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

301–310 of 647 posts

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

#301

Post by malnourish »

paradite wrote: post #272
ehrtt wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me ask you this hypothetical question instead: What if we have a "brain encryption" technology that allows encrypting your brain so that brain scanners, thought detecting methods or emotion detectors cannot see through it? Would customs be allowed to ask for the decryption key? Or should the customs just ignore whatever is encrypted inside?

Of course they should be allowed to do so. That would eradicate drug trafficking and cross-border terrorism. I would say the benefit is too good, weighing against privacy.

It wouldn't stop those things though, there will always be a weak point. What it would do is erode the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens (something that terrorists seem to want).

Furthermore, if you want to stop drug trafficking, legalize them.

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

#302

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

eesmith wrote: post #130
gdhbcc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All countries can demand it. They are sovereign. Are you asking which countries do demand it?

I think you should read that as: "Which countries have laws which allow border inspectors to demand usernames/passwords to online services?" Those which do demand it are a subset of those which can demand it. Your sovereignty argument is such an extreme interpretation of the question that it's almost certainly not what plg had in mind - if plg did have it in mind, then I find it hard to believe that question would ha…

Laws are irrelevant.

What are you, the individual, going to do when a border agent takes your device and demands your password? “We’re just going to take this for a few minutes, what’s your password? Oh you won’t tell us? Sit in this room for 400hrs. Ok, thank you, you’re free to go, enjoy your stay.”

Nothing. There’s nothing you can do.

Lodging complaints after the fact doesn’t unviolate you.

You can be a renown children’s author and the best you can hope for is an apology.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-25/mem-fox-detained-at-lo...

And that from an ally. Not just any ally, Australia is the US’s best friend.

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

#303

Post by nil_pointer »

ergothus wrote: post #203
Shivetya wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the end result will be any system which is not familiar to the officials who are doing the checks or compatible with their scanning technology will simply be confiscated upon entry. the only safe harbor will be one you don't carry with you except as a device which can guarantee secure access to that remote information.

I recall a story from long ago: user is requested to boot their laptop by airline security. They boot, which drops to a linux (bsd?) command line. Agent is not pleased. User sets PS1 so the prompt now looks like DOS. Agent is satisfied (they may just have been satisfied that the device worked, but this story dates from when a DOS prompt was a believable thing for someone to recognize as "computer" )

This story doesn't sound beleivable. As soon as the agent starts attempting commands, they'd see it's not DOS.

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

#304

Post by buboard »

gsnedders wrote: post #137
mic47 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

difference is that if they keep something from my suitcase, I will know. I have no such guarantees when they access my phone unless I see what they are doing. That means, that you should expect your device and all access tokens on that device compromised.

I mean, they could cut copies of any keys you have on you, so you don't really have any guarantees there either, and you should therefore expect your locks to be compromised. Or they could photocopy any paper documents, etc.

Difference is , they need to break into your house to steal your bananas. Here, they steal the bananas along with the key.

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

#305

Post by m_eiman »

Wouldn't it be possible to conveniently hide your usual filesystem from the border officers by using the new APFS shared-filesystems-in-single-container feature, without having to pre-allocate and waste space for an additional hidden data partition?

Just install macOS like you normally do, set it up with a user and some basic data. Then create a new partition in the same container and install what you normally use (or even clone the first one, if that's possible).

Then set the basic one as default boot source, and hold alt on boot to select the other one to get work done.

A light version of the "hidden encrypted volume" solution, without any risk of overwriting your files.

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

#306

Post by ashelmire »

tomp wrote: post #36
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> before you travel, you upload the encrypted image and wipe the phone, then after passing through customs you restore That sounds like willfully evading customs, which is a serious crime.

So taking a knife out of my pocket and leaving it at home before boarding a plane is a serious crime?

Hey everybody, this individual is evading customs!

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

#307

Post by css »

debacle wrote: post #206
boobsbr wrote: post #51

> The updated law makes clear that travellers must provide access - whether that be a password, pin-code or fingerprint - but officials would need to have a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Does the Law in NZ have any provisions against self-incrimination? The US has the 5th Amendment, some countries in the Americas signed the American Convention on Human Rights. How does NZ deal with this issue? Can't it be consi…

The 5th amendment doesn't apply to non-citizens and doesn't mean as a US citizen that your device can't be confiscated on potentially frivolous suspicions.

In America the Bill of Rights applies to all people, irrespective of immigration status when dealing with criminal law. Immigration law is administrative, not criminal, which is why this behavior is allowed to occur in the States.

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

#308

Post by BraveKenny »

capdeck wrote: post #258
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…

But then it doesn't make any difference -- they'll tell you to do what they'll do anyway. And if you refuse -- the same punishment applies (fee, prison, etc...)

It does make a difference, though, in that at least you would know what was done with your device. (especially if you are the one actually handling the device)

I can see plenty of those inspection scenarios where I would not want to crush my device into pieces afterwards. And plenty of others where I would. There lies the difference.

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

#310

Post by dctoedt »

gdhbcc wrote: post #86
plg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

question: what countries on border entry can demand usernames/passwords to online services?

All countries can demand it. They are sovereign. Are you asking which countries do demand it?

> All countries can demand it. They are sovereign.

"Sovereign" is a fancy word that boils down to, we have enough police- and/or military power at our disposal that we can force you to do it.

Post reply on HN