Aus Customs

[Sleeve_of_Wizard]

Who the hell do Customs think they are? Checking Crew's laptops for Pornography and other "Illegal" things..... Piss off it's none of yr business what's on MY laptop.

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Aren't people supposed to obey the laws of the country that they're in ?
The laws may appear to be (or are), stupid or impractical to enforce or whatever, but .....

Oz has laws on various types of porn.
Austrac is interested in your financial transactions, the AFP/ASIO want to know if you have 'inappropriate' plans or reading material. apologies to any agencies that I've forgotten to mention

[IAW]

How is it any different than searching through a suitcase? Welcome to the digital age. Please leave your old fogies at the door. :=

[flyitboy]

As much as we all dislike being scutinized for whatever reason, that old saying "if you have nothing to hide then what's the problem'?

I got almost stripped searched once here in OZ (well felt like it) & they wanted everything out of my briefcase inc the laptop. I had a pair of old reading glasses that had a broken arm that had come loose & was lying on it's own, that was the offending object that required a total disgorge of the cases contents & many Q's. I jumped thru the hoops knowing full well that there was nothing untoward.

F

[noip]

"that old saying "if you have nothing to hide then what's the problem'?"

Everything.

Such a statement is completely at odds with the foundations of our society and a persons right to privacy.

And note .. I'm not commenting on the current practice of Customs searching notebook computers, just the statement quoted above.

N

[Sleeve_of_Wizard]

I agree, it's just my opinion. Everyone is Paranoid, and it is annoying. I have nothing to hide, that's why i am pissed off. :ugh:

[Green gorilla]

I think they may have had info on him because I see alot of laptops go through without being checked.

[roamingwolf]

I agree, it's just my opinion. Everyone is Paranoid, and it is annoying. I have nothing to hide, that's why i am pissed off.

another naive statement,so we should get rid of customs completely?

Have you been to any other country?

Ohh they have customs as well and ask questions too!!!!!

Amazing,simply amazing.Do you think for a moment that we want someone who is interested in child pornography in this country?

[tipsy2]

Could just be a way for individual Customs officers to 'get their rocks off' legally:E

tipsy

[Green gorilla]

I say good on customs for finding this stuff:yuk:

[neville_nobody]

The problem with it is that it is salami tactics that are being used to erode civil rights in otherwise democratic countries. Continual small changes over a long period of time till eventually we are under constant surveillance and scrutiny.
It is how you basically get rid of democracy without anyone knowing.

[TIMMEEEE]

Sleeve of Wizard.

And I suppose you approve of paedophiles entering the country - but so long as their privacy or human rights are not violated or infringed !!!!

It's quite obvious that customs in this case were tipped off about this individual.
And it most probably came from abroad.

I applaud customs in this case but would have personally had the guilty individual thrown into gaol where he could enjoy the label of being a "rock-spider" (along with all the trimmings it deserves!!).

The guys/girls in customs have difficult jobs to perform with only certain resources at their disposal.

If you ever watch Border Security then you will realise just how difficult a job it is they do.

Congratulations to Australian Customs - you guys deserve a pat on the back for this one!!

[lowerlobe]

neville_nobody........
The problem with it is that it is salami tactics that are being used to erode civil rights in otherwise democratic countries

....What a load of rubbish....the problem is that we have any number of people bringing in everything from narcotics to child pornography and nev the nobody thinks that trying to protect us is eroding our civil rights....

Well Nev why not get rid of the police force as well...how about getting rid of corporate and financial protection agencies.

If this clown had done anything to one of your children I think you would have a different attitude.

[Frank Burden]

Might I suggest Sleeve of Wizard that you wear more than a half unbuttoned overcoat and runners when you come through customs!!:cool:

[neville_nobody]

Maybe so guys but where will it end? How much is enough?

Don't think that the guys who circulate child porn actually keep it sitting on their desktops!! :ugh: They have very secure and complicated setups which takes teams of police years to infiltrate.

As for the salami tactics that is definately happening. Have a look at what FOI laws that have been changed. Have a look at what you can do under the terror laws. Have a look at the new police powers. On their own they seem bearable but if you add it all together you start eroding democratic society.

[lowerlobe]

Certainly no one wants to live in a police state with a bar code on our forehead.

However,instances like this show that the system worked because it stopped someone who obviously thinks paedophilia is acceptable from having access to Australia.

Who knows what this clown did when he was on trips to Australia.There has to be a level of detection and enforcement involved and the amount or degree of what is needed is the $64 question but it worked in this case.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Sleeve of Wizard.

Those are the laws of this country. If you don’t like them, you can piss off. If you think our laws are tough you need to get out more.

Neville,

OK mate, I’ll bite. I don’t smuggle drugs, deal in kiddie porn or plan to carry out a terrorist attack. Please tell me exactly how these laws that supposedly erode our civil rights will affect me in my day to day life.
Personally I don’t mind a little inconvenience (and that’s all it is) if it means stopping the bad guys. If someone wants to listen to my phone conversations or read my e-mails, they must be pretty bored!

These types of shrill comparisons to a “police state” really get my goat. Try Saudi Arabia for a taste of real “police state” lifestyle. Until you’ve experienced something like that you really have no clue what you’re on about.

