5 ms·

You are classically Missing The Point. Historically, your luggage would contain personal pictures, credit card numbers, general banking statements, generally p

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).
- justaguyhere 8y ago
  they would need a list of all users linked to passport numbers for every service available around the world At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, a person needs to punch in their SSN (or the equivalent in whichever country we are talking about) simply to access the internet and any service on the internet. But for today's case - this is just security theater. Just a reminder to average Joe that he can be harassed anytime.
mattnewton 8y ago
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 of to rummage through at their hearts content and find everything in it, and then wiretap your house. This process came about because the public hasn’t demanded privacy protections as much as it has demanded safety, not out of any logical extension for existing policies.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  > 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 policies. Why do you say this? I outlined how it was a natural progression and you just went "nah."
  - mattnewton 8y ago
    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.
Nullabillity 8y ago
> The need to inspect what you're bringing into the country has not. True. It went from zero to.. zero.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's extremely import to inspect what people are bringing into the country. Besides the financial... tools that people can bring into a country there's a whole host of other items that can negatively impact the country, and not just from a social aspect: * Invasive species. This includes plants, not just animals. * Drugs * In times of known or potential epidemics, screening people for obvious sickness. * Weapons or tools that could be used for the purposes of terrorism. Why would you say that there's no reason to inspect what people are bringing into your country?
  - Nullabillity 8y ago
    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.
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      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 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.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
If you bring a suitcase full of bananas in to Australia, customs will take them and detroy them, and probably prosecute you. If you bring an electronic device in to Australia full of 0s and 1s that can be decoded to display as pictures of bananas, customs will just think your a bananaphile and shuffle you along. Digital goods are fundamentally different. You can’t cross the border, buy a suitcase, then download a bunch of bananas to fill it. You can cross the border, buy a phone, then download instructions from your terrorist boss. Whatever else these digital searches are I don’t know, but they’re certainly ham fisted to the point of embarrassment for the agents and agencies.

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).

justaguyhere 8y ago
they would need a list of all users linked to passport numbers for every service available around the world At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, a person needs to punch in their SSN (or the equivalent in whichever country we are talking about) simply to access the internet and any service on the internet. But for today's case - this is just security theater. Just a reminder to average Joe that he can be harassed anytime.

mattnewton 8y ago

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 of to rummage through at their hearts content and find everything in it, and then wiretap your house. This process came about because the public hasn’t demanded privacy protections as much as it has demanded safety, not out of any logical extension for existing policies.

kadendogthing 8y ago
> 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 policies. Why do you say this? I outlined how it was a natural progression and you just went "nah."
- mattnewton 8y ago
  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.

Nullabillity 8y ago

> The need to inspect what you're bringing into the country has not. True. It went from zero to.. zero.

kadendogthing 8y ago
I'm pretty sure it's extremely import to inspect what people are bringing into the country. Besides the financial... tools that people can bring into a country there's a whole host of other items that can negatively impact the country, and not just from a social aspect: * Invasive species. This includes plants, not just animals. * Drugs * In times of known or potential epidemics, screening people for obvious sickness. * Weapons or tools that could be used for the purposes of terrorism. Why would you say that there's no reason to inspect what people are bringing into your country?
- Nullabillity 8y ago
  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.
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    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 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.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

If you bring a suitcase full of bananas in to Australia, customs will take them and detroy them, and probably prosecute you. If you bring an electronic device in to Australia full of 0s and 1s that can be decoded to display as pictures of bananas, customs will just think your a bananaphile and shuffle you along. Digital goods are fundamentally different. You can’t cross the border, buy a suitcase, then download a bunch of bananas to fill it. You can cross the border, buy a phone, then download instructions from your terrorist boss. Whatever else these digital searches are I don’t know, but they’re certainly ham fisted to the point of embarrassment for the agents and agencies.