Backpacker stripped of tech gear at Auckland Airport | Hacker News Reader

Backpacker stripped of tech gear at Auckland Airport

nzherald.co.nz

526 points_mgr254 comments

Not quite so relevant to NZ but since I'm guessing many HNers are wondering what happens at the US border:

https://www.eff.org/wp/defending-privacy-us-border-guide-tra...

I worry about this, since I travel frequently. Then again, I also worry about plane crashes. I think both are probably irrational, but having plans is what keeps the boogeyman away at night, so here's mine:

1) Remain polite and professional.

2) Decline to consent to any search. Comply with officers' demands that they tell me I'm legally required to comply with. Ask for that demand to be produced in writing. I'm willing to wait for a supervisor while they figure out how to do that, even if it means I miss my flight. I will get a receipt and/or report number and/or some other official written record of the incident if any seizure, including seizure of information, takes place.

3) Immediately after reaching my destination, file written grievances with any and all responsible agencies. They must have a spreadsheet tracking passenger complaints somewhere. Let's increment that while having someone commit, on paper, to a version of events of what happened and a legal rationale to why that was justified. This will only cost me a bit of time and money, and I have lots of time and money, but it has heavily asymmetric payoff in the event of a lawsuit or PR battle.

But honestly? Mathematically, I'm much, much more at risk of getting mugged in Chicago on my way home from the airport than getting held up by Customs. I don't exactly live in fear of muggings but I take sensible precautions like e.g. backing up my data, making sure that I can turn a factory-new laptop into a working dev environment within a day, and carrying insurance. I'm pretty sure most of these still work even if I happen to lose a laptop to Customs rather than to a mugger.

Do you get searched by the TSA even when you're using the US airport as a hub, and not visiting US? Because I was already thinking of avoiding US as a hub if possible, but I wasn't sure if it was necessary or not.

TSA searches only usually apply at the transition points from the outside into the terminals. Not all airports have the terminals all connected on the "secure" side though, so if changing airlines you may have to go through them.

Customs is a different story, and I'm not sure how that works in this case.

When connecting from Country A to Country C via Country B (i.e., flight goes from A to B, then another flight from B to C), some countries offer "transit" -- they do not require clearing Country B's customs or security, and simply allow you to step off one plane and onto the other.

The US is not one of those countries. When connecting between two other countries via the US, a passenger must clear US Customs, then US TSA security procedures before being permitted to board the second flight.

I've transited through the US at LAX before, and while I did have to go through customs, I did not have to go through TSA.

My understanding is that US airports are generally not configured to separate transit passengers from the rest of the airport (there is a term of art for this but it is eluding me at the moment). As a consequence, if you're in America even for a few minutes, you'll meet with our good friends at Customs and Border Patrol. CBP is not TSA.

The term that I've heard used for this is sterile transit. I'm not aware of any US airports having it.

LAX has it, I've been through on the London to Auckland route, both ways.

Both times they didn't have enough staff to man the separate customs desk, and ran us through a general customs hall.

There are a few other airports that do, too, but it's uncommonly used.

It's been and gone a few times over the years on that route. At times immigration but no baggage claim, at times transit lounge (actually I'm not sure I ever did go through when that was in force, I think it came and went in-between trips for me), at times full re-check-in... anyway, I think the setup was different every time. And every time they found a way to make it a PITA. I eventually got fed up with it, and don't travel that way any more.

I prefer via Dubai, Hong Kong, or Shanghai. Border control officers there, while still clearly doing their job meticulously, manage to be polite as well.

Interesting, as far as I seem to remember all the airports in Europe I've been to had this concept, except tiny regional airports. Probably because traditionally pretty much any connecting flight involved transit through a third country that you'd need a separate visa to visit.

The idea is that you "enter the country" when going out from the main part of the airport, but you can go from any arriving flight to any departing flight without doing so, and most of the facilities - shops, waiting rooms, etc - are 'inside the zone' as well.

Customs require you to reclaim any checked bags too, so you can be sure of meeting TSA before you get on another flight.

Right.

When I was living in South America I met hundreds of backpackers from all over the world that were forced to go through the US on their way South. Many of them had hilarious, stupid and scary stories of how customs treated them when they only had a ~2 hour layover and had no interest in the US what-so-ever. They all vowed to never fly through the US again, even though it will result in higher flight costs.

Last time I passed through LA on the way to NZ from London, and back, I was eyeball scanned and fingerprinted. I had a moan about this here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6566274

At the time they didn't appear to be siphoning off folks for hand-luggage special treatment, though it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

"Bio" scanning. Reminds me of a trip out via London Luton a year or so ago. They were "trialling" one of those hugely expensive and ineffective backscatter scanners. We, my partner and I were pulled out of the flow and asked if we'd like to try it. "We can't decline, can we?" I ask. "Ha, ha. No. But it is really safe." The operator when into sales pitch mode. I said I was well aware of the technology but understood it to overall reduce security because of the money wasted that would otherwise be spent on trained personnel. He repeated again that it was safe, by which point my girlfriend was already shepparded into the device. "I mean," he jokes, "you're not pregnant are you?" "Yes," she honestly replied, now standing arms raised in front of the sensor. After a short pause, another assurance of safety followed. I said I would happily undergo a manual search, but he said that would not be required. Scan over, we were let go. "Well," my partner began as we strolled passed the duty free, unable to really pay attention to it now. "That was humiliating." Indeed it was.

Would be good to compare that risk with the risk of passing borders in countries prone to corruption. How could we compute stats about that?

From my experience crossing the Syrian border many many times, it's resolved with (at most) a 20$ bill(or the equivalent in Syrian pounds).

Same goes for traffic violations or pretty much anything that deals with the police or customs in any way.

I'm guessing that this wouldn't be the case for someone whose name is on a list somewhere or someone actually caught smuggling something(might work but would definitely set you back more). But at least in my(and friends') experience, it's never been a problem specifically because of the corruption. Police and customs people are not robots following orders from on high, they're robots who'll bother you to no end until you pay them and will leave you alone and might invite you over to a cup of coffee once you do.

When I lived in Kenya, I was stopped for speeding. In a battered old Peugeot 305 estate. Up a steep hill on a main route. At 8000 feet altitude where the already underpowered engine was suffering greatly from lack of air. The policeman was looking for a bribe, but got laughed at instead.

The answer is yes. All travelers arriving on international flights are screened by CBP, regardless of whether they are transit passengers. Before you go through CBP, you must collect your checked bags, which means after CBP, you must be dumped into the insecure area of the airport, rather than the sterile area. From there, you will need to clear TSA security to make your connection.

> I'm much, much more at risk of getting mugged in Chicago [...] than getting held up by Customs.

That's not true if you work on something like the Tor Project.

I'm an European and I lost all hope of ever visiting USA without losing the last bits of my privacy and dignity.

Back when TSA screening entered into force I pretty much knew it's over, but actually my somewhat (over?) enthusiastic contribution to the Tor project turned out to be, and I'm not afraid to use that word, the mistake that most probably hit the final nail in the coffin.

If even random companies mention my Tor project involvement in their recruitment emails than what is the chance the neurotic and overly paranoid American security agencies will let it slide?

It's pretty rare that this stuff happens to be honest. I enter the USA very often and TSA agents are very nice more often that not.

I should note that i travel with weird electronic gear that they've generally never seen (a lot of it is hand made..) yet, never had any issue. They do scan and ask to see what it is, I always comply with zero question of course.

Are you involved in Tor development or something similar? Is your response relevant then?

Just to be nit-picky -- TSA != DHS/Immigration.

To be more nit-picky, both TSA and immigration (CBP) are separate agencies under the DHS organization.

Don't worry. I'm an American and by far the three worst experiences I've ever had with being searched happened in Europe (going into Russia, going into France and through Germany to Italy).

At worst the TSA has been annoying, but I've never had to say, dump the contents of all of my carry on onto the floor and talk the person through what each item was and why I needed it (France), or get questioned why I had brought a snack in my carry on (Germany), or detained while my instruments were looked through with mirrors for drugs (Russia).

I'm European, and I've never been hassled during my travels. The worst I've experienced was having to pull 10m of ethernet cable out of my carry-on in Stavanger Airport, Norway, but that's it -- and I can easily see how a rolled-up cable might've hindered the airport security from looking through my bag. Off the top of my head I've been through England, Denmark, Croatia, Slovenia, France, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Hungary, Spain, Egypt, India, Nepal, Germany, Holland, Italy, Portugal and Peru, and I've never had any trouble.

