Quebec resident Alain Philippon to fight charge for not giving up phone password at airport


Recommended Posts

A Quebec man charged with obstructing border officials by refusing to give up his smartphone password says he will fight the charge.

 

The case has raised a new legal question in Canada, a law professor says.

 

Alain Philippon, 38, of Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, Que., refused to divulge his cellphone password to Canada Border Services Agency during a customs search Monday night at Halifax Stanfield International Airport.

 

Philippon had arrived in Halifax on a flight from Puerto Plata in the Dominican Republic. He's been charged under section 153.1 (b) of the Customs Act for hindering or preventing border officers from performing their role under the act.

 

According to the CBSA, the minimum fine for the offence is $1,000, with a maximum fine of $25,000 and the possibility of a year in jail.

 

Philippon did not want to be interviewed but said he intends to fight the charge since he considers the information on his phone to be "personal."

 

The CBSA wouldn't say why Philippon was selected for a smartphone search.

 

In an email, a border services spokesperson wrote, "Officers are trained in examination, investigative and questioning techniques. To divulge our approach may render our techniques ineffective. Officers are trained to look for indicators of deception and use a risk management approach in determining which goods may warrant a closer look."?

 

Rob Currie, director of the Law and Technology Institute at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, said that under Canadian law, travellers crossing the Canadian border have a reduced expectation of privacy.

 

He said border officials have wide-ranging powers to search travellers and their belongings.

 

"Under the Customs Act, customs officers are allowed to inspect things that you have, that you're bringing into the country," he told CBC News. "The term used in the act is 'goods,' but that certainly extends to your cellphone, to your tablet, to your computer, pretty much anything you have."

 

Philippon has been released on bail, and will return to court in Dartmouth on May 12 for election and plea. 

 

Not tested yet in court

 

Currie said the issue of whether a traveller must reveal a password to an electronic device at the border hasn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'll be forced to give it up. Border Security agents have broad powers. Until allowed in the country they are free to demand just about anything from you. If he wasn't Canadian, his refusal would mean he'd be on a plane back.

Fact is, crossing the border is a privilege not a right. If you didn't want your personal information looked it, it shouldn't be with you as you cross. 

 

No Sympathy, hope he gets a max fine for wasting everyone's time including the courts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to be honest with this, but WHY would you store anything illegal on your smart phone? You could just send stuff through private VPN's back to a location, go back with a clean computer / smart phone and nothing is there... why would you expect someone to be smuggling something on something like that when there are ways to transport data online already privately?

 

I know some people don't know about this, but it seems like that the people that would abuse it are the ones that already know the way around it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at your private info?  hmm...not sure i would be happy with anyone looking at that.  and what if the data is NOT on servers in canada? bleh....like someone said, not a country i would want to visit then.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at your private info?  hmm...not sure i would be happy with anyone looking at that.  and what if the data is NOT on servers in canada? bleh....like someone said, not a country i would want to visit then.

All they look at is the phone and the contents on it, they don't make you log in to Remote servers or anything.

 

Basicly what they want to see is your texts and emails, to make sure you're being honest about what you are saying. And this is fairly standard stuff at most international borders. I was asked to do it when I went to the EU (Ireland, UK, Italy, and others)..

 

You have NO privacy at an international border. They can do a Cavity search if they want. Crossing from Canada to US they can tear your car apart looking for drugs, then leave you to put it back together. Unlocking electronic devices so they can see what's on is no different than going through your suitcase. If you have something so secret, before you cross delete your messages and remove the email from your phone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'll be forced to give it up. Border Security agents have broad powers. Until allowed in the country they are free to demand just about anything from you. If he wasn't Canadian, his refusal would mean he'd be on a plane back.

Fact is, crossing the border is a privilege not a right. If you didn't want your personal information looked it, it shouldn't be with you as you cross. 

 

No Sympathy, hope he gets a max fine for wasting everyone's time including the courts.

