Given a bit of hard time at the US customs for a DSLR

[TOF guy]

Remember that when you are having your luggage inspected by Customs you are not, yet, inside the US

Are you sure? One goes to the US customs after passing the immigration check. So in fact you are in the US.

And I doubt that even before k you are not considered in the US. If you're in the US only when passing the customs, does it mean that you're outside of the country when the plane reach the tarmac? Or when it flies over the country? Or when it flies over the line separating international waters from national waters?

The latter, I think, well before you're at the Customs office.

--
Thierry

 

[TOF guy]

he had no business looking at your images.

Agreed. Nonetheless I didn't take it personally because I don't think he was trying to invade my privacy. It's not like he was attracted by my private life and was hoping to learn all about it by looking at 2 pictures. In fact he probably could care any less a part for a vague hope to find some clue about where the camera was bought. He most certainly forgot what the pics were minutes after checking them out.

In other words I acted by being rationale through the process. He should not have looked at the pics but it wasn't a big deal either. However I would not have hesitated to complain if he had truly acted in an unprofessional way (and it would not have been on dpreview).
--
Thierry

 

[bikinchris]

I disagree with this statement. Being rich is not a crime that should be punishable by having it taken away. However, on the other hand, rich people don't pay their fair share of taxes and corporations either. (Corporations are considered tax entities under law, like they are people) So, it comes down to your suggestion. Who decides where the money should go? That's not going to end up well.
What needs to happen is that these people need to pay their fair share of taxes.

As a sidebar, most of the money in the world is held by only a few people. The world's richest 1% of people own 40% of all wealth, and on the other end of the spectrum; 50% of world's adults own just 1% of the wealth. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at the expense of the middle class. Notice this fact:

The top ten percent of the U.S. population owns 81.8 percent of the real estate, 81.2 percent of the stock, and 88 percent of the bonds. (Federal Reserve Bank data in Left Business Observer, No. 72, Apr. 3, 1996, p. 5).

People getting paid 5 billion dollars for making bad decisions is not the answer. I would love to be able to bet against the US economy and make that kind of money, but I have a conscience.

These people are using the infrastructure paid for by all of us, getting rich and then not paying taxes by way of loopholes. Something needs to be done. but I don't know what other than trying to get them to pay their fair share. I just know it's not fair to just take it away.

I agree, and we should go after the excessive wealth of all the rich cats and share it in ways that will help the world's poor, as they're entitled to some of it as well.
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

you smugglers are always trying to cheat the government out of "it's " money.

naughty people.

--

-> > "Oh, and since we're on the subject of advice, you may want to be a little leery of some of the advice you see on this, or any other, message board. If someone is giving you advice ......make a determination about how much weight you'll give that advice. You may find that sometimes there are 'serial-posters' on the internet that should read more and type less."
-Brian Blanco, Sarasota Florida

I include myself in that quote
Chris, Broussard, LA

 

[TOF guy]

CBP Authority to Search

(08/18/2010)

More specific info on the search of electronic devices and data can be found in the document at this link.

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/admissibility/elec_mbsa.ctt/elec_mbsa.pdf

Okay you're right: they have the right to look at pictures as part of the process of preventing child pornography etc entering the country.

But it also states:

CBP will protect the rights of individuals against unreasonable search and seizure and ensure privacy protection while accomplishing its enforcement mission.

So it's not as you and others have stated: one has no right while a Customs officer can do as he pleases.

--
Thierry

 

[math guy]

These people are using the infrastructure paid for by all of us, getting rich and then not paying taxes by way of loopholes. Something needs to be done. but I don't know what other than trying to get them to pay their fair share. I just know it's not fair to just take it away.

It's interesting that we don't seem to mind differences in people such as physical traits, personality traits, and other things like that. But when it comes to money, we use words like "fair share" as if financial differences are unacceptable. The way I see it, that's just one more form of diversity. The trick is to learn to be content with what we have.

Besides, what exactly is fair? What is the maximum acceptable "fair" difference between the most and least wealthy? That would be awfully hard to define.

