Will You Let Airport Border Agents Access Your Phone & Laptop ?

dcep on 06/05/2019 - 19:39
Last edited 06/05/2019 - 20:00

Maybe it's just me living under the rock but just saw the news on some guy got his phone searched and denied entry after controversial video was found.

So I've looked it up and apparently border agents can confiscate your phone/laptop should you choose not to unlock/login the device for them to search.

Is that right? Will you just simply unlock your phone and let them browse whatever they want?
I mean some won't even let your partner unlock your phone let alone a stranger.

And the fact that even police needs warrant to exercise that, while border agents can do without one seems bizarre.

Travel

Comments

  • Clear on 06/05/2019 - 19:43
    +10

    Burner phone and laptop? Last time I went overseas I had my phone cleaned out, signed out of apps and others like Cerberus hidden away as a precaution because you never know what they could do šŸ˜‰

    It was like going to Huawei HQ in China on business. They would temporarily confiscate your phones and laptops for 'auditing' and you just have to look at what they did to Nortel to see that's a bad idea. Keep the personal/discriminating stuff off your devices.

    • Daabido on 06/05/2019 - 19:51
      +36

      I like to keep the discriminating stuff on my device so they will think highly of me, but I eliminate the incriminating stuff.

      • Clear on 06/05/2019 - 19:52
        +8

        Shame I can't go back and edit that one šŸ˜œ

        • Scrooge McDuck on 07/05/2019 - 15:47
          +3

          Gotta love autocomplete and helpful users who reply to your comments 8 minutes after posting.

          • Daabido on 07/05/2019 - 20:39
            +6

            @Scrooge McDuck: It was just a joke Scroogy. Go back for another dip in your gold. Now that's helpful.

    • funnysht on 07/05/2019 - 19:30
      +5

      Huawei?..they prob watched the dark knight as well

    • NeeKeeTa on 08/05/2019 - 09:33

      Sorry for the noob question, but why one should hide Cerberus away? it's a legitimate app, isn't it?

      • Clear on 08/05/2019 - 09:35
        +4

        Not that kind of hiding. Using root you can make it harder to detect and able to survive factory resets. Good for finding out what Customs were doing.

    • tastycheeks on 10/05/2019 - 03:59

      What is Nortel/cerberus and what do they do?

      • Clear on 10/05/2019 - 07:45
        +2

        Nortel was a multinational telecommunications and network hardware provider. Huawei were responsible for hacking and stealing information from them for years and used the stolen information to make themselves a multinational telecommunications company. They're well known in the industry for stealing from other companies and why we always visit with clean devices šŸ˜‰

        Cerberus is an anti-theft all for Android. Can be used to secretly record audio, video, play alarms, remotely wipe itself and more.

        • Zachary on 15/05/2019 - 17:33

          …there's no equivalent for iphone, windows phone or blackberry users are there?

          • Clear on 15/05/2019 - 17:41

            @Zachary: Find my iPhone šŸ˜‹ Nah I don't think so.

  • Hybroid on 06/05/2019 - 19:43
    -6

    Airport authorities have the right to confiscate devices and copy their contents.

    They likely need probable cause and hopefully it won't be abused, but doesn't sound like we have a choice in the matter.

    • Diji1 on 06/05/2019 - 22:33
      +27

      They likely need probable cause and hopefully it won't be abused

      Yeah and politicians only tell the truth and hopefully corporations pay tax even when they dont have to.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 07/05/2019 - 15:49
          +1

          Pretty sure bludgers can phone in to Centrelink.

    • Other on 07/05/2019 - 09:24
      +7

      As soon as I read that I started questioning the 'probable cause' - sounds like something that sounds good to sell to the public but is basically as useful for protecting your rights as a wet cardboard box.

      • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 15:30

        I tried a dry cardboard box. Didn't work either.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 07/05/2019 - 15:50
          +1

          Those can inflict nasty paper cuts.

          • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 16:07

            @Scrooge McDuck: It's not a paper so I cannot get paper cuts.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 11:25
      +21

      At least at Australia and United States borders, no, they do not require probable cause.

      ie. for Australia - Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
      http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consā€¦

      They can inspect anything. If you don't unlock the device, they can confiscate and make life difficult for you.

