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.
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.
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
When an MP, called Julie Bishop, had her bags searched, she used her power to get those involved sacked.
Instead of, "Don't leave home without it!", leave home without data on phone. :)
They take a whole dump for future forensic if needed, and that includes the ability to restore what you have deleted.
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).
Not only that, but most of the species are common in the USA and EU and just have different names.
Also, the US has far more dangerous animals, but somehow Australia is famous for that lol.
I'd be really interested in their response when you tell them you don't have one on you.
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.
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?
There's no way wiping should be considered enough.
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 :(
Now you can both take the same side complaining about stupid bureaucratic rules making everyone's life harder.
Not every criticism of China is xenophobia.
[1]: https://www.computerworld.com/article/1600064/hackers-used-i...
(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.)
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™
How does it work in Australia?
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).
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 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.
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...
They must admit a citizen, but they can then arrest them immediately.
> Does it apply to non-citizens?
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.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=incoming+passenger+card+aust...
> 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,
... 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.
(1) https://arkadiyt.com/2019/10/07/pair-locking-your-iphone-wit...
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.
3.3m visitors in March 2024 alone.
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”.
One wonders how such a suspicion is formed.
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 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.
Yes bad idea, but funny idea too.
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.
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.
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.
I was manually searched on my last trip because I refused to go through the millimeter wave scanner.
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.
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.
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'm far too busy to do that.
You seem to focus on the technical aspects but really gloss over the entire "create a duplicate online life every time you travel"
Wouldn't they notice all your mail, call list, and other such accounts are from a few days?
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.
1. Wipe phone 2. Install goatse wallpaper
Slaughterhouse waste wallpaper should be OK though.