The Good Samaritan – Canada’s Role in 9/11

Today marks the anniversary of 9/11, the horrendous attack on American soil that brought down the World Trade Center, killed thousands, changed millions, and altered our world view.

I was talking on Twitter with a buddy who was commenting that Bing.com in the states were showing something 9/11 related. In Canada, Bing.com has some remote lake in New Zealand and I wondered why they didn’t choose to focus on a key event of that day which occurred in Canada.

*Image from a collection of images found here.

Gander, Newfoundland, is a community of just under 10,000 people. On 9/11, as the sky was cleared of all air travel, 38 planes carrying 6,500 people were diverted to Gander. Within a few short hours, the population of the town almost doubled.

Once word broke of the arrivals, the people of this small town sprung into action. Teri A. McIntyre, in a review of The Day The World Came to Town, wrote:

But when Gander became the recipient of unexpected quests on that most tragic day, its residents immediately rallied with a swiftness and friendliness that even movies and books cannot accurately replicate. As DeFede consistently demonstrates, the town was a place where no call for assistance went unheard, and no person struggled alone.

Schools and halls quickly became emergency shelters. Residents invited people into their homes for showers, beds and meals. People stripped their houses bare of sheets and towels, and offered the use of their vehicles. Pharmacists filled prescriptions from all over the word at no cost. Local businesses emptied their shelves of food, clothing, toys and toiletries. One local business, Canadian Tire, was given instructions by its head office to provide whatever was required at no expense.

On a day when so many were dealing with mixed emotions of what had happened, what the state of loved ones were, whether more attacks would occur, and just trying to deal with this horrible reality, a community ensured that their basic needs of shelter, food, safety, and care were taken care of; an outpouring of love and compassion to people they had never met.

Since 9/11 we’ve seen reactionary security measures put in place, a war fought and continuing to be fought, a hardening of the North American borders, and an increased sense of distrust and suspicion.

And yet Gander provided us with an alternate story from that day: one of humans reaching out to one another without regard of country of origin. While we allow borders to define us, Gander showed that the tenets of humanity are universal; that when we see others in a place of need we have the ability to reach out and make a difference. They acted as true citizens of the world and their actions should be an example for us all.

The Future Is Now

Back in May I blogged about ‘A Glimpse of the Future’ where I discussed the effect WHTI would have on Canada/US relations, travel, and commerce. I ended that post with this:

And through all this, those that depend on business from their neighbours over the border, in both countries, are the ones suffering.

As one person said when calling in to the radio station:

"We used to go down every week and a half, but if this keeps up, we'll be lucky if we go down every four to six weeks."

This is not a fad, this is not temporary. This is a glimpse of the future of Canada/US relations.

A recent article posted on USA Today’s website entitled “Border traffic plunges under passport policy” provides some validity to the repercussions strengthening the border has spawned.

First, a stat showing that the number of privately owned vehicles entering the US border in June and July (from north and south combined) has dropped by approximately 2 million from last year; almost 4 million from 2005.

A Buffalo NY border crossing region saw a 13% decline in privately owned vehicles coming into the US.

An amusement park 10 minutes from the Canadian border has seen 1/3 fewer Canadian families coming down for the “Canadian Wednesdays” promotion they run.

A US based charter bus company has cut the number of trips it makes to an Ontario based casino in half because people there would rather spend their money gambling locally than get a passport to go out of country.

And yet, with these and other examples of reduced cross-border commerce, CBP is still standing firm that the passport requirements and other WHTI related policies have nothing to do with the decline in border traffic. From the article:

CBP officials say the change has made border crossings safer and more efficient and isn't to blame for declining numbers. Fewer people have been coming to the USA via land borders since 9/11, says Colleen Manaher, initiative director.

Compliance has been high; 95% of affected travelers arrive at the borders with proper documents, she says. "You have to look at this in totality," she says. "There is the recession, exchange rates, gas prices. There's border violence, there's weather."

So, I’ll give Colleen the benefit of the doubt that she’s talking about north *and* south borders. But let’s focus on Canada here, which btw was the only country that had changes initiated. Mexican citizens already had document requirements for entering the US.

Canada doesn’t have border violence, not anywhere remotely close to the US/Mexico issues. Weather? Did she really say the weather was a factor? I’m not sure what types of extreme weather are affecting Canadians from crossing into the US.

