Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Technology

New Zealand Travelers Refusing Digital Search Now Face $5000 Customs Fine (msn.com) 247

Travelers in New Zealand who refuse to hand over their phone or laptop passwords to Customs officials can now be slapped with a $5000 fine. From a report: The Customs and Excise Act 2018 -- which comes into effect today -- sets guidelines around how Customs can carry out "digital strip-searches." Previously, Customs could stop anyone at the border and demand to see their electronic devices. However, the law did not specify that people had to also provide a password. The updated law makes clear that travelers must provide access -- whether that be a password, pin-code or fingerprint -- but officials would need to have a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. "It is a file-by-file [search] on your phone. We're not going into 'the cloud.' We'll examine your phone while it's on flight mode," Customs spokesperson Terry Brown said. If people refused to comply, they could be fined up to $5000 and their device would be seized and forensically searched. Mr Brown said the law struck the "delicate balance" between a person's right to privacy and Customs' law enforcement responsibilities. "I personally have an e-device and it maintains all my records -- banking data, et cetera, et cetera -- so we understand the importance and significance of it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Zealand Travelers Refusing Digital Search Now Face $5000 Customs Fine

Comments Filter:
  • by ichthus ( 72442 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @10:23AM (#57404040) Homepage
    The term "digital search" is a bit ambiguous. (Prostate exam comes to mind) Is this really what search electronic devices is called?
    • The term "digital search" is a bit ambiguous. (Prostate exam comes to mind) Is this really what search electronic devices is called?

      The abstract above specifies what the digital search entails. Sorry, no digits on the prostate. I'm sure if you told them you had a bag of crack up your crack they might investigate- but it probably won't be from a pretty nurse.

    • Re: Digital search? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lanthanide ( 4982283 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @01:41PM (#57405924)

      Relying to this top comment so more people see this.

      As an NZ citizen I think this isn't a great development and understand why people in these comments are setting don't go to NZ and only take burner electronics with you etc.

      What is missing, is that the border service currently only request searches of electronic devices about 500 times a year, total, across all border arrivals. That's a little over 1 per day across the whole country.

      You have to be a suspect in the first place before they ask for your device. They don't expect the number to increase due to the new policy.

      So yes, this is an unfortunate development and it'd be better if they didn't have these powers. However you have to be pretty damn "unlucky" to be targeted by this policy in the first place. 99.9999% of border crossers have nothing to worry about.

      • by JackSpratts ( 660957 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @03:57PM (#57407014) Homepage

        wanna bet those numbers increase?

        - js.

      • Thanks for that. I was not aware of those extra details you provided.
        However, as an NZ citizen also, any time I return from overseas if a customs agent asks for my phone unlock I will be telling him no and contesting the $5,000 fine in court.
    • Re: Digital vacuum? (Score:5, Informative)

      by thomst ( 1640045 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:02PM (#57406122) Homepage

      It is important to keep in mind that NZ is a party to the "Five Eyes [wikipedia.org]" intelligence-sharing partnership (the others being the USA, Great Britain, Canada, and Australia). Why that's important is that the agreement between them specifies that any intelligence developed by any of the parties is made freely available to the others, both in regular summary reports, and in full, upon request.

      What that means on a practical level is that any data NZ's Customs folks uncover in their search of arrivals' devices that they decide might be of interest to any one of their three national intelligence-gathering organizations is automagically rendered to them. They, in turn, make that data available to the other four signatories' national spies. As Edward Snowden's massive document dump revealed, a key goal of the alliance is to enable the signatories to thwart the limits their own laws place on surveillance and intelligence-gathering activities directed at their own citizens and legal residents. (Appropriately enough, the NZ Herald ran an in-depth report on the subject [nzherald.co.nz] in its March 5, 2015 edition. It makes for interesting reading, both because its viewpoint is a non-U.S. one, and because it traces the kind of egregious, systematic overreach that the port-of-entry personal electronics search policy TFS exemplifies specifically to the administration of NZ's National Party leader and (now-former) Prime Minister John Key [wikipedia.org].)

