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.

Filed Under: australia, border search, confiscated, devices, laptops, nathan hague, phones, privacy, random search, surveillance

Police Allowed To Hang Onto Seized Computers For Anti-Piracy Group, Despite No Gov't Prosecution

from the that's-bad dept

We were just noting that the IFPI thinks it's going to start seizing computers directly to get evidence of unauthorized file sharing, and wondering how that would work. At least in the UK, they may have just received some legal support. Over the summer, we wondered why an anti-piracy group in the UK was given access to and allowed to keep computers from a criminal investigation into an online service, called Surfthechannel, accused of unauthorized file sharing. The police seized the computers, but decided not to pursue criminal charges. It never made much sense that private, industry-backed anti-piracy group FACT was a major part of the criminal investigation, as they're quite the biased party. They were given seized computers as a part of this investigation -- and once the police decided not to pursue criminal charges, FACT kept the machines, saying it was considering a civil suit. However, the lawyers for Surfthechannel noted that the police and FACT had no right to keep the seized machines after the decision was made not to pursue criminal charges.

Apparently (and unfortunately) a judge disagrees. A reader alerts us (via comments on a totally separate story, rather than a submission -- not sure why) to the news that the judge in the case has said that police have every right to retain seized computers, even after they've decided not to pursue criminal charges. The judges noted that the law allows police the retain anything seized "so long as is necessary in all the circumstances" and then ruled that the potential of a civil suit from FACT was one of those "circumstances" that qualified. It's difficult to see how that makes any sense, but so ruled the court.

Filed Under: computers, confiscated, copyright, criminal, file sharing
Companies: fact, ifpi

Use A Command Line At Boston College... Have Your Computer Equipment Confiscated

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

A bunch of folks have submitted various versions of a story in Boston, involving Boston College police being granted a warrant which they used to confiscate the computers of a student as part of an investigation over an email sent to a mailing list. The troubling part is that the warrant was given without any real reason. In fact, part of the warrant application focused on the scary fact that the student in question used a command line on his computer:

Mr. Calixte uses two different operating systems to hide his illegal activities. One is the regular B.C. operating system and the other is a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on.

There are other accusations in the filing, but reading through it, it seems clear that this is a pure fishing expedition by the police, rather than any real probable cause. Luckily, the EFF is now representing the student, pointing out how this appears to be a pretty significant violation of the student's rights.

Filed Under: boston college, command line, confiscated, warrant

Prisoner Sues Because Prison Confiscated And Destroyed His Contraband Mobile Phone

from the good-luck-with-that dept

We've seen plenty of stories over the past few years about prisoners getting contraband mobile phones -- even to the point that many prisons have been asking for exemptions against mobile phone jammers. However, here's a new one: a former prisoner in the UK is suing the prison system for destroying the contraband phone they discovered he had. He claims that the phone should have been just taken and kept in storage, but instead, it was used to train dogs, who chewed it up. Perhaps the rules governing the UK prison system are a bit different, but it's difficult to see how any prison system should be expected to hang onto contraband for the prisoners until after they're released. No word on how he got the phone in the first place, but perhaps it was specially trained carrier pigeons (or not).

Filed Under: confiscated, contraband, jail, mobile phone