Canadian & American Border Agents to Share Information

[Jas0381]

We were boarded again two weeks ago in Vancouver. Second time in a row as we came in and checked in. The Agents were thorough and it took some time as they searched our boat.

While it is intimidating and cause for a little dry mouth, we have nothing to hide and never will. We realize that someone out there does and on occasion all of us will be imposed upon, to an extent.

We thanked our Canadian welcoming committee for doing their job. We don’t mind, in fact appreciate it, when government employees are efficient.

Joe
Lucky Liner ll
2001 Bayliner 5288

[Scotty Kiwi]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

There is extensive, ongoing intelligence coordination with the "four eyes" (US, UK, Canada, and Australia) and the "five eyes" (add New Zealand). Because NZ doesn't host nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed vessels, they don't share in some nuclear intel. Cooperation with governments outside these four/five is via traditional law enforcement channels.

I thought NZ is just there so they can call it "Five Eyes". Because it's rude to call people "Four Eyes". Age-ist too. Don't name-call the Speckies! (No offense).

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by alansmith

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Times ...’they are a changing’. Dylan. But haven’t they always been a changing?

Pretty soon a burp will be recorded. Microatomization will occur and you will receive an email later that day about drinking too much beer and to cut back on the pepperoni. He he.

OK, that's a bridge too far. How dare they?!?


I'm working hard on burping on stuff that's not beer.


Hard work, but somebody's gotta do it....


Good song, best version I've heard is PP&M, better than Joanie's.

Anybody wanna guess when I was borned?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Not 22 million.



Source: Wikipedia, linking to Pew

If the US truly wanted to end illegal immigration, there would be an easy to use employment eligibility checking system, and any American individual or business who employed illegals would be fined or imprisoned.

Of course, no such system exists, no businesses are charged, and over 11 million illegals are employed in the US. Crops would rot in the fields, pools and toilets would go uncleaned, hotel beds would sit unmade, golf greens not mowed if there was ever any effective action taken against their employers.

The facts - the numbers of illegals in the US has been decreasing since 2007; employers of illegals face no consequences, and "enforcement" is concentrating on the visible minorities crossing on the southern border, should tell you all you need to know about the real motivations of those championing this as an urgent issue.

Yes, 22 million.


Part of the problem is that organizations with an agenda cling to the numbers that match that agenda.


Here's a link to the Yale study that says the Pew count is understated:


https://insights.som.yale.edu/insigh...ious-estimates


The fact is that there are lots of folks with partisan agendas, and they don't mind bending a fact or two in order to make their case. So they'll pick the number that best supports their leanings.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Yes, 22 million.

Part of the problem is that organizations with an agenda cling to the numbers that match that agenda.

Here's a link to the Yale study that says the Pew count is understated:

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insigh...ious-estimates

I ...am not going to quibble with that. Let's let it stand, for sake of argument.

The fact is that there are lots of folks with partisan agendas, and they don't mind bending a fact or two in order to make their case. So they'll pick the number that best supports their leanings.

Did you read the rest of the article?

[Kaplan] points out that previous studies, based on the widely accepted total of 11.3 million undocumented immigrants, found that the rate of serious crimes committed by these immigrants is lower than for U.S. citizens. The new findings suggest that the rate is even lower than previously believed: “You have the same number of crimes but now spread over twice as many people as was believed before, which right away means that the crime rate among undocumented immigrants is essentially half whatever was previously believed.”

So - you have undocumented newcomers who commit crime at well under the rate of citizens, and the vast majority of them are employed (illegally) by American businesses.

My original point stands - doubled: how can businesses get away with this? How are the undocumented immigrants the real problem in this scenario?

I think you need to look harder for the partisan agenda, and who benefits from the demonization of illegal immigrants while winking at all the businesses than benefit from low-cost, exploitable labour.

[piloto]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Canada and the USA have exchanged data crime convictions for a long time. It’s a long and silly irritant that DUI convictions, even those that are very old, are enough to bar entrance to either country.



But as I read it, the change is that the data will now be shared specifically to monitor immigration issues. I suppose it’s just one more step along the way, but I don’t take any of it lightly. We are losing any sense of privacy, and too many of us seem complicit in the shift.



It’s not “1984”, it’s more like “Brave New World.”

Complicit or complacent?

[john61ct]

not much difference

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by piloto

Complicit or complacent?

Both.

How many of us actively trade privacy for the benefits of "free" email or web tools? How many will tell Zuckerberg pretty much everything about themselves just so they can connect with "friends"? How many of us allow their phones to constantly monitor where they are just so they can order an uber or a pizza? How many of us use fitbits and there like, basically feeding personal data constantly.