      As an example of how the Five Eyes alliance enables its signatories' end-run around their own citizens' privacy protections, Snowden likes to point to a routine tactic that he, as an IT contractor for the NSA, personally witnessed every day: when an NSA analyst wants to look at the phone record metadata, web browsing history, email, and/or other "signals intercept" intelligence on a citizen of the USA who currently resides within its borders - which it is legally forbidden to do without first obtaining a FISA court warrant - he or she need only inform GCHQ (Britain's version of the NSA) of that desire. One of GCHQ's analysts then uses the spy tech that the NSA shares with GCHQ - often the exact same program the NSA person is running - to look up the requested record in GCHQ's database, and helpfully sends a copy of the results to his or her NSA counterpart.

      Employing the narrowest possible interpretation of both countries' legal strictures, the search itself is not technically forbidden by U.S. law, because the actual surveillance and initial data acquisition was performed by GCHQ (albeit on the NSA's request), and that organization is not bound by U.S. statutes or Constitutional prohibitions on searches and seizures conducted without the shield of a judicial warrant. And the fact that GCHQ's analyst shared the results with the one from the NSA is, likewise, not illegal, for the same reason.

      That kind of data sharing, which is based on the sketchiest possible interpretation of the respective nations' laws, happens thousands of times per day - and it works both ways.

      Or, rather, I should say it works all five ways ...

      • by Hylandr ( 813770 )

        Or, rather, I should say it works all five ways ...

        10 ways if it's bi-directional.

        • by Hylandr ( 813770 )

          I suck at maths,

          5 ways times 5 ways == 25, bi-directional means 50 ways. At least. Then there's data stored someplace where it may or may not be or have been or is about to be, compromised by flaw or design, etc.

          But I digress.

          here's a few extra commas, place them wherever you want. ,,, , ,,,

          • I suck at maths, 5 ways times 5 ways == 25, bi-directional means 50 ways.

            You still suck at math. Five parties sharing means for each party there are four others to share with. Five parties sharing with the other four is 20 ways. Since the reverse direction is included, it's still just 20.

            • by Hylandr ( 813770 )

              Fair enough.

              How many parallel dimensions in a quantum state do you feel safe adding to the equation? Cause in one of those realms I can actually do math. Lol.

            • by martinX ( 672498 )

              Every which way but loose.

  • $5000 fine? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @10:26AM (#57404068)
    $5000 fine might be worth paying, depending on the circumstances, if the alternative is jail or loss of corporate secrets. Way around this is either an erased phone or an SD card with a smaller capacity stamped on it with plus an encrypted partition on the remainder. If what's on the unencrypted partition is innocuous, this should stand up to a casual search at least.
    • Re:$5000 fine? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MasseKid ( 1294554 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @10:30AM (#57404120)
      Don't bring personal/business electronics across borders. It's that simple.
      • Re:$5000 fine? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by olsmeister ( 1488789 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @10:37AM (#57404196)
        It's even simpler than that. Don't go to New Zealand.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          It's even simpler than that. Don't go to New Zealand.

          Or America, or pretty much anywhere, since pretty much all border agents have the legal authority to search your stuff, including your phone.

          It's not like New Zealand is the only place where this applies.

          Hell, in America since the "border" is now arbitrarily within 100 miles of the actual border, that is most of the population. And the US Border Patrol have already set up checkpoints in random places and demanded ID.

          So, if you live in the US, don't go ge

          • Actually CBP merely request ID and legal status.

            The problem is that when an aggressive uniform with sidearm gets in your face and states "Are you a citizen? I need to see some ID!" it does rather come across as a demand.

        • That's rather unfortunate. Hopefully this nonsense gets thrown out.