[assymetric]

Nobody said you can't have porn on your laptop. What this guy had was child porn, it's not only illegal but also immoral.

Go get the Bar:mad::mad::mad:rds.

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

I have no real problem with being quizzed by Customs, tells me they are doing their job and that's good for all of us. It might be an inconvenience and take time but hopefully people who do bad things get pulled up.

I went through Malpensa in Milan recently and Emirates typically lost my wife's and my luggage ( they went to Rome then Dubai and back again, a regular occurrance according to family ). We hung about for a day then went back to the terminal the next day to pick up our bags.

As we were leaving the terminal expecting a typical Australian style Customs workover, I walked up to 2 uniformed gents who were chatting away looking disinterested in everything and asked where I would go to clear customs. Annoyed that I'd interrupted their conversation he pointed to the exit sign that led to the outside world and started chatting to his mate again. Now I know it's europe with porous borders but it was pretty funny that there was no care at all. Ahh the Italian way of doing things, calm, then manic, then calm, job's done.

Anyone else got any strange/funny customs stories?

[flyitboy]

I stand by my statement, "if you have nothing to hide then what's the problem" I didn't dream that statement up, but you would think so by the way some people here react to it! I can remember hearing it back in school days when there was such a thing as discipline. You essentially have little in the way of privacy these days anyway. To quote a phrase said by John Laws. "the snivel libertarians", their everywhere. Big Bro is watching & if you think yr safe then think again ! I dislike the customs proceedures but after 9/11 we have no choice now but to put up with it however idiotic it may seem.

F

[Selfloading]

Maybe its to stop this kind of scumbags getting into Australia
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/2/15/asia/20335509&sec=asia

[1224]

Do customs actually have any legal right to open up a laptop turn it on and search through private data? I would have thought that they must have a strong suspicion or evidence to do so. I mean for any normal passenger this would be a little over the top and no doubt add to the queues wouldn't it?

They obviously had good Intel to get that pilot, but for the majority of people to have to just open up and reveal such personal information I think is a bit over the top.


Is it too much? Where do you draw the line on privacy VS security?

[Islander Jock]

I think you will find under the customs act that an officer has the right to search any or all or your posessions that you are bringing into the country. Whether it's in your laptop, brief case, wallet, jocks and socks pocket of your suitcase I'd say is irrelevant. I wonder if they will also start clamping down on the pirate DVDs that many people (myself included) usually bring back?

On another note, do customs officers do the internal examination or are suspected individuals sent off to a medical facilty for the latex glove treatment?

[Worrals in the wilds]

1224, yes, they do.

CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 186
General powers of examination of goods subject to Customs control
(1) Any officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#officer) may, subject to subsections (2) and (3), examine any goods (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#goods) subject to the control of the Customs (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#customs), and the expense of the examination including the cost of removal to the place (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s77f.html#place) of examination shall be borne by the owner (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#owner).
(2) In the exercise of the power to examine goods (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#goods), the officer of Customs (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#officer_of_customs) may do, or arrange for another officer of Customs (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#officer_of_customs) or other person (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s153b.html#person) having the necessary experience to do, whatever is reasonably necessary to permit (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#permit) the examination of the goods (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#goods) concerned.
(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), examples of what may be done in the examination of goods (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#goods) include the following:
(a) opening any package (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#package) in which goods (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#goods) are or may be contained;
(b) using a device, such as an X‑ray machine or ion scanning equipment, on the goods (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#goods);
(c) testing or analysing the goods (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#goods);
(d) measuring or counting the goods (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#goods);
(e) if the goods (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#goods) are a document--reading the document either directly or with the use of an electronic (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#electronic) device;
(f) using dogs to assist in examining the goods (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#goods).
(4) Goods (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#goods) that are subject to the control of Customs (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#customs) under section 31 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s31.html) do not cease to be subject to the control of Customs (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#customs) merely because they are removed from a ship (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s130c.html#ship) or aircraft (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s130c.html#aircraft) in the course of an examination under this section.

Section 186A deals with Customs' powers to copy documents.
Examination of goods includes reading electronic stuff.

Neville, you'd be surprised at the bilge some people are stupid enough to store on their laptops and dvds, sometimes not even password protected.
Some of it is truly vile, degrading and violent. Some of it relates to dodgy personal hobbies such as blowing up public buildings. None of it is particularly uplifting.

However, unfortunately sometimes the Customs adage "We only catch the dumb ones" applies.

Islander Jock, an internal search (sections 219L-ZJ for the morbidly interested) can only be performed by a medical practitioner. Suspects are carted off to the nearest medical facility by the AFP.
An external search (no gloves inserted anywhere) is done by Customs officers.

