Aus Customs
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe its to stop this kind of scumbags getting into Australia
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...35509&sec=asia
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...35509&sec=asia
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: aust
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1224, yes, they do.
CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 186
General powers of examination of goods subject to Customs control
(1) Any officer may, subject to subsections (2) and (3), examine any goods subject to the control of the Customs, and the expense of the examination including the cost of removal to the place of examination shall be borne by the owner.
(2) In the exercise of the power to examine goods, the officer of Customs may do, or arrange for another officer of Customs or other person having the necessary experience to do, whatever is reasonably necessary to permit the examination of the goods concerned.
(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), examples of what may be done in the examination of goods include the following:
(a) opening any package in which goods are or may be contained;
(b) using a device, such as an X‑ray machine or ion scanning equipment, on the goods;
(c) testing or analysing the goods;
(d) measuring or counting the goods;
(e) if the goods are a document--reading the document either directly or with the use of an electronic device;
(f) using dogs to assist in examining the goods.
(4) Goods that are subject to the control of Customs under section 31 do not cease to be subject to the control of Customs merely because they are removed from a ship or 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
CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 186
General powers of examination of goods subject to Customs control
(1) Any officer may, subject to subsections (2) and (3), examine any goods subject to the control of the Customs, and the expense of the examination including the cost of removal to the place of examination shall be borne by the owner.
(2) In the exercise of the power to examine goods, the officer of Customs may do, or arrange for another officer of Customs or other person having the necessary experience to do, whatever is reasonably necessary to permit the examination of the goods concerned.
(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), examples of what may be done in the examination of goods include the following:
(a) opening any package in which goods are or may be contained;
(b) using a device, such as an X‑ray machine or ion scanning equipment, on the goods;
(c) testing or analysing the goods;
(d) measuring or counting the goods;
(e) if the goods are a document--reading the document either directly or with the use of an electronic device;
(f) using dogs to assist in examining the goods.
(4) Goods that are subject to the control of Customs under section 31 do not cease to be subject to the control of Customs merely because they are removed from a ship or 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
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
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!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captaindejavu, from the definitions section of the act:
""goods" means movable personal property of any kind and, without limiting the generality of the expression, includes documents, vessels and 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.
""goods" means movable personal property of any kind and, without limiting the generality of the expression, includes documents, vessels and 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.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then get to have a long-term intimate relationship with a broom handle.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snivel libertarians
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.
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.
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 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."
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."
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?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: About
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Immigration
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
Hate flying in the US
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dubai
Age: 44
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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?
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the computer be confiscated until I get his password and pass it on to the authorities?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 you think the perps of said crimes are clever, the law enforcers are even better.
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 to some operating system security guides put out by the NSA to help keep your data from prying eyes... like customs
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
For those that care here's a link to some operating system security guides put out by the NSA to help keep your data from prying eyes... like customs