32097172)

    I was working on a military contract and needed to fly all over the country via commercial air carriers. At the security screening checkpoint when asked to power-up the notebook computer I told them access to any data on the computer was prohibited by Department of National Defence security regulations. I produced a letter signed by the general in charge of the project and that was enough to shut down further actions by the screener.

No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.