I'll just add a couple of details here since I have had this happen to me multiple times...
I'm an Australian citizen and this applies just as much to me as a foreigner (for whom although I disagree about, I could make a reasonable argument for this being valid). Police require a warrant and/or reasonable suspicion of having committed a specific crime to search any part of you or your belongings. Border Force do not require this.
When they ask for the code, they will either:
- just open your device and rifle through your photos and messages in front of you, asking questions like "got a lot of photos of x, what's that about?" or "who is y?", ask you questions like "what are you doing in Australia? Who are you seeing? What's your relationship to them?" et cetera (even to me, a citizen who spends majority of my time abroad).
- Take it into another room for 20mins or so and presumably take a dump of the whole thing for further analysis. I once asked "what is done with this data and how long is it stored" and they refused to answer the question.
One time after refusing to hand over the code (politely) I was treated pretty aggressively, had my whole body searched (not strip searched, groped well all over), all my luggage taken apart etc. I received a letter in the mail that I could go and collect my phone at the airport after around 3 weeks. It seems unlikely they have some tech which allows exfiltration of data from a locked iPhone(?) so I'm not sure what that's about. They claimed to me that they do indeed have this capability.
Since refusing to open the phone and letting them keep it I seem to be on some kind of list and have had a Border Force officer meet me at the baggage carousel a couple of times with the "please come with me sir" to my own private search area where a few of them are ready to search my luggage inside out. This seems to happen less recently since I have just given them the code. They have successfully made it inconvenient enough for me to comply.
One time years ago they did the same thing with my laptop. Since that incident they have only asked about my phone.
> They have successfully made it inconvenient enough for me to comply.
That’s the point, unfortunately, that method works because most people just hand over their code without any questions, if enough people refused, it will be inconvenient to them not the other way around.
I don’t think it will ever be an inconvenience to them. They’ll just hire more people and get more resources from the tax dollars. Plus, they probably enjoy irritating people even if it inconveniences them.
Most people probably won’t last long in such jobs. I for one, don’t want to spend all my working time annoying others and being a dick. But the ones who do last long, probably get a kick out of being a nuisance
As far as internet access and devices and things like this go, all western governments are going to become authoritarian in this regard. Only thing we can do is try to change the government, and otherwise fight back with plausibility deniability and using tools like encryption and steganography.
Ah shit, comments like these and the videos from Boy Boy and Friendly Jordies makes me want to avoid traveling to Australia when I see how easily law enforcement there just violates people's rights using some legal loophole.
I couldn't agree more! Hypothetical: I wonder how they would react, on looking at my cell, if before leaving home I removed all my pictures and contacts, erased my internet history and removed all files? Would they think I'm hiding something or just being careful with my private data?
Instead of, "Don't leave home without it!", leave home without data on phone. :)
Surely this is not possible (assuming the recently deleted folder is cleared)?
I know it could be done with insecurely erased hard drives but I dont think any phones are using those?
It is indeed possible, recovering a fully deleted file or even chats logs is the easiest part, given it’s unlocked. I don’t know about Australia, but plenty of law enforcements use cellebrite (1), and there are other tools too that provide such forensic analysis.
Hypothetical 2: leave your cell at home and just carry your sim card. After leaving airport, purchase a usable phone and insert sim card. Remove card and ditch phone when leaving country. Would they detain and harass this person?
On the assumption (perhaps misplaced) that this comment is serious and not a joke, such a sentiment indicates extremely poor risk assessment. Native Australian fauna represents such an extremely small risk to tourists that it is not worth considering. (But obviously if you do encounter any dangerous looking fauna you should treat it with respect.)
But I do agree with the grandparent comment that this extreme level of airport search intrusiveness does legitimately make Australia a much less attractive tourist destination. And btw, as an Australian, I feel somewhat the same way towards the USA and its intrusive airport searches (which is what we are slavishly copying).
Most companies of any size, and civil servants, have policies to travel with burner phones/laptops when crossing (even benign) international boarders; including into Australia and "the land of the free"
Frankly, it is so commonplace, it is not remotely unusual or suspicious to travel with a burner phone.
Story time: when I worked at Google we had a specific policy for traveling to and from China. IIRC it went something like this:
1. You absolutely aren't allowed to take your regular phone and laptop;
2. You will be given loaner devices to take into China;
3. If you're asked to open such devices on entry, comply and then, when you can, inform IT;
4. Once you got back, I'm not sure what happened to those devices. I believe they were in the very least wiped. They may even have been destroyed in certain circumstances (eg if a border official examined the open device). But that's speculation.