Maybe you've just been targeted because you're American, just like Brazil is fingerprinting US Americans[1] to pay back the amount of trouble foreigners often find themselves in when visiting USA?

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-VISIT#Similar_systems_in_oth...

> I can easily see how a rolled-up cable might've hindered the airport security from looking through my bag.

If it's coiled up neatly, such a thing can even set off anti-theft sensor gates in stores, because .. it's a coil of conducting wire :)

> Maybe you've just been targeted because you're American, just like Brazil is fingerprinting US Americans[1] to pay back the amount of trouble foreigners often find themselves in when visiting USA?

It is not exactly 'payback'. This is one of the few policies which I agree with: it's just reciprocating. If the US requires fingerprinting of Brazilian citizens, then Brazil requires fingerprinting of US citizens. If European countries require that you have with you X amount of cash for every day you are going to spend there, then Brazil will require the same.

When spain decided to turn back lots of Brazilians a few years ago, for silly reasons, Brazil started doing exactly the same thing. Apparently, it didn't last long.

By the way, me and my brother (plus our mom) were visiting the US together. Since we have very similar names, the lady switched our fingerprints. She did notice the mistake and corrected... my brother's. So my visa application had the wrong fingerprints.

Of course, there was a mismatch when I was scanned at US immigration. Other than losing a couple of hours waiting my turn in a room (thankfully, full of other people) and losing a connection, I didn't run into many issues. The officer (after staring at me for like 5 minutes, which was weird), turned the monitor around and asked who that individual was. It was displaying a photo of my brother, and I told him so. Then he asked where he was, and I pointed to my brother, standing a few meters from where we were. So the officer welcomed me to the US and let me go (and told me I'd 'always' have the same problem).

That went surprisingly well, and everyone was very, very polite. That was at Atlanta. But even if that particular experience was fine, I am still wary of visiting the US again without my brother. I have no idea what's going to happen then and how much explanation/proof will be required then, due to no mistake on my part.

The next time you travel to the U.S., I'd visit the local consular's office or Embassy and talk to them about the situation and see if you can get it resolved.

I am still wary of visiting the US again without my brother.

Thanks for a good laugh.

I travel internationally quite a bit, at least twice a year, and 11 times in one particularly grueling year. I absolutely believe I was targeted as an American. Not because of some petty payback or other nonsense, but because I was obviously a foreigner and the border people in those countries were pretty much just doing their jobs (if a bit overzealous). They are supposed to scrutinize foreigners trying to enter their country.

I'm not really mad about it at all, just pointing out that the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on harassing travelers and there's really nothing much special about it even if it is unbelievably annoying for the majority of people who get harassed and inconvenienced by it. You literally have to accept that when you go to another country, you are a visitor and not really subject to the kinds of protections that country's citizens (may) have or your own country offers you.

I was detained for four hours at Newark airport. I was entering on a visa waiver for some meetings, and I was just coming off the back of another visa waiver trip. They were basically trying to prove that I was working illegally in the US. I had to empty the contents of my pockets and the bag I was carrying. The guy took my wallet, took every bank card out of it and asked me where the bank account was held, how much money was currently in the account and how much money went through the account each year. He made me switch my laptop on and spent some time looking through files on it. He literally told me "I think you're lying to me, you better come clean or this will be bad for you". He spent ages typing into my file on his computer (supposedly, maybe he was writing his girlfriend) and told me that if I ever tried to come back on a visa waiver I would be declined (untrue, as it turns out).

Obviously if you're American it's easier because they can't deny you entry. I basically had two options - do everything he said, or go home, miss my meetings, and have to tick the "I've been declined entry to the US" box every single time I go to the US for the rest of my life, which would make every border crossing a multiple hour ordeal.

You do realize that bringing food/agricultural products is forbidden on several countries, right?

Times I have been questioned by customs while entering the Schengen space: zero

This may be more likely depending on the origin of your trip though.

I don't know why coldarchon below is dead. I had an apple in my bag coming back from somewhere and arriving in Atlanta. The customs beagle found it ... but the officer let me eat it on the spot rather than confiscate it. :-/

Absolute, and another funny anecdote about it. I was coming back from Asia, and is the custom, was given way too many gifts of things to eat on my way out and ended up with a box of grapes in my carry-on. Arrived in L.A. and the CBP officers asked me if I had any food, fruits veggies etc. I brought out the grapes and they started questioning me. I offered to toss 'em if that made it easier. They thought that was acceptable and right as they were handing them back to me to throw away the officer looked down and saw "product of California" on the box. We all had a good laugh and I ate the rest of the grapes while waiting for my connection back home.

I'm European, and the first I've experienced is having to take off my shoes while someone pats me down because the metal detector beeped at my belt or shoes, and someone else X-rays my stuff.

I found it annoying and invasive, but it sounds like even the mildest TSA procedures are a lot worse than that.

No, actually the worst I've experienced was having to bribe some guard in Mali because I couldn't find the receipt for my luggage.

"but it sounds like even the mildest TSA procedures are a lot worse than that."

While I don't agree with a lot of the racial profiling and other acts the TSA commits, I don't think the average case is near as bad as you think.

I've flown internationally(to relatively unstable regions also) quite a few times since the TSA was put in place. Normally I step through a body scanner and grab my things and go. My worst case was accidentally having toothpaste in my carry on and having to go through that to throw it out.

Then again, it's probably easier for me as a young, Caucasian, American. YMMV

That must have been quite some time ago because Europe has had open borders for years.

I've had road trips across Europe and not had my passport requested even once; let having it stamped and having myself and property searched.

Getting into Shengen is where you encounter the friendly border people. Once you're in, you can get around as you please.

He gave examples where he was already in Europe and crossing borders. (eg Germany -> Italy)

I'm "he". And I was entering Shengen in Germany and then flying to Italy within the zone.

Ahh ok. That makes more sense now. Sorry :)

No problem. It's confusing.

There can still be mandatory passport checks at internal borders even with Schengen. This is a while ago, but back in 2001 I crossed the border from France to Italy a few days before the G8 summit in Genoa [0]. Passport checked, questions asked about itinerary, and a French couple on a motor bike was turned back due to not carrying their passports.

On the other hand, that is the only time of quite a few crossing where this have happened.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27th_G8_summit

Bane, Bane. You need to get with the program. In order to appear intellectual and progressive you need to state that the USA is the worst thing ever by bringing up some anecdote about Police State USA. Anecdotes about bad treatment in Europe are just not cricket. Especially about France and Germany. Thank god you didn't say anything negative about any of the Nordic states. That's really bad.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The same thing happened to me on a train from Switzerland to Prague.

I'm all for abuse while overseas. I've never been felt up anywhere but Frankfurt. They were quite polite about it, but it was obviously payback. Guy and woman. I asked if the woman could do the TSA-feeler search and they laughed.

It was puzzling that they were completely gobsmacked and lost searching my backpack. It's a Deuter. Made in Germany. It was like I was doing a late-night infomercial for them.

I doubt it's true for any demographic.

I know one other offense which is both breaking an american company contract, breaking american law, and making you lose any argument about good faith. Does that make someone at risk?

It's using a false name of facebook.

> I don't exactly live in fear of muggings but I take sensible precautions like e.g. backing up my data, making sure that I can turn a factory-new laptop into a working dev environment within a day, and carrying insurance.

Yep. When I visit the US, I bring a freshly-wiped laptop with no personal data on it with me. If I lose it, it doesn't matter.

Another way would be to have truecrypt completely encrypt the drive in the laptop and have a colleague set up the password.

Then, when you have arrived, you ask your colleague to send you the password. That way you have security of the laptop data and you can confidently tell any government agency that you do not know the password should they request it.

I hear some companies do it this way. Should the man request the password of the work laptop you brought along? You can just tell em "Take it up with my superior back home"

Of course they may employ the rubber glove and wrench treatment to make sure you don't know the password.

This story is about New Zealand, but I'm sure we agree on which government exerts the pressure that these police state tactics are about to become the new (and apparently accepted) "normal".

I really hate to see the US going down that path, it would have had so much potential to exert positive pressure, to make the World a better place.

What's the rubber glove for?

To blow up and make amusing animal shapes with, while everyone's waiting.

