Searching phones - necessary step or invasion of privacy?

[PhoenixxFire]

http://abc.net.au/news/2018-10-04/nz-customs-can-force-travellers-to-unlock-digital-devices/10338662?pfmredir=sm

New Zealand can now fine incoming travellers who refuse to unlock their phone or other electronics.

Travellers entering New Zealand who refuse to disclose passwords for their digital devices during forced searches could face prosecution and fines of up to $NZ5,000, in a move border officials say could be a world first.

The law also gives agents the authority to copy any data on searched devices.

Officials will also be able to retain devices and potentially confiscate them from travellers who refuse to allow a search at the border.

The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties (CCL) described the new law as a "grave invasion of personal privacy of both the person who owns the device and the people they have communicated with".

Thoughts?

Personally this makes me incredibly uncomfortable - even as I was reading it I started wondering what I have on my phone - internet tabs that I’ve had open for a year, photos from years ago - and I realised that I don’t really know what’s on here. Nothing illegal obviously, but I’m sure there is things I wouldn’t want other people knowing about.

On the other side I can see how it would be incredibly useful for border security - I’ve seen on some (reality) border security shows on TV that they can use text messages to prove an intent to work despite not having a work permit and things like that, so obviously it would be useful, but is the invasion of privacy worth it?

[S200]

I'd say no, just based on a deep-seated mistrust of New Zealanders in general...

But on a serious note, I really think that actually being able to force a person to release an aspect of their privacy is kinda messed up, and definitely places the balance of power on the customs' side.
Probably wouldn't cause me to reconsider travelling to NZ if the opportunity arose, but I'd certainly be more wary during the customs areas.

[TheAspiringDoc]

Legilimency..

[S200]

Sorry, I'm a muggle. What did you say?

[hums_student]

I'd say that to a certain extent, yes. They should have the right to search people's phones.

Our luggage, pockets, etc already get checked at airport security, which most people would see as a necessary act of precaution instead of an invasion of privacy. As the world gets more and more digital, I'd say a digital search would also be required.

I mean, if you think about it, if you've done nothing wrong and there's nothing dodgy on your device, why would you worry about it? I don't think airport security would bother judging the embarrassing texts you send to your crush or your *ahem* not-so-children-friendly *ahem* internet history.

But that's just my opinion.

EDIT - Typo

[PhoenixxFire]

I'd say that to a certain extent, yes. They should have the right to search people's phones.

Our luggage, pockets, etc already get checked at airport security, which most people would see as a necessary act of precaution instead of an invasion of privacy. As the world gets more and more digital, I'd say a digital search would also be required.

I mean, if you think about it, if you've done nothing wrong and there's nothing dodgy on your device, why would you worry about it? I don't think airport security would bother judging the embarrassing texts you send to your crush or your *ahem* not-so-children-friendly *ahem* internet history.

But that's just my opinion.

EDIT - Typo

This is sort of what I was thinking, I guess what I see as the difference though is that you're not going to have year old texts in your pocket. Everything you have on you, you've chosen to have on you whereas you might not necessarily be aware of what's on your phone.

[hums_student]

This is sort of what I was thinking, I guess what I see as the difference though is that you're not going to have year old texts in your pocket. Everything you have on you, you've chosen to have on you whereas you might not necessarily be aware of what's on your phone.

True true. Another problem with a digital search is that you could potentially be giving out information regarding others who aren't even physically at the airport, eg. contacts, Facebook friends etc. I guess that's where I would draw the line, but I can see it being quite difficult to control.

[S200]

True true. Another problem with a digital search is that you could potentially be giving out information regarding others who aren't even physically at the airport, eg. contacts, Facebook friends etc. I guess that's where I would draw the line, but I can see it being quite difficult to control.

How many apps can you fully use in flight mode?

The article mentioned that they would only search the device when it was in flight mode.

[pepper77]

Personally I disagree with the argument that "if you have nothing bad on there, then you have nothing to worry about and should let them look". I mean, I don't have a recipe for meth on my notes app (although now I've typed that I'm getting curious... not curious enough to look it up though @ NZ ) but I still wouldn't want border security looking at private texts and dumb journal entries. It's a violation of privacy, and I think that argument means you don't really care about your privacy/the privacy of other non-meth-cooking people.

Also, it might prompt other countries to start doing digital searches.

[turinturambar]

The mandatory fines may be new, but the idea of searching phones isn't: It's part of Trump-era border control in the US.  Went big last year when a US citizen working for NASA JPL (with security clearance and secured information that he was not permitted to disclose to random US citizens like border control) felt compelled to give his password (more here).

Though I hate the idea and am usually strongly against any infringements on privacy (yes, I don't like the "what have you got to hide" argument), I'm weirdly kind of in support of this.  It just seems slightly inconsistent that border control has the ability to confiscate the physical phone, but not look at what's on it (though of course if they hold the physical phone they can probably get a lot off it without a passcode).

Having said all that, I do assume with any of these things that it will start off by giving officials lots of power and saying they won't use it, and then they slowly start using it anyway.  But so long as "reasonable cause to suspect" continues to be adhered to, it is entirely sensible. And I would hope that they see no more mandatory unlocking than they currently have mandatory confiscation (which is hopefully just about never?)

Another interesting question with such things is "If they are able to collect and hold onto any of your data, who will be responsible for the loss of that data after the inevitable breach?"  I'm guessing they would wash their hands of it, which is not good.

[Bri MT]

Physical items usually don't disclose political views,  religion (unless an overtly religious own which have chosen to bring) etc. whereas access to someone's phone can provide lots of information about this. 

This could easily be abused by corrupt governments,  so I don't think it's a good example to set