I never travelled to China so never used this. A colleague who regularly traveled to China told me some stories about this.
But yes it does seem prudent to wipe your device and restore when you land. Then again, border officials can also deny you entry with very little justification so who knows?
> it does seem prudent to wipe your device and restore when you land. Then again, border officials can also deny you entry with very little justification so who knows?
For example, if they instruct you to turn on the device, and they see the setup screen or even just that it has no photos, no messages, nothing, might raise suspicion I would imagine.
Good luck trying to argue with them that absence of data should be considered normal and not a reason for them to harass you :(
That's exactly like the travel advisories to the US for EU firms. If it bothers you this much, why this Don Quixote act, why not do something about it where you actually can? Otherwise it's just bashing the Chinese for internet happy points. Just like reddit.
You are referencing something orthoganol to the subject at hand here (searches of devices while going through customs, which garvi is right to point out occurs in a range of countries).
(Not only that but it was a very poor reference, with almost no detail given in the linked article of China's alleged involvement in the hacks.)
> The department data reveals that close to 94% of the time people freely revealed their phone passcode to officers, despite there being no legal requirement to do so.
There really needs to be better education in civics. It's so important to know your rights, especially when someone in a position of authority tries to abuse that authority.
As far as I know, in the US you can politely decline a phone search if you are a US citizen. If you're a foreign tourist your only choice is either to allow the search or be denied entry to the Land of Freedom™
At the US international border, no, even US citizens can’t prevent the phone search regardless of whether or not they consent. They can however usually decline to give a PIN, passcode, or password or to assist in unlocking the phone by entering such a credential, and they can’t be refused entry to the US. However, CBP can then temporarily seize the phone to perform a more comprehensive attempt at searching it. Getting the phone back later may be a hassle.
Additionally, pissing off CBP may lead to extended delays, luggage searching, and questioning to see if they can find another legally valid reason to punish you for annoying them. And maybe they might revoke trusted traveler program membership due to no longer seeing you as a low-risk traveler. But indeed, they will not finally refuse entry to a citizen.
There are rarer cases where the US government can insist on your cooperation in getting past a PIN, passcode, or password, such as if you show them that an incriminating document exists on your phone and then lock the phone before they can collect the evidence.
And while the exact boundary of the constitutional protections regarding face or fingerprint unlock is not authoritatively settled nationwide in the courts, it’s very likely weaker than for information you hold in your mind like a password.
I strongly suspect CBP can constitutionally require a US citizen entering at an international port of entry to assist with fingerprint or face unlock, though I admit I don’t know how physically they can force the matter if the person refuses. It wouldn’t surprise me if that would be grounds for arrest under at least some circumstances (maybe not all).
While I was born after 9/11, I'm think I've heard that these unprecedented powers were given to CBP (and other border agencies around the world) after that event.
Most people crossing any border face little friction like this, but when you dig in and see what border agents are allowed to do, it gets a bit unnerving. Especially so for the US, the self-proclaimed land of the free.
Consider this - the CBP is granted wide-reaching powers that can supersede what actual police are allowed to do. They're allowed to racially profile, discriminate, search or detain anyone for any reason - citizen or not. Search warrants aren't required. Punishments like refusing foreigners entry for no reason or marking citizens to be additionally screened for the rest of their life can't be contested and are absolute. They are insulated from being sued, and may not need to follow Freedom of Information requests (not sure if this was reverted or not). They can do any of this within 100 miles of any external US borders - a.k.a. most major cities in the country. You don't actually need to be crossing or have crossed a border to be held up. Freedom!
The more you read into it, the more it seems that the federal US government has written a black check in terms of what some people are allowed to do. In the vast majority of cases, border guards are reasonable and don't overstep any boundaries - but I'm confused at why Americans, with the culture of valuing individual freedoms over all, aren't concerned with the hypothetical consequences these powers provide.
> I'm confused at why Americans, with the culture of valuing individual freedoms over all, aren't concerned with the hypothetical consequences these powers provide.
I don't think this is as much of a "gotcha" it seems to be. People have all kinds of theoretical beliefs that they routinely violate in practice. It's just part of being human.
The way things like this are supposed to work in the real messy human world is that we encode these "freedoms"/rights into a constitution. We then have a judicial branch that protects these rights, irrespective of individual human inconsistency/hypocrisy. For border searches we have the relevant rights in the US constitution already. The problem is that the judicial branch has incorrectly ruled that protections like the 4th amendment don't apply at the border.
