3 ms·

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

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.
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    >Basically I don’t think that this logically extends from suitcases to full phone access I get that you don't think that is the case, but you're not really explaining why you believe so. > but to be concerned about a persons digital life is a concern of a different kind But as I said, they're just inspecting the same thing they've always been inspecting. The medium is different and it incidentally happens to be housed with a bunch of different data that historically was kept separate, purely for technological reasons. You're implying that the cause here is "concern over a person's digital life" but you present no statement or proof that's what these policies are actually aimed at. I think it's fairly obvious that it's a simple reconfiguration of a policy to adapt to changing habits. And if it's not obvious I think the statements from government agencies explaining these policy changes shed further light on why it's being done. But you need to have a reason you believe this to not be the case. It can't just be. Let's review some statements that hit on some of the above points: Here's Canada, actively instructing people about to handle sensitive information: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/public-safety-and-law-enforcement/your-privacy-at-airports-and-borders/#toc1a https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/public-safety-and-l... >Individuals entering Canada who are concerned about how this policy might be applied may wish to exercise caution by either limiting the devices they travel with or removing sensitive personal information from devices that could be searched. Another potential measure is to store it on a secure device in Canada or in a secure cloud which would allow you to retrieve it securely once you arrive at your destination. Here's New Zealand's review of why they're changing the law: https://www.customs.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/c--e-submissions/c-and-e-act-1996-review-discussion-paper-2015.pdf https://www.customs.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/c--e-subm...: From page 63: >Customs’ interest in relation to digital files is in the following enforcement areas: > * Intercepting prohibited or restricted items > * Identifying infringements of intellectual property rights From page 64: >Our Act does enable us to enforce the law in relation to the following prohibited goods when they are in a digital format: > * Objectionable material and images – “objectionable” has a very broad definition under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, and can capture material ranging from violent or degrading sexual images to material that encourages criminal acts or terrorism > * Designs for weapons or for other items of potential military use > * Designs and blueprints for making nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological weapons. Pretty far away from "concerns about a person's digital life." >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. This analogy in no way is relevant to data organization and transmission. It's pretty hyperbolic and distracts from any point you are trying to make.

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.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >Basically I don’t think that this logically extends from suitcases to full phone access I get that you don't think that is the case, but you're not really explaining why you believe so. > but to be concerned about a persons digital life is a concern of a different kind But as I said, they're just inspecting the same thing they've always been inspecting. The medium is different and it incidentally happens to be housed with a bunch of different data that historically was kept separate, purely for technological reasons. You're implying that the cause here is "concern over a person's digital life" but you present no statement or proof that's what these policies are actually aimed at. I think it's fairly obvious that it's a simple reconfiguration of a policy to adapt to changing habits. And if it's not obvious I think the statements from government agencies explaining these policy changes shed further light on why it's being done. But you need to have a reason you believe this to not be the case. It can't just be. Let's review some statements that hit on some of the above points: Here's Canada, actively instructing people about to handle sensitive information: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/public-safety-and-law-enforcement/your-privacy-at-airports-and-borders/#toc1a https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/public-safety-and-l... >Individuals entering Canada who are concerned about how this policy might be applied may wish to exercise caution by either limiting the devices they travel with or removing sensitive personal information from devices that could be searched. Another potential measure is to store it on a secure device in Canada or in a secure cloud which would allow you to retrieve it securely once you arrive at your destination. Here's New Zealand's review of why they're changing the law: https://www.customs.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/c--e-submissions/c-and-e-act-1996-review-discussion-paper-2015.pdf https://www.customs.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/c--e-subm...: From page 63: >Customs’ interest in relation to digital files is in the following enforcement areas: > * Intercepting prohibited or restricted items > * Identifying infringements of intellectual property rights From page 64: >Our Act does enable us to enforce the law in relation to the following prohibited goods when they are in a digital format: > * Objectionable material and images – “objectionable” has a very broad definition under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, and can capture material ranging from violent or degrading sexual images to material that encourages criminal acts or terrorism > * Designs for weapons or for other items of potential military use > * Designs and blueprints for making nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological weapons. Pretty far away from "concerns about a person's digital life." >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. This analogy in no way is relevant to data organization and transmission. It's pretty hyperbolic and distracts from any point you are trying to make.