In New Zealand, travelers who refuse to hand over passwords, codes, encryption keys and other information that can access electronic devices may be fined up to $5,000 under the new customs rules that come into effect on Monday.
Border guards have been able to seize digital equipment, but the new provisions of the Customs Act of 2018 also have to hand over access to personal technology.
However, the law stipulates that officials need to have "reasonable reasons to suspect misconduct" before conducting a digital search"
The cold comfort brought to civil liberties advocates, who alerted the measure.
Oliver L wrote on Twitter: "Don't travel with data on your device.
Don't believe the equipment after customs or police take it out of your sight.
"Those who refuse to submit a digital search, in addition to the fine, can see that their equipment has been confiscated and fully inspected, meaning that" the device or data can be copied, reviewed, or evaluated (
Includes by Preview, clone, or other forensic methods.
"In the parliamentary debate on this legislation, Meka Whaitiri, a member of the Labor Party and former Customs Minister, said
The so-called digital bar search "allows border agents" to access more freely. . .
Check out the items that may be of concern.
The law, she said, "balances protection and individual rights in New Zealand.
"The new customs minister, also Labor's Chris FAO, had earlier reserved the bill, saying the government played down the power granted to customs officials.
"I think most people will feel that it is a privacy violation to reach someone's mobile phone or device," he said . ".
However, he praised the legislation for its entry into force, describing the changes in the statement as a reflection of modern business practices, and said that the changes came from "consultations with the import and export sector ".
The New Zealand Customs Service said in a press release that the law would promote border compliance and support the national economy.
It promises to the public that with the reconfirmation or clarification of the existing provisions, it is "unlikely to notice a significant difference in the border.
A spokesman for the civil liberties commission, Thomas biger, told Radio New Zealand that the requirement for reasonable reasons was meaningless because officials did not have to specify the reasons, meaning, "there is no way to challenge it.
Now we have everything on our phones.
"We have all of our personal lives, all of our doctor records, our emails, everything, customs can take and keep," he said . ".
New Zealand is not the only country to do so.
Called a number barsearches.
According to The Global Mail, during the period from November 2017 to March 2018, the Canada Border Services Agency inspected the digital equipment of 4,529 travellers.
According to the newspaper, this is only a small part of the 20,407,746 people handled at the border during the same period. In the U. S.
According to The Guardian, the investigation of mobile phones by border agents rose from less than 5,000 in 2015 to 25,000 in 2016.
The Department of Homeland Security said 2016 of the data was an anomaly.
Last year, the First Amendment Institute of the Knights of Columbia University filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit to obtain the rules of the Department of Homeland Security to search for these devices.
In response, the regulatory team obtained logs of more than 400 traveler complaints between 2011 and 2017, of which approximately 240 involved searches for electronic devices.
The American Civil Liberties Union also joined the fight.
Along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it filed a case against Homeland Security last year on behalf of 11 travelers whose mobile phones and laptops were searched in the United States. S.
Airport and the northern border of the country.
In May, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that the case could continue, rejecting the government's request for a complaint --
Reasons for the first and fourth amendmentsdismissed.
Landmark search and seizure cases "show that electronic device search is definitely more intrusive than searching for a person's individual or item," the State Department wroteS.
Dennis Casper, judge of the district court, specifically quoted Riley v.
The California Supreme Court found in a 2014 investigation that police needed to investigate the cell phones of the people they arrested.
"The ability to review travellers mobile phones allows officials to look at almost every aspect of their lives --
From ordinary to intimate.