>they can't otherwise punish you for refusing to give them your password.
Except of course by denying you entry, marking you in some "no fly" blacklist, and other ways that are not oficially "punishments", but are very much so in practice...
> far as I know, in the US you can politely decline a phone search if you are a US citizen
Same with being filmed at the airport. Last time I passed through US airports there were signs that you're monitored and it goes to blah blah database, and that if you're a US citizen, you can request to be removed. If you're not, go fuck yourself and pray all your biometric data isn't stored at the cheapest possible vendor and about to be leaked.
The tone when entering any country is already quite serious (i.e. passengers must proceed according to airport/airline rules and processes).
Australia's inbound UX has a few additional aspects that make the tone more stern.
An announcement is made on inbound international flights' about fines/deportation for undeclared risks to biosecurity; minds start to wonder about the wooden chess board or leather belt; it's typical to second-guess or be a bit nervous, especially non-English speakers who only caught every second word.
A formal-looking document ('Incoming Passenger Card' [1]) must then be completed.
Airport staff are generally slightly authoritarian (Australia's aren't the worst in this regard, but it contributes to the vibe the passenger perceives).
After a passenger has experienced this serious tone for several hours, they could perceive further requests in the same context as being ones best not politely declined.
While you are legally required to hand over the passcode, they can confiscate the device for two weeks or more, which is probably a large deterrent for most people.
That's the point the article makes, you are _not_ legally required to hand over the password.
> Officers routinely ask travellers to provide their passcode or password to devices so they can be examined, but they do not have the power to compel passengers to hand over their passcodes,
Right, and grandparent has a typo. True you are not required to hand over the password, but they aren't required to give you back your phone if you don't.
> There is no limit on how long the devices can be held but the agency said the policy was to keep devices for no longer than 14 days unless it took longer to examine them.
Right. So they don't give you back your phone. You may get it a couple of weeks later. Very convenient for your trip.
... and they're doing it for purely punitive reasons. We all know they're not "examining" the phones in any meaningful way. It's too expensive and failure-prone.
This one is tricky. You just don't have the same rights when trying to enter a country as you do if you're stopped by the police. Border officials have the power to deny you entry and generally there's very little recourse if they do. This makes you way more vulnerable and likely to cooperate than you would, say, during a routine traffic stop.
Knowing your rights is not the same thing as asserting your rights against a gun-toting, uniformed agent of the state who threatens you with detention, confiscation, and violence if you don't self incriminate.
I've never understand why younger generations raised under constant surveillance, school metal detectors and always-on where's my kid apps will hold the privacy values older generations claim to revere.
If you are using an iPhone, make sure to enable pair locking (1). Additionally, I recommend storing your photos (or your phone backup) on a LUKS-encrypted Linux laptop. Do not trust corporate encryption software; it’s better to use a new phone while traveling if you don’t want to bother with that.
Thanks for the heads up on pair locking. I saw a comment somewhere (without much to back it up, admittedly) that suggested "Lockdown mode" would also prevent similar attacks (which apparently prevents connections of any kind when locked).
It definitely sounds like pair locking is a more reliable method, but lockdown mode can be done a few minutes before getting to a border, it doesn't require access to a laptop/desktop to run Configurator.
I’m not sure about lockdown mode, but the advantage of pair locking is that the lock (say, your MacBook) can be left at home and isn’t currently with you, so no matter what, it will be locked. Lockdown mode might not work under certain coercion conditions.
So something like 0.01% of travellers get their phones searched. How are those 0.01% selected?
> The agency does not provide information on the success rate for searches, but has said a phone would only be seized where officers suspected it had “special forfeited goods” such as “illegal pornography, terrorism-related material and media that has been, or would be, refused classification”.
Also consider Australians who travel and return home. I have personally had my phone searched 3 times. I know many people who also have the same experience. One time I refused and let them keep the phone, just bought a new iPhone and restored it. Since then I was searched almost every time I went through the airport.
After refusing to hand over the code (Politely... I explained that no, there is no terrorism material or similar on my phone, I just object to this practice, which they could not comprehend) I was treated pretty aggressively, had my whole body searched (not strip searched, but groped very well all over), all my luggage taken apart etc.
> I have personally had my phone searched 3 times.
I think it's safe to say the first time got you on a shit list.
So what triggered the first time?
