bureaucratic coughry

[odysseus]

This isn't a false positive though.

It's an investigation of the unknown. She was not presumed guilty, nor assessed as being guilty.

 

[DC3]

… It's an investigation of the unknown. She was not presumed guilty, nor assessed as being guilty.

Not really sure about that, from what I've read on this thread.

How do we determine that she was not presumed guilty? Possibly was presumed guilty until 'proven' innocent?

 

[drron]

What you have read on this thread is not necessarily the truth and certainly not the whole truth.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This isn't a false positive though.

It's an investigation of the unknown. She was not presumed guilty, nor assessed as being guilty.

It depends on the model ABF uses to identify potential risks.

In theory, with millions of people crossing borders every day, you want a way to direct your limited resources in the most effective way. That is, you want to be searching those whom you think are most likely to pose a risk.

So, in theory, you develop a risk framework. This would contain a number of indicators that you have put together that are supported by data. Once you have your list of potential indicators, you go back through your data (for example, the outcome of searches) and determine which indicators, or combination of indicators, have resulted in risk being correctly identified. Searching people without data to support the effective use of limited reources will mean those you want may get away.

In this case, the passenger presented herself and supposedly ticked a number of indicators. So they did a search. They presumed, based on the risk assessment tool, that she did, or was likely to, pose a risk. Not a preumption of guilt, but a presumption that she is a risk. And a fairly strong presumption and risk given the separation and isolation of the passenger, and the invasive nature of the search.

But they found nothing.

So what's the analysis here? Risk assessment tools should be continuously evaluated to ensure they are effective. If you go to all that effort to assign resources to an individual but it turns up nothing it might suggest the tool is not working effectively. Either the tool is out of sync, or it was applied incorrectly. Or it was applied correctly, but it was within the margins of error.

This is where the results of the National Audit Office come in. It found that staff on the front line are not adequately trained. They don't have enough information. And we know that 12% of searches were unlawful and almost 1 in 3 were inappropriate. These are important because it may suggest the 'margin of error' - false positives if you like - are far too high.

A final option is that the tool may include some 'random' element to act as a general deterrent. But even if that was the case, does it warrant isolation and separation and a fairly intrusive search?

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Not really sure about that, from what I've read on this thread.

How do we determine that she was not presumed guilty? Possibly was presumed guilty until 'proven' innocent?

From your comment, aren't you now assuming the customs staff are guilty ... until proven innocent?
There is no human way anyone can make a rational decision of what happened, what did not happen, or why it happened, based on the contents of the OP ... either way! For confidentiality reasons, we likely never will so I'd suggest we agree to sympathise with the OP's sister and move along ... to our next interrogation and red faced cavity search!

 

[nutwood]

This is where the results of the National Audit Office come in. It found that staff on the front line are not adequately trained. They don't have enough information. And we know that 12% of searches were unlawful and almost 1 in 3 were inappropriate. These are important because it may suggest the 'margin of error' - false positives if you like - are far too high.

A final option is that the tool may include some 'random' element to act as a general deterrent. But even if that was the case, does it warrant isolation and separation and a fairly intrusive search?

This is of course where the limitations on police powers come into play. Over the years, society has established what is, and what isn't, an acceptable level of invasion by the State into people's private affairs. One criteria is that there has to be some reasonable degree of suspicion, which, depending on the situation, may be subject to independent assessment by a magistrate or similar.
When we encounter situations where these rules don't apply, I think it appropriate that we question this. Is it justified? Should someone be pulled aside for detailed scrutiny, simply on suspicion? Personally, I think, given the nature of air travel, it's not unreasonable to examine someone on immediate suspicion, but I think there should be a formal process followed wherein the event is subject to retrospective scrutiny.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Should someone be pulled aside for detailed scrutiny, simply on suspicion? Personally, I think, given the nature of air travel, it's not unreasonable to examine someone on immediate suspicion, but I think there should be a formal process followed wherein the event is subject to retrospective scrutiny.

Good question. I think there still needs to be a robust framework within which officers work. Otherwise you could stop all Muslims. Or all black people. Or all 18 years olds that have returned from Bali.

A suspicion should still have some basis - ideally based on evidence supported by data. Once you start to add subjective interpretations the risk to accountability goes up. (I agree some officers may be very good at it, but not all are.)

If we leave it up to the discretion of officers what's to prevent them stopping an 18 year old girl 'because she's been to Asia' and using that as a basis to view her personal and intimate pictures on her phone?

We have to look at what risks there actually are outbound at the border - and let's use the OP's sister as an example. She had been security screened. This should pick up things like money laundering or smuggling of medicines. The person at this stage isn't a threat to physical security as weapons would have been picked up already.

