Of course it's not the point you were making; it's the point I was making -- laws applicable in Canada to Canadian residents (citizens or not) may not necessarily be applicable to Canadian citizens no longer resident in Canada. And that's before the problem prosecutors would have in demonstrating that something was intentional.

Even putting a passport in a microwave can be done for reasons not related to intentionally damaging the passport -- it can be done to disinfect it. A government would have trouble proving that a passport RFID was intentionally damaged in a way as to violate applicable law (if any).

Where a person resides can be more relevant than the country of which he is a citizen. Example: Canadian citizen resident in the US who goes to Cuba and spends money there without UST-OFAC approval. Also, some countries do not exert extraterritorial jurisdiction over their citizens to the scope and extent that the US government does; that is, the US government reaches over our borders more than the Canadian government reaches over their borders.

And therefore the wonderful concept of strict liability offenses comes into play. His mens rea, or lack thereof, is irrelevant and does not need to be proven by a prosecutor --- not under the section I quoted above, but if you REALLY would like me to I'm sure I can find it (almost certainly would be a summary offence, not an indictable offence, but that's not the point you're making, is it now?). Only the actus reus is necessary.

Every legal argument I have been involved in had at least two lawyers (ie one for each side) so one of them had to be wrong.:p

He did say to destroy it was not an indictable offence. The code you refer to is about "wilful" destruction. I am pretty certain if he were to accidentally destroy (not negligently or recklessly) but purely accidentally it would not be an indictable offence. The evidential problems for the prosecution would be interesting to say the least. :D

So is said. Of course you can find whatever you want to try to make a case (after all, there are, as said above, two lawyers in many cases), but that doesn't mean Canadian prosecutors would even get to taking it to court, or put in for extradition proceedings to enable a prosecution for such, or even win.

Did you read what you posted earlier about ".... is guilty of an indictable offence", or is it not applicable for reasons related to "snipping out"?

The government would be in violation of its own criminal code, going by what was appropriately included above. :D

I was actually pointing out to you, in reference to my argument about strict liability, that IF "wilful" destruction could not be proven (a requirement for the statute I cited), then just reckless destruction, which would be the strict liability offence, would likely not be indictable. The indictable offence referred to the cited statute, which concerned only those offences which include mens rea on the part of the perpertrator.

Just because something is not an "indictable offence" does not necessarily make it a "strict liability offence" or a "summary offence". (Too bad it's not readily possible to draw Venn diagrams on FT to illustrate that point.) Whether by law (including that which has the force of law), policy or practice, extraterritoriality and universal jurisdiction may not necessarily be a given; and so that which is applicable to residents may well not be applied to citizens who are no longer resident in the country of citizenship.

Interesting find...well firstly, they need prove that I deliberately destroyed the tag....absent cutting or burn marks, that will be almost impossible for them to prove.

Secondly, Canada has no jurisdiction over me as a non resident. They cannot control my movements, tax me, or do anything else unless I am on their soil.

As for the legal information above - then I plead guilty as charged. I have violated that statute consistently for years by using fake names, fake addresses and other misleading information to destabalize and disorient the various databases that hold information on me. My ultimate goal is to fill the records linked to me with so much garbage that a simple database querry in the future will come back with pages of useless unrelated data. Since I once had access to the records held on me at Seisnt, I have a good idea as to what they are looking for and linking, so it's not too hard to figure out ways to defeat their logic as you go.

Applying the practices of the US government to how Canada does things is misleading - their reach is not as broad nor as aggressive. As a staunch civil libertarian, I hold that I fall outside their jurisdiction and they have no need to know when/where/why I travel. The US has jurisdiction over me now, and although my libertarian feelings are uncomfortable with the level of tracking and tracing going on here, I follow the law - although I won't make it easy for them.

Disabling the RFID tag is a matter of personal security more than liberty. I don't want to be walking down a street in a foreign country while someone with a tag reader is able to pull my name and nationality off the passport sitting in my napsack and then use that information against me in some way. It's only common sense.


Also, to clear up any misconceptions, my passport is not made by hand in such a way that it was actually written out by hand - "made by hand" in this context was meant to describe the Consular officer using their local equipment to type out my information and seal my photo into the document instead of the printers/sealers that produce the passports in their central office. It's not actually written out or printed by hand.