And by the way, it's not just the wealthy who try to find loopholes to cheat the system. They may be better at it or better able to afford lawyers who are good at it, but on the other hand the poor are less likely to be audited and are therefore more likely to get away with cheating on their taxes.

But here I go, getting sucked into a politcal discussion. Rarely do people change their political opinions simply because of something someone writes in a forum. Knowing that, I'll now transfer my attentions to Hawaii Five-O, and be content knowing that it's okay if other people don't agree with my politics.

--
-- Joe S.
'The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.' ~ Euclid

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/josephschmitt

 

[Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.]

"Fair Share" is an interesting concept. In the US, 1%, (the "Wealthy"), pay more than the bottom 95%: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/24955.html

If you would like the facts, look at the breakdown in the various reports on the Website. 49% of Americans pay no income tax -- a significant percentage get back more than they paid in: "Earned Income Credit". Our constitution guarantees "... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ..." In my mind, the role of government is to provide a level playing field, (protect us from predators, foreign, domestic and corporate), so each individual can succeed or fail, (isn't God's greatest gift to us, "Freedom of Choice"?) ... on that playing field. Some now believe, the role of government is to protect us, immunize us, from bad choices, in short, guarantee happiness. I respectfully dissent.
Warm Regards
KarlT
--
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.
Image site: http://www.karltimmerman.com
BLOG: http://www.karltimmerman.com/Ramblings/
'The best part of taking the moral highground ...... is the view'.

 

[igb]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/richest-americans-see-income-share-grow

Just in case you were interested in some facts. BTW, which predators did you mean again?

--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html

 

[Reg Ister]

Are you serious here? They have the right to snuffel your images???

First you fill out a paper in the plane promising that you are not a terrorist, then you go to a naked body scanner, then you will be yelled at and treated like dirt by a border officer with an IQ of a low ISO film, then you would have to show your images ??

Man, i travelled in Africa (some 7 countries or so), Turkey, Bulgary, Greece, Hungary, GB, Belgium, Spain, Holland, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Former Yugoslavia, China, Singapore, Japan, Canada and the USA.

The welcome in the USA is the very worse i ever was confronted with , and many people say so. It is on my list of "countries to go to only if really needed".
We do not treat americans the same way when they come to Europe.

Reg

CBP Authority to Search

(08/18/2010)

More specific info on the search of electronic devices and data can be found in the document at this link.

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/admissibility/elec_mbsa.ctt/elec_mbsa.pdf

Okay you're right: they have the right to look at pictures as part of the process of preventing child pornography etc entering the country.

But it also states:

CBP will protect the rights of individuals against unreasonable search and seizure and ensure privacy protection while accomplishing its enforcement mission.

So it's not as you and others have stated: one has no right while a Customs officer can do as he pleases.

--
Thierry

 

[Cedarhill]

The fact that the share of the nation's wealth held by the richest people is growing in comparison to that of the poorer people is ample evidence that wreckless economic policy is much more harmful to the poor than it is to the wealthy. The government should stop punishing the wealthy for their success because it ultimately hurts the entire economy and that hits the poor the hardest. If "fairness" means that everyone is is in poverty instead of a few, then what is the benefit to anyone?

The transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor under the false assumption that the first group necessarily cheated the second has been a colossal historic failure wherever it has been tried. Case studies of the economies of North and South Korea come to mind.

 

[Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.]

Thanks for sharing the 7/2008 article. Interesting that then, 2008, 1% of Americans, carried 35% of the income tax load. Given the current unemployment rate, I wonder how much of the load they carrying now?
Warm Regards
KarlT
--
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.
Image site: http://www.karltimmerman.com
BLOG: http://www.karltimmerman.com/Ramblings/
'The best part of taking the moral highground ...... is the view'.

 

[bikinchris]

Are you serious here? They have the right to snuffel your images???

First you fill out a paper in the plane promising that you are not a terrorist, then you go to a naked body scanner, then you will be yelled at and treated like dirt by a border officer with an IQ of a low ISO film, then you would have to show your images ??

Man, i travelled in Africa (some 7 countries or so), Turkey, Bulgary, Greece, Hungary, GB, Belgium, Spain, Holland, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Former Yugoslavia, China, Singapore, Japan, Canada and the USA.