Where were you flying from? Are there any other factors that while not at all indicators of guilt, might make them [suspect] you?
It could have been simple racial profiling or it might be context (ie a lone 60 year old dude travelling from Thailand or the Philippines). Like I said neither of these is a sign of guilt but they may cause/contribute to suspicion.
People still wonder why I'm so careful with phones.
At this moment, phones in many jurisdictions are still fair game. Anyone can grab whatever they want from them. That's why you can't really trust them. We need new rules that declare the 'confidentiality of phone contents,' especially information at rest, as inviolable, similar to the secrecy of correspondence.
At Heathrow airport I was offered the option of switching my laptop on to show them it worked, plus a full body x-ray, or "the other option" (man waves a pair of gloves insinuating a full body cavity search).
So, you can see what (mostly) everyone would choose there.
The only bonus was that security man managed to walk me around the 2-hour long security line.
That seems... fine? They're not asking you unlock your laptop, just to turn it on, presumably to prove it's actually a laptop and not a bomb in a laptop's case.
Can't they determine this based on the x-ray scan alone? I mean, what's the other option - would they arrest a person carrying non-working/for-parts hardware?
>Can't they determine this based on the x-ray scan alone?
Not a bomb expert, but a laptop is just a bunch of electronics next to a solid mass (for the battery). A bomb is also just a bunch electronics next to a solid mass (for the explosive).
>I mean, what's the other option - would they arrest a person carrying non-working/for-parts hardware?
I doubt they'll arrest you, but I vaguely remember airline websites saying that any laptops you bring MUST be able to turn on so they might confiscate it.
IME british airport security is more understanding than most, they'll probably try to find a way to do some test or let you check it. If it doesn't turn on then you're hardly going to be using it on the flight anyway.
Any time I travel out of country, a week or two beforehand, I pull an old phone out of a drawer, factory reset it, and move my SIM card over. I don’t sign it in to any cloud services. I’ll install a few apps (browser, news reader, YouTube, maps, stuff like that) but nothing of any real substance.
For the couple weeks until I travel I carry both phones, collecting a bit of data, the odd text message from my mom, snap a few photos, receive an assortment of spam calls, get a few destinations in the maps history, etc. Anything important still happens on my main device (can always tether through the old phone).
By the time I hit the border there’s enough data to not be an immediate red flag, but nothing that really matters. If anyone compromises the phone while I’m away, it’s at least reasonably limited to only collecting data on me until I get back and throw the thing back in a drawer.
It’s not foolproof, but it’s a reasonable balance for me between risk/effort/expense travelling to places like China.
The stupid thing about this whole security charade is that this is exactly what any serious actor would do if they actually had sinister motives for entering the country, so the policy is only punishing ordinary people who were no threat in the first place or occasionally by accident catching a dumb criminal who probably would've been caught eventually anyway.
A serious actor would have a cover phone that was their main phone and had truly been used for everything they did, other than eee-ville, for months or years. Either that or they'd be a completely in-character business traveller with a blank corporate loaner phone in accordance with the actual policy of some company they actually worked for. Whatever best matched who they claimed to be.
Their eee-ville devices would stay at home. If they needed ee-ville data, they'd download from the cloud, probably into a new device, after passing the border.
No non-idiot criminal or terrorist was going to ever get picked up at the border. It’s the equivalent of getting arrested with 60lbs of pot in your trunk when you got pulled over for speeding through a red light in a car with a burned out headlight.
It’s especially hilarious going though this shit as a Canadian crossing into the US.
Like, if I drove a mile east or west I’d literally have to “off road” my way through a dozen feet of grass and I’d be over the border. I mean, shit, look at places like Point Roberts. Literally crossing some roads moves you between countries. In others the only reason you’ll know you moved between countries is a vaguely angry sign saying if you walk past it it would be illegally entering the US.
The whole thing was only ever going to catch dumb criminals. And yet it’s done well enough that they keep doing it.
Use whatever word you like better. Straightforward, Simple, uncomplicated
not difficult.
Seriously, set up a new phone, new number, new Gmail account, new IG/FB accounts, use them a week before you leave- tell your friends "Follow me here for my trip!" and have your phone number forwawrded. Put a few contacts in it. Done. Not a big deal at all for most technically competent people. That's us, right?
I have been trying to create a facebook account recently, for work, I didn't use my real name (I just needed a facebook account to follow some pages). I got flagged and now have to provide additional proof of identity. Same for IG. I don't think it's as easy as before to create a temp. facebook account. After setting it up you need to feed it right.