Worrals

[Angle of Attack]

Yes it is obviously a tip off because it almost never happens, I wouldnt get too worked up about it, however for people saying you should leave here because the laws are tough or we need it since 9/11 come on, in reality they are pi$$weak! Just how does all the hard drugs get on the street? Yes imported! And jesus get over it 9/11 is nothing for f#@$ sake, it was 1 ant in the history of millions boys, get over the fear and live your lives! Probably Gen Y hmm. Just think about it 9/11 was an insignificant atom in the history of this world, I think your all worked up about it because of the media not facts! History repeats in more ways than one and it sure is repeating here! Well with a few anyway! Good day!
:ugh:

[roamingwolf]

captaindejavu,
mate as far as i know 'goods' mean anything that you bring into the country.

that means laptops,your shaver,your hairbrush or the latest car magazine.i don't think customs are interested in a letter your girlfriend emailed you or a word document that you are sending to your solicitor.

it sounds like someone didn't share this blokes taste in porno and dobbed him in and bingo the boys nabbed him.

the problem is that if it wasn't for dopes who try to do this stuff the rest of us who are not doing anything illegal would be able to walk straight through customs in minutes.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Captaindejavu, from the definitions section of the act:

""goods" means movable personal (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s180.html#person) property of any kind and, without limiting the generality of the expression, includes documents (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s4.html#documents), vessels and aircraft (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1901124/s130c.html#aircraft). "

Goods subject the the control of the Customs are defined in section 30, which is long, dry and cumbersome.

Suffice to say, my understanding and experience is that Customs can search anything that is imported or due for export, no ifs, buts, explanations or warrants required. Given the number of lawyers that get knocked over, I imagine any loopholes would have been found and exploited by now.

Section 186A is long, with a number of caveats, which is why I didn't post it. It sets the parameters for the power to copy documents. The Officer must be satisfied that the doocuments MAY contain info related to an offence committed against a number of acts, including the import / export of Prohibited Goods, an offence against a prescribed Act and s17 of the ASIO Act. Basically, they're not allowed a free-for-all copying spree with your stuff. However, these conditions are not hard to satisfy.


Searching people requires some justification (s219) and dip bags are out, but anything else is free game.
In some ways the Customs powers are much wider than those of the police.

Roamingwolf is right in that Customs are not interested in general X rated porn (ie adults doing non-violent stuff to each other), your secret second family in Thailand or hate mail to John Howard. They are concentrating on kiddie porn, violent porn (and some of the stuff out there is simply vile), drug / weapon smuggling and the dreaded CT.

I can't imagine many of you guys would be carrying that sort of stuff around with you, and if you are, you probably deserve what you get.
Unfortunately, if a couple of pilots have been found with nasty stuff, you may all come in for a bit of a targetting for a while. This is the way LEAs operate.

[RedTBar]

then get to have a long-term intimate relationship with a broom handle.

who's nick name is splinters :E

I know that when we get back from a trip the last thing we feel like is lining up and joining a que which seems to go on forever.

When you see something like this you realise that Customs is there for a very valid reason.The bigger picture is to stop or try to prevent things like this sicko from entering our country and doing anyone harm.

I know that customs generates a large source of income for the government but that is the government bean counters legislating that not the customs people.

[Spotlight]

This same occurrance has been discussed on the Far East forums. There is a suggestion that the offending material was in the form of an email, that while of dubious taste has nonetheless been widely circulated. Due to supposedly humerous content presumably.

I have to say, I would not wish to be taken to account for some of the stuff sent to me unsolicited over the years of electronic messaging.

[flyby_kiwi]

1224,

I think that you will find every country has different legislation but generally speaking they where quite withing thier right.
However as has been stated, there are so many people passing through each day that it is impracticle to check everybody's computer. People are targeted for whatever reason (lets face it - random searching is a waste of resources) and the pilot in question would have been known about be it from a tip off or some other means.

[altonacrude]

I stand by my statement, "if you have nothing to hide then what's the problem" I didn't dream that statement up, but you would think so by the way some people here react to it! I can remember hearing it back in school days when there was such a thing as discipline. You essentially have little in the way of privacy these days anyway. To quote a phrase said by John Laws. "the snivel libertarians", their everywhere.


I agree that if I have nothing to hide - and indeed I have not - I need not fear customs, state police, federal police or ASIO checking me out.

But wait a minute...

What if I have nothing to hide, but state police, federal police and ASIO check me out, decide I might be a terrorist, arrest me, throw me into jail without charge, forbid me to tell anyone where I am, finally haul me in front of a magistrate and on some imaginary charge have me stripped of my residency visa? Then throw me out of the country? For no reason - just because they can.

Can't happen like that in a liberal Western democracy? Seven point five million dollars of wasted government money says it can (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23236630-662,00.html).

Suppose an Indian pilot flies into Sydney, Customs uses BabelFish to machine-translate his Urdu email files into English and the mangled translation produces something they think is suspicious. Current laws allow the federal police to disappear the guy, virtually indefinitely.

These are the sorts of risks that, despite flyitboy's scorn, snivel libertarians see as increasing.

The thing that we fear is misinterpretation or simply wrong facts given to government bureaucracies that have increasingly draconian powers to act on tlhem without adequate judicial oversight.

A more extreme case of totalitarian persecution (http://www.maherarar.ca/)occurred in the US in 2002:


Maher Arar is a 34-year-old wireless technology consultant. He was born in Syria and came to Canada with his family at the age of 17. He became a Canadian citizen in 1991. On Sept. 26, 2002, while in transit in New York’s JFK airport when returning home from a vacation, Arar was detained by US officials and interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later, he was chained, shackled and flown to Syria, where he was held in a tiny “grave-like” cell for ten months and ten days before he was moved to a better cell in a different prison. In Syria, he was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession....