The welcome in the USA is the very worse i ever was confronted with , and many people say so. It is on my list of "countries to go to only if really needed".
We do not treat americans the same way when they come to Europe.

Reg

And I agree. That's a problem. We should have our act together better than that in this country. Act we want people to visit here. I don't understand the attitude of TSA or Customs agents.

As for terrorism, they are treating a symptom of the problem. Not the problem. But there is a LOT more money to be made in fighing terrorism with guns than in ending terrorism by treating the problem, huh?

--

-> > "Oh, and since we're on the subject of advice, you may want to be a little leery of some of the advice you see on this, or any other, message board. If someone is giving you advice ......make a determination about how much weight you'll give that advice. You may find that sometimes there are 'serial-posters' on the internet that should read more and type less."
-Brian Blanco, Sarasota Florida

I include myself in that quote
Chris, Broussard, LA

 

[bikinchris]

The fact that the share of the nation's wealth held by the richest people is growing in comparison to that of the poorer people is ample evidence that wreckless economic policy is much more harmful to the poor than it is to the wealthy. The government should stop punishing the wealthy for their success because it ultimately hurts the entire economy and that hits the poor the hardest. If "fairness" means that everyone is is in poverty instead of a few, then what is the benefit to anyone?

The transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor under the false assumption that the first group necessarily cheated the second has been a colossal historic failure wherever it has been tried. Case studies of the economies of North and South Korea come to mind.

That's why I said that trying to treat being rich like it was some kind of wrong isn't the answer. Finding ways for the poorest to be able to help themselves is the better answer. And having those who have benefitted the most from our economic system pay their fair share of the taxes needed to keep it going is only fair.

--

-> > "Oh, and since we're on the subject of advice, you may want to be a little leery of some of the advice you see on this, or any other, message board. If someone is giving you advice ......make a determination about how much weight you'll give that advice. You may find that sometimes there are 'serial-posters' on the internet that should read more and type less."
-Brian Blanco, Sarasota Florida

I include myself in that quote
Chris, Broussard, LA

 

[igb]

The fact that the share of the nation's wealth held by the richest people is growing in comparison to that of the poorer people is ample evidence that wreckless economic policy is much more harmful to the poor than it is to the wealthy.

That is not evidence of anything. Let's keep the discussion in the realm of rationality will you?

The government should stop punishing the wealthy for their success because it ultimately hurts the entire economy and that hits the poor the hardest.

I don't know it is the case. It would seem to me, though, that government should punish the wealty for their success if it was achieved illegally or ilegitimately.

For instance John Paulson has beenvery successful, hasn't he?

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-59.htm

If "fairness" means that everyone is is in poverty instead of a few, then what is the benefit to anyone?

What's that? neocon newspeak?

The transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor under the false assumption that the first group necessarily cheated the second has been a colossal historic failure wherever it has been tried. Case studies of the economies of North and South Korea come to mind.

Oh, were there a lot of rich people i in North Korea? Really?

Speaking about colossal failures why don't we try with historical facts (Marx's writings on primitive acumulation of capital are worth reading at that). Could we say that after the 1870-1913 expansion period the cartelization of the economy (and subsequent transfer of wealth to a powerful oligarchy) led to the empoverishment of working classes and then to the rise of colectivist ideas and almost revolutinary conditions across the Western world?

--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html

 

[Cedarhill]

The fact that the share of the nation's wealth held by the richest people is growing in comparison to that of the poorer people is ample evidence that wreckless economic policy is much more harmful to the poor than it is to the wealthy.

That is not evidence of anything. Let's keep the discussion in the realm of rationality will you?

I reckon my unsupported opinion is just about as valid as yours, huh?

The government should stop punishing the wealthy for their success because it ultimately hurts the entire economy and that hits the poor the hardest.

I don't know it is the case. It would seem to me, though, that government should punish the wealty for their success if it was achieved illegally or ilegitimately.