Luckily, temporary/fake FB accounts are less necessary nowadays than ever. Out of all of my extended social circle (techy university students), I don't know a single one who actively uses Facebook. I don't see why not having an account should be seen as bad or suspicious.
Even easier: I keep my previous phone when I get a new phone, so it's just a matter of swapping a SIM card. Of course, my old phone was factory reset once I decided to keep the new phone, because I don't want it laying around with all my data even if it is just in my desk drawer.
That's how I feel as well. I have far too many cloud services I rely on. Not to mention the need to check in with my email for business/personal at least once a day.
This is ridiculous. Put aside the idea of purchasing a new phone for a trip, you then suggest setting up all new accounts and then "telling your friends" - how exactly? contact everyone from your "real" accounts and say add my fake account? What about when you come back - tell them "ok delete my fake account and add my real one"? which is which now, oh and how do you access all your real contacts, credentials, payment, etc that you needed during your trip? And I do this everytime I travel?
You seem to focus on the technical aspects but really gloss over the entire "create a duplicate online life every time you travel"
Where did I say to do this every time you travel? I described the setup of such a phone. In fact if you had a second phone just for travel, who'd care? Not that big of a deal. Y'all are being pedantic.
Honestly, if you need your information to be secure to this of an extent, you should just use a dumbphone and skip all of these lengthy setup steps. And it's cheaper, too!
Just make sure you use it for a few days before hand so it doesn't appear to be a burner phone, lest you be considered suspicious and remanded for additional interrogation.
My company requires us to use a "burner" phone and laptop when we travel internationally. I can helpfully print out the policy from the employee handbook and show it to the border guard. I'm not sure that's considered as suspicious as you think absent any other suspicious behaviors.
> use it for a few days before hand so it doesn't appear to be a burner phone
No need to bother.
Most companies of any size, and us civil servants, have policies to travel with burner phones/laptops when crossing (even some benign) international boarders and/or entering certain countries.
Frankly, it is so commonplace, it is not remotely suspicious to travel with a burner.
My apologies, I don't have a waffling permit. Yourself and all your friends are pleased with everything that happened during that time period? My mistake. I can only take you at your word, that's what I mean by lived experience.
If you're happy, I'm happy. The Australians I met stuck abroad at the time were... not. You might also look upthread. Maybe their opinions don't count or something.
It's nothing to do with "wrongthink". It's a completely unrelated topic.
Imagine if you were involved in a conversation about the negative impacts of the tobacco industry on society, and I just jumped in with "cars are by far more dangerous than air travel".
Regardless of whether what I said is true, it has nothing to do with the existing conversation. You'll notice that I chose a very easy to prove fact for my hypothetical interjection here. You very much did not state a provable fact, but I'm going to ignore that because whether or not what you said is provable, it's still completely unrelated to the topic being discussed.
It's nothing to do with finding you "disagreeable". It's pretty basic etiquette when having a conversation.
I'm not really sure why you think I would be your border guard, or how you assume I would treat a person in that scenario even if I was? I very much dislike the policy being discussed - warrantless 'demands' to access a phone when crossing the border, I'm just trying to explain to you that
- (a) it's unrelated to COVID in any way; and
- (b) in my experience the assumption by foreigners (typically Americans but probably not exclusively) that Australians are all "hopping mad" about the government reaction to COVID is vastly overblown. A small number of very vocal, selfish shitheads protested and pretended to be people they're not (i.e. buying hi-vis gear to appear as if they're construction workers). The vast majority of the population has just the slightest bit of common decency and sense of community well being. There's a reason 5x as many cases in the US resulted in deaths, and why the death rate (i.e. deaths per n population) was 3.6x higher - and that's using data updated very recently, so it includes the past 12-18 months when restrictions have been lifted everywhere.
> It's nothing to do with finding you "disagreeable". It's pretty basic etiquette when having a conversation.
Please tell me more about this etiquette while calling me a foodstuff.
Indeed Covid is the unrelated topic, my opening words: Regardless of where you stand on Covid ...the original reasons for draconian law enforcement meant to be temporary are long gone..
The mentality however remains. I can only hope not permanently.
Not litigating the past, talking about the present. I say this with all sincerity, come back tomorrow perhaps and reread the exchange with fresh eyes.
> I'm not really sure why you think I would be your border guard, or how you assume I would treat a person in that scenario even if I was?