          New Zealand is a beautiful country and one that I would like to visit again. The people were all very nice, but the bozos they've elected as lawmakers don't appear to share some of those same traits.
      • by mccrew ( 62494 )
        I'll take "Blame the Victim" for $400, Alex.
      • Don't bring personal/business electronics across borders. It's that simple.

        Not really much of a choice these days. Are you really going to go on a business trip without your laptop and phone? I'm sure your employer might have something to say about that. Are you really going to go on vacation without your smartphone? It's not that simple and pretending won't make it so.

        • Re:Not simple (Score:5, Informative)

          by Ed Tice ( 3732157 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @11:01AM (#57404474)
          My employer would have something to say about it. They would issue me burners. Or more likely have the local office give me a loaner while I'm there so I don't have to carry devices across the border. This just imposes a huge expense on business travelers in order to apprehend the dumbest of criminals.
          • My employer would have something to say about it. They would issue me burners.

            Then your employer is very unusual indeed. That isn't how most of them roll in my experience.

            This just imposes a huge expense on business travelers in order to apprehend the dumbest of criminals.

            It's a little worse than that. It also means some genuinely innocent people are going to get to be abused by the authorities. You're right that it will not catch anyone worth catching which should make one wonder what the real point is...

            • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              My employer would have something to say about it. They would issue me burners.

              Then your employer is very unusual indeed. That isn't how most of them roll in my experience.

              Any company that has ever been the victim of spying by a foreign nation state tends to have policies that limit exposure to future abuse.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Re:$5000 fine? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <.moc.eeznerif.todhsals. .ta. .treb.> on Monday October 01, 2018 @11:17AM (#57404606) Homepage

        All this does is disrupt legitimate travellers who have genuine need to carry such devices.

        Any serious criminal is going to be prepared for this... they will travel with devices containing nothing but a fresh install and download any data they want over an encrypted channel using the first internet connection they gain access to.

        Also, what assurances do you have that the government will be able to keep your data secure and not leak it somehow?

      • by xeoron ( 639412 )
        Bring a Chromebook and powerwash it before you leave the plane.
    • Re: $5000 fine? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dargaud ( 518470 ) <slashdot2@nOSpaM.gdargaud.net> on Monday October 01, 2018 @10:43AM (#57404264) Homepage
      I work in a critical field. My employer (the State by the way) requires my laptop and phone must be encrypted. I could lose my job or much worse of I give my password to anyone. So which law trumps the other one?
      • Unless you're on a diplomatic passport, the laws of the country you visit are going to take priority over whatever agreement you have with your employer when the rubber gloves come out, unless you enjoy that sort of treatment.
      • Re: $5000 fine? (Score:5, Informative)

        by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @11:01AM (#57404458) Homepage Journal

        I assume your employer has rules concerning travel with the laptop containing the oh-so-special secrets. Mine does. Leave it at home and take a burner. It's the cost of doing business and the burner costs less than $5000.

      • Re: $5000 fine? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @11:04AM (#57404496)

        So which law trumps the other one?

        I don't see a conflict.

        You'll already lose your job (and worse) if you travel to a country like North Korea or Iran.

        Just add New Zealand to that list. Do not go to New Zealand, or you may lose your job and possibly go to prison for the rest of your life. Or if you do go there with your devices on an official government business, you better make sure you have diplomatic immunity.

      • So which law trumps the other one?

        Sadly for you it doesn't matter most likely. The local authorities (where you physically are) can throw you in jail (or worse), possibly beat you with the xkcd wrench [xkcd.com], and keep your laptop for as long as they like. Hell they can torture it out of you if they like and you have little to no legal rights. Nation states aren't really accountable to anyone if they don't want to be. Unless you have some sort of diplomatic immunity and the security to back it up then you are fucked well and good. Your job st

        • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

          The local authorities (where you physically are) can throw you in jail (or worse), possibly beat you with the xkcd wrench [xkcd.com], and keep your laptop for as long as they like. Hell they can torture it out of you if they like and you have little to no legal rights. Nation states aren't really accountable to anyone if they don't want to be.