That sound the way to ask them to take it away seeing how they are treating companies that encrypt their data(lavabit)

Why a. go to all that trouble and b. even expose anyone to the knowledge that you have encrypted data?

All this requires is a TrueCrypt file volume uploaded to your favourite cloud storage service. When you've cleared customs go find a Starbucks or something and download it.

Border officials won't have a clue. If they confiscate your laptop, buy a new one.

> Border officials won't have a clue. If they confiscate your laptop, buy a new one.

Is that really your mentality? That's fucked up. If they take away my $3000 work mac I'd be absolutely livid.

Actually I'm travelling soon. What precautions should I take? What can I even do if they take my electronics?

>> What can I even do if they take my electronics?

"Write to your representatives!!" .. nah, I'm kidding. You can't do shit about it. We live in an increasingly totalitarian world, as the article shows. It's fucking insane.

That's a really bad idea, especially if you're not a US citizen. If they want to access your computer, they _will_ call your superior back home and might tell him that they will either get the password or deny you entry.

I think they'd just threaten to keep the laptop instead. Once they've taken the laptop from you, presuming that's the only reason they're stopping you, they should no longer have cause to prevent you from continuing.

Why would they threaten that? An encrypted laptop would be useless to them without the password. The worst they could threaten you with is denied entry or detainment, so I think it's far more likely that they would threaten with that to compel you to produce the password.

In any case, if you are worried about protecting your data, you put yourself in a pretty bad situation if you rely on encrypting that data and hide the password. Bringing a relatively clean laptop will just avoid the issue altogether and will allow you to be cooperative with them.

Remember that they don't _need_ any cause to deny you entry or detain you, as long as you're not a US citizen.

> Why would they threaten that?

Because messing with you is equally rewarding as "protecting the country."

That is an absolutely terrible idea.

You are asked when you check in if anyone has given you anything to carry for them. You presumably answered "no" to that question, yet now you're saying "Yes, they asked me to carry this unknown data".

They don't care if you know the password or not. They care if the data can be made available in plaintext or not. While you do not know the password you do know the method of making the plaintext available - you get whoever does know the passphrase to enter it. Thus, you're going to be detained until the passphrase turns up, or the machine is going to be confiscated and all data cloned and you're going to be denied entry.

Being denied entry is expensive. It also has consequences for future travel. Visas might be different. Customs clearance will be different. Possibility of getting in is lower.

> You can just tell em "Take it up with my superior back home"

They do this all the time. Watch a couple of hours of any of the various border-crossing / customs control "reality" tv shows. You'll see someone held in a room for hours, questioned for hours, with all their documents being searched for phone numbers and people being called to corroborate the story. They have no problem making phone calls back home and to the destination country.

This method is going out of your way to give them something to detain you for; it is making extra effort to look guilty.

You could create a hidden partition in your TrueCrypt volume, put some plausible data in the public partition and give them the password for that.

Why bother when you can just download anything you want after you cross customs.

Because I should not have to go out of my way to make a legal activity, LOOK like a legal activity, when it's not even remotely illegal. It's privacy, that's all it is. Lock is to box as encryption is to computer.

We live in a very sad state of affairs that will continue to deteriorate.

> Lock is to box as encryption is to computer.

Um, you realize that you can't carry locked boxes through customs and then refuse to open them, right? That comparison actually hurts the case for taking encrypted data through customs.

Fill it with whatever analogy works for you then, you know what I mean.

The issue is that refusing to let customs inspect your electronics is illegal. This is the broken thing. Encrypting is just a half-assed way to try to get past this (I say half-assed, because it doesn't work). I don't especially care that encrypting doesn't "look legal". I care that customs has the right to inspect the digital contents of my devices. That is a completely pointless invasion of my privacy. It doesn't reduce crime. It doesn't protect the country I'm entering. It's just an exercise of power.

So do I have to create a hidden volume on my computer then?

It's important to remember the destructive nature of Truecrypt's hidden volume function. Unless you use both keys to unlock the volume, opening the outer volume and allowing the OS to load will destroy the hidden volume that has your real files. It's meant to be a last-resort against a "Use this wrench and beat the password out of him" scenario.

I've only used it with a TrueCrypt volume as a file, where it works flawlessly (unless you continue to add files to the public volume). See http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/hidden-volume

Are we trusting cloud storage now? I would've thought that could be susceptible to official or unofficial attack.

You could. You're carrying encrypted data across borders. That shouldn't be anything that raises flags, and we need to campaign to make it normal. (After all, US businesses need to protect the US by stopping US technology and trade secrets and etc from getting into the hands of foreign spies).

But sadly we live in a world where carrying encrypted data is a flag, and will get you more scrutiny, and get your name put on lists.

It also doesn't help if you carry the passphrase on you with your encrypted data.

> You are asked when you check in if anyone has given you anything to carry for them. You presumably answered "no" to that question, yet now you're saying "Yes, they asked me to carry this unknown data".

Not necessarily. You could have encrypted the data to your friend's asymmetric keypair. Then you aren't technically carrying any data other than your own.

Clever, but try explaining that to these people. Most barely seem to have a high school diploma, much less understand encryption.

I have a box that I put a lock on, I left the keys to this lock with my friend and he will send it to me when I get to my destination.

Ok, well done. :)

why not just actually put your laptop in a lockbox like that?

And then hide your drugs inside the laptop.

Why would you need to explain anything at all?

"Has anyone given you anything to carry for them?"

No.

That is precisely what I meant when I said that I encrypt my laptop and have someone else choose the password.

Is that "unkown data" as the guy above you seems to believe? Hardly. If I pack my suitcase and then just have a friend come in with a padlock to which only he holds the key and he locks it, are the contents on my suitcase unknown to me? No, they aren't. They are my belongings and I just chose, for security reasons to not only stop carrying the key on me but to not even knowing what that key is.

I would be more worried about the TSA accidentally wiping my hard drive when they try to crack the encryption.

If I decline to consent to a search, I know that I'd immediately be flagged as trouble by the border staff: That's part of their job.

I don't think searches are effective, and if I was searched regularly or particularly intrusively, I would start getting upset, but as being searched doesn't sound that traumatic to me (though I've not had more than a pat down and a bag check), for now I'd much rather comply, make my flight, and not be on their database as a troublemaker.

If you have a problem with the way border control operates, I think it's a much better idea to try to deal with it while you're not standing in the middle of it.

This makes you a part of the problem. The government can only take away our freedoms if no one stands up when they try.

To use declining of consent as reason to flag you is unconstitutional, not to mention wrong. Of course there are few sanctions available in this case, which makes such power abuse so insidious.

TSA Breast Milk Screening Video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh1h5Mvc3MM

TSA response: http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/12/tsa-response-to-tsa-breast-milk....

She got an apology letter, at least.

Who is John Galt?

"I'm much, much more at risk of getting mugged in Chicago on my way home from the airport than getting held up by Custom"

These are two very different scenarios. It is much easier to control your own actions than the actions of others.

In the latter scenario, your allegedly democratically elected representatives have (indirectly) asked customs to search you. You are mugging yourself and paying the person who is doing it.

In the first week of January I'm leaving a Software Engineering gig for a US defense contractor to move to New Zealand. Due to the expense of shipping, my wife and I are only bringing what we can carry, and we've taken special care to fit as much of our lives as possible into our electronic devices. Search/seizure of these devices would be horrible and violating on so many levels.

This news is absolutely terrifying to me.

Edit: I wrote this as a quick knee-jerk without much thought, and now that I read it again I see the sad irony. This is being done to prevent terror? Someone needs to do a risk/reward analysis here...

Edit 2: I appreciate everyone offering up solutions here, but really the only solution would be either to not go, or to not carry any devices at all. Encryption can't prevent me from being detained and my property from being confiscated. Given that the issue here is a violation of personal space rather than one of having something to hide, encryption will only increase the impact which such an event would have on my wife and me. If such an event were to occur and I was using strong encryption to protect my data, I'd be asked for any encryption keys, detained for much longer, and if I refused to cooperate in any way I'd have my things permanently confiscated and face refusal of entry.

If I find myself in this situation, I'll be looking to minimize impact. I'll cooperate while trying as best as I can not to compromise my values, and then raise hell after the fact.

Ship your stuff before you go

Because customs doesn't search shipments? No. If my stuff is searched/seized, I'd rather be aware of it happening.

Dude on a practical level this might be your best bet.