On September 18, 2006, the Commissioner of the Inquiry, Justice Dennis O'Connor, cleared Arar of all terrorism allegations, stating he was "able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada."


A similar fate has befallen several other Canadians.

Of course the risk to each of us of this kind of misadventure is small. I don't lie awake at night worrying about it (although probably neither did Haneef or Arar).

But why would Customs officials hold up lines to search laptops when anything they might contain can be effortlessly imported over Australia's international fibre optic cables? And inconvenience the rest of us?

That really doesn't make sense unless they were close to hundred percent certain that some idiot had illegal content. Or have our security services completely taken leave of their senses? Will they be confiscating pilots' Leatherman tools next?

[altonacrude]

Interesting thread here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=313479) about how if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Yeah, right.

[crank1000]

Going into LAX a few years ago (2004)I was asked for my passport by the immigration guy who then started to question me as to why I had bothered to get a visa from my embassy. "Because I was arrested for underage drinking when I was 17" was my reply. "Why didn't you just get a 90 day visa waiver?" "Because the embassy said I had to apply for a visa if I'd ever been arrested". He informed me that only felonies excluded you from the visa waiver scheme and I must have had a reason for applying for a full visa. "I don't I understand what your getting at" I asked him. This just made him very angry and he kept repeating, "Why did you get a visa?" I asked to speak to his supervisor who simply asked for my onward ticket, and sent me on my way once I produced it. Are the immigration staff at LAX mentally challenged? Surely going to the trouble of going to an embassy and going through a stringent vetting would mean I have nothing to hide? Not according to this guy. Every airport I have travelled through in the US on that trip and every one since have subjected me to embarrassing and very inconvenient searches and questions. No one else in my group is ever questioned. Just a hint, if you get a bunch of XXX's printed on your boarding pass, standby for annoying delay's. I am told it's a computer generated mark for random searches. When I told immigration that every boarding pass I had been issued since 2004 had these X's (about 12 of them) I just got an "I don't know" response.

Hate flying in the US

[westausatc]

I have two points I want to raise. The first will be nice and calm (I hope ) then I shall jump on my soapbox for a bit of a rant.....

In this case, IF the customs guys had forewarning, I think that maybe it would have been more prudent to pass it onto the police and let them deal with it. This may have enabled the police to catch more than just this one guy. It would also have allowed for this being an unsolicited email to be investigated properly without the consequent embarrassment, etc to the individual involved (if it was unsolicited - remember we do not know any real facts here, it is mostly speculation).

It also would have let the issue be resolved away from the public eye. God knows how I would feel if (rightly or wrongly) I was escorted away in the Customs hall because of child porn. And before others get up and say that the pilot's feelings are of no consequence - show me the court judgment that he is guilty. There is none yet so he needs to be treated with as much dignity and respect as anyone else.

Which brings me to my rant. 'If you have nothing to hide, then what is the problem?' What a load of CR@P! Have you never heard of the presumption of innocence? Have you never heard of arrest warrants? Have you never heard of search warrants?

Do you think that the police should be able to enter your house and search it for no reason, destroying walls, photos, etc. in the process? If you find that idea wrong, why - 'If you have nothing to hide, then what is the problem', right? If you do find it wrong, then you have just shot your own argument to pieces.

When we take that little saying as the basis for action by state officers, say goodbye to our freedom from state interference. The reason why we have restrictions placed on state action is to allow us to go about our daily lives without being searched by police; without wondering if the laugh we are having on the phone may land us in gaol as terrorist suspects; without being locked up for 2 weeks without charge just because the state thinks you might know something about a terrorist act (which may or may not even have been planned or executed) then released and not even be able to tell your wife where you were, much less the boss who fired you a week ago for being off work without notice!

I abhor that phrase and all that follows from it. We are a (supposedly) free people who can expect minimal state interference until there is a reasonable suspicion we have done something wrong. That one little line destroys that whole expectation.

[Blip]

I take my lap top computer away with me when I work and set it up as a desk top at home so that my flat mate can use it when he wants to.

Now am I responsible for what my flat mate has in his account? He has his own username and password. What happens if/when the authorities want to see what he has saved? Will the computer be confiscated until I get his password and pass it on to the authorities?

[Islander Jock]

Will the computer be confiscated until I get his password and pass it on to the authorities? If Customs have reasonable suspicion that there is illegal material under the other user name on your computer then I guess there is every possibility they would hold it until all the data could be looked at. If you are so concerned, why not get your flatmate to give you an envolope with his login and password written down. Seal and sign all the edges for real super spook security and keep it in your PC bag. If you need to open the envolope, tell your flat mate later of the circumstances. Problem solved.

[spanner90]

Somehow, I don't think that passwords are much of a delay for Customs, State, or Fed police.

If you think the perps of said crimes are clever, the law enforcers are even better.