The recession had the uncanny timing of showing up as WHTI was going into effect, but I’ll grant that it must be factored into people not going out and doing shopping across the border as much.

Exchange rates have not been terrible over the last year. According to xe.com, today the Canadian dollar is worth .93 US. Gas prices high? I think that’s an easy scapegoat.

No, the key reason that Canadians and Americans are sticking to their own side of the border rests with the document requirements that the US has enforced on itself and its neighbours. The cost in dollars and time all to appease a government already seen as overly paranoid just doesn’t seem worth it. DoHS can deny that all they want, but when you talk to the people being directly affected by it, you can tell who’s a more valid source.

People like Mike McGuire, the spokesman for that amusement park I mentioned above. He states:

“We used to cater a few picnics for Canadian businesses. A couple have told us they can't do it because they can't force their workers to get passports.

Where it really hurts is the impulse buy. Mom and Dad are sitting at home on a Saturday afternoon and say, 'Hey, let's go to Fantasy Island. Wait, we can't because we don't have … passports.' "

Funny that Mike didn’t suggest the reason they don’t come down as gas prices, the exchange rate, or the weather.

US Bodychecks Canadian Hockey Charters

This could end badly. Very, very badly. I’m talking riots in the streets. Infuriating Americans with the threat of Obamacare wasn’t enough…Obama had to incite anger in the hearts of Canadians as well, and he did it targeting one of our most beloved national treasures: hockey!

First, a bit of a history lesson: There are rules about where flights from Canada can go when entering the US. Basically, they can visit a single US location before returning to Canada. However, 8 years ago, Canada and the US came to an agreement allowing sports teams and entertainers who chartered planes to US destinations to not be bound by the rule. This makes sense, since if the Ottawa Senators are playing a 5 game road trip in 5 US cities, it would be a little silly to have them have to fly back to Canada after each game.

So let’s bring it back to mid August when the US Department of Transportation changed the rules, forbidding charter flights from doing multiple US hops. Why?

Well the US Air Line Pilots Association did a little snooping and found that Canadian teams were breaking some rules of the agreement. How? Well let’s say the Senator’s team owner happened to be in Pittsburgh when Ottawa showed up for the game (this isn’t a real example, just an illustration). The Sens next game was in Phoenix, so the team owner boards the charter plane and flies with the team. Or let’s say an injured player does the same sort of thing: meets up with the team in the US and then hops on the charter to their next stop.

The charters are meant for people originating from Canada, but because they’re picking up passengers within the US (regardless of their association to the team, whether an owner or employee) they’re providing travel that would otherwise be going to a US-based carrier…who employs US Air Line Pilots Association members.

Now let’s put this in perspective. There are SIX (6) NHL teams in Canada, so the number of people violating this rule is insanely small. The people who are part of these trips are associated with the team…these charters are not doing passenger travel on the side. Yet this was enough for the US DoT to not levy fines or warnings, but to kill the agreement altogether.

And how did Canada respond? From the National Post article:

In a furious exchange with the Obama administration over the mid-August ruling, Canada has launched its own investigation and will soon close its skies to U.S. sports team charters in retaliation, warns Transport Minister John Baird.

Mr. Baird said the dispute "shows the power of anti-free-trade Democrats in the Congress" and cautioned his government will respond in kind.

"We've already directed the Canadian Transportation Agency to launch a formal inquiry and the next step will be a direction to the CTA to immediately prohibit charter flights by U.S. carriers under season-long contracts with professional sports teams with multiple stops in Canada," he said in an interview.

This is somewhat surprising considering that the Conservative party has been very vocal that counter-protectionism is not in the best interest of Canada in the long run. But now, with a direct attack on our national game, it seems that sentiment is starting to crack a bit…especially with comments like “anti-free-trade Democrats in the Congress”.

The reality is that this isn’t about hockey. It’s about an attack on a Canadian-based business supplying chartered flights for sports and entertainers, and it should be pointed out that not all are Canadian-based (Air Canada, who runs the charters, count the Boston Bruins and Milwaukee Bucks as current customers; they lost a contract with the Anaheim Ducks due to the US DoT decision). While I make light of the hockey angle, make no mistake: this is about free trade and protectionism.