And ship the encryption key separately so that you really cannot decrypt it . Or transfer it across once you're in the country.

See my post above. This won't do anything for me. The issue isn't that I don't want people to see my data, it's that I don't want my "space" forcibly invaded. Further, carrying an encrypted laptop (or shipping encrypted storage) will only increase the levels of both "forced" and "invaded" [1] I'd experience were I to face this kind of situation.

Also, I like my hardware. If they can't see what's on there, they can seize it and destroy it, and I'm sure I wouldn't be compensated.

1: http://xkcd.com/538/

Encrypt the files you take with you. For good measure make a full backup and leave it behind with someone you trust.

But encrypt it as strong as possible, with password + private-key.

Yes, I have multiple backups, and I intend to leave copies in places where they are retrievable through various means. However the issue isn't losing the data, although losing my expensive hardware (to which I have an irrational emotional attachment) would definitely leave me quite irate.

The issue is my privacy. It's not even that I have things which I feel some strong need to hide, but that my devices are inherently personal to me. Having gone through so much effort to fit yet more of my life into them has only strengthened this impression. The thought of having them forcefully confiscated and rifled through is makes me visibly agitated and angry.

If you come to my house and rifle through my underwear drawer, I don't care that you've seen my underwear. I care that you've invaded a place which consider to be private and exclusive to me and me alone.

Customs can request the encryption keys from you and did in this case. So not only encrypt everything, but use a hidden volume as well.

http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/plausible-deniability

Another way is to provide part of the key to someone that's not travelling. This person should not release the key to you until they're satisfied you've successfully completed your trip. You don't know the key, so you can't release it, and you'd have good proof to that effect.

At which point customs would permanently confiscate my things and perhaps deny entry into the country for my wife and me. The latter wasn't a threat for Mr. Blackman as I assume he's an NZ citizen. We're not NZ citizens, we're US citizens.

My understanding is that if you do not supply the key they can confiscate and destroy the media, though it will obviously vary from country to country.

The idea behind the hidden volume is that you can provide a key that works for the volume (and hopefully satisfies whoever is inspecting your data) while keeping your information private.

Reading the link supplied by patio11 above (recommended), I wonder if using a hidden volume would constitute an obstruction of customs investigation.

"Don’t Obstruct an Agent’s Investigation

Once it’s clear that a border agent is going to search your device or other possessions, don’t take any steps to destroy data or otherwise obstruct that process. Like lying, knowingly interfering with a border agent’s investigation is a serious crime."

https://www.eff.org/wp/defending-privacy-us-border-guide-tra...

It's entirely unclear in NZ whether there's any legal obligation to furnish your passwords. See: https://twitter.com/GraemeEdgeler/status/411040201062895616 (Graeme Edgeler is a well-known NZ law commentator).

Don't carry any encrypted data on your person, download it over the internettubes which pass right through customs.

Hardware can easily travel separately from bits.

1. Encrypt all of your backups.

2. Test your backups, or they are not backups (99% of people never test their backups.)

Can you ask your contractor to add a special label to it? I don't mean like: "Government Data - Fragile". But maybe they can manage that for you. A friend of mine could ship stuff with a military airplane, because his dad worked for the us army.

No. I appreciate the thought, but there are a few things wrong with these ideas.

First, I'm ending my (albeit short) career as a defense contractor before I move to New Zealand. While I still have strong professional relationships with my former colleagues, it would be out of line for me to ask them for help here.

Second, even if I did ask, they can't really help. Labeling or mislabeling drives, etc, just draws attention as using any kind of official labeling would make it look like I'm carrying government-owned material. I'm not, and I have no intention of doing so. Further, I'm pretty sure use of such official labels would be very illegal. If I was caught I'd be sent home where I'd expect to face some nasty fines and/or jail time.

Finally, I'm not sure what your friend's dad does for the Army, but unless his dad is an officer or enlisted service member (and maybe even if he is), chances are there's some misappropriation going on there. Either way, I'm not the kind of DoD contractor who can just call in a "hey, just stick this in a military cargo shipment" kind of favor. If I was, I'd either be much more relaxed, or much more nervous about quitting my job to move to a foreign country...

hmm, sorry. I thought that shipping the package using the regular air-mail service of the government would be an option.

You can still save the data on a VPS and encrypt it, then download & decrypt it, when you're back at your new country. Would that be a viable option?

I understand that you're more concerned about your equipment, but this could at least get you going until you get your stuff back; I mean in the worst case scenario.

Upload everything to a server before you leave. Download it when you get there. Take no devices across borders except a throwaway phone for emergencies.

On it's face, this is not good advice, particularly as electronics are rather more expensive in NZ than in the states. However, it is entirely possible to sell all of your electronic gear (ebay, craigslist, amazon) and buy it again, at a cost. Of course, this is a great deal of pain to go through, and it strikes us all as egregious, unnecessary, and unjust.

It's not clear, however, why if customs can demand your passwords to your devices, why can't they demand your passwords to remote servers?

In any event, it is important to protest in the strongest possible way these encroachments upon our individual liberties. It's shocking that this needs to be repeated in 2013 in the West, but a citizen should not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and mere suspicion does not constitute due process. The state cannot be allowed to continue violating these rights.

I've spent some serious time in NZ, and was deeply impressed with the humanity of it's government and it's governmental workers. It is heartbreaking to see this Americanism make its way to a more innocent land.

Don't give in to this, Kiwis. Protest. Write letters to your representatives. Keep your dignity and your common sense. Don't let your security forces (at the border or anywhere else) do this sort of thing to visitors.

> It's not clear, however, why if customs can demand your passwords to your devices, why can't they demand your passwords to remote servers?

I don't know that there's any legal mechanism in their favor (I'm not very familiar with NZ law on this level), but there's a simple physical mechanism they have going for them. If you refuse to provide passwords to your devices, they can simply refuse to return them to you when they're done with their "inspection". If you're a citizen and you refuse to provide passwords to remote accounts, they have no lasting leverage. If you're not a citizen, they can simply deny your entry.

Edit:

> I've spent some serious time in NZ, and was deeply impressed with the humanity of it's government and it's governmental workers. It is heartbreaking to see this Americanism make its way to a more innocent land.

Two things... First, this is the kind of thing that had us moving there in the first place [Edit: for clarity, this wasn't an initial reason for our move, or even why we selected NZ, but it's definitely in the "pros" column]. I'm displeased with the adversarial/entitled tack that my country's government sometimes takes with its people, and I'm still hopeful that this is different elsewhere.

Second, I find it really sad that you'd label this "Americanism." I don't think it's entirely inaccurate to say that this is becoming a part of our culture, but there is still tons and tons of good which can be ascribed to that label as well. I hope that the bad isn't dwarfing the good to the extent where the term "Americanism" becomes synonymous with "McCarthyism."

> I don't know that there's any legal mechanism in their favor (I'm not very familiar with NZ law on this level),

New Zealand law does, in fact, allow this in certain cases, albeit not in the one Customs are claiming (objectionable material, i.e. porn).

First, this is the kind of thing that had us moving there in the first place ... I'm displeased with the adversarial/entitled tack that my country's government sometimes takes with its people, and I'm still hopeful that this is different elsewhere.

FWIW, my wife and I were in the middle of a move to California to work for Google, and we decided we didn't want to do that and that we'd rather live in NZ instead (I'm a kiwi but had lived overseas for 13 years, she's foreign produce). I've been very disappointed with some of what I've seen from a legal/political point of view since I came back but NZ is still streaks ahead of most other places I've lived from a quality of life standpoint (with some exceptions, primarily cost of living will shock you coming from the States). We're really happy with the decision we made and I feel like we have a much better life here than we would have had there. Where will you be living?

I hope that the bad isn't dwarfing the good to the extent where the term "Americanism" becomes synonymous with "McCarthyism."

Sadly, between the NSA and the TPP, as a foreigner it's getting harder and harder to see the good of the US. I'm afraid that in my experience your whole government and system of governance, at least, is getting tarred with your foreign policy brush. That said, I don't know any Americans who have experienced any sort of personal issue with the people they meet here because of this, but the country itself is not seen as an agent of good IMO.

> I hope that the bad isn't dwarfing the good to the extent where the term "Americanism" becomes synonymous with "McCarthyism."

