6 ms·

Devil’s advocate: what _is_ wrong with that logic? If we accept that customs can search our persons or luggage as a condition of our entering a given country, w

Devil’s advocate: what _is_ wrong with that logic? If we accept that customs can search our persons or luggage as a condition of our entering a given country, what is it about digital materials that makes them off limits?

mseidl 8y ago
Also there could be explosives/drugs and other stuff in Luggage. What is the threat of shit on my phone?
- grkvlt 8y ago
  Your `/docs/plan-to-hijack-airnz-plane.txt` file might be seen as slightly dodgy?
  - sib 8y ago
    The problem is, `/docs/plan-to-hijack-airnz-plane.txt` can easily be downloaded from the cloud once you're in-country, so you can just not keep it on your phone. This is a significant difference compared to bring in explosives (as an example), where searching your luggage would actually be effective. Again, this law will primarily inconvenience / harm law-abiding folks, while not preventing the "bad guys" from doing what they want.
tokyodude 8y ago
Digital Materials are an extension of your brain, a window into your files, a key to your bank account and safe deposit box. The government doesn't get to access those, the shouldn't get to access my phone?
landonxjames 8y ago
Because there is a HUGE difference between the contents of your luggage (some clothes, maybe some souvenirs, etc.) and all of your digital accounts (personal pictures, credit card numbers, access to banking, home address, etc.) I don't really care if the TSA look at my underwear, but I don't want anyone, especially low level employees, having access to every single aspect of my life.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  You are classically Missing The Point. Historically, your luggage would contain personal pictures, credit card numbers, general banking statements, generally personal information, etc. The medium in which this information is stored and carried around has changed. The need to inspect what you're bringing into the country has not. These processes didn't originally come about because people wanted to inspect your 5 different pairs of underwear or what personal devices are exploring where the sun don't shine. The people decrying this as some sort of over reach are basically just admitting ignorance to the fact that these processes are just lagging behind how people actually carry and transmit the same information they've been inspecting for nearly a century. It's just a small update to continue doing what border patrol has always been doing. What's actually problematic is the there's so much information housed together on one device. In border patrol/guard/police in customs/etc attempt to, again, continue doing what they've always been doing that particular advance in policy and process has incidentally lead them at the forefront of a lot of information people used to either keep in their homes or just in their head. Personally I think this more of a data organization problem than it is a government over reach one. It definitely needs to be discussed. It doesn't need to include tired cries of a 1984-esque future.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - AlphaSite 8y ago
    It’s much harder for them to do something nefarious with physical documents. Not impossible, but it doesn’t really scale.
  - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
    This is a classic case of a law that will only effect your average (law-abiding) citizen. If you have something to hide, it would be trivial to store it on a web storage service that those searching you would have no way of knowing you possess (how would they know you have an account on some obscure storage platform that you paid for with monero? Or even just information stored in S3, they would need a list of all users linked to passport numbers for every service available around the world, since if they don't block VPNs you'll just use a service not available in NZ). So you wouldn't have it physically on your device, but you would be able to access it just as easily in 2018. Or a free solution would be a noise.raw file that is actually an encrypted volume (many encryption formats are indistinguishable from random data).
cc-d 8y ago
An equivalent example would be giving customs permission to search something private and located somewhere else, such as your house, simply because you're entering the country. This is an obvious and disgusting overreach of authority.
jonny_eh 8y ago
It's got your whole life in there. It's like allowing them to search your house first.
mic47 8y ago
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.
- gsnedders 8y ago
  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.
  - buboard 8y ago
    Difference is , they need to break into your house to steal your bananas. Here, they steal the bananas along with the key.
Shank 8y ago
I store information on my phone like my private thoughts, because I know that it’s an encrypted, secured device I always have with me. I wouldn’t store that information on paper — the best analogy is that it’s a backup of parts of my brain. When you go through customs, they can’t just search your brain. They can search your possessions, but they can’t mind dump you. That’s the critical distinction. It’s not my property that’s the problem. It’s that it’s an extension of my brain.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  ...it's not your brain, it's a fancy electronic notebook.
  - NearysApmonia 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Extended_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Extended_Mind
- deegles 8y ago
  They only reason border agents don't use a mind-dump machine is that they don't have the technology.
  - kotrunga 8y ago
    hahahahaha this is true
- mirkules 8y ago
  Continuing the "devil's advocate" perspective, perhaps the thinking that phones are an extension of the brain is the wrong way to think of them. > I know it's an encrypted, secured device I always have with me What if you didn't know that? What if you thought of it as just a suitcase? If someone carries a notebook that contains printed pages of encrypted material, what is the expectation? Whatever the answer to that question is, the expectation shouldn't change based on what medium the material is stored in.
- 8y ago
callinyouin 8y ago
IMO it's the breadth and depth that is possible with our digital property. It's one thing to search the digital equivalent of some luggage (maybe the contents of a cellphone) and another thing entirely to be able to search through the entirety of one's digital property, which I see as the digital equivalent of authorities searching through your home, your car, and any other property you might own.
flashmob 8y ago
Let's start that you've been visiting a website called "Hacker News". Explain that to the customs goons when they ask you what is it.
ben-schaaf 8y ago
I find it fine for them to require looking through digital material. The problem they have is that the digital material is complete nonsense without also having a password to decrypt it with. What should be off-limit to law enforcement in general are the secrets we keep in our memory.
vorpalhex 8y ago
My suitcase doesn't contain: + Communications with my lawyer + My private health information + My detailed financial information + My communications with significant others which may be of various degrees of sfw + My work files, including proprietary or secret information Any of those things would absolutely require a warrant, and may even require a specialized warrant in some cases (communications with my lawyer, health information).
- debacle 8y ago
  This is a nuanced topic (border security), and while I think there's slippery slopes (and their associated fallacies) in both directions, it is true to say that you are very free to share none of those things with border security, and border security is very free to not admit you to the country.
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    In most countries, border security isn't entirely free to run rampant over your basic freedoms. Privileged communications (eg client/attorney) is an extremely important basic bastion of freedom and law, and violating that (which in this case seems incidental, not intentional) is a mockery. Sure, any country is welcome to violate that norm, just the same as any country is welcome to force it's people in labor camps for insulting Dearest Leader. The rest of the world is also welcome to respond appropriately.
    - debacle 8y ago
      > In most countries, border security isn't entirely free to run rampant over your basic freedoms. Can you give me an example of a non-EU country, or an EU country admitting a non-EU citizen, that has strict rules on how a visitor must be treated?
buboard 8y ago
Primarily because you are not preinformed for the search. There is an expectation that your luggage may be searched, hence you dont put your favorute fetish items if you are easily embarrased. Most people don’t expect to have their sexting history searched (and possibly easily copied). Even if it has become legal, it is not a widely known practice, which means that in practice it violates human rights. Someone should take this to court, even if the only gain to be expected is Making it widely known, and -hopefully- people will stop voting to enable these authoritarian practices.
Zarath 8y ago
The contents of the phone aren't going to blow up a plane nor are they going to shoot someone in the head. Pretty obvious.