My concern arises from the carriage of Commercial-in-confidence material, or even more important, security classified information. It is an offence to divulge classified material to somebody without an appropriate clearance. Are all Customs officers cleared to Secret level? If I (or somebody else) has classified material, and a Customs officer read that information, would that make me guilty of a breach of the Official Secrets Act?:ooh:

[Hasselhof]

Somehow, I don't think that passwords are much of a delay for Customs, State, or Fed police.

If you think the perps of said crimes are clever, the law enforcers are even better.

If customs can get through the relatively basic FileVault encryption on my Macbook in less than a year I'd be very impressed (admittedly only if I've got the computer switched off and cooled down by the time they get their hands on it... which if I've just come from overseas is pretty likely). Lots has changed on the encryption front when it comes to civilian use since the 80's and early 90's.

From a wikipedia article on PGP To the best of publicly available information, there is no known method which will allow a person or group to break PGP encryption by cryptographic, or computational means. Early versions of PGP have been found to have theoretical vulnerabilities and so current versions are recommended. Indeed, in 1996, cryptographer Bruce Schneier characterized an early version as being "the closest you're likely to get to military-grade encryption."


edit.

For those that care here's a link (http://www.nsa.gov/snac/downloads_os.cfm?MenuID=scg10.3.1.1) to some operating system security guides put out by the NSA to help keep your data from prying eyes... like customs :E

[Selac66]

Westausatc,

Great post.

I would like to point out that nabbing someone randomly at customs falls into the 'small fry' category. If you are a target of interest then they can already access everything you have on your computer as long as you are online, wherever you are... yes, despite your best efforts at protection. Mind you, if you are a NSW public prosecutor and have 59 prominent people as character references you may not have to worry too much.

[Peter Fanelli]

For those that care here's a link (http://www.nsa.gov/snac/downloads_os.cfm?MenuID=scg10.3.1.1) to some operating system security guides put out by the NSA to help keep your data from prying eyes... like customs


So you would advocate configuring your computer for security using instructions given by the very agency who is likely to want to peek at your computer.

[Hasselhof]

Well its a start. But if you want to be super super careful you should try lining your room with tinfoil, install a degauss ring and start monitoring law enforcement frequencies for later personal cryptanalysis.

sheesh

[Worrals in the wilds]

Westausatc, I agree with you on the “nothing to hide” argument. That is why the phrase does not appear in any known Australian Act, and why only the Fire Brigade (as far as I am aware) can enter a private premises without warrant. On your other point though, why shouldn’t Customs investigate the offence, rather than the Police? They have their own Investigations Unit who are quite capable of mounting an investigation. If there was evidence of a wider group of offenders it would have been passed to the AFP for further investigation.

As for being dragged away in the Customs hall, unless the officers were hugely unprofessional (it’s been known to happen) he would have been quietly taken to a private interview room under caution as soon as the evidence was found. He would have been read his Crimes Act rights and afforded every chance to explain himself before being charged. Surely there is no evidence that he was dragged away screaming with officers yelling “kiddy :mad:er” at him.

Anyway, the only people I’ve seen be noticed by other pax in the Customs hall were usually behaving like dicks. Pax are too tired and nervous about their own excess duty free stash to notice anything much, including exit doors, queues and signs saying “produce passport here”. :rolleyes:

Spanner 90, Customs officers are cleared under the civilian classification system to Protected or Highly Protected depending on rank. More relevantly, the Customs Administration Act (s16) prohibits any officer from disclosing any protected information. The maximum penalty is two years imprisonment. Any information viewed or stored while performing duties is covered under the definition.

You may recall the Wheeler Report that was produced for the Government after a leak from a Sydney based Customs officer. Despite political platitudes from the Attorney General and Customs Minister about how it was great that all those bad things came to light, the Customs officer accused of leaking the report (Allan Kessing) was relentlessly hunted down by the Customs Internal Affairs Unit and convicted under the CAA. At the time, it was widely muttered within Customs that if the amount of resources used to pursue him had been used to fight crime at Sydney Airport, there would have been no need to leak the info in the first place.
Are you routinely carrying security classified material? If so I assume you are a government operative of some sort and are familiar with the requirements set out in the Defence Signals Directorate’s Technology Security Manual. http://www.dsd.gov.au/_lib/pdf_doc/acsi33/acsi33_u.pdf (http://www.dsd.gov.au/_lib/pdf_doc/acsi33/acsi33_u.pdf)

OAN, a few people here seem to have the mistaken opinion that these search powers are a new, post 9/11 thing. They are not. Fundamentally, since the middle ages (in the UK, obviously) Customs Officers have had the power to search any imported or exported stuff. The basic power to search has been formally in place since the seventeenth century and informally since the time of the Magna Carta.
An illustrative quote from the internet: “ Following the conclusions of Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Goschen, in his report of 1891, rummage was considered to be the first line of defence of Customs Revenue and called for experienced, well supervised, Waterguard Officers to undertake the work." ( hm-waterguard.org.uk)
The name Customs comes from the twelfth century and is derived from “Customary” payments to the king, i.e. the government shake-down.


While this post has gotten a bit rambly (deploying the drift anchor, Cap’n) I wanted to make two points...
1. Customs can and will search your stuff if they want to, and they’ve been doing so since the Middle Ages. This will not be rescinded any time soon.
2. If you don’t want them to read stuff on your computer, don’t store the stuff on it in the first place, or leave it at home. It's cheaper than Hasslehof's suggestions.