McCarthy has been dead for a while, and this stuff seems to have support from both major political parties in the US. And the US really is trying to make these sort of invasive policies into a new global standard. (And not just here; look at all those new trade treaties, at the blind loyalty to corporations, etc.)

I'm afraid that "Americanism" really is turning into a negative thing.

> why can't they demand your passwords to remote servers?

Because they can't read my thoughts? At least yet :-)

Seriously, if you have a VPS and remember the IP address or the domain or whatever, how can they find out? Don't use SSH keys and/or delete the known_hosts entries. Use a password to login to the server. Voila.

Prove I have access to a remote server first.

With the kind of data the various agencies are amassing, that'd be childs play, if they were made available to them.

And don't forget that, in the US if a federal agent asks you the question, "Do you have access to any remote servers?" and you answer with a direct lie, even if they are not acting in the course of an investigation, you have violated the law[1] by speaking a falsehood to a federal agent. In fact, you've committed a felony.

And before you argue, "Well, they'd never use that for something so trivial," remind yourself of what you used to believe that the government would never do. (And I wonder today how many people are accused and convicted under that particular law.)

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Not only that, but people have absolutely been charged with felonies for doing exactly that. Do not ever lie to federal agents.

Don't use a password. Use a private key, print it as a QR code, and mail it (or multiple copies thereof) to your new address (or to someone you trust). Then you can answer honestly, and they can't access your servers.

Yeap. Burner phones all the way. Ship yourself your regular digital devices via reputable non-postal delivery. This would be far less prone to being opened and then being imaged and/or hardware modified.

For someone not willing to sell all their hardware, the alternative would be to flash all drives with fresh OSX / Windows, and then recover from the cloud at your destination.

A cynic would say that you might as well leave the data on your phone if you go the "cloud route" as the government would already have all your data. ;)

Use client-side-encrypted online storage (any one of the many AWS-based choices, say).

Unless someone already had passive/active access to your machine before you left, they won't be able to get at your data.

Your restore should be fine, too. Just watch out for passive access being added by the tech teams inspecting your machine (say reinstall-persistent malware) - though this shouldn't happen in the majority of cases, we'd hope.

It would be great to have a service where-in you could rent a laptop, mobile phone, tablet etc -- then once it's returned, it's reimaged. Then those who travel don't have to worry about this sort of issue.

It would be even nicer if we didn't live in a surveillance-state kleptocracy; then we wouldn't have to worry about a lot of crap like this.

It would be. I always wonder what they're actually looking for. Ideally, anyone with half a brain who is up to no good isn't going to keep 'evidence' on their computers. Since this often proves not to be true, the government has chosen to snoop through our stuff.

> I always wonder what they're actually looking for.

Security.

Job security.

>> I always wonder what they're actually looking for

Potential political prisoners - what else? They're only ever interested in anything that could constitute a threat to their power, however mild. It's also about conditioning us into apathy / obedience / accepting serfdom.

The original article mentioned the guy had been to a conference on surveillance, right? They know he's an unharmonious little tax slave, a potential troublemaker! That's why his devices were confiscated, not any suspicion of "terrorism" or whatever.

A surveillance state worth its salt would immediately pass a law (or even just police instruction) requiring 1) all customers to register an ID, 2) the rental register to be open for inspection at any time, 3) all drives to be snapshotted before being reimaged.

There must be some kind of product already existing where corporate laptops are wiped to a clean install of the OS, (ready to be taken through customs) with VPN software to safely download a package of needed data and setup information. And then to wipe that before return travel.

Heck, even a hidden, encrypted partition that made a TB hard disk appear to be a 500GB - - even physically through decals on the drive.

In relating to the other story about secrets, what do we really have to hide that we don't want the TSA to see?

I doubt his cell phone could be used directly in terrorism. Seems to me this isn't an attempt to prevent terrorism.

Assuming his devices are in some way useful for gaining information on Snowden, preventing further leaks, or similar, there's a shaved yak chain of what-ifs which ends with the idea that the fewer details the terrorists have about how we prevent terrorism, the better off we are. But I'm not saying this is valid justification by any means.

I'm not sure that's the point. My shoes still get taken off me.

If you have backups of everything maybe you can get a decent level of business insurance that would see them replace your hardware should they take it and then take the time to wipe and replace with generic build before travelling if you are really worried about privacy?

It still totally sucks though, don't get me wrong.

At the US border, the "border search exemption" enables warrantless bypassing of the 4th Amendment's restriction on search[1], and US vs Ramsey extends this to mail/parcel.[2] There is an EFF guide on the topic here for anyone interested, with more particular advice:

https://www.eff.org/wp/defending-privacy-us-border-guide-tra...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

[2] http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/crimin...

I'm a Kiwi - I travel a lot - it's pretty terrifying to us too - we're all pretty flabbergasted by this news story - I expect there's going to be a big fuss tomorrow

Normally NZ customs care most about biosecurity issues - to avoid their notice don't bring in loose food - eat it on the plane or toss it - wash your muddy boots/tent/hiking gear - that cute beagle sniffing at your bags on the carousel is looking for food, not drugs (the scary german shepherds are probably doing that out the back).

Packaged food is usually OK - but if you're unsure ask - at the very least declare stuff you're not sure about - I almost got dinged for bringing mooncakes back from Taiwan one year, turns out they're bad because they're too eggy, I was let off because I'd declared them (as 'cakes' rather than 'mooncakes', who knew I was supposed to). They have amnesty bins you can drop that apple in at the last minute without worry.

I suspect this is a one-off - probably the NSA thought he was someone else and leaned on the NZ government - but do do what others have suggested - encrypt your sensitive stuff, leave it on an overseas server and pull it in when you get here - remember the NSA WILL look at it because much of our internet traffic passes through the US so encrypt what you care about.

Most Kiwis are pretty ignorant of exactly how powerful customs are. The legislation they're citing this action as being taken under, the objectionable publications, gives phenominal powers to customs. I have a bit of experience with this because I know comics collecters who had huge collections seized in the 90s and never returned on the strength of their having a copy of Frank Millar's (then illegal in NZ) Hard Boiled.

They had no recourse on this.

"it's pretty terrifying to us too"

Isn't it? This story upsets me quite a lot. I've recently moved to the UK, but certainly plan on returning, intermittently or otherwise, and do not want to be subjected to this.

"probably the NSA thought he was someone else and leaned on the NZ government"

We told them to take a hike with the nuclear warships etc.; I wish we'd do the same with their data collection regimes. Unfortunately I definitely don't see that happening under Labour or National; and probably not under any of the parties either :(.

This is not strictly on-topic, but let me note that American friends have told me they wish they'd brought more stuff with them when they moved here. The shipping and 110V/240V transformers would have cost less than it did to replace whiteware and the like.

Thanks for the advice. We've tried to optimize what we intend to carry toward those sorts of things, and a transformer or two is on the list. Otherwise my wife and I are quite happy living a rather spartan lifestyle; for instance, another of our shared dreams is to build a tiny, off-grid, house.

Actually, what you should do is to carry laptops and phones without much data on them, and during the travel store your real data encrypted somewhere online.

The real risk here is losing your electronic equipment for an extended period of time.

In practical terms you have little or nothing to worry about, and absolutely no reason to be "terrified". This is likely a one-off incident, a clumsy interaction from a clueless airport guy. From the same team of geniuses who got reamed out recently when they confiscated a sick toddler's medical device at X-Ray because they were worried it was a bomb.

Assuming you are not an international terrorist or similar, the NZ government has absolutely no interest in the contents of your phone, computers etc.

Also, on the one in a thousand chance that you are inspected at customs; Don't raise hell after the fact. It's not the NZ way, relax and save your stress for the real worries in life, which we all run into in the fullness of time.

Apologies for not being more precise. I've been inspected by customs before. The whole discourse was short, only minorly inconveniencing, and the people I dealt with were pleasant and professional. At the end of it I thanked them for doing their jobs so well. I wouldn't "raise hell" after such an event.

However, were my possessions to be searched and confiscated in such a violating manor as described by the NZ Herald article, I'd most certainly be filing complaints, and perhaps speaking to the press. This is all that I meant by "raising hell."

I'm worried not because I'm an international terrorist, but because at the end of next week I'll be a former US defense contractor who is immediately departing the US after quitting his job. I'm sure this raises some red flags. I have every intention of complying with my employer's and government's policies regarding all of the procedures for leaving my position, but with this level of institutional paranoia I'm still worried.