          It's also not entirely clear how much your own government will care about you if you get held by the local authorities.

          This is the great thing about living in a first world democracy, how we have the human rights we deserve because of how we protected them.

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        I work in a critical field. My employer (the State by the way) requires my laptop and phone must be encrypted. I could lose my job or much worse of I give my password to anyone. So which law trumps the other one?

        Sovereign jurisdictions each make their own rules, so both. But personally as an employee I would let the NZ goons do what they want and claim duress back home, it's their soil and their law. Do you think US customs would give a shit about NZ law? If they'll let me I might call my boss and try to escalate it past my pay grade, but if I'm not I'd take the defense that they beat me with a $5000 legal wrench. Assuming that you went there on a work trip by the employer's rules of course, if the rules say to get

    • The fine ALSO includes forfeiture of the device and subjecting it to analysis, and legally their country can continue to heap more penalties on you if you fail to provide access once their lawyers are involved.

      So, it's still probably 'not worth it'.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    If only there was some other way to transport digital information...

  • by zugmeister ( 1050414 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @10:33AM (#57404148)
    The ability to force you to cooperate in a fishing expedition targeting you won't be misused. Because I have a cell phone!
  • so we understand the importance and significance of it

    You clearly don't.

    • Well it is a ""delicate balance" between a person's right to privacy and Customs' law enforcement responsibilities". The balance being do it or we'll fine you five grand and do it anyway. Balance.
  • ITT: Reasons not to go to New Zealand.
    • a year ago, I was contacted by a recruiter in NZ, asking if I wanted to move there for a job. I was a little tempted, having gone thru a nasty dry period in employment here in the US.

      at this point, I'm so glad I didn't move to NZ. this article is very telling about the legal culture there. I want no part of it. we have that same crap here and I don't like it. in fact, it sounds worse in the british-oriented lands; UK, oz and NZ all seem like they're racing toward fascism even faster than the US is!

      glad

  • I personally have an e-device ...

    Sounds likely.

  • All digital devices should have a 2nd passcode that will wipe the device on the first successful attempt. That will probably cut down on passcode requests for fear of wiping the device.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Why not just a dual boot mode? Enter in passcode 1 and you get boot region 1 which can be a generic install with a few downloaded apps for cosmetics.

      Passcode 2 gets you the other boot region.

      Bonus points for some cheesy option that prevents boot region 2 from loading at all for some time window or number of reboots.

  • If you're traveling for business, ask about corporate policy with regards to this policy,

    If it is for personal equipment, it's cheaper to buy/rent something, than be forced to give up your personal/pirated data.

  • by CiXeL ( 56313 )

    Time to start carrying 'clean phones'

  • Cheap Cells are available everywhere.

    Just cross with a new phone and restore your data and settings from your backups over the internet with a VPN.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @11:19AM (#57404624)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by zarmanto ( 884704 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @11:19AM (#57404628) Journal

    One method which privacy protestors sometimes favor is wiping their phone prior to entering the airport terminal, and restoring it to normal after leaving... and with the ubiquity of encryption on smart phones, that makes it extremely likely that a forensic search would be entirely fruitless, regardless of the methods employed. So how long will it take for airport authorities to decide that a wiped phone qualifies as a refusal to comply?

    • I think there could be a market for burner social media accounts and some innocuous cruft to put on your storage device.
  • Shouldn't they be worried about the data that is leaving the country? Not the stuff coming in? Anything from state secrets to kiddie porn, they need the be looking for the stuff on its way out, not in.

    • Shouldn't they be worried about the data that is leaving the country?

      They're not looking for "data". They're not looking for your company's magical design for the next cancer cure. They're not looking for the secret financial data that proves that your company is screwing the IRS.

