5 ms·

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 devic

by grkvlt 8y ago

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, since I rather doubt they are doing this at random...! 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_i...

jsilence 8y ago
"At first I did not say anything because they were only after ...."
nemo44x 8y ago
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.
- dumbfounder 8y ago
  Has anyone taken a steganographic approach to this? Just have a bunch of pictures of cats (or something more believable, like porn) in a partition, then you overlay sensitive data (encrypted). So you don't have a mysterious partition that is easily found. Obviously you can't store a ton of data that way though. You could even take the same approach with the program itself, hide it inside something else. (I imagine it would still be detectable by someone sophisticated enough, but might make it more difficult)
  - nemo44x 8y ago
    Right but there will be just be a law that specifies anyone trying to purposely circumvent the search will be accused of a felony. Of course the vast majority will agree because of "safety" and "if you have nothing to hide...".
  - bigiain 8y ago
    As a "stupid thought experiment" that's a fun thing to consider. (Somewhere I've got a proof-of-concept perl script that steganographically embeds PGP encrypted messages into an image of the FBI logo and posts them to Twitter. I would not ever actually use it in anger... I still have the private key for all my test/gag posts, just in case I ever need them...) But if you're _actually_ crossing a border into a country where there's internet access, why would you risk carrying any data that you wouldn't put on a postcard across that border? If you need it, download it after you've got there.
- capdeck 8y ago
  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.
  - nemo44x 8y ago
    The step after is an "express pass" that has you download software that constantly monitors your usage and uploads it to TSA and related. Helpful widgets and dashboards will be available to see at what level of compliance you're at and used like a credit rating for participating in society.
EugeneOZ 8y ago
While I know they have such imbecile laws, I just avoid visiting this country.
- bigiain 8y ago
  Sadly, if your username implies Australia instead of not-in-Kansas-anymore - we're almost certain to get even stupider laws than this fairly soon...
  - brokenmachine 8y ago
    Sad but true... Mostly they sneak them in during Finals weeks or other distractions. https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/647615/ https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/647615/ https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/consultations/assistance-and-access-bill-2018 https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/consultations/assistanc... They are clearly clutching at straws using the story about the rapist as a reason to want no judicial oversight for the ability to spy on all citizens. Why can't they get the messages from the teenagers phones, if they know they were sent?
A2017U1 8y ago
This only applies to those passing through international customs, under 4 million arrivals last year, half of them Australian, who bypass customs anyway. Searching for the 540 figure it appears to be mobile phones only, there was another 300 computers. So ~840 searches for 2 million people. https://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/tourism/tourism-research-data/international-travel/international-visitor-arrivals-commentary https://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/to... https://fyi.org.nz/request/1119-how-many-digital-devices-are-searched-at-the-border https://fyi.org.nz/request/1119-how-many-digital-devices-are...
- grkvlt 8y ago
  I agree; your 1 in 2500 figure gives a slightly different picture of things... About 30x as many travelers being searched. /* I guess adding mobile and computer searches is wrong though, since some sizable fraction of computer owners have a mobile and would thus have had both searched. So maybe 650-700 searches? Doesn't change the magnitude of the resulting figures much, I suppose. */
- angry_octet 8y ago
  Umm, no, Australians don't get to bypass NZ customs. What if we had some seeds or dirt on our shoes? Or <shock> some fruit? But yeah there wouldn't be many searches.
yarrel 8y ago
On the other hand let's not get complacent. At all.
Darthy 8y ago
In other words, there is a 0.00135% chance you will be fined $5000. ...anybody wanna sell insurance?

by grkvlt 8y ago

jsilence 8y ago

"At first I did not say anything because they were only after ...."

nemo44x 8y ago

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.

dumbfounder 8y ago
Has anyone taken a steganographic approach to this? Just have a bunch of pictures of cats (or something more believable, like porn) in a partition, then you overlay sensitive data (encrypted). So you don't have a mysterious partition that is easily found. Obviously you can't store a ton of data that way though. You could even take the same approach with the program itself, hide it inside something else. (I imagine it would still be detectable by someone sophisticated enough, but might make it more difficult)
- nemo44x 8y ago
  Right but there will be just be a law that specifies anyone trying to purposely circumvent the search will be accused of a felony. Of course the vast majority will agree because of "safety" and "if you have nothing to hide...".
- bigiain 8y ago
  As a "stupid thought experiment" that's a fun thing to consider. (Somewhere I've got a proof-of-concept perl script that steganographically embeds PGP encrypted messages into an image of the FBI logo and posts them to Twitter. I would not ever actually use it in anger... I still have the private key for all my test/gag posts, just in case I ever need them...) But if you're _actually_ crossing a border into a country where there's internet access, why would you risk carrying any data that you wouldn't put on a postcard across that border? If you need it, download it after you've got there.
capdeck 8y ago
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.
- nemo44x 8y ago
  The step after is an "express pass" that has you download software that constantly monitors your usage and uploads it to TSA and related. Helpful widgets and dashboards will be available to see at what level of compliance you're at and used like a credit rating for participating in society.

EugeneOZ 8y ago

While I know they have such imbecile laws, I just avoid visiting this country.

bigiain 8y ago
Sadly, if your username implies Australia instead of not-in-Kansas-anymore - we're almost certain to get even stupider laws than this fairly soon...
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  Sad but true... Mostly they sneak them in during Finals weeks or other distractions. https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/647615/ https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/647615/ https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/consultations/assistance-and-access-bill-2018 https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/consultations/assistanc... They are clearly clutching at straws using the story about the rapist as a reason to want no judicial oversight for the ability to spy on all citizens. Why can't they get the messages from the teenagers phones, if they know they were sent?

A2017U1 8y ago

This only applies to those passing through international customs, under 4 million arrivals last year, half of them Australian, who bypass customs anyway. Searching for the 540 figure it appears to be mobile phones only, there was another 300 computers. So ~840 searches for 2 million people. https://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/tourism/tourism-research-data/international-travel/international-visitor-arrivals-commentary https://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/to... https://fyi.org.nz/request/1119-how-many-digital-devices-are-searched-at-the-border https://fyi.org.nz/request/1119-how-many-digital-devices-are...

grkvlt 8y ago
I agree; your 1 in 2500 figure gives a slightly different picture of things... About 30x as many travelers being searched. /* I guess adding mobile and computer searches is wrong though, since some sizable fraction of computer owners have a mobile and would thus have had both searched. So maybe 650-700 searches? Doesn't change the magnitude of the resulting figures much, I suppose. */
angry_octet 8y ago
Umm, no, Australians don't get to bypass NZ customs. What if we had some seeds or dirt on our shoes? Or <shock> some fruit? But yeah there wouldn't be many searches.

yarrel 8y ago

On the other hand let's not get complacent. At all.

Darthy 8y ago

In other words, there is a 0.00135% chance you will be fined $5000. ...anybody wanna sell insurance?