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

561–570 of 647 posts

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

#561

Post by torgian »

jboles wrote: post #469
dctoedt wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No; you are never forced to visit foreign countries. It's more along the lines of: you want to visit, you play by our rules .

Or in the case of a citizen of said country it’s, “you want to return home, play by our border rules, and btw you have no citizen rights because the border isn’t the country.”

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

#562

Post by bigiain »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #558
bigiain wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't travel with your primary devices or any devices with sensitive or even personal information on them - to any country ruled by totalitarian regimes, like China, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Canada, or the US... :sigh:

Or the UK, and probably a long list of other countries.

Five eyes, nine eyes, fourteen eyes. Most probably 195 eyes, although perhaps they'll be split 3 or 4 ways instead of one unilateral bloc of pervasive government overreach consisting of every country on earth...

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

#563

Post by Buge »

YZF wrote: post #557
patmcc wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>It ruined the vacation for me, and I've stopped visiting Canada because of how disgusted I felt afterwards. I don't blame you for this at all, but I will say this is bi-directional; as a Canadian, when I travel to the US, I get the same bullshit questioning and phone snooping on occasion. The current controversy on border crossing is that, despite marijuana becoming legalized in Canada shortly, if you admit to smok…

My experience is that entering Canada is a little less of a problem and that it's only become more of a problem due to pressure on the Canadians from the US to beef up their border security or else. The more strict checks seem to apply both to Canadians and non-Canadians. And entering Canada, the law is not actually suspended at the border and its vicinity .. unlike some other places. That said I've travelled dozens…

> And entering Canada, the law is not actually suspended at the border and its vicinity

So police in Canada can demand your unlocked phone at any point, not just at the border?

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

#564

Post by otterley »

mistersquid wrote: post #554
strictnein wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 100% the right solution, and there's a pretty easy way to accomplish this, with iPhones at least: Back up to iCloud Wipe your phone Cross the border Restore from iCloud And yes, this may fail visiting China, because who knows what the Great Firewall will block.

This is good advice but practitioners should be advised that iOS data backed up to iCloud can be decrypted by Apple and, as a result, is subject to subpoena by the authorities.

Attorney here! (Not giving legal advice.)

The good news is that, at least in the U.S., a warrant (not a subpoena, that’s for civil matters) needs to be issued by a judge and can issue only if probable cause is provided. That’s a much higher standard than a border search, where no such limitations apply.

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

#565

Post by tempodox »

> ...organised crime groups are becoming a lot more sophisticated in the ways they're trying to get things across the border.

So if it can be got across the border digitally, why would they put it on their phone that can be seized and searched?

The efficacy of this law wrt. the new challenges we face is at best questionable.

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

#566

Post by otterley »

ISL wrote: post #537
edraferi wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no right to privacy when crossing an international border. The solution is simple - don't carry any data you don't want to give to the country you're entering.

There should be for citizens of the United States re-entering the United States. It says so in the Constitution. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the perso…

Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice.)

The power to conduct border searches, even without probable cause, is considered well-settled under the law as not contravening the Constitution. See, e.g., U.S. v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977).

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

#567

Post by Tloewald »

scrollaway wrote: post #226
Tloewald wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twenty years ago, Nicholas Negroponte pointed out the irony that when he passed through Singapore customs, they searched his atoms but not his bits. Is being searched before you get on a plane or enter a customs checkpoint some kind of hideous infringement of your civil liberties? No! There’s no problem with this in principle. The problem is that it’s silly, and it causes a privacy and security violation while not ac…

Hey Tloewald, please don't pretend to speak for everyone when you say "being searched" isn't a problem in the first place. It's not a problem for you, fine. I'd ask you to let me search you but that'd only be to prove a point, so by all means keep accepting it. But when you say it's not a problem, you do not speak for me. It's pointless, degrading, and above all it's sad that you and many others accept it without que…

The principle here is people can agree to surrender some of their privacy for safety. The problem isn’t that searching my bits is a greater violation than searching my atoms, but that it’s not useful. Right now there’s no pattern of bits I can carry with me to blow up a plane and in any event I could easily bypass the search.

I’m not thrilled by the social contract, but it’s a good deal more convenient than driving across country.

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

#569

Post by samontar »

otterley wrote: post #564
mistersquid wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is good advice but practitioners should be advised that iOS data backed up to iCloud can be decrypted by Apple and, as a result, is subject to subpoena by the authorities.

Attorney here! (Not giving legal advice.) The good news is that, at least in the U.S., a warrant (not a subpoena, that’s for civil matters) needs to be issued by a judge and can issue only if probable cause is provided. That’s a much higher standard than a border search, where no such limitations apply.

Let’s be real. The law allows them sufficient room to detain people that they’ll just threaten to make life hard for you if you don’t do things the easy way.

The law is a post-facto thing which you can use to sue if you want to lose some years of your life. It never actually helps prevent a bad situation. And to make it worse you’ll probably effectively be banned from traveling for being a troublemaker.

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

#570

Post by scrollaway »

Tloewald wrote: post #567
scrollaway wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey Tloewald, please don't pretend to speak for everyone when you say "being searched" isn't a problem in the first place. It's not a problem for you, fine. I'd ask you to let me search you but that'd only be to prove a point, so by all means keep accepting it. But when you say it's not a problem, you do not speak for me. It's pointless, degrading, and above all it's sad that you and many others accept it without que…

The principle here is people can agree to surrender some of their privacy for safety. The problem isn’t that searching my bits is a greater violation than searching my atoms, but that it’s not useful. Right now there’s no pattern of bits I can carry with me to blow up a plane and in any event I could easily bypass the search. I’m not thrilled by the social contract, but it’s a good deal more convenient than driving a…

I'll sometimes surrender some privacy for some form of safety or convenience, but that safety/convenience has to exist, not be theoretical.

Positive example: I use Google Drive. I know full well Google could read and analyze all my shit if they wanted to. I surrender to that possibility in exchange for the very cheap and convenient online storage I get.

Negative example: Fuck the TSA and all its theatrics. Those aren't useful. Please do convince me they are; I don't see anyone even trying to pretend they are.

Post reply on HN