I would consider crossing the border back into the country you're a citizen of a right and not a privilege...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'll be forced to give it up. Border Security agents have broad powers. Until allowed in the country they are free to demand just about anything from you. If he wasn't Canadian, his refusal would mean he'd be on a plane back.

Fact is, crossing the border is a privilege not a right. If you didn't want your personal information looked it, it shouldn't be with you as you cross. 

 

No Sympathy, hope he gets a max fine for wasting everyone's time including the courts.

 

I'm sure most dictators think like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at your private info?  hmm...not sure i would be happy with anyone looking at that.  and what if the data is NOT on servers in canada? bleh....like someone said, not a country i would want to visit then.

 

It's the same in Canada, United States, Australia, United Kingdom and those are just ones off the top of my head that I know for a fact have the ability to request such information and charge you if denied. They are not worried about the data itself, but your intent from within the country. I've never honestly understood peoples' major protection of ###### people others aren't particularly interested in. As someone whom has worked closed with the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) I can guarantee they were going to see if any conversations were had that would suggest smuggling or harmful intent. Him being a residence of Canada would (to me anyhow) suggest that something happened during the conversation that sparked a bit of concern.

 

It's not the data or the location that comes into question, frankly they don't care. Their only focus is determining whether you're fit to enter the general public of Canada or not. If something that mediocre would stop you from visiting a country, you must not be a very frequent traveler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably wind up being stateless if I were offered such a situation. If I accept that someone has the right to force me to unlock my phone to take a look at the contents, should I allow them access to my bank statement? Last I checked, they needed a court order for that information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the same in Canada, United States, Australia, United Kingdom and those are just ones off the top of my head that I know for a fact have the ability to request such information and charge you if denied. They are not worried about the data itself, but your intent from within the country. I've never honestly understood peoples' major protection of ###### people others aren't particularly interested in. As someone whom has worked closed with the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) I can guarantee they were going to see if any conversations were had that would suggest smuggling or harmful intent. Him being a residence of Canada would (to me anyhow) suggest that something happened during the conversation that sparked a bit of concern.

 

It's not the data or the location that comes into question, frankly they don't care. Their only focus is determining whether you're fit to enter the general public of Canada or not. If something that mediocre would stop you from visiting a country, you must not be a very frequent traveler.

 

Except as a UK citizen I'm let back into the UK without being subjected to a digital device search. If they request it from me AND they have a warrant then that's fine, without a warrant then that's not going to happen. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cellphones now a days have tons of personal information that usually needs a warrant to gain access for: banking, medical, email, just to name a few, and all those normally require a warrant to gain access to. To gain access to the device that has access to all this information should require a harder to get warrant, such as a warrant for each of the types of information available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All they look at is the phone and the contents on it, they don't make you log in to Remote servers or anything.

 

Basicly what they want to see is your texts and emails, to make sure you're being honest about what you are saying. And this is fairly standard stuff at most international borders. I was asked to do it when I went to the EU (Ireland, UK, Italy, and others)..

 

You have NO privacy at an international border. They can do a Cavity search if they want. Crossing from Canada to US they can tear your car apart looking for drugs, then leave you to put it back together. Unlocking electronic devices so they can see what's on is no different than going through your suitcase. If you have something so secret, before you cross delete your messages and remove the email from your phone. 

As a UK citizen, when I'm coming back through into the UK then I expect privacy as a citizen of the UK. Why do you think you had to be searched when entering EU countries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact is, crossing the border is a privilege not a right...

 

 

It's amazing what years of social conditioning will do to your perspective. Borders are just man made limits on your freedom and if you think it's a privilege to cross an invisible line only recognised by humans then I feel sorry for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't like the rules? Then don't travel. Simple.


It's amazing what years of social conditioning will do to your perspective. Borders are just man made limits on your freedom and if you think it's a privilege to cross an invisible line only recognised by humans then I feel sorry for you.