You don't know it is not the case either. I only know a small number of people whom I would classify as "wealthy" and the ratio of good to bad people in that set is perhaps a little better than the entire set of people I know. These people certainly do more benevolence work.

For instance John Paulson has beenvery successful, hasn't he?

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-59.htm

Who?

If "fairness" means that everyone is is in poverty instead of a few, then what is the benefit to anyone?

What's that? neocon newspeak?

That is what you call logic. I would expect that is kind of rare in your social circles.

The transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor under the false assumption that the first group necessarily cheated the second has been a colossal historic failure wherever it has been tried. Case studies of the economies of North and South Korea come to mind.

Oh, were there a lot of rich people i in North Korea? Really?

In case you didn't know, Korea used to be one country. It split into two in a particularly nasty little war with the Northern part adopting the philosophy of communism and the South adopting capitalism. Based on your knowledge of current affairs, which "half" of the original country would you say faired better? From my understanding the situation is such that the poorest people in South Korea are doing better than all but the "benevolent ruling class" (as Karl Marx put it) in the North.

Speaking about colossal failures why don't we try with historical facts (Marx's writings on primitive acumulation of capital are worth reading at that). Could we say that after the 1870-1913 expansion period the cartelization of the economy (and subsequent transfer of wealth to a powerful oligarchy) led to the empoverishment of working classes and then to the rise of colectivist ideas and almost revolutinary conditions across the Western world?

Old Karl couldn't have said it better himself! Trouble is, his philosophy has been largely discredited throughout the world except in such sterling examples as Cuba and North Korea. China began to prosper the moment they started adopting the free enterprise system and the US started failing when it started to abandon it.

 

[igb]

The fact that the share of the nation's wealth held by the richest people is growing in comparison to that of the poorer people is ample evidence that wreckless economic policy is much more harmful to the poor than it is to the wealthy.

That is not evidence of anything. Let's keep the discussion in the realm of rationality will you?

I reckon my unsupported opinion is just about as valid as yours, huh?

I don't throw make that kind of wild cause-effect claims.

The government should stop punishing the wealthy for their success because it ultimately hurts the entire economy and that hits the poor the hardest.

I don't know it is the case. It would seem to me, though, that government should punish the wealty for their success if it was achieved illegally or ilegitimately.

You don't know it is not the case either. I only know a small number of people whom I would classify as "wealthy" and the ratio of good to bad people in that set is perhaps a little better than the entire set of people I know. These people certainly do more benevolence work.

For instance John Paulson has beenvery successful, hasn't he?

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-59.htm

Who?

What??
(please tell me you're joking or be really worried if you're not)

If "fairness" means that everyone is is in poverty instead of a few, then what is the benefit to anyone?

What's that? neocon newspeak?

That is what you call logic. I would expect that is kind of rare in your social circles.

Redefining words in order to mislead and support an ideology can legitimately and logically be labelled as newspeak.

The transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor under the false assumption that the first group necessarily cheated the second has been a colossal historic failure wherever it has been tried. Case studies of the economies of North and South Korea come to mind.

Oh, were there a lot of rich people i in North Korea? Really?

In case you didn't know, Korea used to be one country. It split into two in a particularly nasty little war with the Northern part adopting the philosophy of communism and the South adopting capitalism. Based on your knowledge of current affairs, which "half" of the original country would you say faired better? From my understanding the situation is such that the poorest people in South Korea are doing better than all but the "benevolent ruling class" (as Karl Marx put it) in the North.

You claimed the difference was wealth transfer from rich to poor and it is not true. (No argument on the fact that omunist regimes are not the best recipe for growth, though)

Speaking about colossal failures why don't we try with historical facts (Marx's writings on primitive acumulation of capital are worth reading at that). Could we say that after the 1870-1913 expansion period the cartelization of the economy (and subsequent transfer of wealth to a powerful oligarchy) led to the empoverishment of working classes and then to the rise of colectivist ideas and almost revolutinary conditions across the Western world?

Old Karl couldn't have said it better himself! Trouble is, his philosophy has been largely discredited throughout the world except in such sterling examples as Cuba and North Korea.

Hi historical analysis is still interesting thouhg. Give it a try.

