Hacker News Reader

Comment by BrandoElFollito | Hacker News Reader

When flying I often lock my suitcase with a zip (the plastic strip you buckle up on its own, works one way). I got red and green zips because they are less common.

I do this to detect obvious attempts at opening the suitcase (to have a look what is inside, or to plant nuclear weapons for me to transport them).

When the suitcase is on the reception belt, I inspect the zips and if they are broken (or missing) i immediately go to the police/customs agents for them to inspect my suitcase because I see it was tempered with.

It happened twice that the zips were missing. There was no problem for the agents to inspect my luggage. Nothing was found or missing, the zips were probably broken during transport (or someone had a look inside but did not find anything interesting.

View on HN

> with a zip (the plastic strip you buckle up on its own, works one way)

Just in case you didn't know, unless you buy ones that are specifically hard to open (like if you instead use ones from a random hardware store), they are trivial to open without breaking it by lifting the flap inside the lock-mechanism with something thin and sharp, roll it back out and inserting it again once you've done your deed.

I used the ones that are specifically hard to open (you basically force a blade into a part and if you want to remove it it is destructive).

It will not protect le against everything, and this is the reason i do not go for anything fancy. I just hope that the ones who would like to put something in would be deterred by the zips.

Anything that breaks visibly (a seal for instance) would do, but this leaves traces on the suitcase.

Glue, most likely super glue (cyanoacrylate) would likely counter that vulnerability. There are also tamper evident zip ties.

This is a wise thing to do. I knew a guy who frequently travelled to the USA who one day got home and discovered something in his suitcase that neither he nor his partner had put in there.

The question "did you pack your bag?" that customs officers ask is used to infer guilt. Once you answer yes to this question you are criminally liable for whatever is in the suitcase. In Australia a number of baggage handlers have been convicted of trafficking drugs. Unsuspecting tourists have also been convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 10+ years in prison

A company makes security seals for this very purpose and markets them under the name "TamperTell". They have a serial number on them and a matching receipt tab that you remove before flight then check against on arrival.

> A company makes security seals for this very purpose and markets them under the name "TamperTell". They have a serial number on them and a matching receipt tab that you remove before flight then check against on arrival.

I wouldn't put too much trust into the marketing of products like this. Time and time again they fail to protect against the most basic of "lockpicking", and unless I've seen multiple skilled people failing at unlocking the "TamperTell", I'd put it in the same bucket as the rest.

> DEF CON 18 (2010) held the first ever "Tamper Evident" contest, where contestants were given a box sealed with a variety of tamper evident devices, many of which purport to be "tamper proof." All of these devices were defeated, even by those with little experience and a limited toolkit. Like the computer world, many of these devices are overmarketed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W07ZpEv9Sog

Ha, nice. I was a silent participant of that contest that year. My buddies team was able to acquire a second tamper kit to practice on, I learned a lot about seals that weekend and I still apply that knowledge to this day.

Any seal that uses an adhesive is often easily removed with acetone. Seals that use multiple materials like plastic and metal, well you can dissolve the metal component and replace it if you have multiple blanks of the seal. If the plastic part is the part that is serialized then bobs your uncle.

I moved on to using security paper to make high security envelopes. There are a ton of different features you can combine to make a unique security paper. Then mechanically sealing it with security wire and a lead seal. If an evil maid needs inside they would need to duplicate the security paper's features.

This place sells a sampler pack of high security papers for cheap: http://www.secureguardpapers.com/assortment-w.html

If you want to go off the rails and raise legal questions for the government though, do this. Go to the treasury and buy sheets of uncut US currency to make your envelopes out of - remember all bills are uniquely serialized. If you are a true high roller buy uncut $100 bills, they probably have extra security features. Assuming your theoretical evil maid is a US government employee, it raises an interesting question: are NSA/US government employees allowed to forge/duplicate US currency in the pursuit of protecting national security?

If you want to see other interesting application of anti-tampering features, go check out your passport and all your visa stamps in it. The low hanging fruit is UV, but don't forget that there are two common bands of UV, shortwave is where it's at. Lots of fluorescing going on. But don't forget IR transparent inks there (or IRT). Also don't forget that fluorescence can happen in wavelengths outside the human visible spectrum. If you shine an IR laser pointer at stuff there are inks that can fluoresce from IR back into the visible spectrum. There's a ton of other things too, but your passport has a cornucopia of interesting tamper evident features.

And don't get me started on microwires. If conspiracy folks had any idea about these their heads would explode. https://security-paper.tagit-eas.ch

> are NSA/US government employees allowed to forge/duplicate US currency in the pursuit of protecting national security?

We already know plenty of things they are not “allowed” to do, but happen anyway. If they’re already invested to the level of effort it takes to duplicate security seals, I think they can call off the Secret Service from investigating a little counterfeiting.

Certainly, but imagine the reams of red tape you'll be making your agent team wade through. The FBI has a lot of resources but I suspect they are not setup to counterfeit US currency. Sooo many meetings and approvals, Judicial oversight, just to get a special run of bills from the Treasury Department. Would they be required to destroy the original evidence since they are duplicating US currency? The years of the missed soccer games and birthdays of their loved ones just to take a peek at some pepe memes that have no meaning.

