[Phoneemer]

So you would be OK if it became legal for cops to search houses, without warrant or court order, if they suspect there might be stolen goods inside it?

I mean, you can see plainly that such a law is not meant to target individuals who might have borrowed something and forgot to return it.

The law does not say "search and seizue does not require probable cause". It says "seizure requires reasonable suspicion and probable cause, not a court order".


There is no removal of reasonable suspicion here, and noone is allowed to keep your stuff without a case. It merely allows cops to gather evidence without a court order under reasonable suspicion.

Big fkn deal.


Really, the whole idea that cops should need a court order to collect evidence under reasonable suspicion is stupid in the first place.

Anyway, if I run into my house with stolen goods (and the cops see me run in there with the stolen goods)... yes... the cops can come in without a warrant. They will not need a court order... BECAUSE they have reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Do you know anything about the law?



Really, I think most people who are worried about this have some very shady stuff on their laptops. Their objection has nothing to do with the law, or their understanding of it. They just want to hide their cartoon child porn and people tell them the cops are going to catch them if this law is passed.

[dserbokim]

@grib:

You're an idiot for having no idea what the purpose of the law is, then assuming it is to target morons with a movie on their laptop.


I bet you also think the Arizona immigration law is for pulling over brown people.

Arguing a law based on what its purpose is rather than what will become legal/illegal because of it is short-sighted at best. It's basically saying that the end justifies the means.

[wJswn5l3]

Anyway, if I run into my house with stolen goods (and the cops see me run in there with the stolen goods)... yes... the cops can come in without a warrant. They will not need a court order... BECAUSE they have reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Do you know anything about the law?

OK, so it would be OK for laptops to be confiscated if the cops see me downloading something. Which I do all the time while crossing the border.

What is proposed equals a cop going into your house just because he feels like it.

[CarmenSanches]

No dude.

You can claim all kinds of wild BS about every law on the book...

I'll start ignoring strawmen from this point onwards. KTHKSBYE

how it will be abused, used against minorities, used by crooked cops... So what?? No law is beyond abuse. Arguing that a law is no good because it is not abuse-proof is stupid. No law is abuse-proof. If our basis for passing a law is that it be abuse-proof, we will never pass another.

Easily abused != abuse-proof

[carpartsho]

Dude, this law does not say cops can act without reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

Don't tard.


It just says they do not need a court order, which normally cops do not need anyway.

Cops, yes - even in Canada - do not normally need a court order to execute a search and seizure. They usually just need reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

So apparently, Canada is already full of "illegal" searches and seizures.

[Sawyer]

Bullshit.

Cops in Canada search and seize everyday, thousands of times, without court orders.


But if the US wants to do it at the border... suddenly it's fascism. wtf.

[Ebjjrxrd]

Where does the statement say border guards will need reasonable suspicion and probable cause? That's just your assumption...

Oh, come on!!


If the law removed the need for probable cause and reasonable suspicion, don't you think they would have mentioned that along with the removal of the need for court orders?!


You really think this law removes the need for probable cause and reasonable suspicion?!


I guess I should not be surprised. Some people seem to think it means cops can take whatever they want and keep it without a trial. So hey, you aren't the biggest dumbass in this thread.

[HelenTay]

There isn't a law, there's just a statement from teh US government saying that Canadian border guards should be allowed to seize "suspected infringing materials" sans court order.

Now if such a law were made, what would be grounds for suspecting that materials are infringing intellectual property?

[orapope]

Answer the question.

I'm intrigued as to what can make a border guard suspect that someone he's never seen before carries around warez on his pc.

[EmxATW5m]

In fact "suspected infringing materials" carries with it probable cause and... guess what? Reasonable suspicion.

Says who? Doesn't say reasonable suspicion, which is a US specific term anyway.

The statement just says that Canadian border guards should be allowed to seize things that they suspect are in violation of intellectual property.

[Slintreeoost]

You're the idiot who's trying to apply US legal terms to Canada.

[justashonglefan]

You're the idiot who's trying to apply US legal terms to Canada.

So, you think in Canada cops just "do what they want" as a matter of law?

You don't think Canada requires probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a search and seizure?






You're REALLY being a moron.

[occallExtet]

You're the only idiot who thought this law eliminates all rules for seizures.


I guarantee that thousands of seizures occur in Canada every day without court orders. If a cop catches you with a machinegun, he does not call a judge for a court order before seizing it.

[DP5Ups8o]

You're the only idiot who thought this law eliminates all rules for seizures.

There is no law. There is a statement by the US government. And an ambiguous statement at that.

[Vobomei]

The OP thought it could mean that an official can take your laptop because he decided it could have a pirated movie. Maybe you should have raised that objected to that interpretation in the first page instead of going on some retarded tangent about "strawmen"

[botagozzz]

But it is a strawman. Noone's laptop has or ever will be seized for a couple movies.

Unless he can prove it has ever happened, on the US side (where such non-court ordered seizures already occur) or on the Canadian side via court order, then it's nothing more than his imagination based upon a cursory perusal of the statement.



He read a paragraph, that he probably doesn't really understand, and decided the sky is falling. Gratz.

[sbrthrds]

But it is a strawman. Noone's laptop has or ever will be seized for a couple movies. Unless he can prove it has ever happened on the US side (where such non-court ordered seizures already occur), then it's nothing more than his imagination.

It was a valid interpretation of the words in the statement. You should have argued in favor of a different interpretation, but you didn't because you are incapable of wading into a thread without cutting its IQ in half.