And for those of you feeling relentlessly pursued by Big Brother, the following interview is a reminder that Big Brother is sometimes just as ruthless (if not more so) to his own. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2007/1934856.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2007/1934856.htm)
Exactly how many pilots have had their laptops searched recently? Has there been an epidemic of it?
Worrals

[Willi B]

why shouldn’t Customs investigate the offence, rather than the Police?

You raise an interesting point.

'Turf Wars' between government agencies aren't new. But, reading through the posts on this thread, it sems to me that the underlying issue here is the competence of those actually employed on law enforcement work, and the 'reasonableness' of the belief held by an individual constable or customs official that preceeds a decision to search property.

The recent track record of the AFP and the Commonwealth DPP in the Dr Haneef matter demonstrates that law enforcement operatives and prosecutors aren't infallible.

But it's not only the Haneef case that highlights the incompetence of those concerned. In the recent case of Sydney doctor Izhar ul- Haque, Justice Michael Adams of the NSW Supreme Court delivered a scathing judgement that found ASIO agents had kidnapped and falsely imprisoned the then medical student on questionable terrorism charges.

Under the Howard Government, law enforcement agencies like the AFP were encouraged both by sweeping anti-terrorism legislation, and the enthousiastic and uncritical support of the previous Attorney-General, to use their authority and resources inappropriately in a 'win at all costs' way.

Little consideration seems to have been given to ensuring that those charged with enforcing the law, do so in accordance with the law actually says, and not what they think it says.

Notwithstanding Phillip Ruddock's best endeavours, there is still a general right to silence in Oz and a court cannot draw an adverse inference if a defendant elects not to talk to law enforcement people, however described.

The Rudd Government has promised a judicial inquiry into the Haneef case. Such an inquiry (which should be expanded to include the ul-Haque matter) would provide not only a valuable opportunity to review the recently introduced anti-terror laws, but also to conduct an independent, transparent and broad ranging review of federal law enforcement culture. It would also go some way towards restoring equilibrium between individual rights and general community safety.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Absolutely. Under the Howard Government, the federal agencies all perceived CT as sexy and budget enhancing, and immediately leapt on board to grab as big a slice of the pie as possible. I’m only surprised Fisheries weren’t bunging out press releases about how they were combating terrorism. (The same thing seems to be happening with the current mob in relation to environmental stuff; I imagine even ASIS is writing up a Sustainability Report and monitoring their secret bunker’s carbon footprint):suspect::suspect:.


I think this led to a horrendous pressure within the relevant departments to Achieve Results. IME political interference (and there has been heaps in the federal public service) is the quickest way to screw up an investigation. Apart from training to do the job properly, the most important thing for competency in any of these departments is that agency staff have the confidence that management will back them up in their decisions and maintain a consistent policy. Once this confidence has been eroded (and it has in every department I’m aware of, although I don’t know any current ASIO people) the entire system falls apart.


However, this IS a democracy. There are references throughout this thread about judicial reviews, the Admin Appeal Tribunal and the extensive media coverage that has surrounded the few gulagings we’ve had in Oz. When media outlets are silenced and names of arrested dissidents are not released I might feel that my rights are being eroded. Until then, however, I would say the systemic checks and balances are fully operational and possible abuses of power are independently investigated.


There will never be agreement between the public and the law enforcement community about the correct balance between powers of officers/agents and rights of suspects. People will always be concerned that their rights have been stomped on, and LEAs will always be concerned that they are hamstrung by restrictions and prevented from doing their jobs properly. You simply cannot enforce these sort of laws without search powers, and you can’t always explain to people (or to Today Tonight) why they were targeted.
Remember too, that there are bad people out there. Many Aussies believe that there is no such thing as an Australian terrorist or bomber, and this is simply naive. We are not all law abiding and community minded, and without organizations such as the AFP (however many flaws they may have), the minority would likely wreak havoc within a short period of time.

Naturally the media like to polarize the community by running emotive articles on the ‘He’s a terrorist / He’s a victim’ continuum, sometimes running one of each in the same edition of the same paper. Apart from selling heaps of papers, this doesn’t actually achieve anything useful. Remember too, that by and large the media is incapable of reporting anything accurately or completely. You all know the mangling aviation incidents get on page 1, and this also happens to high profile terrorism stuff. The inherent spookiness of such investigations and the Privacy Act only makes this worse.

The departments are all terrified of media criticism because their grubby little ministers lose face over it. Unfortunately this fear will sometimes override the right thing to do, be it going after a suspect or backing off. Successful senior public servants tend to value Self over both the agency and the correct course of action (that’s how they became successful) so they will also put pressure on the serfs to produce a particular outcome.

On the agency turf wars, one remembers an incident where a suspect was surveilled by about 14 different people from 5 different agencies, because none of them trusted the others to either do it properly or share the info. As he was the last pax to check in on the last flight of the evening, the only people in the whole terminal were him and the various surveillance spooks, all jostling in the background and giving each other dirty looks. :hmm: While there’s been a lot of internal propaganda about sharing and All Being on the Same Team, the old prejudices won’t be going away any time soon. However, I understand this is a big problem with LEAs right across the Western world.