      They're looking for data that would indicate that you are not traveling for the purpose you claimed on your entry permit or visa. If you are on a tourist visa, then if they suspect that you are actually on business they will ask to see your phone's data. That SMS you forgot to delete that says "Th

      • by PPH ( 736903 )

        None of this matters. Anything stolen or generated in-country illegally will be caught going outbound. They don't check for that.

        If you are on a tourist visa, then if they suspect that you are actually on business

        If I was on business, I'd be more than happy to declare that. And then on my way out, I'd just tell customs that the deal fell through because the regulatory environment in their country was shit. And if they push me, I'll tell them that I'd be more than happy to inform their local press about how a $10 billion investment deal just slipped away.

        • If I was on business, I'd be more than happy to declare that.

          That's swell. If everyone was such a law-abiding conscientious citizen there'd be no need for police of any kind. I think the point is that not everyone is, and these folks have a job to do. There are certainly people who would claim holiday status while coming for work, especially if they are from a country that requires an actual visa before entry, or if they are bringing in high-dollar samples that they intend to leave behind. That's the kind of thing they're looking for.

          And then on my way out, I'd just tell customs that the deal fell through because the regulatory environment in their country was shit.

          You don't talk to customs on the

  • So what do they do in North Korea or China?
    The same thing?
    Besides NZ being 20k miles away by plane as a reason to to visit, I don't have anything on my non-smart phone but I still wouldn't go.
    Yes America can do this too but at least I can stay in the country and not have to deal with customs.

    • Nowhere on earth is 20,000 miles away. The earth is less than 25,000 miles in circumference.
      Good to see the American education system at work.

  • by thevirtualcat ( 1071504 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @12:04PM (#57404988)

    "Mr Brown said the law struck the 'delicate balance' between a person's right to privacy and Customs' law enforcement responsibilities."

    Yes. A "delicate balance" wherein customs officials can do whatever they want to your device and slap you with a $5000 fine if you refuse to comply and you have no recourse if you think they're acting in bad faith.

    In so far as dropping an anvil on one side of the scale is a "delicate balance," I suppose that's true.

    • is that rich people just pay the fine and us poor slobs take our chances and hope they don't turn up anything.
      • by khchung ( 462899 )

        is that rich people just pay the fine

        Did you miss the part about "their device would be seized and forensically searched"?

        Yes, they might be unable to unlock your device, but you will still lose the device.

  • Does this extend to encrypted data stored on such devices?
    So what you can log in if it's all encrypted anyway...

    It appears this could only be effective for an ad-hock searches of hobbyist criminals and would do nothing for professionals?

  • I'm curious what customs expects to find on my phone that a normal strip search would find? Weapons? Is there a way to smuggle in drugs, or farm animals, or plant life on my phone that I'm missing? Is this all about child porn??
  • by CAOgdin ( 984672 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @12:51PM (#57405446)

    ...Freedom of Speech. I am appalled by the NZed politicians if this is the way they want to treat travelers

    Mine is one family that will continue to travel to Australia, when I can, but I have now put NZed on my "Anti-democratic government" list, until wiser souls in the NZed government returns to its' senses and quashes this kind of nihilism. And, I had such great hopes with their new Prime Minister!

    • ...Freedom of Speech. I am appalled by the NZed politicians if this is the way they want to treat travelers

      Mine is one family that will continue to travel to Australia, when I can, but I have now put NZed on my "Anti-democratic government" list

      LOL! So much stupidity in one small comment.
      Let me guess, you'll go live in Canada if America introduces universal healthcare? That's the level of intelligence you're expressing saying you'll go to Australia if NZ take your electronic devices.

      To say NZ is anti-democratic is even more moronic, being in 4th position in the world on the democracy index, listed as "full democracy" (Australia is 8th, United States 21st and classified as a "flawed democracy"):
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      Finally, thank god yo

  • It seems to always hinge on that word and it generally works out as a way to target groups of people that aren't doing amything really wrong except not rolling over.

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Working...