You would with some probability jump to conclusions that I'm part of the outgroup and treat me with a heavyhand as demonstrated by this whole exchange. These are not good vibes, hence, unpleasant and disappointing enough for me to steer clear. And I'm quite sure you are more reasonable than the typical border agent.
> in my experience the assumption by foreigners (typically Americans but probably not exclusively) that Australians are all "hopping mad" about the government reaction to COVID is vastly overblown
Wonderful, what does that have to do with this foreigner? Are you starting to understand the issue?
> Please tell me more about this etiquette while calling me a foodstuff.
I'm sorry you don't appreciate porcine slang. Would you prefer "Why are you going off like a bucket of prawns in the sun?" Or if you like crustaceans but prefer it was a bit snappier (no crab pun intended), how about "Don't come the raw prawn mate?"
> the original reasons for draconian law enforcement meant to be temporary are long gone..
How many times do people have to tell you that these measures are unrelated to COVID and pre-date it? COVID is thus not the "original reason" for the law in question, and never has been.
> The mentality however remains.
What mentality?
As much as this hasn't affected me yet personally (and I currently live as an expat in a country that is definitely a popular destination for some of the shifty fuckers they're actually looking for) I'm against the policy, and I would imagine most of my Australian friends would consider it overly invasive if they were told to hand over their PIN.
Are you somehow trying to suggest that because Australians in general approved of the restrictions put in place during the pandemic, that they're also likely to approve of this? I very much doubt that.
> You would with some probability jump to conclusions that I'm part of the outgroup
What "outgroup"? What are you even talking about?
> treat me with a heavyhand as demonstrated by this whole exchange
Calling someone out for talking shit about a topic they clearly don't know anything about is hardly "heavy handed".
> Wonderful, what does that have to do with this foreigner?
Well you're a foreigner who yet again made pretty ridiculous claims about Australians and their thoughts regarding how the government handled the pandemic.
> Well you're a foreigner who yet again made pretty ridiculous claims about Australians and their thoughts regarding how the government handled the pandemic.
I keep telling you I’m not an anti vaxer. I keep telling you I’m not talking about the the pandemic.
Those people who disturb you so is the outgroup I’m talking about.
I’m not that, has diddly to do with me, but you can’t snap out of that fixation.
> How many times do people have to tell you that these measures are unrelated to COVID and pre-date it? COVID is thus not the "original reason" for the law in question, and never has been.
I never said that Covid is the reason for the law in question , look carefully, you got on that all on your own!
How many times can I clarify that? That’s the mentality I’m talking about.
Snap out of it.
A border guard searching your phone pre and post Covid is no longer the same. God help you if he starts assuming wrong things about you now, like you are about me, understand?
That’s the entire point. Covid is over, the animosities remain and run deep.
Me, and the other people who replied to tell you the same thing, and the countless others who downvoted you on the same assumption.
> A border guard searching your phone pre and post Covid is no longer the same.
They're searching for terrorists/kiddie fuckers/porn 'smugglers'. That's it. I think their approach is completely wrong, but that's what they're searching for.
None of those particular things has anything to do with the pandemic.
> God help you if he starts assuming wrong things about you now
Why? Whether I refuse to give him my PIN; or I give it to him and he finds nothing of interest; or he does find something of interest: none of that relates to the attitudes of people regarding the pandemic, because none of the things they're searching for are even remotely related to the pandemic.
> That’s the entire point. Covid is over, the animosities remain and run deep.
What animosities? It's like you've branched out from carrying on like a pork chop and decided to add a side of word salad to the conversational plate.
> I’m not talking about the the pandemic.
> Then why even mention it?
Listen bud, you can treat antivaxers and bogans like lepers if you want. It is not my problem, they are your cross to bear as fellow citizens. I also think they are retarded, but you seem incapable of understanding this or where we differ.
Read the thread again and observe how you jump to conclusions about strangers (I must be an American who fell down the rabbit hole with those people online and am also like them) and the way you treat people you don't like. That's all.
I don't think you are quite your old selves and don't want to get caught up in your culture wars.
> Why? Whether I refuse to give him my PIN; or I give it to him and he finds nothing of interest; or he does find something of interest: none of that relates to the attitudes of people regarding the pandemic, because none of the things they're searching for are even remotely related to the pandemic.
Hard to believe they are sifting through phones at the border "just looking for kiddie fuckers". There is a reason why you think their approach is completely wrong. You know that makes no kind of sense, it is security theatre.
There is a fellow Australian in this thread describing being searched three times.