[Sleeve_of_Wizard]

I started this thread after a Crew notice was issued. Did not mention "Child Porn" or the like.Only, "pornography"....... So, to those of you who disagreed with my first posting,and after learning the reasons for it, points taken!
Merely venting my frustration here.
Nothing to Hide.........

[Willi B]

Thank you for a very interesting response.

Overlap and parochialism (and, by extension, inefficiencies) in our nation's federal and state law enforcement agencies, are cause for concern.

The Rudd Goverment yesterday announced the appointment of the former Secretary of the Department of Defence, Mr Ric Smith, to conduct a comprehensive review into Australia's domestic and border security.

When listening to the various Inspector Clouseaux, I trust Mr Smith will keep the 'KISS' principle firmly in mind.

[spanner90]

Thank you all for a very edifying thread. It is unusual to see such harmony and accord.

Worrals, my concerns mentioned earlier regarding classified information involved the holder of such information allowing others to peruse it, without knowledge of the clearance of the reader. (Sorry, the phrasing is a little clumsy..) As I understand it, the holder is responsible for the custody of classified information, and in the case of the higher levels, is also responsible for unopened/undisclosed delivery to a named person. This would surely not be a Customs officer. This then places the holder/courier of the information in an undefined position.

On a somewhat related point, what is the situation with safe-hand diplomatic bags? Are they also subject to Customs scrutiny? I thought they were sealed by the relevant embassy, and were not to be opened until delivery. Perhaps one of you learned folk can shed some light.

BTW, I am not fishing for information, but having spent many years in Her Majesty's Service, I am bewildered by the absurd lengths some seem to go to, in order to claim superiority over another "service"/civil defence organisation.

My two cents.....

[Worrals in the wilds]

Spanner90, my apologies as I misread your initial post. The short answer to your first question is I am not sure, as it is not a situation I have ever come across. I imagine there would be phone calls between Duty Managers and the relevant department to ascertain the bona fides of the pax carrying the information. If it was established that the docs and the carrier were legitimate (say Defence or whatever) then I imagine they would remain sealed. This is only a guess though, and I have a hunch that material of that nature would be transferred in a Diplomatic Bag for that very reason. Any classified material of national importance would also need to be protected from the government officials of other countries.

As far as I am aware, commercial document classifications carry no weight with Customs and can be searched and read without restriction. If the info were later leaked by Customs and caused harm, I assume the company concerned would sue the Service for damages. This has been successfully done in the past (over delayed clearances of commercial goods, but I can’t remember the details) and Customs’ cargo clearance procedures were reviewed substantially. Certainly, Customs would be prosecuting and probably hanging the offending officer from the departmental flagpole as a warning to others.

As for the second, Customs have no authority to search Diplomatic Bags. Interestingly enough Quarantine do, but they have to have fairly iron clad reason. Basically unless the bag was wriggling around on the bench trying to bite people, they’d be staying well away from it, lest a diplomatic incident blow up and engulf all participants and innocent bystanders.

I think all government departments distrust all other government departments. This has also been the case in every country I have been to and read about. The yanks tried to solve it by creating another department (Dept of Homeland Security) but I think it just created another layer of distrust and angst.

This has been a good thread, it's been interesting to hear other people's opinions on a contentious subject, with a lack of media bozos and ministerial spinmeisters.

[fudpucker]

Please excuse a (forum) wandering Pom making a contribution here. In the UK there has been a steady erosion of civil liberties since 9/11. When challenged to justify them, the government falls back on the 'just in case' argument. We currently have a bun fight (or should that be current bun...never mind) over extending the amount of time people can be detained
without access to a lawyer, without being charged, without being specifically told what they might be charged with
All this in a supposedly free, civilised society. The present time limit on this detention is 28 days, the proposed new limit is 42 days, but there are no cases on record where a 28 day detention period has been insufficient to find evidence to proceed with a prosecution. despite this, the government persists in trying to force the legislation through.
An anecdote, today I'd probably be arrested on a terrorism charge. In the late 80's myself, ex and daughter came to Brisbane to stay with some friends. In a bag from Changi duty free shop (with the receipt stapled to the outside) was a bottle of Christian Dior (I think) perfume. The perfume was called 'Poison'. I really thought they were joking when customs started to give us the third degree. Our cases were fully emptied, everything gone through with a fine tooth comb. The only thing I will say is they repacked the case, UK customs would have just walked away. Never ever underestimate the lack of common sense of officialdom and be wary of letting them have more and more powers in the name of 'security'.
I understand and fully agree with peoples disgust at child porn, but there seems to be a lack of facts here? Regarding the shared computer, in the UK you would instantly be suspected of having encrypted information on your computer. You would be detained until the existence of your flatmate had been verified, he/she had been hauled in, opened up the computer and its contents checked. Assuming all was innocent, you'd be released with no word of apology or explanation. I have no reason to believe that the authorities in your country would act any differently.
Sorry to intrude. One day we'll beat you (again) at some sport or other. (OK, apparently we're world champions at wingeing ~ does that count?)