So what's left? Travelling overseas to fight with a terror unit. Or travelling for illegal sex.

Inbound there are more reasons and bags aren't screened before getting to customs. But if you are looking for drugs... is a search of a person's phone actually required? I don't see an immediate link.

Retroactive scruitiny may assist in the long run. But it doesn't help people at the time who may feel violated. Unless there was some sort of automatic compensation scheme ('we searched you on 'x' date and the search was determined to be unwarranted/illegal/unneccesary. Here's $500'.)

 

[drron]

And we are assuming the ABF made the decision to interrogate.What if the request came from US authorities?Yes the ABF could refuse that request but then the likely result could be the US refusing entry.

 

[Scott K]

This is of course where the limitations on police powers come into play. Over the years, society has established what is, and what isn't, an acceptable level of invasion by the State into people's private affairs. One criteria is that there has to be some reasonable degree of suspicion, which, depending on the situation, may be subject to independent assessment by a magistrate or similar.
When we encounter situations where these rules don't apply, I think it appropriate that we question this. Is it justified? Should someone be pulled aside for detailed scrutiny, simply on suspicion? Personally, I think, given the nature of air travel, it's not unreasonable to examine someone on immediate suspicion, but I think there should be a formal process followed wherein the event is subject to retrospective scrutiny.

Yeah I think I get where you are coming from. Here's where I have some issues. When it comes to the ABF, there's been a political drive here in Australia and elsewhere in the world for governments to appear "tough" and authoritative. I can understand why, as that authoritativeness has been a politic winner. Trump wouldn't have won without it.
Making Australian Customs into 'Australian Border Force' was a decision made to tap into this, not for operational gains. My personal view is that this has driven a cultural change that leans towards over-reach, understanding that the community standard at the moment mostly supports a hard-line view - at least as far as winning votes is concerned.
We've seen in this thread plenty of times where people have taken authoritative views and drawn a line over a compassionate stance almost immediately. Mel_Traveller's statistics however do imply that there is potentially a culture of over-reach.
My I've expressed my personal view a few times in this thread and left it there. I maintain my view from the information on hand from the OP's, the woman felt humiliated and confused by the situation at hand, as a result of 'red flags' over activity that was explainable by information that the airport authorities would have had on hand because it was due to operational constraints during poor weather.
Sure, this is the opinion based on what the OP writes. But in reality that's all we have. Everything else - especially when it comes to the operational case of the ABF, is guesswork. But it is educated guesswork on the back of existing evidence.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And we are assuming the ABF made the decision to interrogate.What if the request came from US authorities?Yes the ABF could refuse that request but then the likely result could be the US refusing entry.

It could have come from the US. Let's assume it did. What basis was used for the search? Just the US's request? Was the passenger informed? Was the level of search commensurate with the request from the US? If not commensurate, the risk model and cooperation with US authorities might need to be re-examined.

Given the passenger is a long-term resident of the US, one could make the argument that if the intending passenger was of specific interest, they would have been captured on US soil, not here. IMO refusal of entry to the US for a long-term resident should probably be for the resident to sort with the US if necessary.

 

[drron]

It has been explained before.ABF officers are at times not to divulge the source of their information and I think it is likely the US would insist on that.
The US certainly has stopped people boarding a plane bound for the USA in the past and almost certainly will in the future.
There are also examples of Australians with Green cards or B1,B2 visas being denied entry to the US.One was mentioned here on AFF in the last week being an Australian journalist with a B1 visa.

 

[nutwood]

It has been explained before.ABF officers are at times not to divulge the source of their information and I think it is likely the US would insist on that.
The US certainly has stopped people boarding a plane bound for the USA in the past and almost certainly will in the future.
There are also examples of Australians with Green cards or B1,B2 visas being denied entry to the US.One was mentioned here on AFF in the last week being an Australian journalist with a B1 visa.

I don't think any reasonable person would expect the ABF to divulge the source of their information, or even their reasons for stopping and searching someone. I do however think it reasonable that people should be reassured that there are checks and balances in place. Such reassurance could be provided by there being a mandatory requirement that all searches of innocent people are independently reviewed after the event. Mel_Travellers suggestion of a compensation cheque is a nice idea, but in fairness, a simple letter confirming that a review has been conducted, and apologising for any inconvenience, would go a long way to allay suspicions of inappropriate behaviour.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It has been explained before.ABF officers are at times not to divulge the source of their information and I think it is likely the US would insist on that.
The US certainly has stopped people boarding a plane bound for the USA in the past and almost certainly will in the future.
There are also examples of Australians with Green cards or B1,B2 visas being denied entry to the US.One was mentioned here on AFF in the last week being an Australian journalist with a B1 visa.

