Aus Customs
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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”.
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
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
Exactly how many pilots have had their laptops searched recently? Has there been an epidemic of it?
Worrals
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
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”.
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
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
Exactly how many pilots have had their laptops searched recently? Has there been an epidemic of it?
Worrals
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Under Capricorn
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worrals in the wilds
why shouldn’t Customs investigate the offence, rather than the Police?
'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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
.
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.
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.
. 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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.........
Merely venting my frustration here.
Nothing to Hide.........
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Under Capricorn
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worrals in the wilds
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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, 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.....
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: on my boat in the Caribbean
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?)
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?)
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTB:
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
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?
Does anyone really think that is going to stop customs?
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
Last edited by noip; 1st Mar 2008 at 00:59. Reason: additional info
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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/liv...page_id%3D1811
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/liv...page_id%3D1811
Islander Jock,
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.
And this has what to do with aviation security and customs regulations here?
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.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