That said, if I were to bet I'd say this fear is as irrational as you suggest and everything will go fine.

Thanks for this sensible follow-up. If something outrageous happens at the airport, as you say raise hell, why not. My comment came from being a well travelled kiwi, who always feels the warm glow associated with arriving in perhaps the sanest place in the world when I get home. I am not an Aucklander, but Auckland International Airport represents to me "home at last - nothing more to worry about now". Actually I feel a bit the same at Melbourne or Sydney if I get to stop off there on the way back - a nothing really crazy can happen now kind of relief.

So, enjoy your trip. Don't worry as outrageous incidents at our airports are really really really rare - dollars to donuts you'll be welcomed as if you are coming home too. If you come to Wellington and are so inclined message me and I'll buy you a beer (or a coffee) and welcome you personally :-)

> being a well travelled kiwi, who always feels the warm glow associated with arriving in perhaps the sanest place in the world when I get home.

> dollars to donuts you'll be welcomed as if you are coming home too. If you come to Wellington and are so inclined message me and I'll buy you a beer (or a coffee) and welcome you personally :-)

Thanks so much, but I'm headed for Christchurch.

Since deciding to move, every kiwi I've met here since has offered to put me in touch with some cousin/uncle/sibling to help us get on our feet, and I've had a remarkable number of perfect strangers make similar offers via e-mail and forums such as these. Being that we're going through such a sad time right now as we pack our things and say goodbye to our city, friends, and family, these kinds of gestures are really very encouraging. It's nice to think that we're moving someplace where people are so friendly and helpful toward one another.

I really hope it works out well for you. Christchurch used to be a beautiful city, but it has had its heart ripped out. Still, there is the dynamism that comes from (enforced) renewal. Note that the South Island climate demands a well insulated home! Generations of hardy kiwis never felt the need, but really, that's stone-age living and not something a newcomer should endure! Finally, I hope you report back, in this thread for example, on your arrival in NZ. After this discussion I am really hoping you don't have a bad experience !

Kiwistan strikes again. He should be grateful they didn't send a team of armed police to raid his house.

/edit:

Historically, white New Zealanders thought of New Zealand as "Better Britain". This basically meant doing anything [1] and everything [2] to please the "Mother Country". Now that the USA is the dominant superpower, this means things like raiding Kim Dotcom's mansion or providing land for a spy base. [3]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign [2] http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/the-new-zealanders/page-8 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waihopai_Station

Somewhat related - it appears Dotcom Is still very much under surveillance. The but about his cellular cover improving is fascinating, but if true, a fairly big tell. http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=...

"The but about his cellular..."

Excellent typo! You type in a kiwi accent ;]

When an organized group of people uses force to take your belongings, leveraging tactics of fear for political ends, isn't that firmly within the definition of terrorism?

I don't know the facts here so I'm not implying anything in this specific case, but I like to remember that the terminology we use drastically shapes our thinking.

No, because government.

The problem of political authority: http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/1.htm

No, because here, it's the good guys doing it (wink).

No, taking belongings has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is about using terror as coercion and presumably, they're searching his stuff because they want to find something, not because they want the attention.

Terrorism is about using terror as coercion

I'm not seeing where that contradicts his experience.

Terrorism is politically motivated, there is no evidence of that.

Yeah, I don't see at all how security theater is politically motivated, you're right.

Well, I'm not really going to get into the underlying rationale behind security theatre, but I would imagine that such actions would need to meet a certain threshold of how blatantly political they are.

Yeah, we call out governments for abusing the terror excuse, but we seem prone to applying the term inappropriately ourselves.

Maybe we should be using the term "oppression."

Simply and narrowly put, that may be terrorism, but to call this terrorism would be speculation -- it's not politically-charged attention-whoring in the strictest sense.

Another staple of terrorism is random violence, and we're not quite there yet.

Is an armed raid on someone's house not random violence?

An armed raid on a specific person's house house isn't random, however raiding any house in a particular neighbourhood would fulfil such a definition.

It's not random from the perspective of the police, but from the perspective of a citizen it might as well be.

Like what happened in Boston after the bombings?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWsbBhzxYw8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_Gb6i5DF9k

If you just want to make a rhetorical point, sure. If you want different things to have different names so that we can have intelligent discussions about them, no.

Right on. I literally believe the United States government is doing more harm to the United States than the terrorists are, but they are not themselves terrorists by any stretch of the imagination.

> by any stretch of the imagination

You do realize they do stuff like this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24557333), right? No stretch of the imagination? I'd also say fomenting a culture of fear is a terrorist activity (and by definition, their end goal). Right now the US government are experts at creating such culture.

Tell that to government first. Its government lies... sorry, PR that started this re-defining lark, not us people. We have to discuss these things in their terms now, unfortunately.

I don't see why we do.

"When an organized group of people uses force to take your belongings, leveraging tactics of fear for political ends, isn't that firmly within the definition of terrorism?"

No, that's democracy.

And the dumbest ideas always win, because the broadest section of the population can understand them.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan actually tried to define terrorism at the end of his tenure... He suggested : "Any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

That would make the bombing of Dresden and Nagasaki (and any other bombing under the 'strategic bombing' doctrine where the objective was to drain the people's will to fight) to be terrorism, though. It would make some of what the ANC did terrorism. This, however, would not be terrorism.

I think Kofi Annan was bang on the money. About time we had a workable definition of the word (beyond just 'whatever the other guy does'). However he didn't get very far with it at the UN level.

    "LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been 
    prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, 
    and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay 
    recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral 
    if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you 
    lose and not immoral if you win?"

Robert S. McNamara, in the documentary series The Fog of War.

[0] http://www.errolmorris.com/film/fow_transcript.html

International law is a joke when only people who lose wars are prosecuted.

(I have a lot to say on this point, but I'll leave it at that and point you to this[1])

[1] a series of three blog posts, old now and in need of rewriting:

http://politicomaniac.net/2011/02/the-failure-of-the-state/

http://politicomaniac.net/2011/02/lie-back-and-think-of-engl...

http://politicomaniac.net/2011/02/fluffy-federalism/

I note that the definition there means that some of what were arguably the most effective bombings conducted by the IRA weren't terrorism. Which is nice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing

Terrorism is largely defined not by technicalities, but by what people find to be outside the accepted rules.

Customs, while oppressive and invasive, has always been that way, since time immemorial. Thus, its not considered to be outside the rules.

I'm not so convinced on the conspiracy theories here. I say that as I had a similar experience in Auckland airport a couple of years ago, when travelling to another destination in the country.

The guy who interviewed me was actually very polite and friendly. They said I'd probably been flagged up as suspicious due to my itinerary. I'd travelled from China, for a 2 day visit to see a customer, with tickets booked via a US agent (Expedia). Suspect that living in China at the time had quite a bit to do with it.

Got asked all kinds of questions, most of which I didn't know the answer to. Didn't get my laptop searched or asked for any passwords, but they did make a point of asking if I had any porn on my computer. I said no, and they asked no more. They way they asked though did make it sound like it was a bit of an issue to them.

Took almost 2 hours in total. I actually didn't find it particularly stressful, mostly as I still made my next flight. I'd had far worse times travelling to the US, and getting some vindictive border agency guard who's out to get you by any means possible. Really, I loathe US immigration.

Apparently the New Zealand government is a bitch of the NSA.

After Kim Dotcom's house's FBI intrusion, it was already pretty clear.

It goes back considerably further - even Clark was their patsy when it came down to it. But the very visible spy base next to a state highway has never been perceived as anything other than a surrender to US policy. A break with the US came close after the nuclear free thing, but relations recovered.

I think at some level of consideration, it's worth thinking of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ as one entity. The public of each might see the different flags, Olympic medal counts, anthems and cultural variations but when the shit hits the fan (and now anything hitting anything) it's effectively one thing.

I've mentioned before on here that I think of it as Oceania from 1984.

If a company has influence in the U*, you can bet they will get what they want down here too.

Add Germany. Our Government is pro NSA and supports them as good as they can. They are dishonest self-servicing hypocrites.

Really? A lot of the official criticism in the NSA scandal seems to have come out of Germany. I'm sure German government has their fare share of hypocrites as does any government, but I always thought of them as one of the better ones when it came to privacy issues.