      I vehemently hate these laws, but unfortunately they got through both houses of parliament due to the argument "If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have a problem"

      They CANNOT (yet) force you to unlock a device or give the password. That requires a Court order. These laws are likely changing very soon however!

      • Strahany on 07/05/2019 - 12:19
        +1

        I remember reading about how you can be compelled to provide your fingerprint on a device (presumably, devices with a face scan might fall under this territory) but canā€™t be compelled to enter a password, so switching off biometric security prevents this point of access.

        I believe this was in the United States, though, and possibly is not here (yet).

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/05/2019 - 15:28

          You likely read a recent Court decision \ media report.

          Currently only a Court can compel you to do this in either country. Doesn't mean they won't try their hardest to convince you to comply.

          • Harold Halfprice on 08/05/2019 - 19:31

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

            Doesn't mean they won't try their hardest to convince you to comply

            Also doesn't mean they won't confiscate your device - regardless if they're in the right or wrong. They don't really have anything to lose being wrong, but you do.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 17:42
          +8

          In the US for US Citizens, the law is currently fairly unclear.
          In the US for foreign nationals, they'll refuse you entry at a minimum if you fail to comply.

          In Australia, for Australian citizens, you face up to 10 years in prison if you refuse to comply, or are unable to comply (as of the end of last year).
          In Australia for foreign citizens, you'll probably just be deported if you refuse to comply.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 07/05/2019 - 15:59
        +17

        I vehemently hate these laws, but unfortunately they got through both houses of parliament due to the argument "If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have a problem"

        To anyone who utters that line, one should ask, "Can I have your passwords then?"

        Many people literally have their passwords, for various different logins, saved on their computers, in one form or another.

        It's high time people renewed their value for privacy. The terrorists wanted our way of life to change, and that's what we've given them.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 07/05/2019 - 16:04
          +13

          Also, we need younger members of parliament who have a better grasp of technology and emerging issues.

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/05/2019 - 09:03
            +1

            @Scrooge McDuck: Problem is the balance of young vs old in the major parties is completely out of whack for that the happen in the next 10 years sadly :(

        • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 17:40
          +13

          They specifically exempted members of parliament from these laws. I'd say yes, they do have things to hide.

          • frewer on 08/05/2019 - 18:36
            +4

            @[Deactivated]: I just want to provide URL for this, saved your finger works.

            317ZRA Relationship of this Part to parliamentary privileges and immunities

                           To avoid doubt, this Part does not affect the law relating to the powers, privileges and immunities of any of the following:

                 (a)  each House of the Parliament;

                 (b)  the members of each House of the Parliament;

                 (c)  the committees of each House of the Parliament and joint committees of both Houses of the Parliament.

            https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018A00148

            • bob the builder on 09/05/2019 - 00:16
              +3

              @frewer: pretty much exempts the corrupt bureaucrats from ever being checked. The government is getting worse every year

        • abb on 08/05/2019 - 14:14
          +4

          I ask for nudes of their wife. Nothing to hide, right?

      • vicosads on 09/05/2019 - 05:51

        These laws are likely changing very soon however!

        LMAO, these things are like a 'temporary' tax

      • Thaal Sinestro on 09/05/2019 - 17:29

        When will people wake up and realize: our government doesn't respresent us; our government is the enemy. The government wants complete control over every aspect of people's lives. Democracy is really no different from Communism, Fascism, or Theocracy. The only thing that differs is the person holding a gun to your head. Simply paraphrasing the Bible now (the foundation of modern Western civilization) is enough to get your career ruined. At least in America they have the 4th Amendment that protects against "Unlawful Search" like forcing somebody to undergo a drug test in order to collect welfare. There is nothing in Australia to restrain overreach by the Nanny State. Our government passionate hates individualists and free thinkers; though crime (disagreeing with the people in power) is considered hate speech and is punished.

        Smash the state; it's as simple as that. Start by voting for the LDP at the next election, the least evil party.