mseidl 8y ago

Also there could be explosives/drugs and other stuff in Luggage. What is the threat of shit on my phone?

grkvlt 8y ago
Your `/docs/plan-to-hijack-airnz-plane.txt` file might be seen as slightly dodgy?
- sib 8y ago
  The problem is, `/docs/plan-to-hijack-airnz-plane.txt` can easily be downloaded from the cloud once you're in-country, so you can just not keep it on your phone. This is a significant difference compared to bring in explosives (as an example), where searching your luggage would actually be effective. Again, this law will primarily inconvenience / harm law-abiding folks, while not preventing the "bad guys" from doing what they want.

tokyodude 8y ago

Digital Materials are an extension of your brain, a window into your files, a key to your bank account and safe deposit box. The government doesn't get to access those, the shouldn't get to access my phone?

landonxjames 8y ago

Because there is a HUGE difference between the contents of your luggage (some clothes, maybe some souvenirs, etc.) and all of your digital accounts (personal pictures, credit card numbers, access to banking, home address, etc.) I don't really care if the TSA look at my underwear, but I don't want anyone, especially low level employees, having access to every single aspect of my life.

kadendogthing 8y ago
You are classically Missing The Point. Historically, your luggage would contain personal pictures, credit card numbers, general banking statements, generally personal information, etc. The medium in which this information is stored and carried around has changed. The need to inspect what you're bringing into the country has not. These processes didn't originally come about because people wanted to inspect your 5 different pairs of underwear or what personal devices are exploring where the sun don't shine. The people decrying this as some sort of over reach are basically just admitting ignorance to the fact that these processes are just lagging behind how people actually carry and transmit the same information they've been inspecting for nearly a century. It's just a small update to continue doing what border patrol has always been doing. What's actually problematic is the there's so much information housed together on one device. In border patrol/guard/police in customs/etc attempt to, again, continue doing what they've always been doing that particular advance in policy and process has incidentally lead them at the forefront of a lot of information people used to either keep in their homes or just in their head. Personally I think this more of a data organization problem than it is a government over reach one. It definitely needs to be discussed. It doesn't need to include tired cries of a 1984-esque future.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- AlphaSite 8y ago
  It’s much harder for them to do something nefarious with physical documents. Not impossible, but it doesn’t really scale.
- ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  This is a classic case of a law that will only effect your average (law-abiding) citizen. If you have something to hide, it would be trivial to store it on a web storage service that those searching you would have no way of knowing you possess (how would they know you have an account on some obscure storage platform that you paid for with monero? Or even just information stored in S3, they would need a list of all users linked to passport numbers for every service available around the world, since if they don't block VPNs you'll just use a service not available in NZ). So you wouldn't have it physically on your device, but you would be able to access it just as easily in 2018. Or a free solution would be a noise.raw file that is actually an encrypted volume (many encryption formats are indistinguishable from random data).