 

guess that means I can come in to your place, sit down and make myself at home. Life is full of invisible borders from personal space, to homes, to acts, to everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hence the birth of tyranny. the government thinking its GOD and YOU belong to them rather than they working for YOU, the citizen. total corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at your private info?  hmm...not sure i would be happy with anyone looking at that.  and what if the data is NOT on servers in canada? bleh....like someone said, not a country i would want to visit then.

 No one is forced to travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't like the rules? Then don't travel. Simple.

 

guess that means I can come in to your place, sit down and make myself at home. Life is full of invisible borders from personal space, to homes, to acts, to everything.

It's not a rule, in fact it was never brought to court, it's legal standing is null as of right now. They are twisting a law not designed/updated for this scenario. 

 

 No one is forced to travel.

No official is allowed access to private information without a warrant, which by legal standing means access, or means of access, to such information such as cell phones requires a warrant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a rule

 

Border officials can inspect upon demand, its a rule. I would inspect too. Don't like it? Simple, don't travel.

 

No official is allowed access to private information without a warrant, which by legal standing means access, or means of access, to such information such as cell phones requires a warrant.

 

Times are changing thankfully. Don't like it? Simple, don't travel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Border officials can inspect upon demand, its a rule. I would inspect too. Don't like it? Simple, don't travel.

 

 

Times are changing thankfully. Don't like it? Simple, don't travel. 

They can inspect the device, not it's contents. He could do all the inspecting he wants, up until he tries to get access to parts he clearly can't access with a simple physical inspection. If he has to ask for the person to incriminate himself, then he loses.

 

Canadian law

In Canada, similar rights exist pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 11 of the Charter provides that one cannot be compelled to be a witness in a proceeding against oneself. Section 11© states:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can inspect the device, not it's contents. He could do all the inspecting he wants, up until he tries to get access to parts he clearly can't access with a simple physical inspection. If he has to ask for the person to incriminate himself, then he loses.

 

 

Actually times haven't changed, as this is in legal limbo, and his case with set the president, which once they are most likely going to support their Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

All lawes are only as solid as its interpretation and circumstance. No matter what you say, don't like the rules? Then don't travel. Simple. Out of country traveling is a privilege, not a right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Border officials can inspect upon demand, its a rule. I would inspect too. Don't like it? Simple, don't travel.

 

 

Times are changing thankfully. Don't like it? Simple, don't travel. 

 

Times are not changing. We are going back in time to the beginning of the 20th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All lawes are only as solid as its interpretation and circumstance. No matter what you say, don't like the rules? Then don't travel. Simple. Out of country traveling is a privilege, not a right. 

Yes, the court case is to discover the interpretation and circumstance.

 

No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make sense. I don't like to work, but I still work. I don't like the rules, but I will still try to push them if it means I'll accomplish what I set out to do. 99% of life is a privilege not a right, and to choose not to do anything based on my liking it or not isn't a great way to rate my willingness to do it. Risk vs reward is a good way. 99.9% of the time I'll be able to travel without getting harassed by someone on a power trip, doesn't mean that I'll avoid travel due to the someone else ruining something .1% of the time. If someone try to violate my rights, I will fight it 100% of the time.

 

Your avatar brings up a good point: Following the laws blindly is like following religion blindly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Times are not changing. We are going back in time to the beginning of the 20th century.

 

Thankfully times are changing in the sense of laws reacting to new threats.

 

If someone try to violate my rights, I will fight it 100% of the time.

 

Rights are also subject to interpretation and circumstance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankfully times are changing in the sense of laws reacting to new threats.

 

 

Rights are also subject to interpretation and circumstance. 

Laws are constantly evolving, the thing is you seem sure the dice is going to land the way you interpret it, I'm waiting to see how it actually falls. Most likely they will uphold his rights, and the charges will dropped. There is no reason to ever support someone being forced to incriminate themselves whether they are guilty or not.

 

True, but I don't get your point, you seem to think that just because there is a law for it that it is somehow correct, just as people somehow feel their religion, or lack of, is just as correct. When in the end it's not that black and white.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.