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

211–220 of 647 posts

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

#211

Post by kleim »

WaylonKenning wrote: post #138
ravenstine wrote: post #64

I have been thinking of going back to live in NZ to be a software engineer there, but now... uh, no . Such a shame, as it's a really nice country with very smart people. Granted, it's been very "totalitarian" when it comes to immigration for a long time. Not that I don't think they have the right to do this, but when I went to live there with my kiwi girlfriend, I had to give them actual copies of letters she and I s…

As a New Zealander, I'd say we're unashamed in trying to balance the welfare of our citizens with growth opportunities from new immigrants. If you're likely to be a drain on the public healthcare system, then you're not likely to get permission to live here. Why? It's not fair to those people who have already paid into the system, to subsidise someone who hasn't. And we are picky. There's no visa lottery here. A poin…

In France we have a special health insurance policy dedicated for treating illegal immigrants ("AME: Aide Médicale d'État"). Yup... Too bad that many people will call you a racist if you ever start to say it is unfair for people who already paid into the system.

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

#212

Post by nrki »

bitwize wrote: post #188
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.

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - some U.S. citizen. (MLK, Jr.)

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

#213

Post by vorpalhex »

debacle wrote: post #196
vorpalhex wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My suitcase doesn't contain: + Communications with my lawyer + My private health information + My detailed financial information + My communications with significant others which may be of various degrees of sfw + My work files, including proprietary or secret information Any of those things would absolutely require a warrant, and may even require a specialized warrant in some cases (communications with my lawyer, he…

This is a nuanced topic (border security), and while I think there's slippery slopes (and their associated fallacies) in both directions, it is true to say that you are very free to share none of those things with border security, and border security is very free to not admit you to the country.

In most countries, border security isn't entirely free to run rampant over your basic freedoms. Privileged communications (eg client/attorney) is an extremely important basic bastion of freedom and law, and violating that (which in this case seems incidental, not intentional) is a mockery.

Sure, any country is welcome to violate that norm, just the same as any country is welcome to force it's people in labor camps for insulting Dearest Leader. The rest of the world is also welcome to respond appropriately.

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

#214

Post by clarkmoody »

jsilence wrote: post #167
WaylonKenning wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Riddle me this - what is the alternative? Don't look at a phone? Why do we look inside suitcases? Why have the concept of customs? We search things across borders for things our country does not want. We don't want drugs. We don't want fresh fruit (which will trip up more people than drugs). We don't want child porn. And if a phone is a container for that content, we want to be able to explore the container. Of cours…

What about "probable cause" or "innocent until proven guilty"? Why would I have to accept being strip searched without a warrant?

At a border, you have no rights.

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

#216

Post by fghtr »

tomp wrote: post #22

> "A lot of the organised crime groups are becoming a lot more sophisticated in the ways they're trying to get things across the border. Is this the new "think of the children"? The reasoning seems to be, criminals would rather carry their "digital crime-thingys" across the border saved on their phones, than upload it (encrypted) somewhere on the internet... Or is NZ planning to build a Firewall as well (better than…

No, this is the old Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

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

#217

Post by [deleted] »

Johnny555 wrote: post #182
paradite wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#219

Post by justtopost »

r1ch wrote: post #111

I don't know how others feel, but if I kept control of the device I would feel much more comfortable with this process. The fact that they can make me unlock the device then take it out of my sight and do unknown things to it means I can no longer trust the device or any of its files (eg private keys, access tokens, etc that may be stored on it). If they sit down with me and allow me to maintain control of the device…

Oh yeah, being forced to knowingly show my privates to a stranger is slightly better than the stranger taking that look on their own without my knowledge and consent. Both are still bad.

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

#220

Post by komali2 »

jsilence wrote: post #167
WaylonKenning wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Riddle me this - what is the alternative? Don't look at a phone? Why do we look inside suitcases? Why have the concept of customs? We search things across borders for things our country does not want. We don't want drugs. We don't want fresh fruit (which will trip up more people than drugs). We don't want child porn. And if a phone is a container for that content, we want to be able to explore the container. Of cours…

What about "probable cause" or "innocent until proven guilty"? Why would I have to accept being strip searched without a warrant?

Given the content of most people's phones, a file by file phone search should be considered at least equivalent to a strip search, maybe even a cavity search depending on how freaky the person gets with their selfies.

Worse still is it's a nonconsensual, uninformed strip search of any sexual partners that person has...

Post reply on HN