I'm not sure what part of the media is omitted in the states to get that picture of Germany, but our counselor was pro NSA all the time and fully supporting their actions and against Snowden until she got "monitored" herself [1]. Then she started voicing her concerns. But only as late political act of gaining sympathy. However the public received her message broadly as selfish [2].

[1] http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/23/uk-germany-usa-spyi...

[2] http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-smug-merkel-av... [English]

That's a big let down. I had the impression Germany basically as a whole was against the NSA stuff all along. Thanks for informing me, I'd rather be disappointed than wrong.

I think that's a stretch: when I was in Germany earlier this year, support for Snowden was everywhere, lead story on the TV news, politicians discussing granting Snowden asylum, Snowden's face was everywhere... you couldn't avoid the story. Very different to coverage in other countries.

Merkel is a friend of America & she's pragmatic - she won't torch the German-American relationship on a whim. It's perhaps more significant that even a pro-NSA, pro-American Chancellor now finds the actions of the NSA unconscionable & has to speak out.

Yes, Snowden was everywhere for a long time in the media. But that doesn't change even a bit. Yes, we people were and are concerned, but as you may have heard in the media response. Otherwise it wouldn't keep aired for so long, just because of honest journalism. They need money too.

Keep in mind that the "Snowden Affair" only reflects the morale of the citizen, not that of the government ruling their citizen. And the media can show it as often as they wish, but the German folk is the last to stand up for it. That's really no pessimism. I can see that there are protests in almost every country in the world against Governments, for all kinds of reasons. I don't know exactly why, but protests in Germany are much smaller and less frequent. I wish I knew why. Friends keep telling me that the folk is numb and doesn't care anymore, but I can't believe that. The situation is far worse in Italy and France where the entire media is ruled and owned by just one person for each country. However, that doesn't really help us.

We're probably the first nation, that officially "fired" it's president (Wulff). According to him, it's all because he called and threatened the Media, which started the anti Wulff campaign. That resulted in the media humiliating his credibility publicly. However, he wasn't without fault, because he was cheapish and accepted offers from the industry. Now he's at court, because of this! You can see this kind selfishness spread through the whole political landscape in Germany.

We have many parties, but only two that count: The red & The black party. Other parties are just their allies or help them to rip votes from their enemies. These main parties are very similar to the USA and represent the democrats vs conservatists.

     * The Red (SPD) party originally represented "The Workers"..
     * The Green (Grüne) party originally stood for the "The Environment & Green Energy".
     * The Black (CDU & CSU) party still represent the "Conservative pro Economy & Industry opportunists".
     * The Left party originally represented "leftism", but now just fights for survival and represents popular ideas.

That back-story was needed, so that you can imagine how lost the fight is. Currently it's as clear as never before, that all political parties agree on most points. Interestingly, they keep their meetings and agreements secret from the public. But announce things like agreements between the Green, Black and Red party. Should be shocking, but you can't be shocked when it's slowly introduced like this.

Go on, name one government which isn't.

Actually, the UK government isnt being hypocritical, its brazenly up for anything the US instructs it to do. I do wish we would decide if we are a great little country which punches above it size, or a US lapbitch. Feckin' hilarious when you consider the frankly xenophobic hatred we have of the EU compared to the fawning over the US.

As for Germany, didn't you chaps have an election in the middle of the scandal? Didn't various positions change a lot depending on polls, and of course the confirmation that the US spies on it's allies as much as its enemies? Watching some German politicians wriggling about as the Snowden information is revealed must be quite humiliating for the German people.

>>Go on, name one government which isn't.

China? Russia? Iran? Venezuela? Pretty much any country that refuses to do USA bidding is labeled 'enemy of the free world'.

Known as the "Five Eyes" alliance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

Or the Anglosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere

I've referred to it as Fiveyesia on HN before, but had forgotten "Anglosphere".

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that the spy organisations have become one entity - a supra-national and extra-legal one which ignores national laws or political control - GCHQ for example is completely in the service of the NSA now, to the extent that their internal briefing documents and top-secret information are all stored on NSA servers (hence Snowden's access to them), and their activities are dictated by the priorities and funding of US agencies.

Nations continue to disagree (for example the UK refused to back the intervention in Syria), but the spies will always cooperate.

Five Eyes, mate...

I was born in NZ, and live in Australia, and I'm under no illusions as to who our security services really report to.

The sad thing is, NZ seemed to be a more sensible Australia. Now we're both going mad.

In some respects, NZ still is. With Keyes about to be kicked out of office, watch this space however.

I think he will romp home as the opposition is so weak. Last poll I've seen has National over 50% and Labour at 33%. http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9332786/Poll-a-major-...

You're wrong. Last poll has both blocs neck and neck and the left have been consistently gaining across all polls (I tried to find the poll of polls but gave up, sorry)

I so badly hope you are right. The corporate welfare state must irritate people other than me... Surely?

Me too, the cronyism this time is terrible. but I really don't know if it'll be different under labour. I hope that their new membership structure forces them to implement more transparent, citizen-friendly/biased legislation, but who knows.

one of the things that came ou of the NZ specific parts of the Wikileaks dumps was that the US had a clear deliniation between its friends in defence and intel (who were defined as Kiwis who were acting as unpaid advocates for US interests, against the policies of the government of the day), and everyone else.

Yep, because it's impossible that non-US governments are individually idiots, everything is controlled by the NSA.

12 years ago I was backpacking in Australia/NZ with my girlfriend. Upon landing in Auckland we were subjected to about 30 min questioning. From I heard, it was pretty common at the time.

I doubt the NSA had anything to do with it (and it wasn't that big of a deal anyway, if you handled it like an adult).

This is why professionals operate on "Naked In/Naked Out". Show up with nothing, acquire all your tooling in the country, execute your operational activities, dispose of the tooling, leave the country with nothing.

Expensive, but safe.

These sorts of harassment measures are only capable of catching amateurs making serious operational mistakes. They will not catch professionals or serious operatives. I can never understand how this passes for counter-terrorism when it is really just "counter-clumsy-terrorists", at best.

I had an interaction like this in Canada. The options they give you are to give up your passwords, log in to your online banks to show them transactions, etc., or have everything confiscated.

The reason they did it to me is because they thought I was a drug smuggler. They got that idea because I was going to China and didn't have a fixed itinerary, which they found to be incredibly suspicious.

I'm not sure if the non-techie cop was playing good cop/bad cop or not, but he was yelling at me and accusing me of being a liar from the beginning. Because I knew I hadn't done anything wrong and wasn't lying, it was pretty comical, but it became really upsetting once they started threatening to seize everything if I didn't give up my passwords.

Sort of amusing that it's the lack of fixed schedule that really rattled him. Dude sounds like he could use a sabbatical himself.

"The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"

Time to switch login prompt to "Logging in with username and password" and have a dummy account that can delete files upon login. Provide the fairly clueless customs official with the loaded login credentials and damage done before they realise.

Not that I have anything to hide... that being said they will probably just back door into my laptop next time I'm on and deactivate any form of tripwire.

Curse you NSA, always streets ahead!

(Note: If I wasn't on their radar, I am now... /sigh, it was a joke)

Pulling that sort of stunt would probably get you in a lot of trouble.

You must stop thinking like a victim. It's your property, your responsibility, your freedom, your life. Assert yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.

Okay, your heart is definitely in the right place, but if you're going to assert yourself over your electronic gear at the airport, do not for heaven's sake do it by playing cute half-clever tricks with hidden volumes or self-destructing software. Do it by politely but firmly refusing to hand over passwords; then the worst that's at all likely to happen to you is that they send you home without your gear.

Not necessary to do harm to your data.

What you want is truecrypt with a shadow partition. See, forensics can tell if your laptop drive has an encrypted partition. But they can't tell how many. So, set up a dummy encrypted partition with user/pass and your normally used partition with user/pass.

Depending on which user/pass you enter, truecrypt will decrypt the appropriate partition. The government can snoop all they want on your dummy partition. They will find nothing. When they ask why you encrypted it, you tell them because you always protect your things. You also lock your house when you leave etc. Of course you should have some things on your dummy partition that make it look like it is actually being used. If you just have a freshly installed OS with no sign of usage, that might get noticed.

I remember fellow HN'er Steve Kablink saying on twitter that the only reason he hadn't done a FOIA request on himself is because... they probably have a list of people who have done a FOIA request on themselves (but that he'd be doing one soon out of principle).