    • gromit on 07/05/2019 - 17:02
      +1

      They don't need probable cause at all. At a border you are subject to any and all search of baggage, belongings and devices and can be refused entry for refusal on any of them, this is not a new condition and applies to most countries. It isn't all that common because of how time consuming it is but it is always an option. Personally if you have something so private you don't want them to see then don't take it on a device with you, it isn't rocket science in this day and age, you can encrypt it and dump it in a online storage or have it remotely accessible on your network.

      Where I work we are instructed that any such requests are always to be agreed to for any company equipment and then report it directly to security afterwards.

      • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 22:02
        +5

        Where I work we are instructed that any such requests are always to be agreed to for any company equipment and then report it directly to security afterwards.

        Where I work , I'm not allowed to carry any personal devices or notebook when going overseas. Our security personnel checks my luggage thoroughly and hands over a burner phone before dropping me off at the airport. I get a work laptop at destination which I have to return when I come back. Burner phone gets wiped clean before I board the plane to come back.

        I've always thought my employer was slightly paranoid but now…

        • Domingo on 08/05/2019 - 09:35
          +19

          Is your work's motto "it's our way or the Huawei"?

          • [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 16:01
            +2

            @Domingo: Not at all. We're a law-abiding organisation :)

            • Kangal on 09/05/2019 - 00:04

              @[Deactivated]: The Batman is coming for you fam, call Martha.

              • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2019 - 21:07

                @Kangal: There's no need : we're the good guys :)

        • AlexF on 09/05/2019 - 09:16
          -1

          I get a work laptop at destination which I have to return when I come back.

          what about OS & application customisation? Would be a source of unproductive time redoing this for every journey..

          • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2019 - 21:06
            +1

            @AlexF:

            Would be a source of unproductive time redoing this for every journey..

            Not really.

            Most of our work is us fumbling in the dark and having fun doing it. However, a very small part of our research does have some real life applications and is considered highly sensitive and would cause "exceptionally grave damage" if it fell into the wrong hands.

            The PTB don't consider it unproductive time , the IT teams don't mind doing it and I'm used to my business laptops being used only for business purposes. I don't get attached to any of them : they are just a means to an end.

      • trapper on 08/05/2019 - 12:02
        -1

        Passwords for all your online accounts will be next.

    • haemolysis on 07/05/2019 - 19:50
      +2

      ā€œAirport security screeningā€ IS probable cause. They assume the right to search your phone by default.

    • trapper on 08/05/2019 - 11:59
      +1

      There is no requirement for any probable cause.

    • jenkemjunkie on 08/05/2019 - 16:48
      +8

      ā€˜Probable causeā€™ is an American legal concept around search and seizure - it is not part or recognised in Australian legal lexicon…but by all means feel free to tell border agents in Australia or police officers they have ā€˜no probable causeā€™…itā€™s a good indicator to them that you know nothing and watch too much TV and can probably push the envelope a little more with you

      • UFO on 08/05/2019 - 19:47
        +2

        Not sure why you are getting negs, as you are 100% right.

        Probable Cause has absolutely nothing to do with Australian Law. We have 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' and 'On the Balance of Probabilities' (which I won't explain here), but that's it.

        • Strahany on 08/05/2019 - 20:11
          +1

          Is there a tl;dr for the differences, in practice?

          • jenkemjunkie on 08/05/2019 - 20:33
            +3

            @Strahany: Think of them like tests to pass (it wonā€™t be tl;dr if I go through how the court decides this).

            Reasonable suspicion has a much lower ā€˜thresholdā€™ to pass compared to probable cause.

            Edit: Reasonable suspicion is a concept in Australian law and is a lot more nebulous.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 19:49
      +3

      They likely need probable cause…

      You've been watching too much American TV, like CSI.

      We don't say "probably cause" here.

      We talk about "reasonable suspicion" and "reasonable belief".

      Lock it in.

  • kahn on 06/05/2019 - 19:48
    +23

    Load your phone with a collection of photoshopped nude pictures of border agents to discourage any funny business.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 07/05/2019 - 16:10
      +8

      What could go wrong!?