[RedTBar]

I think some people like the Hof are living in some fantasy world.All this encryption rubbish is only to stop an honest thief not a law enforcement agency.

If the Hof thinks that customs or any gov group does not have computer experts he is deluding himself.It may take some time but they'll get there and then charge him with refusing to assist customs or hindering their investigation.

To encrypt your computer would be like re-inforcing your bag by strengthening the hinges and fitting a hardened steel lock.Then refusing to give customs the key or combination.

Does anyone really think that is going to stop customs?

Enough of this 006 & 7/8's rubbish.

IF you have or are carrying anything illegal according to the laws of the country you are entering then you are putting yourself at risk.

As far as child pornography is concerned then I have no sympathy at all for you.We all have different standards as to what is OK but anything to do with children is off the table.

[Hasselhof]

I think some people like the Hof are living in some fantasy world.All this encryption rubbish is only to stop an honest thief not a law enforcement agency.

If the Hof thinks that customs or any gov group does not have computer experts he is deluding himself.It may take some time but they'll get there and then charge him with refusing to assist customs or hindering their investigation.

There is a copious amount of detailed research and data into encryption technologies as applied by some of the brightest computer science minds on the planet all freely available on the internet. I suggest you go read some of it. Of course they have computer experts on their staff, but tools to crack even a moderate level of consumer grade equipment just do not exist in a way that would be usable to law enforcement or customs during a routine or even in depth investigation.

[noip]

RTB:

I think some people like the Hof are living in some fantasy world.All this encryption rubbish is only to stop an honest thief not a law enforcement agency.

Does anyone really think that is going to stop customs?
Yup. Documented recently in a case in the US.

Of course now we move onto the person's motives for encrypting his data, but I put it to you that in these days of identity theft etc, you should have no sensitive documents or your email or browser left un-encrypted on your laptop.

http://portableapps.com/

N

[entra2departure]

ive heard somewhere that customs were able to find hidden caches of hdd memory containing such material buried inside ppl's comp.

[RedTBar]

There is a copious amount of detailed research and data into encryption technologies as applied by some of the brightest computer science minds on the planet all freely available on the internet. I suggest you go read some of it.

Hof,if you think all the bright ones are not employed by the gov think again.A very good friend of mine who will forget more about computers and software than I will ever know is employed by our guys and not the US.

I suggest you read what the NSA is capable of in regards to intercepting and breaking down info.

Of course if it's just a few pics of your wife in front of the fire or a personal email then I don't think they would bother going very far.On the other hand if they think you might have had a change of religion and hold certain views then anything is possible.So if you think that customs/AFP don't have access to some very smart people with a lot of time on their hands you kidding yourself.

However,re-read my post about being charged with hindering an official request/inspection if you don't tell them the code or password.Nothing different from refusing to open your bag.

Don't take my word though Hof and next time your entering the country show us what you are made of and refuse to co-operate with customs.I look forward to reading about it.:E

[Flying Binghi]

For those of you who like extreme security, perhaps you would like to move to this country -


North Korea has executed 22 fishermen who strayed out of the country's waters by mistake, it was claimed yesterday.

The group were apparently gunned down once they returned to the Stalinist state.
Having drifted into South Korean territory, they had the opportunity to seek asylum, but insisted they never had any intention of doing so.
They told South Korean officials they had strayed accidentally while fishing for clams and oysters, so were sent back to North Korea - and to their deaths.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html%3Fin_article_id%3D522899%26in_page_id%3D1811

[Islander Jock]

And this has what to do with aviation security and customs regulations here?:ugh:

[Flying Binghi]

Islander Jock,

And this has what to do with aviation security and customs regulations here?

I assume you are refereing to my previous post ?

North Korea is an example of 'security' gone mad. You could say it is a real life 'Reductio ad Adsurdum' example of an unchecked security mentality.

I would of thought the North Korean example to be entirely apropriate to any security discussion.

[Duff Man]

And what if my laptop was found to have copies of pirated software, music, movies, TV shows, etc...? Are they now the Copyright Act enforcers?

I would have assumed "I have nothing to hide" until a quick mental inventory of my hard drive has me reaching for the delete key and googling "freeware".

Now as far as comparisons with actual police states, it's easy to say "we're living in freedom compared to Korea/Saudi/Iran/China..." ... but every time we lose a civil liberty we're regressing further and further.

[RedTBar]

And what if my laptop was found to have copies of pirated software, music, movies, TV shows, etc...? Are they now the Copyright Act enforcers?


As far as I know there is a body or group that produces movies and music and from what I have heard is led by a well known company that starts with 'S'.
Although customs is not a 'copyright' enforcement agency I believe that this group have asked customs to inform them of anyone who brings in fake or pirated goods.

I'm not sure if it an official request or is up to the individual customs officer.

I don't think customs is interested in people with a dvd or two or some MP3's.Then again if you are bringing in dozens of them you might be pushing the friendship a bit.

The bottom line is that whatever you bring in you do so at your own risk and yes with technology being ever more sophisticated big brother is getting bigger.That's why I would never have anything of a personal nature that would be embarrasing if found on my lap top when entering the country.

As far as personal freedoms go if you are not attempting to bring anything illegal into the country then you don't have anything to worry about do you?