Both, complicit and complacent.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by john61ct

not much difference

Here in NYC, we elected our idiot mayor. Everyone (other than the fanatics) agree that he is terrible for the city. The problem is that he was elected with 16% of the active registered voters. 76% of the voters did not vote.



As Edmund Burke said in a letter to Thomas Mercer, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”Others in this thread have said that we can't fight this trend, and certainly it is likely that we can't. On the other hand, if we don't try, then we guarantee the onerous imposition of every increasing reductions in our freedoms. If we try, then at least there's a chance we can do something. (Enough of my time on the soap box!)


From a practical point of view, the US and I think Canada have a frequent crossing pass of some sort, and I think it is like the frequent flyer card that lets one go through the airport quickly. Perhaps we can use something like this, or get one created for similar situations.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Today data exchange is much easier, and we have mountains of data to share.

It used to be that our privacy was protected by the complexity and cumbersomeness of data exchange. This has largely disappeared now. Soon, there will be no place to hide .

Indeed, the digitization of the world has made the mass accumulation, collation, and distribution of information quick, easy, and relatively inexpensive. My real concern is what AI will be able to do with this.



I take some comfort in what often happens with masses of data. Often there is information overload. I am reminded of what we learned when the wall came down in 1989. It was discovered that the East Germans had collected so much of it that they couldn't process the majority of it. It may be that what will limit this is the natural inertia and staffing of bureaucracies.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

Indeed, the digitization of the world has made the mass accumulation, collation, and distribution of information quick, easy, and relatively inexpensive. My real concern is what AI will be able to do with this.

I take some comfort in what often happens with masses of data. Often there is information overload. I am reminded of what we learned when the wall came down in 1989. It was discovered that the East Germans had collected so much of it that they couldn't process the majority of it. It may be that what will limit this is the natural inertia and staffing of bureaucracies.

My view is that computing power has now broken this protective barrier of information overload. And with AIs processing the vast majority of it these days, human limitations are rapidly becoming irrelevant.

This is why I say resistance is never futile. We can no longer rely on information overload to protect our privacy. The only way forward is to define strict legal limitations on what governments, and more importantly, corporations can do with our personal data.

Europe is already far ahead of us in North America in doing some of this. But much more needs to be put in place. So many Internet companies now rely on a business model of extracting and monitoring our personal data (and I don’t just mean FB or Google — it’s everywhere, even here at CF). And I hope we all recognizer the dangers inherent in the expansion of the security state.

I hate to sound like a nut case, but as they say, it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

[Snore]

Guys I'm sorry.

There are still folks out there who are committed to doing the US and Canada harm. My choice is have more people I know (any many of you lost friends on 9/11) or give up some personal privacy.

I will gladly allow the USCG/NSA/whoever to track me and if they feel the need to board- go ahead. Much better than the alternatives.

There are better things to argue--- Anchors? Solar vs Wind?

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I can tell you that about 2005 we had a ferry pilot ferrying an airplane to Morocco that landed in Canada, he just wanted fuel and to continue on, but was forced back to the US cause he had an “incident” on his record that Canada wouldn’t allow him into Country with.
So, how did they know this if data wasn’t being shared?

The previous situation was that Canada had access to public records in the USA. In general, information about convictions, is public.


The dates when someone crossed a border, what car/boat/airplane they were on, who was with them, whether they were sent to secondary and what was found, etc., are not public. That is what has changed.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... because convicted DUIs are such good sailors? I don't think being a sailor should provide a special exemption.

Approximately 17% of adults in the USA have a DUI conviction. Over the years, the definition of DUI has expanded and the standard of proof has declined. You can be convicted of DUI for riding a bicycle in half the states. Or riding a horse. Or driving a golf cart. People between the ages of 18-21 can be convicted of DUI for any detectable amount of alcohol in the bloodstream in some states. DUI is a municipal offense or petty misdemeanor in some jurisdictions which means that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not necessary to secure a conviction.


It is predominantly poorer people who are convicted of DUI. The reasons for this are not well understood but have much to do with the way police patrol for violations. Nearly all arrests involve people leaving a bar or a large public event (concert/ballgame); people of means are more likely to drink at home, at a friend's home, or a private event. Many arrests start with pretext stops for things like equipment violations (tail light out, window tint, etc); people of means aren't as susceptible to this as they drive newer cars.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

From a practical point of view, the US and I think Canada have a frequent crossing pass of some sort, and I think it is like the frequent flyer card that lets one go through the airport quickly. Perhaps we can use something like this, or get one created for similar situations.

It's called a Nexus card. You have to make an appointment well in advance and appear in person at one of a handful of land border crossings for a joint interview with US and Canadian authorities. It's good for five years. Not everyone qualifies. They've made a great show of banning people for life from the program for bringing in an apple without declaring it.