Live data from Hacker News

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

radionz.co.nz

241–250 of 647 posts

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

#241
post #174

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…

I get your point....but a similar and more worrying thing is happening at the Canadian/US border right now. Entry to the US can be denied (for life even) if the customs agent suspects the traveler has involvement with Cannabis. That includes having investments in Cannabis companies. So if the take my phone and find any information on it connected to Cannabis I could be barred FOR LIFE from entry into the US. That mea…

Cannabis use is considered a “crime of moral turpitude”. So it’s legality elsewhere is irrelevant to the US.

However your scenario is inaccurate. Just as having a google search about murder weapons won’t bar you for life neither will search history about cannabis. They may ask why your interested in it... But learning about a crime is not equivalent to commiting the crime.

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

#242
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…

I might be wrong on this but according to this updated video[0] by James Duane, things have changed considerably due to Obama and a recent Supreme Court decision and even using the 5th improperly can be used against you.

[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8

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

#243
post #171
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah both partitions are 500GB... it's just that you avoid writing (or filling up) the "outer" partition so the "inner" partition is never overwritten.

how do you ensure this? afaik ext4 scatters its allocations across the partition, so it's only a matter of time before an allocation for a syslog entry wipes your .ssh/id_rsa

Colocating both roots on the same partition spells disaster, you will absolutely clobber data when the outer system boots. I have detailed in another post that the correct way is to put the sensitive root inside a largely empty decoy data partition, and no longer write there (but you can update timestamps in place).

Needless to say, using these schemes for SSD drives requires special consideration in regard to trimming.

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

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poli…

Basically I don’t think that this logically extends from suitcases to full phone access in the same way I don’t think that the right to bear arms allows you to train and arm a private army with tanks and fighter jets. At some point, it stops being a logical extension of a rule and starts being of a different kind due to changes in magnitude.

Here, a country may be concerned about objects being physically brought into their country, but to be concerned about a persons digital life is a concern of a different kind, because of the scope of that search. It’s not a logical extension in the minds of most people who understand that magnitude of difference. I really hope I can convince you too!

I don’t think that border patrol was (in any meaningful numbers) catching financial crimes because people brought their bank accounts or private letters across borders. I really do not buy that this is a necessary step to fight crime at all (if it were, where are the unsolved crimes? What tragedies would have been prevented?) I think this was catching people moving cash/drugs/weapons off the grid and it can still function in that capacity without forcing digital searches.

Instead, this just grossly invades the privacy of tourists who don’t think to bring a burner phone.

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

#245
post #50

How does this work for employer-provided devices? I'd be violating my employment contract and could be fired for providing customs with my password.

It would be a pretty pointless law if "my employer says I can't" were a defence. I mean, they are targeting organized crime...

I'm pretty sure that part of your contract would be invalid in such a case, especially if you were instructed to go to NZ.

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

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But I wonder why. If I am a resident of a country, why is that my rights suddenly go away at the border? Why is it that I have rights when I step out of the airport but when I am in it, I have no rights.

I am not criticizing what you said, I am curious.

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

#248
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets not get too excited. There were about 40 million passengers transiting NZ airports last year, according to Wikipedia.[0] The article says roughly 540 devices were searched in the same time period. That's 0.00135% or basically a dozen people per million being searched. That hardly seems like totalitarian overreach. In fact it seems quite restrained and pretty reasonable - and presumably must be intelligence led,…

Wait until they get more efficient at it. This kind of thing can be highly automated with software that only has to within a tuned degree of certainty determine who else needs additional screening. You can tune this precisely on how many humans you have around at a given time and can facilitate the "Enhanced search" of the devices.

The next step here is to ask Google to have an API that, when plugged in and password is entered - just downloads and "verifies" your data for compliance. Bit by bit all the freedoms will be eroded.

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

#249
post #48

I hope the spread of this sort of thing helps push forward general implementations of owner customizable Views and associated triggers of our systems and data rather then the long standing default of binary access/no access. All the technical foundations for this exist right now, and in the case of Apple in particularly they've already got it all together in every modern iDevice. They've got a well hardened and integ…

QubesOS enables some of this today, at high setup cost. iOS12 Shortcuts may enable this in the future, if apps can be tagged by users with custom metadata, which then drives a OS-wide policy engine. iOS "Screen Time" has arbitrary categories of apps, some of which incorrectly classify social apps (like Flipboard) as "Reading". This need to be customizable based on user priorities.

>QubesOS enables some of this today, at high setup cost.

While I think that it can't really work as I envision without hardware integration, in addition user friendliness is in fact a key part because this is another case where widespread adoption would have a kind of emergent "herd immunity" effect. The effect of introducing kill switches ("Activation Lock" in Apple terms) for phones is a good example. From an NYT article from that era [0] following Apple's general push of the feature:

>"Comparing data in the six months before and after Apple released its anti-theft feature, police said iPhone robberies in San Francisco dropped 38 percent. In London, they fell 24 percent."

>"In New York City, robberies (which typically involve a threat of violence) of Apple products dropped 19 percent and grand larcenies of Apple products dropped 29 percent in the first five months of 2014, compared with the same time period from 2013, according to a report from the New York attorney general’s office, which included data from the New York City Police Department. By comparison, thefts of Samsung products increased 51 percent in the first five months of 2014, compared with the same period a year ago, the report said."

Now, with jailbreaking before that it was already possible to have a relatively effective remote kill switch type of feature, and there were even commercial jailbreak products to that effect (or to try to track it down and find it). But when only one in thousands or tens to hundreds of thousands of phones might have something like that, it wouldn't have any larger effect beyond the specific feature working as intended and rendering the phone unusable (or letting it be recovered maybe). For criminals playing the odds it made no material difference overall, if they occasionally got a phone that "broke" after stealing it they'd just toss it. But once it was universal it changed the math on even trying in the first place and became not just a response but a deterrent.

By the same token if everyone had an easy level of adaptive viewing, it'd change the math for everyone else as well. And as a very compelling response to an entirely separate popular demand, if it was everywhere and normal it'd be a lot harder for even governments to single anyone out over it. Even government resources are not in fact infinite, and it's an important check on power as to whether they can engage in mass sweeps or must devote significant individualized attention to each case.

>iOS12 Shortcuts may enable this in the future, if apps can be tagged by users with custom metadata, which then drives a OS-wide policy engine.

I don't think Shortcuts can really handle this, at least not on a stock device.

>iOS "Screen Time" has arbitrary categories of apps, some of which incorrectly classify social apps (like Flipboard) as "Reading". This need to be customizable based on user priorities.

Screen Time on the other hand might represent a small step in this direction. I'd be excited if it was!

-----

0: https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/antitheft-technolo...

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

#250

This happened to me driving from the US into Canada with my significant other on a short vacation. After some routine questioning, the agent asked for our phones and passwords. Naturally, I hesitated and wanted to know why he needed to go through our phones. He didn't give a reason, but said if I refuse they'd hold us until their forensics team cracks the phone password anyway. I wanted to make a bigger deal about it…

There are bad agents everywhere. Just a numbers game after a while. I've done that border tons of times with no issue. Though, I will say that I take protective measures before I travel anyway. It's pretty easy to log out of an iCloud account and there is nothing on my computer that I care about that isn't backed up somewhere.
Post reply on HN