    • Wallyt99 on 08/05/2019 - 19:16
      +2

      "oh that… It's just my fantasy…. " {Wink}

      • kahn on 08/05/2019 - 19:19
        +8

        Worse case scenario: you get hand-cuffed to a table
        Best case scenario: you get hand-cuffed to a bed

  • No Username on 06/05/2019 - 19:51
    +19

    Just looked this up. Apparently, they have the right to clone your HDD. Failure to comply will result in a fine. Kind of messed up. So encrypt your drives with FileVault or BitLocker.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 07/05/2019 - 16:11
      +5

      These laws are ludicrous!

      • orangetrain on 07/05/2019 - 20:17
        +1

        Time to encrypt gigabytes of files with random bits?

    • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 17:39
      +9

      If you refuse to decrypt it for them you face 10 years jail in Australia, as of the end of last year when Labor joined forces with the Coalition to pass the laws. So yeah. Um if you do encrypt it, don't forget the password or lose the key.

      • abb on 08/05/2019 - 14:15
        +5

        What's encryption? I'm just carrying around a HDD full of random numbers because I like random numbers.

      • DreadPirateRoberts on 08/05/2019 - 19:52
        +1

        Surely they can't imprison you if you tell them you "forgot" the password right? People do that in court all the time!

        "I can't recall exactly"

        "I'm not sure I remember"

        Or maybe I've seen too much NCIS

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/05/2019 - 09:11

          They will then seek to prove when you last accessed said device.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2019 - 14:18

          Surely they can't imprison you if you tell them you "forgot" the password right? People do that in court all the time!

          Well, the 10 years is for refusing to tell them the password, I didn't see any allowance for forgetting as an excuse, so potentially you could go to jail for 10 years for forgetting the password. Do you think maybe they rushed these laws?

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/05/2019 - 16:13

            @[Deactivated]: No, it's 5 years. It's 10 years if you refuse to unlock the device related to a "serious offence".

            • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2019 - 16:55

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: True. But I guess it's their call as to if it's a serious offence….. They've already had some success pressuring people as a result of the increased sentence for 'serious offences'.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/05/2019 - 09:10

        Better off using a dead mans switch.

    • Drow on 09/05/2019 - 13:13
      +2

      In conjunction with the data breach scheme it's a terrible situation.

      The Border Force staff are not in any way adequately trained for IT environments and the amount of damage they could do deliberately or accidentally when possessing the laptop and phone of a sys\net admin is horrifying.

      The government doesn't offer any protection to the traveller so if a Border Force stooge deletes something or shares something then the traveller is still up for the $100,000 per incident fine …

      If they offered a waiver when taking the device or allowed you to supervise them using it then I could maybe understand but as it is you face fines\jail if you refuse and you face fines\jail if you accept and they do something stupid.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/05/2019 - 16:14

        It sucks, but really no difference to the protections given with a police warrant for your house. They can rip it apart and go through everything.

      • gromit on 09/05/2019 - 22:00

        No sysadmin (at least any competent ones) would be logging into a local device with credentials that give someone possessing said device access to anything of significance. If they do then they are a terrible admin to begin with and it was an accident waiting to happen. I could hand you over my laptop and phone and you could do nothing but destroy what is on the laptop.

  • relentless on 06/05/2019 - 19:55
    +2

    Android Pie's Lockdown mode is useful for these types of situations.

    • boomramada on 07/05/2019 - 10:16
      +1

      Then you have one choice, return trip to where you came from :)

      • Kangal on 09/05/2019 - 00:07

        No, not you, they send the phone back and let you in to the country.

  • apsilon on 06/05/2019 - 19:55

    Given I don't own either device I'd call the internal corporate solicitors and follow their advice, in fact if I was traveling international I'd ask in advance given there's been several of these stories recently.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2019 - 20:12

    I'm happy for border control to stop pedophiles entering our country.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2019 - 09:06
      +32

      As if they care. They out looking for dissidents, not pedophiles.

      • Amanda3724 on 08/05/2019 - 11:55
        +1

        Apart from the news article this thread relates to, of course.

      • UFO on 08/05/2019 - 19:48
        +2

        Wrong.

        They are definitely looking for paedophiles too.

        • Kangal on 09/05/2019 - 00:07
          -2

          Shouldn't they look out for aliens? I mean Mexicans.

    • Other on 07/05/2019 - 09:26
      +12

      But letting them out to offend in poorer countries is what we did for decades and decades and decades.

