Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $5k Customs fine

radionz.co.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 647 posts

Re: New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $5k Customs fine

#181

Post by kotrunga »

deegles wrote: post #153
Shank wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I store information on my phone like my private thoughts, because I know that it’s an encrypted, secured device I always have with me. I wouldn’t store that information on paper — the best analogy is that it’s a backup of parts of my brain. When you go through customs, they can’t just search your brain. They can search your possessions, but they can’t mind dump you. That’s the critical distinction. It’s not my proper…

They only reason border agents don't use a mind-dump machine is that they don't have the technology.

hahahahaha this is true

Re: New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $5k Customs fine

#182

Post by Johnny555 »

paradite wrote: post #154
yholio wrote: post #85

This is an important issue cryptographers and security minded people often overlook: the strongest cryptography is irrelevant if it opens you to such social harassment. What we need is practical cryptography. I have found practical success by booting from an encrypted Linux partition that has absolutely nothing relevant on it, with a weak password I can always enter when requested by big guys with guns. Unbeknown to…

To be very honest, I find the methodology very similar to what drug trafficker would do to hide their drugs. And I don't think this method will end well for all parties either way. If it works, customs officers cannot find actual illegal contents, and criminals walk free through customs. If customs officers somehow detects you are doing this, you risk obstructing security measures.

Drug traffickers hide their drugs in an encrypted partition?

No sane criminal would bring illegal electronic data with him on a physical device... He'll just download it when he gets there.

Re: New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $5k Customs fine

#183

Post by Tuna-Fish »

gruez wrote: post #124
yholio wrote: post #85

This is an important issue cryptographers and security minded people often overlook: the strongest cryptography is irrelevant if it opens you to such social harassment. What we need is practical cryptography. I have found practical success by booting from an encrypted Linux partition that has absolutely nothing relevant on it, with a weak password I can always enter when requested by big guys with guns. Unbeknown to…

>It's impossible for any court forensic team, let alone an airport goon, to prove there is actually another partition inside the outer encrypted partition booting into a 50 GB partition on a 512GB SSD isn't suspicious?

The outer partition fills the entire SSD. It just happens to use a filesystem that packs its data from the beginning of the partition. So long as you don't ever use more than 50GB at a time, the inner partition is safe.

Re: New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $5k Customs fine

#184

Post by adventured »

daemin wrote: post #93
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would probably be easier not to bring a phone and just buy one when you arrive.

But that looks awfully suspicious, so they might ask you for passwords to your online social media accounts etc.

That ultimately doesn't matter. You tell them it's a travel phone, because you fear losing your expensive regular phone. Your social media accounts have elaborate, long passwords that would be impossible for a person to remember and are stored in a password manager at home (countless formulations you can go with in this story).

At that point there's nothing else they can get from you, the odds are overwhelming that'll be the end of the discussion. There's probably a one in a million chance that eg the TSA might detain you for a few hours out of spite if they think you're screwing with them.

Re: New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $5k Customs fine

#185

Post by [deleted] »

chooseaname wrote: post #42
jjcm wrote: post #39

I really want phone makers to allow me to unlock into separate enclaves on my phone. I.e. If I use 1234 as my unlock pin, it goes to my normal phone. If I use 5678 instead, it unlocks to a separate user account with its own notifications, pictures, apps, etc., similar to a truecrypt hidden partition.

But then you'll find yourself in a situation where you could possibly be lying to the customs officers.

[deleted]

Re: New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $5k Customs fine

#186

Post by WaylonKenning »

moate wrote: post #2

Not that I ever had are reason to go there, but we can officially strike NZ of the list of places I'll be visiting. I hope this sort of malarkey doesn't become the norm. This seems rife for abuse. If you have good enough information to demand to rifle though someone's phone or computer, you have good enough information for a damn warrant.

A warrant? It's the border. There's no need for a warrant to inspect your suitcase. A sovereign country has the right to inspect things crossing the border.

Re: New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $5k Customs fine

#187

Post by jl6 »

bernardlunn wrote: post #84
klohto wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there exist straightforward workarounds Exactly and that’s why this a problem. This law will never catch anyone that actually is troubling for NZ because anyone who is shady, already uses some workaround. Now it will only bother and waste time of people who are serious about their privacy to apply this workaround as well.

Nail on head! This does not increase real security and it is a real privacy violation. Dumb lose lose authoritarianism. Disappointed that smart Kiwis do something so dumb

While I don’t agree with this law, it’s not dumb. Security is about defence in depth. A determined attacker might have a way around this law, but perhaps not every criminal would know about this method, or think to use it.

It’s easy to scoff at blunt-tool laws because you can think of a way to undermine them. But law and society are built on a patchwork of imperfect systems which can individually be broken, undermined, manipulated or worked around. In aggregate, they do achieve some semblance of a result, because they are layered together - even if each one alone provides only a marginal element of security.

Re: New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $5k Customs fine

#188

Post by bitwize »

yholio wrote: post #85

This is an important issue cryptographers and security minded people often overlook: the strongest cryptography is irrelevant if it opens you to such social harassment. What we need is practical cryptography. I have found practical success by booting from an encrypted Linux partition that has absolutely nothing relevant on it, with a weak password I can always enter when requested by big guys with guns. Unbeknown to…

If you pull this stunt in the USA, I hope you enjoy your five-year sentence in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison and the effect that the permanent felony conviction on your record will have on your employment prospects and the exercise of your civil rights. Misleading, or concealing information from, a federal agent is a felony.

Re: New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $5k Customs fine

#190

Post by kadendogthing »

mattnewton wrote: post #164
kadendogthing wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are classically Missing The Point. Historically, your luggage would contain personal pictures, credit card numbers, general banking statements, generally personal information, etc. The medium in which this information is stored and carried around has changed. The need to inspect what you're bringing into the country has not. These processes didn't originally come about because people wanted to inspect your 5 diff…

I don’t think that’s true, people weren’t carrying around every photo they ever took, and even then they took a lot less photos. People did not carry around all their banking statements all the time, etc. It’s an order of magnitude problem; yes, sometimes, people carried around those things and their diaries or whatnot, but this is more akin to giving the people the keys to your house, so they can make a perfect copy…

> People did not carry around all their banking statements all the time

No, but you definitely needed to have your banking information on you when traveling for an extended period of time, especially internationally.

>It’s an order of magnitude problem

I think we're talking past each other. This was my "data organization" point. All the data is now housed together.

> not out of any logical extension for existing policies.

Why do you say this? I outlined how it was a natural progression and you just went "nah."

Post reply on HN