News Fork Over Passwords or Pay the Price, New Zealand Tells Travelers

Travelers entering New Zealand who refuse to disclose passwords for their digital devices during forced searches could face prosecution and fines of more than $3,000, a move that border officials said Tuesday made the country the first to impose such penalties.

In New Zealand — as in many other countries, including the United States — customs officers were already legally permitted to search cellphones and other digital devices as they would luggage, and to seize devices for forensic examination if they were believed to contain evidence of criminal activity.

Read NYTimes Article

 

I have nothing to hide either, but I find it a huge deal! I value my privacy. If I would come to visit my family in NZ, I would do so with a factory reset phone with nothing on it...

I can't say it any better than Glenn Greenwald:

''

 

My phone is encrypted and password protected. I don't "keep" information on my phone, but as with most people, if you had access to my phone you'd have access to my social media accounts and other stuff. I have nothing to hide, but it is non of their business!

I worked in law enforcement for nearly a decade, but these new "laws" are just an incredible overreach, and invasion of privacy.

 

And that means that we should just accept every invasion of privacy by "government"? That is how totalitarian states operate.

You can google my name all you want, you won't find much information about me...

 

Seeing you aren't interested in privacy, why don't you sent me all your social media account information (usernames + passwords) + all your email account details (usernames & passwords)?

I suggest you look at some good information and get informed.

 

I too have nothing to hide, but I want my right to privacy. Having nothing to hide equals being honest and having integrity. However, the criminal or the ones who possess our garnered personal data cannot be trusted as the criminal is never honest and some others are neither honest or responsible enough (employees of govts. and companies).

Violating one's rights or irresponsibly using someone's personal data is preceded by irrational thought. The criminal is not rational. The govt employee who leaks personal data is not rational. The govt agency which shares that data with other agencies or govts. does so via irrational policies.

It's difficult to understand the downside of having such rights taken away from us because we are rational, and we attempt to understand the irrationality we see by applying rational thought to it. We do so by seeking to find the rationality in irrational actions and laws. But it does not exist!

I have more to protect than just my bank accounts and bill paying. A conversation by email that I had with my wife may contain info about when we will be away from home. Multiple conversations with family members can be used to determine habits and patterns of us. It could be learned that we are usually never home between the hours of 3pm and 5pm on Thursdays. Would I want that info in the hands of a criminal? No! Nor do I want to resort to using code words for family member discussions via text or email.

Bottom line is that no data stored on any computer is secure, including govt. computers.

The US Constitution has provisions for illegal search and seizure. These provisions have been slowly deteriorating. While I am not a criminal and the odds of me being put onto a govt. agency "watch list" are slim to none, I do not agree with the new laws which counter the original rights given me in the Constitution. The reason is that govt. agencies don't always act in the best interest of its people, history proves that. The right against illegal search and seizure was put there to protect us from the irrational folks who somehow become govt. employees.

These new laws that remove our right to privacy are the direct result of law enforcement unable to win against the growing rate of crime (terrorism, illegal drugs, smuggling, money laundering, etc.) Sure, it makes the job easier for the incompetent or untrained law enforcement folks currently employed by govts. The TSA agents at airports in the US are examples of people who lack the judgement necessary to be able to handle the amount of responsibility they have been given. There is an "acceptable level of inaccuracy" tolerated and which we cannot legally take a stand against anymore.

The simple solution implemented seems to be "treat all people as criminals firstly". Such a policy is the basis for, as Arie said, a totalitarian state.