China began to prosper the moment they started adopting the free enterprise system and the US started failing when it started to abandon it.

It's easier to have a free enterprise system if there are not players that can capture the governmetn, have insider information, and an abysmal fifference in financial muscle, wouldn't you say?

--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html

 

[Kokopelli_Rocks]

You can look at the following article.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/82561/can_us_customs_search_seize_your_laptop.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/15/computing.security

US Customs page
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/admissibility/labtop_inspect.xml

Other countries can be stricter. I travel around the world on business and I have been questioned several times on the programs that I carry on CDs/DVDs for seminars and about the programs on my laptop.

I also find that at times depending on the countries I visit I can get a little more scrutiny. In the past, visiting the Netherlands seemed to raise flags. Lots of dogs sniffing luggage. I would also guess single guys visiting Thailand would get questions and my have their equipment searched.

I found the best way to avoid be searched was to always follow my co-worker through customs. He had long hair and a beard and would get stopped quite a bit. By walking behind him they would stop him and never stop me.

Ed

I think if you look into it you will find that Customs are entitled to look into pretty much anything you bring into the country, and that includes the content of all sorts of data storage devices.

I am not so sure. We assume that they have all the authority, but maybe not. In fact they don't have all authority in any democratic country. The question is 1) are they going to tell you your rights and 2) do they even know where their authority ends?

For instance say I have a nice lnotepad in my luggage with a leather cover. A custom officer may have the right to look at the outside of the notebook, say to decide whether it has a value etc. But does he have the right to open it and start reading your notes, if even for the 1st two pages? I very much doubt it. Same for the pictures stored in the camera IMO.

Mind you the fact that he perused a few shots was not a big deal for me. In fact I didn't care. But that does not mean that in this very specific aspect the Customs officer did not go beyond what he is allowed to do: he did, probably out of ignorance more than anything else.
--
Thierry

 

[Kokopelli_Rocks]

Search on Google and you will find that US Customs has the responsibility to safe guard the US borders. This is not just for catching revenue cheats or someone bringing in illegal drugs. This includes items like child porn. The courts have ruled they have the authority.

I would guess you have the right to refuse and they have the right to refuse you entry into the USA.

Ed

Remember that when you are having your luggage inspected by Customs you are not, yet, inside the US

Are you sure? One goes to the US customs after passing the immigration check. So in fact you are in the US.

And I doubt that even before k you are not considered in the US. If you're in the US only when passing the customs, does it mean that you're outside of the country when the plane reach the tarmac? Or when it flies over the country? Or when it flies over the line separating international waters from national waters?

The latter, I think, well before you're at the Customs office.

--
Thierry

 

[math guy]

I tend to prefer capitalism to any other form of economics. However, I'm not naive enough to believe that it has no vices nor that other forms of economics have no virtues.

What I do believe is that no form of government or economic structure is perfect or will solve all our problems. Why not? Because humans are at their core sinful and in rebellion against their Creator who told them to love each other. So there will always be greedy people who do not love their fellow men and who find a way to take advantage of any system. Different systems are prone to be being taken advantage of by different groups of people, but they all have their weaknesses.

I live in the USA and thus have studied much about our founding fathers. One of them, Thomas Jefferson, stated, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." I suspect other nations have founding fathers who have made similar statements.

Unfortunately, many people lose sight of that necessary connection.

--
-- Joe S.
'The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.' ~ Euclid

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/josephschmitt

 

[mrfbaggins]

If anyone is interested in the Canadian process, I was at the Customs office today (I work right beside it at Toronto Airport). I will be going in before I go to have the documentation prepared. Happy to provide details.

A really informative thread. Well until religion and politics became all mixed up. There is a place in the world for both, but they do not mix.

 

[harrygilbert]

I believe that was John Adams....
...

I live in the USA and thus have studied much about our founding fathers. One of them, Thomas Jefferson, stated, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." I suspect other nations have founding fathers who have made similar statements.

Unfortunately, many people lose sight of that necessary connection.

--
-- Joe S.
'The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.' ~ Euclid

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/josephschmitt