[jyhugikuhih]

It pains me to say this, but.... Canada

[Keeriewof]

So Canada is worse than Somalia now?

[Wavgbtif]

how dare Canada not seize laptops if the border guard may think your movie is pirated sans court order.
How many laptops per year get seized at the US-Canada border, because of regular movie files?

I'm calling strawman?

[Poreponko]

Canada has border guards?

[Frannypaync]

Presumably, the US does?

We're asking them to do something we don't?


Asuming the US is pressuring Canada to impliment laws that we already have (is that not a reasonable assumption?)... show me the evidence of laptop confiscation based on regular movie files per year.

I doubt anyone could find that evidence, so this issue really can't be debated based on evidence.

[shenacatro]

They don't have to give a reason for seizing someone's laptop. No reason is given so you can't prove that the seizures are or aren't related to suspicions of piracy. And laptop seizures do happen.

[jincomplet]

If you think evidence should be brought into this argument, go find some.

As long as you don't provide evidence that laptops aren't getting confiscated, it's a valid concern.

[joanbertis]

If laptops are getting confiscated because of suspicions of piracy, how the **** is anyone supposed to be able to find statistics on this? Any evidence is going to be anecdotal.

You seem to think people should provide find a link to a site that says x number of laptops have been confiscated due to suspicions of piracy even though authorities don't need a reason to confiscate a laptop. If there's that much info out there it should be easy for you to find the total number of laptops confiscated and demonstrate that almost all were confiscated for the purposes of counter-terrorism or something.

In other words my negative implies a positive... go ahead and demonstrate that all laptops that were confiscated were taken for reasons other than piracy.

[GroosteFoessy]

I don't want anecdotal evidence. I just want stats.

If laptops are getting confiscated because of suspicions of piracy, how the **** is anyone supposed to be able to find statistics on this? Any evidence is going to be anecdotal.

[MrsGoo]

Well, if no laptops are being seized from people with a few regular movies for personal use, then the law is obviously for something else and the OP claim is a strawman.

Like... I dunno... HUGE CACHES of this crap?

What is your major malfunction?

The QUOTE in the OP is from an official US government document.

What the **** strawman are you talking about?

[GinaIsWild]

The strawman is that the law is used to seize laptops from individuals with a couple movies. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.


The law's purpose is certainly to stop trafficers.

1. purpose of law ≠ consequences of law
2. neither side in this argument has evidence

And besides, why should someone's right to privacy be revoked because someone else is downloading music illegally...

[Alice_Medichi34]

But the side making the claim should. Right?


Or are claims without evidence just fine?

how are you not making any claims? and most negatives can be reworded as positives... can you prove the law won't be abused?

[shodulsilfeli]

can you prove the law won't be abused?

I would never claim that any law is beyond abuse. Crafting laws that are beyond abuse is impossible. So?

Where did that strawman come from?

Your 'strawman' call is a strawman.

how dare Canada not seize laptops if the border guard may think your movie is pirated sans court order.
You seem to think that is the issue at hand. It's mostly because you have no idea with IPR entails beyond Hollywood, but that's ok... I only have a problem with you presenting your limited perception of the law as its primary pourpose, while lacking any evidence whatsoever that your idea of what is going on has ever occured to any meaningful extent.

[Aozenee]

I would never claim that any law is beyond abuse. Crafting laws that are beyond abuse is impossible. So?

Now why should Canada be expected to infringe on the right to privacy? If people don't have legal protection against unreasonable search and seizure then their right has been taken away and they're subject to the whims of law enforcement officers...

If law enforcement will almost always respect people's privacy, then the right still exists in a de facto sense. But you haven't proven that they will...

[Lapsinuibense]

Police also have the authority to use deadly force. A cop might set you up, and then shoot you for his own gain. Therefore, police should not have the right to use deadly force?



C'mon dude, surely you can see plainly that pretending this law targets individuals with a few regular movies on their laptop is nothing more than scaremongering under the auspices of nationalism.


It's not so different than someone claiming that military tribunals will be used against misdemeanor offenders.



I think you got that Monty Python skit from Youtube!! We're taking your laptop!!

Fkn plz. Get real, tool.

[EsAllCams]

Like they are just going to grab random crap! You know, whatever they feel like!

It'll be a free-for-all, laptops for everyone on the force!


Tool.



Confiscation almost always happens before conviction. It's called evidence. That doesn't make it paralegal enforcement. It's called collecting evidence.

It's not like they get to keep it if you are proven innocent! :rollie eyes:

[RG3rGWcA]

Thinking of it, police should not be allowed to collect evidence until there is a conviction.


And, once again, Uncle... they don't get to keep your stuff forever just because of suspicion. There still has to be a trial, ya know? Don't tard.

[lizadax]

You're fearmongering for nationalism. Plain and simple.


Good day.

[aideriimibion]

What an idiot, thinking people don't deserve protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

[u8MmZFmF]

@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.