As a sort-of related aside, I had an interesting experience when applying for my two US visas within a couple of months. One of the questions on the form is list all the countries you have visited in the last ten years with the dates of visit. For both visas I noted the individual countries in Asia, Africa and America (with stamps in my passport that showed I had been there) and put E.U. for the countries in Europe. For the Toronto consulate (first visa) that was fine. In Montreal (second visa), the officer was ready to refuse my visa because she insisted on knowing exactly which countries I had been to. When I told her I didn't really remember since I had travelled a lot and couldn't check (no entry or exit stamps in my passport) she still wouldn't budge. So I made up a list on the spot to make her happy. Some people... :rolleyes:

FWIW, even if you go by your passport, there are some countries that do not stamp your passport on a regular basis in my experience.

I've made many trips where I have departed the US, transferred planes in AMS, arrived in a 3rd country where my passport was not stamped on arrival - nor was it stamped on departure. I then fly back via AMS, then to the US where they don't stamp my passport at the point of entry.

The only record I have of the trip upon return is my credit card bill and bank statement of ATM withdrawals :D

Still, US DHS has issues with figuring out where I came from even on commercial flights where the entire PNR has been fed to them, including several times over. Here's one exchange: "Which flight did you just come off from?" "The same flight as everyone else here, ___ ___." "Well, that's strange we have no record of you in here." [CBP agent hits a bunch of keys, down, down, down, down the screen.] "Ok, welcome back."

Not that anything bad will happen to you but...Canada does in fact claim jurisdiction over you. You may not recognize it but tell that to the judge if you set foot in Canada. Depending on the treaties between the country you are in and Canada and the severity of the offense that you are convicted of, Canada could in a theoretical way have an impact on you.

"(6) Where a person is alleged to have committed, while out of Canada, an offence under this section, proceedings in respect of that offense may, whether or not that person is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada and the accused may be tried and punished in respect of that offense in the same manner as if the offense had been committed in that territorial division."

Canada has judicial proceedings in absentia for passports being damaged? Like to see how that goes.

The OP might be referring to a statute that permits a trial in absentia (and extradition) when a citizen commits a crime while abroad. The USA has a similar statute on the books - for example, a US citizen who is caught attempting to have sex with a minor while abroad can be tried and convicted of a crime, even though no crime occured on US soil.

I doubt very much that Canada has the time, interest or ability to gather evidence to try and convict me or anyone else for wrecking an RFID tag in a passport or trying to wreck havoc on the data they store on us.

I've never had that happen, but I'm not sure if they always get the full PNR data. For example I'll fly BCN-AMS-JFK on KLM. At BCN when I check in I get all my BP's including a connection BP on DL (Comair) from JFK-SDF.

Upon arrival in JFK, I'm asked what countries I visited and I said Spain --the immigration officer only has a record of my AMS-JFK segment. I then have to explain I only switched planes at AMS and I didn't stay in Holland.

I suppose with Schengen, you're technically entering/exiting at AMS because that is where you go through passport control - but when your PNR shows BCN-AMS-JFK it should be clear I was only a transit passenger.

With the PNR feed the airlines provide, isn't CBP supposed to get all of the flights on the PNR including my actual origination? Sometimes I question what amount of information they have when they scan my passport. Other times I question if their computers are fully up or if there is a communications outage with the central CBP computer system(s) (especially at JFK a couple of times).

I'm usually asked how long I've been outside of the US - which I know is a standard question most passengers get. While there is no exit control, I was always under the impression the airlines turn their passenger lists over to CBP for flights departing the US. That way they should have a record of your departure.

While on the subject of AMS transfers, on the landing card where it asks for the countries you've been to -- do you include The Netherlands when you're only in-transit making a connection, or are you just supposed to list where you've actually been? Normally I'll just put AMS-transit and then list where I had actually been to.

Last but not least, I have seen CBP officers look puzzled when I return to the US on a ticket other than my original outbound as I'll sometimes buy a ticket with a one year validity, use the outbound, and then travel to/from the US on new tickets before using the final leg of the first ticket a year later. Based on that I suspect the airlines do send them departure PNR info... (?)