In reality you are at the mercy and at the discretion of the border guy. And if he acts like you've acted here and comes across an antivaxer I have a reasonable expectation he would give them a hard time out of spite. Or indeed whomever rubs them the wrong way.
I get how it is supposed to work, I am not claiming anything remotely like they are actively targeting this or that group as defined in the law. I'm talking about how it is enforced.
It isn't something I read online either. Because of this atmosphere people have bad experiences. Normal people.
No point in talking in circles, I'm guessing you'll stay with your cognitive disonnance and keep yelping at me like I'm an antivaxer and this isn't registering at all so I'll wish you the best and stop here.
> observe how you jump to conclusions about strangers
Conclusions are based on observations mate.
> culture wars
a few noisy fuck wits pretending to be construction workers so they can protest is hardly a culture war buddy.
> Hard to believe they are sifting through phones at the border "just looking for kiddie fuckers".
I gave you a paraphrased list of what they've told the media and the Senate they're looking for. An exact quote is
> Border force said a phone would only be seized where officers suspect it has “special forfeited goods” such as “illegal pornography, terrorism-related material and media that has been, or would be, refused classification”.
Given that they have sniffer dogs checking for fucking bananas it doesn't really surprise me that they want to check for porn, and the numbers quoted aren't exactly a large percentage of the number of travellers.
> There is a reason why you think their approach is completely wrong.
Yes, because it's done without a warrant. My issue is not with the government investigating suspected crimes. My issue is with random staff peeking at shit without sufficient oversight, and the potential for mishandling of legal, but sensitive material that may be held on a device.
> You know that makes no kind of sense, it is security theatre.
As I said, I think it needs to be backed by a stronger case (enough to convince a judge to grant a warrant), but that doesn't mean it's useless.
> There is a fellow Australian in this thread describing being searched three times.
And we know zero about the context of why he was initially searched.
> In reality you are at the mercy and at the discretion of the border guy.
That's literally the case in every border crossing everywhere.
> if he acts like you've acted here and comes across an antivaxer I have a reasonable expectation he would give them a hard time out of spite
If someone turns up at the border and starts waffling on like a pork chop about COVID or any other completely irrelevant topic then yes I would imagine he is treated like the twat that he's being. Short of another pandemic, there's basically no scenario where a persons vaccination history or beliefs are going to come up while crossing the border. If you rock up at the border wearing a t-shirt that says "vaccines are for suckers" or whatever, I'd imagine it'll go about as well as wearing a t-shirt that says "I fuck kids". Yes, you're potentially going to have a shit time. Yes, you absolutely brought it on yourself.
> I'm talking about how it is enforced.
Yes, I already told you I believe that the way this policy is currently applied needs more oversight and transparency.
> It isn't something I read online either. Because of this atmosphere people have bad experiences. Normal people.
What atmosphere? People learning the consequences of their own stupid actions isn't an atmosphere.
You keep referring back to anti vaxxers being treated poorly and then throw in these mysterious "normal people". What's normal?
> The Australians I met stuck abroad at the time were... not.
Of course not - they were stuck outside of Australia during a global pandemic and were unable to return home due to airlines limiting flights and cruiseships being floating cesspools of cross infection.
There was also a very vocal minority that strongly objected to restrictions on social gatherings and to various lockdowns when infection appeared that occurred in some of the Australian cities.
The vast majority of Australians (I'm one) were mostly pretty hapy with how the situation was handled in Australia with a few exceptions, the Federal Government failing to secure an early volume of vaccines being one of those failiings.
Yes, you can go online and find some very vocal Australians complaining very loudly about how it was a total shitshow that trampled their rights, referring to quarantine sites as internment camps, etc.
You can also compare that to vastly larger majority than understood the issues, the dangers, and supported the balance struck and measures taken.
There is no universe in which a spread of opinion did not exist.
Australia had early COVID cases, thanks to fairly uniform measures these were contained and overall the country had a very low death rate by global standards and maintained a strong economy during the pandemic.
> Regardless of where you stand on Covid some countries have handled it extremely poorly in terms of civil liberties with Australia near the top of the list.
That makes you a pork chop. At least to the person that used that term. You are holding some strong opinions that raise eyebrows.
> You can imagine the heartbreaks shared with me.
I can, you don't have a monopoly on stories heard and COVID was at the root of many a sad tale.
