SirBillybob

With one central goal that of being healthier, every 5 pounds, arguably every pound if not quibbling about plus/minus fluctuation, is genuinely meaningful. Every consecutive 5 pounds eliminated also represents an increasingly greater percentage of each iteration of baseline weight. I only say this because I and others have found the idea of small attainable increments of change to be helpful. I also found that getting formal coaching … there are variations to this type of support, of course … helped me to avoid RSVPing to my own pity parties and then enduring the regret of a lapse. One particularly life-changing bodywork endeavour spanned three years, but with added challenging and cheering on from sources external to my own self-talk. It turned out that occasionally asserting to myself that I could not do the hard thing was entirely off the mark. Such a time period seems endless until realizing at the end that it flew by. There is no lack of information on the means to progressively losing weight and achieving the desired changes. It rests on perseverance.

Right. It’s legally trying to fit a square-ish shape into a round-ish hole. I’m reminded of Paul Bernardo’s lawyer’s acquittal some 30 years ago on charges of obstruction of justice for having in his possession for some 17 months camcorder snuff material after Bernardo instructed him on where hidden, obviously relevant to the charges but particularly in relation to his partner in homicidal sex crimes Karla Homolka’s plea bargain and ‘turning state’s witness’ as it is termed down your way, absent the tapes subsequent eventual availability. A case of possession not destruction, but it advanced, at the least, a clearer framework on privilege. The jurisdictional law entity in Ontario (at the time Law Society of Upper Canada) to which he was accountable eventually dropped disciplinary charges and focused on contextual framework as well. If I had to predict the American dude’s outcome, I would guess no jail time even if convicted; perhaps a suspended sentence. Clarification for the masses and statute governance taking precedence over a harsher penalty aimed at deterrence. What might also help his case is that I believe a vague suspicion regarding CSAM was verbalized to him or spearheaded the device search, yet it’s likely incontrovertible that there would be no other indicators of such a crime.

But for a batch of prospective tricks one needs to organize marine-grade group boot camp training.

You tell them.

Apologies. Neither you nor Tom Hanks, but he arguably owns the scene’s cinematic property rights. Regarding your phone’s contents I’m certain you understand far better than a Luddite like me how to technically remotely store them, later retrieving them at your convenience for your resumed personal use, while in the meantime comfortably submitting an empty device for inspection, as that format is not subject to border examination. But while we are on the subject, I thought that I had to bring my phone on board for fire safety reasons. How does that measure apply to the same device packaged for courier air cargo means of transport if ground postal service does not apply? Obviously, electronic devices are transported in this manner but I believe dangerous goods checks and balances apply.

Sorry, don’t know why the quote function popped bold typeface then disappeared, but to the last paragraph points on warrant … The warrant idea speaks to government authority within the border control exceptionality that some find objectionable. However, there exists analytical tension between asserting the right to a warrant’s due process and the owner’s ability to frustrate that process. We cannot know his motives and he probably needed to think fast. If I wanted to take a stand on the procedure, volunteering as tribute so to speak, insisting on a warrant would possibly subvert my claim of a right to irreversibly destroy contents before a search could occur, on the spot using a wipe procedure before the contents could be hacked by authorities with a pin workaround. If I wanted control and to not bank on the action of detonating phone data post-warrant post-confiscation, as well as to challenge the statute, then I would live with the absence of a warrant. That said, I assume that pursuit of a warrant requires probable cause. Otherwise, to the extent that border control inspection is random even within the very small subset examined, thousands of phones with innocuous content would be confiscated upon refusal to unlock them without the warrant step. Similarly, given that a far greater number of locked suitcases are searched, that’s a lot of baggage piled up behind bars in the sobering up tank while waiting for court-executed warrants for owners refusing their contents’ examination.

If you thought you were confused before …

It could end up with the name Wilson.

At what particular point one’s legal duty to not obstruct inspection crystallizes is unclear: airspace, touchdown, the corridor hike to border control? The inspection process is imminent but there is not necessarily a bright line ruling other than broad border authority without the usual probable cause or warrant requirements. Apparently, border officers face-to-face are not required to articulate they are assuming specific legal authority over one particular aspect of your belongings at the point you are told to open your luggage or device. It’s baked into the mandate of overall inspection. So I suppose a prosecution may proceed based on duress wipe that occurred at any point along the way, depending on the circumstances, just as if one tossed an illegal substance into a rubbish bin en route to the staffed inspection area. Yet destruction is distinct from obstruction is distinct from contempt for a lawful order, so it’s easy to get into the weeds here. My advice: What would Rin Tin Tin on the leash think?

RM profiles come and go. That person can maintain contacts and preserve chats with continuity on WhatsApp. Moreover, the desire or need to change a cellular number can be accommodated while still preserving the contacts and content that one wishes to maintain, such as a roster of valued clients. You can also pin your current (at point of send), or live stationary or mobile location, to a contact that may be en route to meeting you. They can in turn patch that through to their navigation, or map theirs to you if delayed, lost, etc. They can send a voice message or ring you to speak briefly without logging in to RM and inviting a fender bender. Besides, surely two people mutually oriented to discretion should be able to arrange, via written format, a hook-up without it coming across to a third party observer as prostitutional trafficking.

The probability of twice is surprising depending on the denominator of entries. What is less surprising is being noncommittal because what could be gained by explaining any particular search trigger? Any relevant roadmap for gaming screening criteria is on travellers. See above.

One interesting additional component of the law related to the current adjudication of the duress wipe case is that it’s also a serious offence to tip off somebody under suspicion in such a way that they would erase or otherwise obstruct access to content that would be material to a criminal charge. Apart from cooperation in one’s own bargaining favour, that might explain Telegram User 1 not snubbing the FBI’s admonishment regarding sending an alert message via carrier pigeon across Manhattan to Telegram User 2 in a well known recent CSAM and sexual assault case.

#4 is actually a great option and not so labour-intensive. In Canada, only a very small proportion of travelers upon entry undergo electronic device searches. Yet roughly one-third to two-fifths of those searches reportedly result in criminal charges. Combined with similarly low device-search rates in the U.S., that suggests border agencies are generally relying on intelligence and articulable suspicion rather than conducting random fishing expeditions. To my way of thinking it’s easy to identify what material would be of interest to those searching, particularly related to activity that is criminalized, and similarly simple to organize it such that it’s not available for scrutiny. I might go as far as to suggest that some members here hoard content, one driver for that being its potential value in forum contribution. I certainly wouldn’t expect law enforcement to unquestionably assess some select images as legal, notwithstanding that we as a subpopulation share certainty about their legality.

Yeah, I saw it but went with the phone due to the topic. Around that era I’d have likely been detained for having photos of Peter Lupus in my wallet. Little does secondary inspection know that I currently store questionable content in my RayBans.

Right, mission impossible … no unambiguous material self-destruct intent whatsoever. ScreenRecording_08-01-2026 18-04-50_1.mov