cc-d 8y ago

An equivalent example would be giving customs permission to search something private and located somewhere else, such as your house, simply because you're entering the country. This is an obvious and disgusting overreach of authority.

jonny_eh 8y ago

It's got your whole life in there. It's like allowing them to search your house first.

mic47 8y ago

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.

gsnedders 8y ago
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.
- buboard 8y ago
  Difference is , they need to break into your house to steal your bananas. Here, they steal the bananas along with the key.

Shank 8y ago

I store information on my phone like my private thoughts, because I know that it’s an encrypted, secured device I always have with me. I wouldn’t store that information on paper — the best analogy is that it’s a backup of parts of my brain. When you go through customs, they can’t just search your brain. They can search your possessions, but they can’t mind dump you. That’s the critical distinction. It’s not my property that’s the problem. It’s that it’s an extension of my brain.

ForHackernews 8y ago
...it's not your brain, it's a fancy electronic notebook.
- NearysApmonia 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Extended_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Extended_Mind
deegles 8y ago
They only reason border agents don't use a mind-dump machine is that they don't have the technology.
- kotrunga 8y ago
  hahahahaha this is true
mirkules 8y ago
Continuing the "devil's advocate" perspective, perhaps the thinking that phones are an extension of the brain is the wrong way to think of them. > I know it's an encrypted, secured device I always have with me What if you didn't know that? What if you thought of it as just a suitcase? If someone carries a notebook that contains printed pages of encrypted material, what is the expectation? Whatever the answer to that question is, the expectation shouldn't change based on what medium the material is stored in.
8y ago

callinyouin 8y ago

IMO it's the breadth and depth that is possible with our digital property. It's one thing to search the digital equivalent of some luggage (maybe the contents of a cellphone) and another thing entirely to be able to search through the entirety of one's digital property, which I see as the digital equivalent of authorities searching through your home, your car, and any other property you might own.

flashmob 8y ago

Let's start that you've been visiting a website called "Hacker News". Explain that to the customs goons when they ask you what is it.

ben-schaaf 8y ago

I find it fine for them to require looking through digital material. The problem they have is that the digital material is complete nonsense without also having a password to decrypt it with. What should be off-limit to law enforcement in general are the secrets we keep in our memory.

vorpalhex 8y ago

My suitcase doesn't contain: + Communications with my lawyer + My private health information + My detailed financial information + My communications with significant others which may be of various degrees of sfw + My work files, including proprietary or secret information Any of those things would absolutely require a warrant, and may even require a specialized warrant in some cases (communications with my lawyer, health information).

debacle 8y ago
This is a nuanced topic (border security), and while I think there's slippery slopes (and their associated fallacies) in both directions, it is true to say that you are very free to share none of those things with border security, and border security is very free to not admit you to the country.
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  In most countries, border security isn't entirely free to run rampant over your basic freedoms. Privileged communications (eg client/attorney) is an extremely important basic bastion of freedom and law, and violating that (which in this case seems incidental, not intentional) is a mockery. Sure, any country is welcome to violate that norm, just the same as any country is welcome to force it's people in labor camps for insulting Dearest Leader. The rest of the world is also welcome to respond appropriately.
  - debacle 8y ago
    > In most countries, border security isn't entirely free to run rampant over your basic freedoms. Can you give me an example of a non-EU country, or an EU country admitting a non-EU citizen, that has strict rules on how a visitor must be treated?

buboard 8y ago

Primarily because you are not preinformed for the search. There is an expectation that your luggage may be searched, hence you dont put your favorute fetish items if you are easily embarrased. Most people don’t expect to have their sexting history searched (and possibly easily copied). Even if it has become legal, it is not a widely known practice, which means that in practice it violates human rights. Someone should take this to court, even if the only gain to be expected is Making it widely known, and -hopefully- people will stop voting to enable these authoritarian practices.

Zarath 8y ago

The contents of the phone aren't going to blow up a plane nor are they going to shoot someone in the head. Pretty obvious.