New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $5k Customs fine • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

HarryHirsch wrote: post #12

jackhack wrote: post #4

It's troubling to watch one of the most amazing places on earth transform itself into a totalitarian purgatory. Access to physical phone/laptop is only the first step -- mark my words. Big Brother's bureaucrats are never satiated. Next, we will have demands for passwords and unrestricted access to : email, facebook, photo sharing, hacker news posts, social media, etc. I see sudden spike in the market for burner phone…

totalitarian purgatory Nitpick: in Catholic dogma purgatory is a place of purification, those in purgatory know that they are there for a reason and only for a certain time, afterwards they enter heaven. Hell on the other hand, is for eternity and ugly. That's why the two are easily distinguished in their iconography, both involve imagery of flames, but souls in purgatory look joyful and those in hell look despondent…

[deleted]

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

#312

Post by AsyncAwait » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

paradite wrote: post #234

yholio wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's true for all encryption and privacy technology, it has dual use. We as a society must find the right balance and say, ok, there's no reasonable justification for owning 1 pound of plutonium, but there is a legitimate case for high encryption and privacy. This forum largely believes that the balance struck by New Zealand - that you don't have the right to data privacy when traveling - is completely unaccept…

Let me ask you this hypothetical question instead: What if we have a "physical encryption" technology that allows encrypting physical objects so that X-ray scanners, drug detecting methods or metal detectors cannot see through them? Would customs be allowed to ask for the decryption key? Or should the customs just ignore whatever encrypted inside?

Digital objects are different in that they usually contain your private memories, pictures etc. and it's entirely possible to reconstruct a complete network of your friends, family, history, affairs, trade secrets etc. from a single phone search.

Physical objects usually don't reveal this much at once and require a warrant. With a border phone search, there's no due process at all. If you're so afraid of bad actors that you're willing to subject yourself to this, you're free, but the bad actors have won.

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

#313

Post by dliff » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

jliptzin wrote: post #233

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…

This happened to my friend in Canada (who was born in and retains citizenship in Canada). They also told use they would use a spectrogram to determine if we had cannabis with us. I think it was an attempt to scare us, assuming we had very little knowledge. Turns out, their definition of spectrogram is tearing our entire car apart. Mostly the interior panels. Thought that was pretty interesting :-)

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

#314

Post by mcculley » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

laken wrote: post #276

mcculley wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use the iCloud Backup feature on my iPhone. It does not back up every night. It seems to be every other day or so. Right now, it reports that my phone was last successfully backed up 26.5 hours ago.

My understanding that it tries to do a backup every 24 hours, but only if it is both connected to a power source and on Wi-Fi.

That was also my expectation. I leave my phone plugged into the charger and on Wi-Fi every night while I sleep. Nevertheless, the iCloud Backup status usually shows that the last successful backup was more than 24 hours ago.

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

#315

Post by Nullabillity » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

kadendogthing wrote: post #289

Nullabillity wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) All of those also apply to inter-region travel within the same country. Should those have guarded borders too? Shouldn't there be guarded borders between neighborhoods in the same city, just to make sure that nothing bad spreads? Hell, why not run around "inspecting" people's houses at random, just in case? 2) None of those are digital, so your earlier justification is moot anyway.

I'm well aware none of those are digital. That was exactly the point, to provide reasons outside the scope of the current conversation, since it's clearly being debated in this thread. I don't think you can really debate the above reasons therefore there is absolutely a need to search you as a person and your belongings when crossing a border. As to your first statement, ignoring how disingenuous it is, if those stan…

> As to your first statement, ignoring how disingenuous it is, if those standards did have a reasonable justification for applying them to inter-regional travel the fact that we do not apply those policies to inter-regional travel does not negate the justification for applying those policies on the international border. It's not binary.

So what is that justifying difference that you seem to think exists?

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

#316

Post by yholio » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

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.

Actually, it would simply make terrorists avoid official border crossings. They could, for example, pay a human trafficker $2000 to get them over the border with Mexico.

Of course, you would then request for brain scanning technology to be more widely employed and that brain scanners be installed in the subway, on buses, gas stations and any other place drug dealers and terrorists could happen to go by. I think we all know what is the end for this line of reasoning.

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

#317

Post by beart » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

justtopost wrote: post #219

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.

I think this analogy is wrong. It is more like the difference between showing a stranger a picture of yourself naked vs handing the stranger a hard drive with naked pictures of yourself. In both cases, you know they are doing it but it is only in the former case where you can be slightly more informed of exactly what they are doing with that information.

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

#318

Post by AsyncAwait » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #202

Johnny555 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No smart criminal would. There are lots of dumb criminals, though.

Yes, and am not willing to have my privacy violated for dumb criminals.

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

#319

Post by coldtea » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

the_snooze wrote: post #274

woofcat wrote: post #271

I recently had to go to America for a wedding, due to these types of policies I always go through my phone and clean almost everything out of there. Photos, logout of Google, clean up downloads, etc. I don't have anything to hide, however having some random customs dude go into Google Photos which has over a decade of my life documented doesn't seem exactly ideal.

"I have nothing to hide" is just another way of saying "My friends and family are stupid for trusting me." Your devices don't just contain information that's sensitive to you.

And even he has lots of things to hide, he just doesn't know it. If he didn't he'd made his emails and all photos and file public.

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

#320

Post by paradite » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

malnourish wrote: post #301

paradite wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It wouldn't stop those things though, there will always be a weak point.

If that is your argument, then I don't think anyone can convince you.

> What it would do is erode the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens (something that terrorists seem to want).

That's not how Wikipedia (and I myself) define terrorism:

> Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a financial, political, religious or ideological aim.