Don't forget to put some sealed US currency envelopes in your suitcases while flying kiddos, the TSA needs to have fun too.

That's a cute idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if counterfeiting a bill with a matching serial after destroying the original would be given a pass.

Destroying evidence you say?

>Assuming your theoretical evil maid is a US government employee, it raises an interesting question: are NSA/US government employees allowed to forge/duplicate US currency in the pursuit of protecting national security?

Why would they need to counterfeit the notes? Is there something stopping the NSA from calling up the treasury and asking for uncut sheets with specific serial numbers?

Would they even be breaking the law if they decided to go it along and reverse engineer the printing process? While the Treasury is granted the right to print physical money[0] it does not exclude anyone else from physically printing money as well. Further counterfeiting/forging currency[1] needs to have the intent to defraud.

I get your point though. I guess it would operate similarly to the operations of undercover police who have to break laws as part of their work. I suspect a lot of oversight would be needed from the upper levels of the organisation so as not to fall foul of the Justice Department.

[0] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5114

[1] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/471

I get your point but since most locks are pickable does that mean that I shouldn't bother locking my doors?

The threat vector I am defending against is one baggage handler in one airport putting drugs in my bag and another baggage handler at the destination airport retrieving them.

Why would they go to the hassle of having to fiddle around with a bag with a seal on it leaving prints in the process? If they want to use my bag to smuggle drugs they will most likely just rip the tags off it. If I kick up a fuss at the destination airport they will find nothing out of the ordinary in the bag and assume that customs inspected it at departure or the seal somehow broke off in transit.

> Once you answer yes to this question you are criminally liable for whatever is in the suitcase.

Can you share examples of this happening, where the conviction dependent on that admission?

Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said this. By "criminally liable" I meant "you can be charged". Good luck defending yourself at that point. Possession is possession.

https://www.cdpp.gov.au/crimes-we-prosecute/serious-drugs/dr...

> Once you answer yes to this question you are criminally liable for whatever is in the suitcase.

That's not how criminal law works in most places: "Mens rea is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is considered a necessary element of many crimes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

I replied elsewhere but by criminally liable I meant "can be charged".

It may not be how it is supposed to work but how does one defend a drug possession charge when they are in possession of drugs? Just say that the drugs in their backpack aren't theirs?

> It may not be how it is supposed to work but how does one defend a drug possession charge when they are in possession of drugs?

It's the task of the prosecution to establish not just that you possessed the drugs, but also that you intended to possess them.

It's the task of the defense to try to establish that one or both of these things aren't true.

It's the task of the court (probably a jury) to decide whether or not the prosecution has made a case that is beyond reasonable doubt.

So the normal stuff about believing people and possible miscarriages of justice still apply.

My point is just that merely stating that you packed the bags yourself doesn't really establish anything in the prosecution's favour except that it's going to be difficult to later claim that somebody else packed it for you and that you knew this. On the other hand, if they can show that you lied about who packed your bag, then it's probably going to be easier for them to convince a jury that you were up to something (namely drug smuggling). But that mere fact itself doesn't make their case complete, and stating that you packed your own bag certainly doesn't make you criminally liable for its contents any more than you were before this statement.

As to whether you "can be charged": legally, there's no requirement that has to be met to be charged. You could find yourself charged for drug smuggling tomorrow even though you haven't done anything. Whether this will happen or not depends on whether the prosecutor thinks they can win the case. So it probably won't. Saying that you packed the bag certainly doesn't change whether or not they'd win the case for the reasons I gave above.

My comments were in regards to Australian Law.

I think this[0] piece sums up the situation nicely.

There are some very quirky laws here in Australia like "goods in custody" in the state of NSW. Essentially you can be convicted for having items in your possession that the courts "reasonable suspect" were stolen.

There are other things too like Firearm Prohibition Orders (FPOs) which once granted give the police the right to stop and search you even if they don't believe you have committed or witnessed a crime.

[0] - https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/law/drug-prohibition-makes...

I remember reading an article a long time ago about a passenger finding a (mock)weapon in his luggage. Turns out it was put in there by a government organization to test the process through security, except that they forgot to take it out again. I cannot find the link unfortunately.

This sounds plausible.

Judging by the size and description of the object it was not this though.

A while ago there was a big court case in Bali in which an Australian who was travelling there was accused of importing drugs from Australia. As part of their defence they claimed that the drugs found in the luggage was not theirs and that the most likely explanation was that it was evidence of some type of interstate drug smuggling operation. During this time a high ranking member of the Australian Federal Police came forward and said that it was well known within the AFP that criminals were using unsuspecting travelers luggage to smuggle drugs. At the same time people started coming forth claiming that they had returned home from travelling overseas and found drugs in their luggage. Scared and not knowing what to do they flushed it down the toilet.

> i immediately go to the police/customs agents for them to inspect my suitcase

Given they didn’t see your suitcase before you sealed it… what can they inspect it for?

Contraband. I assume OP's concern is with someone planting something illegal in his bag.

yes, exactly

Reply on news.ycombinator.com