Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
My post may have been a little coarse, but I wouldn't call leaving the phone behind irrational in my case; I go days without looking at the thing lol
My point was, the erosion of our basic right to privacy in the FUD-driven, false-premised world of "safety and security" is wearing quite thin to those of us who give a damn. Sadly these policies are shaped by the lowest common denominator instead of (un)common sense.
Awesome. You get major points in my book. I still use a dumbphone.
I still don't see a basic erosion of privacy in this case. Everyone knows that they have to satisfy border control they don't pose some sort of threat, and the only way they can do that is via disclosing private information. Information from the mouth of the person in question may not always be truthful. Getting phone data would seem to be quite far down the track in the 'investigation' - as 537 out of 14m would seem to suggest. I also reckon more than 500 people a year would have their butt hole checked, which I'd feel was more of an invasion of privacy than looking at my phone. But then again, I don't have much on my phone.
With all that aside, if you get around to planning that trip to NZ, I'd be glad to offer some local perspective of things to see & do.
It's not such a little known fact. They mark it up right in front of you. This gives the guilty some time to panic, sweat, and act more guilty as they generally struggle to contain the bodies physiological responses.
In NZ, and I'd suspect most countries the routine check of bags etc that the immigration guy ordered will get more personal the more you are a douche to the customs guy. A dog guy can also order a search. And the immigration guy can also take you to an interview room to question you, which will no doubt involve a search of more personal items if they fail to be satisfied. So, yeah, pays to be nice to all the border security people. And not be bad.
LOL I'm not a fan of either Thanks for the offer, someday I hope to take you up on it provided I can get over my disdain for the TSA and scrap together enough dough to get over there!
This is the typical argument that a government puts forward when being accused of overreach. In other words, 'you've nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong'.
There is a significant difference in asking you "what is the purpose of your visit here" and having unrestricted access to your digital, private, life.
And I don't buy the 537/14m ratio. This is not about how many or how few are checked. This is about whether it's right or wrong that a government is allowed to do invasive searches without probable cause. This is about civil liberties.
would be great if there's a way to allow only information we want shared to be shared while companies trying to obtain stuff we want private will lead to legal ramifications.
In the article you originally linked to they mentioned they only request phone access with probable cause (and the low number suggests that). It is not unrestricted access. They are not doing random searches here. If you don't buy that either, then I'd say it's a piss-poor method of data collection. It makes no logical sense for them to do random searches and undermine the tourist trade which is critical to the countries well-being.
It's a fair argument. The article states that the whole quote
is 'According to CCL', so it certainly could be argued that it is not impartial. Maybe the sticking point is understanding at which stage of the legislative process 'lawmakers required that they have "reasonable cause." ', i.e. was this an original requirement of the lawmakers that ended up not being translated into law, or did it become part of the law but CCL are saying it didn't?
I'd have no doubt the application didn't have the requirement for reasonable cause, as from their point of view it's implied. IMO border security aren't there to get private personal information from innocent random people. They are there to stop bad buys. They want whatever makes their job easier.
The CCL guy in the above article has been quoted as saying the below: -
"The new requirement for reasonable suspicion did not rein in the law at all, Mr Beagle said. "They don't have to tell you what the cause of that suspicion is, there's no way to challenge it.""
Which in the CNN article became "did not require reasonable cause".
Deleting incriminating evidence and then reloading from the cloud won't work unless you are very good at deception. From the above article below:-
"Before getting to the point of a digital search, the traveller would likely have aroused suspicion because of dog indications, previous travel or unsatisfactory responses to questions from border security agents.
In a preliminary search Customs officials would search files stored on the device, and would not investigate anything the person may have stored in the Cloud. However if they believe the person to be guilty they will commence a "forensic search" which would go more in-depth, including Cloud storage."
From my point of view this is CCL creating FUD to keep their names in the paper. The reality is it's so far away from scanning in data from their phone as they go through the metal detectors/bag scanning. This is the initial impression created when reading the headlines. Which is of course what the editors want.