This kind of heavy handed, precedent setting, dissent-disincentivizing move is just sad to see happen (and perhaps sadder that I feel completely at its mercy and feel it affecting my actions concretely)

I haven't done one because a. what are they going to give me that I don't already suspect b. it's another data point for them to use in modeling.

I don't turn on DNT in browsers either but I still run AdBlock and restrict third-party requests by a lot.

So its still news to people that customs agents are all powerful.. :) turns out that if you think police was bad, custom is 1000 worse. They can do literally anything and that's not just the USA. It's the same everywhere in Europe for example.

Also, I would strongly advise giving out your password if you want to be on your way. Refusal to give access is generally a huge issue.

As an NZ citizen who is outraged at this pathetic kowtowing to US interests, anyone have any good ideas about who or what I can direct pissed off emails to? it would be nice to at least feel i've tried to do something

Whenever I read these I always think there is more to the story -- usually I find out later that the "victim" was being a jerk (not that they should hassle jerks -- but that is human nature).

Lets all just remember that he is at this stage the first for this to happen to. I'm a kiwi and on a New Zealand watch list for other reasons and this has never happened to me. No need to get scared, thousands upon thousands of people fly through nz airports all the time and this never happens. I follow this sort of thing and its the first I've heard.

I have bank code on my (encrypted) laptop (and the code itself is in an encrypted container), I'd like to see them demand I give up the passwords, then have the US involved in a big corporate espionage lawsuit vs one of the world's largest banks.

Actually nvm, I don't, I wiped my hard drive before bringing it in for repairs.

As Bruce Schneier suggests, when crossing a border, encrypt your drives and change your password to something so long and convoluted you cannot possibly remember it.

Give you password to a trusted friend (preferably your lawyer) with instructions not to give you the password until you get home or to your destination.

If you're visiting a country you're not a citizen of, bring your data in over the Internet. (Yes, there's the NSA thing, but it's still unclear what they can break. My guess is that they have not broken the crypto itself, only some buggy implementations.) If you're a citizen of the country, encrypt your data and let the courts figure out whether or not they can compel you to provide the key. (Or, they can publicly declare that they've broken AES, and get your data anyway. Either way, it's a win.)

Also strongly agree with patio11 on getting everything in writing. This is now a criminal investigation. Make sure you have what you need to defend yourself in court.

If the NSA wants your data they already have it, or can get it anytime they want from you or your service providers. It could change in the future, but at the moment we're all pwned.

The problem for an essentially law abiding individual crossing a border is having access to their own data after crossing. Hardware fetishes notwithstanding, the hardware and its possible loss doesn't matter at all, it's the data held by the hardware or that the hardware gives access to.

So:

- If you can, stop buying expensive hardware. It doesn't matter.

- Don't carry hardware across borders that you can't emotionally or economically walk away from forever.

- The only copy of data that you depend on should not be on hardware that you cross a border with. Have it accessible on a server, the cloud, or with a colleague that can ship it to you electronically or physically after safely crossing borders.

- Accept that you may have to buy cheap disposable hardware after exiting border checkpoints.

- Worst case, plan for not having access to any hardware or data after exiting border checkpoints; you may not have your own hardware, you may not be able to buy any, and you may not have access to your data at all. Plan C, if you will.

Are things getting worse every day?

Every month, but we're getting close to every other week. That's not entirely because of September 11th, but because politics thinks that they can serve Government and Corporate requirements better when they rip our data, privacy and rights.

Terrorism: Terrorism is the systematic use of violence (terror) as a means of coercion for political purposes.

If you define violence as intimidating (of), physical and mental torture then all governments top the list.

Sad. After a long flight one has to go through this. I have gone through my share. I forgot to declare an apple given by Singapore airline. I kept apple in my bag in rush while getting out of aircraft, and was so sleepy to realise I need to declare it. I was held there for sometime. I was fined USD 200. The most expensive fruit of my life. I didn't even get to keep it with me.

Some of people on airport were like robots, they didn't have any reaction (on their faces) for my plea.

However, a Customs official has since told him they were searching everything for objectionable material under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993.

Yeah right.

I don't really travel internationally, but I decided -- about ten years ago, when people first started talking about the way laptops are searched at borders -- that if I do feel the urge to travel internationally with my laptop, I'll dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda on all my gadgets before I cross any national border.

Of course you want to have VNC / ssh set up ahead of time so you can actually do stuff...

I've tweeted and blogged against the surveillance state many times, so I guess I must also be on whatever list this guy is on.

Lots to consider as well - travel to the US can be rather dicey for foreign travelers, so here is what you _can_ do to become better prepared for travel here - http://www.cba.org/CBa/PracticeLink/tayp/laptopborder.aspx

Dear HN -- In the US, please start making a distinction between CPB and DHS. One governs entry into the county the other is responsible for security when boarding a plane.

CPB -- http://www.cbp.gov DHS -- http://www.dhs.gov

Because children.

Because terror.

Because politics.

I'm glad I've already been to NZ.

I'd take my chances with the abuses of NZ customs officials than just about anywhere else in the world. One story does not a broken system make.

This is the same country that told the US to fuck off with their nuclear-powered ships and when levered through treaties to send personnel to warzones, sends medical staff rather than troops. It's not some backwards little-Stalin state.

I suppose if I'm not an NZ national (US citizen) they would only pause for 5 seconds (as opposed to none) before similarly making away with my gear? Or would they be more inclined to do that to an American as a more kingly than the king type deal?

(I was planning on going there for Easter)

This guy was unfortunate in tripping some sort of alarm for them. I've travel NZ<->US approx twice a year for going on 15 years now and have never so much as been stopped. I always ask for the frisk and grab rather than the microwave scanners (I'm thinking about the TSA folks who have to work there) and have been to many 'hacker' conventions while in the US and never triggered anything. I guess I fit a profile as a 'known'... rather than unknown. Maybe someone the guy spoke to at this conference is someone they genuinely want to know everything about. This doesn't make it OK but it's quite likely some specific thing that set it off for them

All of which to say you'll probably be fine and I don't imagine being a US vs NZ national will make any difference as to whether you get the stazi treatment or the wave through.

Also FWIW I'm usually a more worried about missing my flights due to unnecessary searches on the TSA side of things (combining a special breed of stupid with a dangerous type of wilful paranoia) than on the NZ side (more of your basic 'just following orders guvn'r' type of stupidity)

Just be careful about biological material (NZ has very strict airport biosecurity) and you'll be fine. I'm a New Zealander and this is the first time I've heard of something like this happening at the border.

Sorry, accidentally down voted you. Yes they are very fussy, shoes need to be clean, no plant material etc.

I cancelled out your downvote, so your guilty conscience can rest easy. :-)

I remember when we visited the Philippines, a friend gave us about 20 jars of a local delicacy to take back home to New Zealand. Which was very kind, except New Zealand's biosecurity laws meant that we had to throw most of them away at the border. (We could keep the few that were sealed properly.)

Yeah, I remember seeing a comedy skit about a guy carrying cocaine into New Zealand, freaking out when a sniffer dog singled out his baggage ... and then having to pay a fine for the apple core he left inside it ;)

First time I came here, I was so out of it (through being tired) by the time I got to Auckland that when the dog came up and started wagging at my bag I found myself bending down to pet it before thinking "What's this dog doing in an airport?..." Response "Er, that's a drug dog mate, any idea why he's so interested in your bag?" Can't remember exactly what I said then; I guess having had a dopehead flatmate a short while previously probably had something to do with it, and I think I mentioned that.

>It's not some backwards little-Stalin state.

What do "backwards little-Stalin state[s]" have to do with it? Is it just habit to think of the ex-Eastern Bloc when you think of totalitarian surveillance, or do you think of the US and the UK as backwards little-Stalin states?

My question - does the local border patrol have the ability to break bitlock encryption on a laptop I bring there? I mean, who from HN travels w/o something like this done on your computer in the first place?!

They apparently have the ability to ask you for the password and take your stuff or refuse entry if you don't cooperate.

IMHO they shouldn't, but that's a different issue.

Never declare anything, ever. And if they pull you out for a search anyway, play ignorant.

This is terrible advice, especially in the New Zealand context. Playing ignorant will get you into a lot more trouble than being honest, and will just fuel the fire more.

I routinely carry microSD cards filled with 16GB of random numbers.

A tight slap to our rights and privacy.

surely this...?

this is sad

Yeah maybe it is his last name.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com