> As for the phone searches
10K searches in two years when there are more than 3 million transits a month is a very low number - the searches happen in conjunction with other "flags" that prompt deeper inspection of passengers, suspicion of (or actual) smuggling, international flags on various people, suspicious luggage scans, etc.
> and punishment for wrong think
Which punishment for purely what thoughts are you referring to here ?
> If everyone not happy
There are people in Australia that are not happy about { A }, other that are unhappy about { B }, it's not the case that everyone is not happy.
> I don’t want to visit personally, please understand.
That's your choice and you're welcome to it I'm not attempting to persuade you of anything here - you just appear to be holding some odd notions.
> I’m not claiming where the line on authoritarianism should be
I worked some decades mapping the world and scanning for resources, I've been through customs for nigh on two thirds of 190+ countries on the globe - there are far worse countries to visit and even those can be navigated safely enough if not comfortably.
> You opened with.. That makes you a pork chop. At least to the person that used that term. You are holding some strong opinions that raise eyebrows.
He specifically called me a pork chop for the "lived experience" as he himself says in his own post. What are my strong opinions that raise eyebrows please?
I mentioned I'm vaxed and said "regardless how you feel about Covid".
> I can, you don't have a monopoly on stories heard and COVID was at the root of many a sad tale.
Never claimed any monopoly. One last time, I'm specifically talking about listening to your fellow citizens offline not antivaxer types online.
> Which punishment for purely what thoughts are you referring to here ?
Should have just started there friend.
> there are far worse countries to visit and even those can be navigated safely enough if not comfortably.
I'm at about 100, no argument there either, that's very true.
> What are my strong opinions that raise eyebrows please?
>> Regardless of where you stand on Covid some countries have handled it extremely poorly in terms of civil liberties with Australia near the top of the list.
There are some people with first hand experience of Australia's handling of COVID that do feel it was the worst boot on neck draconian facist hellscape on the planet, yes.
There's a significantly larger majority that also have first hand experience that do not feel that to be the case in the slightest.
Myself and everybody I know locally spent most of the pandemic within Australia ( I left for an overseas trip and returned ); with the exception of overseas travel, I wore a mask maybe twice and never once experienced a lockdown or curfew. Of the people I know that did experience a lockdown | curfew following the few reports of infection not one of them complained about that being a problem as they understood the base issue. On my return from overseas I self isolated for 14 days which I have no issue with, it was an entirely sensible precaution.
The decision to carry out these procedures were largely bottom up from the people and local state government rather than top down from the Federal government, indeed the Federal Government here was at odds with the state governments and the general wishes of most people.
> I'm specifically talking about listening to your fellow citizens offline not antivaxer types online.
What makes you think I haven't and the other peer Australian here hasn't?
> Which punishment for purely what thoughts are you referring to here ?
>> Should have just started there friend.
You still haven't replied to that question though, have you?
Oh, and for what it's worth, you weren't called a pork chop you were asked what were "you waffling on like a pork chop about?"
It's idiomatic in Australians and used by Australians in real life when talking in real life to others.
I'm an Australian citizen and this applies just as much to me as a foreigner (for whom although I disagree about, I could make a reasonable argument for this being valid). Police require a warrant and/or reasonable suspicion of having committed a specific crime to search any part of you or your belongings. Border Force do not require this.
When they ask for the code, they will either:
- just open your device and rifle through your photos and messages in front of you, asking questions like "got a lot of photos of x, what's that about?" or "who is y?", ask you questions like "what are you doing in Australia? Who are you seeing? What's your relationship to them?" et cetera (even to me, a citizen who spends majority of my time abroad).
- Take it into another room for 20mins or so and presumably take a dump of the whole thing for further analysis. I once asked "what is done with this data and how long is it stored" and they refused to answer the question.
One time after refusing to hand over the code (politely) I was treated pretty aggressively, had my whole body searched (not strip searched, groped well all over), all my luggage taken apart etc. I received a letter in the mail that I could go and collect my phone at the airport after around 3 weeks. It seems unlikely they have some tech which allows exfiltration of data from a locked iPhone(?) so I'm not sure what that's about. They claimed to me that they do indeed have this capability.
Since refusing to open the phone and letting them keep it I seem to be on some kind of list and have had a Border Force officer meet me at the baggage carousel a couple of times with the "please come with me sir" to my own private search area where a few of them are ready to search my luggage inside out. This seems to happen less recently since I have just given them the code. They have successfully made it inconvenient enough for me to comply.
One time years ago they did the same thing with my laptop. Since that incident they have only asked about my phone.