      Somehow I think the pedo is a useful sales tactic (think of the Children!) and pretty much nothing else.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 07/05/2019 - 16:13
      +13

      I'm happy for border control to stop pedophiles entering our country.

      And people who just value their privacy in general?

    • field1985 on 07/05/2019 - 17:42
      +7

      We should probably stop them leaving our country too… Thanks to sex tourism we export far more pedo's to south east Asia then "enter" the country.

      For example:
      https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/depraved-aussie-child-preā€¦

    • YellowDieselGolf on 07/05/2019 - 19:37
      +14

      And itā€™s garbage like this that erodes our privacy.

      Donā€™t support your privacy being invaded? You must be a pedo.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/05/2019 - 08:52
      +15

      First they came for the Communists
      And I did not speak out
      Because I was not a Communist
      …
      Then they came for me
      And there was no one left
      To speak out for me

    • Cluster on 08/05/2019 - 15:13
      +10

      The two key phrases used to bring in any security legislation are: "pedophile" and "terrorist". You don't support terrorists, do you? You don't support pedophiles, do you? No? Okay, just give us unlimited power to rifle through your personal data if we arbitrarily declare you to be suspicious. Missed your flight because of the search? Too bad, buy another one.

    • FullPrice on 07/05/2019 - 06:08
      +26

      <>

      https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/legal-action-after-bordeā€¦

      https://archive.homeaffairs.gov.au/AccessandAccountability/Dā€¦

      KEY FACTS/KEY FIGURES
      ā€¢ During the course of an electronic examination of a travellerā€™s mobile
      telephone at Sydney International Airport on 1 November 2014, an
      Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) officer (now
      an Australian Border Force (ABF) officer) read and responded to two text
      messages. The officer deleted the messages before returning the
      telephone to the traveller.

      ā€¢ In the interests of transparency it was decided to advise the traveller of
      the incident and apologise for the officerā€™s action as soon as it was
      appropriate to do so.

      ā€¢ The correspondence to the traveller was sent on 1 April 2015.

    • Other on 07/05/2019 - 09:29
      +8

      Remember fine citizens you don't need privacy, so you obviously shouldn't have it.

      If you look at the number of politicians being booted for the crime of being in a strip club or tweeting something st00pid 10 years ago (or even re-tweeting!) I guess there is completely nothing to hide.

    • ThithLord on 07/05/2019 - 11:20
      +28

      Hahaha oh my god. You've got nothing to hide, UncleSnake? PM me your passwords. Let's meet up so I can go through your phone. Y'know, cos you have nothing to hide?

      Don't be so obtuse. Privacy should be an inherent right afforded to us for being Australian citizens.

        • apsilon on 07/05/2019 - 13:29
          +21

          There's a vast difference between looking for weapons and explosives and viewing files on a device that contains valuable IP and sensitive client data.

            • Scrooge McDuck on 07/05/2019 - 16:24
              +6

              @Donaldhump:

              understand your points about the sensative data, but what can you doā€¦

              1. Speak out against it.
              2. Vote for politicians who value civil liberties. Eg the Liberal Democratic Party, Pirate Party, etc.
              3. Contact incumbent politicians to let them know how these laws affect you.

              and that department does anything with that data outside the scope of their work, they can be sued.

              Too late and too impractical. Prevention is much better than restitution.

              • Donaldhump on 07/05/2019 - 17:20
                -5

                @Scrooge McDuck: so speak out, ring scomo or bill shorten up and tell them.

                doesn't bother me though, i go through airport security every 2nd day of my life, if they want to search my laptop then go ahead.

                • ripesashimi on 08/05/2019 - 17:24

                  @Donaldhump: And when your devices contain your family members' private pics that you have kept since they were little? You sure you want some other adults browse through that?

              • funnysht on 07/05/2019 - 19:36
                +1

                @Scrooge McDuck: SO THAT'S what the Pirate Party stood for…i thought something else. anyway.

            • ripesashimi on 08/05/2019 - 17:27

              @Donaldhump:

              understand your points about the sensitive data, but what can you doā€¦

              wtf is this attitude? Dude its your sensitive data that someone is accessing for their benefits.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join