United States – 5 minutes and a game misconduct for sidestepping your free trade agreement responsibilities, pandering to a special interest group instead of consulting with anyone on this side of the border, and foregoing diplomatic common sense to resolve this issue.

UPDATE
I found this article on the Globe and Mail website. It adds some interesting info to this story:

- Air Canada was servicing two American-based teams (Boston Bruins and Milwaukee Bucks) when they took on the extra passengers for cross-city flights. Canadian company still at fault, but not the Canadian teams.

- There is already a similar ban in place in Canada as a response to the US action. The story talks about an airline in Miami and one in Dallas that were told to cancel flights to Canada.

The Ripple Effects of Protectionism – Microsoft as a Case Study

I came across an interested article today, one originally published in 2007 which makes it even more interesting as its commentary comes before the global recession reached its destructive climax.

The article tells the story of Parminder Singh, a man who immigrated to Canada with his family when he was only 6 years old. It talks about the issues he had getting into the US job market due to his birthplace of New Delhi, and how he overcame US immigration issues to emerge as a key Microsoft employee.

But underlying this story, written before Buy-US provisions were introduced, written before Barack Obama was the US president, is a is commentary on protectionism and why countries need to thoughtfully and carefully review their views on immigration.

Microsoft is a classic example of this. In the article Jack Krumholtz, Microsoft’s government affairs director at the time, was quoted saying:

"We currently do 85 per cent of our development work in the U.S., and we'd like to continue doing that. But if we can't hire the developers we need, we're going to have to look to other options to get the work done."

And over the last couple of years, we’ve seen Microsoft do just that. Instead of dealing with US immigration, they opened up the Microsoft Canadian Developer Center in British Columbia. If the US doesn’t want Canadians or others from elsewhere in the world coming to work for a US company on US soil, the company will go to them. Interestingly enough, its Canada’s immigration policies that have made this move so attractive for Microsoft, allowing them to source and attain international talent.

This past year Microsoft Tech Ed, one of their two premiere conferences, was held in Los Angeles. At the same time, Microsoft Tech Ed was also occurring in India. Which one did Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer choose to deliver the keynote to? The India event.

Companies do not require to be operating in their home country to be successful, and hindering their ability to hire talented prospects due to protectionist policy only hurts the country in question.

What also seems to be missed in all of this is the spin-off benefits of bringing in talented workers from other countries. While they live and work in a foreign country they also contribute to the local economy through commerce as well as the local governments through taxation.

What about the concern that immigrants will take jobs that should be considered to local citizens first? This, I believe, serves as a warning for North America: competition is not solely within your borders. If there is talent locally, then there should be no issue: it is still far cheaper to hire local talent then having to source international prospects.

But if there’s *not* talent pool to draw on, where does that leave a company like Microsoft? How can a company continue to thrive and be profitable if its hindered by a lacklustre local workforce? The answer is that it shouldn’t. For us that make up the workforce, we need to ensure that we’re striving to be better not just within our own circles of peers and competitors, but also with our global competitors.

As the saying goes, don’t hate the player…hate the game. But if there is a better player out there, wouldn’t you rather have them playing for your team (read: country)?

DHS: All Your Electronics Belong To Us*

There’s been a lot of buzz lately about the DHS’s new directives on performing searches of electronic media. From the official press release:

The new directives address the circumstances under which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can conduct border searches of electronic media—consistent with the Department’s Constitutional authority to search other sensitive non-electronic materials, such as briefcases, backpacks and notebooks, at U.S. borders.

So what does “electronic media” refer to? Well, from the CBP Directive document:

Includes  any devices that may contain information, such as computers, disks, drives, tapes, mobile phones and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players, and any other electronic or digital devices.

That’s right, its basically anything that can electronically store information. In addition to the searches, CBP has the authority to transmit your data if its in a form that they don’t understand to someone that can “translate” it for them:

Officers may sometimes have  technical difficulties in conducting the search of electronic devices such that technical assistance is needed  to continue the border search.  Also, in some
cases Offtcers may encounter information  in electronic devices  that requires  technical
assistance  to determine  the meaning of such information,  such as, for example, information  that is in a foreign language and / or encrypted (including information  that is password protected or otherwise not readily reviewable).  In such situations, Officers may transmit electronic devices or copies of information  contained  therein to seek technical assistance  from other federal agencies.  Officers may seek such assistance with or without individualized suspicion.

