Australian Gov't Likes Intrusive Border Device Searches Just As Much As The US Does
from the privacy-continues-to-be-the-biggest-victim-of-terrorist-attacks dept
Australians will be thrilled to discover they won't have to visit the United States to have their electronic devices brutalized and mercilessly probed in the name of security. Why spend all that money flying halfway around the world when you can experience the same intrusive discomfort at home?
A British-Australian citizen travelling through Sydney airport has had his devices seized, and believes his laptop password cracked and his digital files inspected by Border Force officers, in what privacy groups say is a worrying development.
Nathan Hague, a 46-year-old software developer, was detained apparently at random for 90 minutes while the officers took his phone and password-protected laptop into a back room.
Hague had no reason to be treated with extra suspicion, but extra suspicion was there all the same, simply because the random selection process told border officers to be as intrusive as possible. He asked officers a reasonable question -- if you search my other belongings in public because I'm a randomly selected "threat," why can't you search my devices out in the open. There was, of course, no response.
Other questions about the Border Force's handling of the contents of Hague's devices also went unanswered. Officers refused to say whether data would be copied and/or retained, as well as refusing to explain what they were looking for.
Why did the Border Force perform this intrusive search? Because it can.
“Officers may question travellers and examine goods if they suspect the person may be of interest for immigration, customs, biosecurity, health, law-enforcement or national security reasons,” said a spokesperson for the ABF.
So, for any reason or no reason, so long as the word "security" is chanted during the proceedings. Who could limit the Border Force's intrusive, suspicionless searches? Only the people who've already decided they're not going to.
Under the Customs Act, officers have the right to examine travellers’ personal items, including accessing electronic devices and making copies of their files. The Customs Act imposes no legal threshold or requirement that officers need to meet in order to use this power
The Border Force offered quasi-reasons in defense of its handling of Hague and his devices. The law itself doesn't even compel a quasi-rationalization.
And the law might get worse. Proposed changes would give citizens with password-protected devices two choices: hand over the password or spend 5-10 years in prison. At this point, Hague was free to refuse the request, but that likely would have meant not seeing those devices again for weeks or months. The Border Force has extended an invitation to the software developer to file a complaint with its redress black hole, just in case Hague wants to spend more time being jerked around by the Australian government.
This is status quo in the so-called free world: suspicionless, highly-intrusive searches requiring minimal, if any, justification… all done in the name of national security. While citizens may realize a security/freedom tradeoff is necessary in some extreme cases, their governments have already determined the exchange rate and made it clear the freedom side will continue to lose value indefinitely.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, border search, confiscated, devices, laptops, nathan hague, phones, privacy, random search, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Of COURSE they love suspicionless searches!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My first thought is there was something else about Mr. Hague that drew their suspicion. That or the additional security measures were also random and he drew the shortest straw possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Border 'security', the dream job for voyeurs everywhere
Officers refused to say whether data would be copied and/or retained, as well as refusing to explain what they were looking for.
I think I can answer those for him, based upon their refusal to do so.
If the answer was 'no' then they would have said it, that they refused to answer means the default assumption is 'yes' to the first two, and 'whatever catches our eyes' for the third.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Ohh he has a cute wife/daughter etc. Lets see if he has any pictures of her on his devices. " every boarder control officer in AUS AU Ca etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is only illegal right now, in Britain and the USA to wipe data to prevent Customs from being able to get anything.
Of course, laws like Sarbanes Oxley in the USA or Perverting the Course Of Justics in Britain is spurring manufacturers of wiping software to improve their products.
That is what Evidence Eliminator does not exist anymore. Better products that make it harder for prosecutors to prove that you wiped data to hide data from investigators are being written all the disk.
Programs that completely wipe the disk make it all but impossible for prosecutors to prove you wiped the disk, once you have re-installed the operating system and all your programs.
That is why that part of Sarbanes Oxley needs to be repealed, as makers of wiping software will just make their products better and harder to detect.
The software developers, themselves, cannot be prosecuted in the United States or Britain for making usage of their products hard to detect, since all the latest programs now are manufactured outside the USA or Britain, so their products are not subject to the laws of the United States or Britain.
If prosecutors cannot prove the drive was ever wiped, they have no case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Encrypting data to hide it from Customs does not violate Sarbanes Oxley, in the USA, though it might be considered Perverting The Course Of Justice in Britain.
If they cannot decrypt your data, the worst that can happen to you is that you are denied entry. They cannot prosecute you for hiding data with encryption, so the worst that can happen is that you are denied entry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if you go to Australia, just make sure you don't land in Adelaide, when you first enter Australia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can look at it as a Chromebook where everything is already in the cloud. Have your normal Chromebook account. And then a Worthless account. When you're going to go to a boarder, wipe the Chromebook to new and then use your bogus account. You can have some worthless files on that account you don't care about just so it looks like you use it.
With Windows, It's harder as the files are normally all local. But it can be done. Don't do a simple delete as it can be easily restored. Your Smartphone, you can do the same. Setup 2 accounts. Your normal one and your B.S. One. All your normal stuff on an iPhone is backed up to iCloud right? Reset your phone, wiping it to new, and log in using your B.S. account. An account that has a few Important Phone numbers in it. Maybe a couple of apps. That's is. So long as it looks like your phone. You can even have it password protected. Here you go, I unlocked it, look away all you want!!!
Once through the checkpoint, go to the nearest McDonalds or where ever there's free Wifi, Reset your phone to new again, and restore with your real account. If you have a ton of stuff on your phone, get the important things like your contacts and stuff which are small files, and worry about all your apps later. Or you can go to the app store and do a search and load a few you really need up faster, giving them higher priority.
This is really what it's come down to. I have every right to my privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Haha - good one.
you aren't serious are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It exists. It's called "your own server".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you use a program that totally wipes the hard disk, and then reinstall the OS and all your programs, there is no possible way they could ever find out you wiped your device.
Having your own home VPN, or a VPN service is also good when using a public WiFi when travelling out out state.
California's computer crime law and the CFAA both require that you have used an illegally obtained password, for it to be illegal access, but that laws of some states may be different.
When I go to my favourite campground in Nevadafor stargazing, the nearest place I can go to get on the Internet is 65 miles away in Eureka, Nevada at the Sundowner Motel. I have a USB adapter with a 10 watt linear amplifier built in where I can park at the Chevron station in town to get onto the WiFi
While sitting at the gas station and using that motel's wifi, from about a mile away, without being a guest, does not violate the CFAA, I am not sure of Nevada law, so I use a VPN outside the United States, so they cannot determine where I went, based on their router logs. Since the VPNs I use are not in the United States, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of ANY court in the United States.
I also pay with cash, when I put gas in my car before going back to the campground, so there is no money trail to follow me, in case Nevada investigators do ever come around there. The transaction records will only show that someone bought gas with cash, and no way to find out who made that purchase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/03/sarbanes_oxley_for_it_security/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The law does not prohibit the possession of wiping programs, incuding those that could be used to violate Sarbanes Oxley.
And making the programs to where authorities cannot detect their usage, is not illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I blame priviledge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I blame priviledge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I blame priviledge
If they had to experience equal treatment under the law they'd flip out and demand that unjust practices be put to an end immediately.
Or insist on an exception that would apply only to those wit the right connections/rank/wealth, like what they currently enjoy.
But yes, a whole lot of problems could be solved if politicians actually had to deal with what the rest of the public does, rather than getting the silk glove treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I blame priviledge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wait a minute m8
Oh! Like Cuba and Florida. I gets it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]