There are huge privacy concerns that are raised from this paragraph. For one, the number of electronic devices out there suggest that more than a few officers will be met with a device they have no idea how to use or access data from. Will the default reaction, if there’s suspicion (or not, since there doesn’t have to be), be to confiscate the device for further vetting?

Another concern should be on the data itself. Encrypted or not, your data can be copied and transmitted to “other federal agencies” to be vetted. You have no control over who or how many people will see your data.

Speaking of seizing and sharing data, just to make it clear:

5.4.1.1 Retention with Probable Cause. 
Officers may seize and retain an electronic
device, or copies of information  from the device, when, based on a review of the electronic device encountered or on other facts and circumstances, they determine there is probable cause to believe that the device, or copy of the contents thereof,
contains evidence of or is  the fruit of a crime that CBP is authorized  to enforce.

5.4.1.3 Sharing Generally. 
Nothing in  this Directive  limits  the authority of CBP  to share copies of information contained in electronic devices (or portions  thereof), which are
retained  in accordance with this Directive, with  federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies  to the extent consistent with applicable  law and policy.

In Canada our file sharing/downloading laws are nowhere near as stringent as in the US. So what does this mean for a Canadian with a copy of Battlestar Galactica they pulled down from a torrent site who gets searched at the border? Could they be turned over to authorities for copyright infringement? Maybe you’re reading this thinking that its a farfetched scenario, but consider the last line in the paragraph below from the DHS press release:

Searches of electronic media, permitted by law and carried out at borders and ports of entry, are vital to detecting information that poses serious harm to the United States, including terrorist plans, or constitutes criminal activity—such as possession of child pornography and trademark or copyright infringement.

That’s right, “trademark or copyright infringement” is listed as a criminal activity and next to terrorism. Of course, copyright infringement *is* illegal and I’m not condoning it. However, I question whether CBP officers are going to have enough training to be able to identify material that is illegal and that which is legal. I hope we never have to hear about a person crossing the border being asked to produce receipts for all the iTunes purchases they filled their iPod with, or having their laptop confiscated for containing ripped movies that are actually legal digital copies made available when purchasing DVD’s.

Now, to keep this in some perspective, only 1000 laptop searches were conducted out of 221 million travellers…a miniscule percentage. Still, the door has been opened for CBP officers to perform invasive searches for no reason whatsoever and on a wider variety of devices. Travellers need to be aware of the possibilities, even remote ones, that their data could be seized when travelling into the US. So what can you do?

Store Your Data In The Cloud
If you want to ensure no data is collected, and to limit the potential for confused looks as officers try to figure out what your scientific report is really about, store your data on a server and not on your computers and devices. Many airlines are now offering wi-fi internet access in their planes, which means that once you’re through security and onboard you can freely download your files and work on the flight. This also removes any concern about legal media files that could be incorrectly identified as copyright infringement.

Keep Devices To A Minimum
I don’t know how these searches will be carried out…if only one piece of electronics will be searched or if someone flagged will have all devices searched. Assuming the latter, keep everything to a minimum. Laptop, cell phone, mp3 player…camera if you have to. Don’t bring multiple laptops, don’t bring a bunch of USB jump drives or external drives for that matter. The fewer devices, the fewer searches can be performed (speeding you through to your plane) and fewer questions will be asked.

Bring Only Data You’re Comfortable Losing
If you do need to bring data on your devices, ensure that its data your comfortable losing or having people view. If you have any sensitive data, I redirect you to the first suggestion of utilizing a file server. Any data on your devices should be free of passwords and organized in a way that’s easily discoverable. Help the CBP officers conduct their search.

Have a Backup Plan
Ensure you have some backup plan for a worst case scenario. For instance, if you’re doing a speaking engagement but your laptop gets confiscated at the border due to a search, ensure that organizers know that you might need a filler laptop to run your presentation on, and have your presentation available through a file server or another source that doesn’t require you to physically carry it.

It will be interesting to see, as these new directives come online, whether the number of reported instances of device searches increases or not. Either way, travellers should be aware.

*Btw, the “All your electronics belong to us” is a pop-culture reference to a mistranslation in a videogame called Zero Wing.