I haven’t seen the relevant legislation that states ABF cannot legally disclose the reason for a search. Would be worth having a look at. We do know border staff have very little guidance and information. So it’s possible they have not been properly informed, or have misinterpreted what they can and can’t divulge.

But overriding that, if exit searches are so important to manage risk, why doesn’t Australia have reciprocal arrangements in place with other countries? Has anyone here been subject to a detailed search on departing the USA, UK, Europe, or Asia?

nutwood... the reason for a search can be important. It might be that you have a similar name to someone on a no fly list, and you want to get that rectified. Or there might be something else which triggers a search that you may have the ability to control.

There may be cases where a search is part of a larger operation. That may require secrecy. But i think individual circumstances need to be considered. The OP’s sister is unlikely to be in an international crime syndicate.

 

[Happy Trails]

But overriding that, if exit searches are so important to manage risk, why doesn’t Australia have reciprocal arrangements in place with other countries? Has anyone here been subject to a detailed search on departing the USA, UK, Europe, or Asia?

I don't know about searches, but ABF maintains a presence at BKK departure gates for Aus bound flights.

 

[drron]

I haven’t seen the relevant legislation that states ABF cannot legally disclose the reason for a search. Would be worth having a look at. We do know border staff have very little guidance and information. So it’s possible they have not been properly informed, or have misinterpreted what they can and can’t divulge.

But overriding that, if exit searches are so important to manage risk, why doesn’t Australia have reciprocal arrangements in place with other countries? Has anyone here been subject to a detailed search on departing the USA, UK, Europe, or Asia?

nutwood... the reason for a search can be important. It might be that you have a similar name to someone on a no fly list, and you want to get that rectified. Or there might be something else which triggers a search that you may have the ability to control.

There may be cases where a search is part of a larger operation. That may require secrecy. But i think individual circumstances need to be considered. The OP’s sister is unlikely to be in an international crime syndicate.

But you have heard it from a person who has done that job.
bureaucratic coughry

Not that you will believe anything that doesn't fit your views.
Another giving up so continue to argue.But maybe just think about why ABF officers feel stressed.

 

[nutwood]

nutwood... the reason for a search can be important. It might be that you have a similar name to someone on a no fly list, and you want to get that rectified. Or there might be something else which triggers a search that you may have the ability to control.

That's very fair comment. Hence the sense in having a retrospective review and a letter to the affected person. It empowers the victim to address the situation. Imagine if your name was on a list and you kept getting singled out. Under the current arrangements, what could you do about it? Protest that you've been searched twice this month already? I can't see that working with some low brow security type who's busily pulling your bag apart!

 

[straitman]

Interesting read with entrenched views by many.

MEL_Traveller's whole argument is based upon a lot of what if scenarios so the obvious questions are based upon any (or some) of those what ifs having a different answer?

 

[OZDUCK]

I haven’t seen the relevant legislation that states ABF cannot legally disclose the reason for a search. Would be worth having a look at. We do know border staff have very little guidance and information. So it’s possible they have not been properly informed, or have misinterpreted what they can and can’t divulge.

But overriding that, if exit searches are so important to manage risk, why doesn’t Australia have reciprocal arrangements in place with other countries? Has anyone here been subject to a detailed search on departing the USA, UK, Europe, or Asia?

nutwood... the reason for a search can be important. It might be that you have a similar name to someone on a no fly list, and you want to get that rectified. Or there might be something else which triggers a search that you may have the ability to control.

There may be cases where a search is part of a larger operation. That may require secrecy. But i think individual circumstances need to be considered. The OP’s sister is unlikely to be in an international crime syndicate.

Once again, I don't really wish to get too deeply into this matter but I would refer you to Section 42 of the Australian Border Force Act 2015 which reads - partly -

"42 Secrecy

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is, or has been, an entrusted person; and

(b) the person makes a record of, or discloses, information; and

(c) the information is Immigration and Border Protection information.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years."

The Sections following give details of what information can be released and who can release it.

(Part1 Sec. 3) entrusted person means:

(a) the Secretary; or

(b) the Australian Border Force Commissioner (including in his or her capacity as the Comptroller‑General of Customs); or

(c) an Immigration and Border Protection worker.


I am not familiar with this Act as it came into force after my retirement but this sort of penalty does make you consider carefully what information you give to unauthorised persons. During my career we were subject to the Customs Administration Act which had similar but less draconian provisions. I took it very seriously. My wife is still slightly annoyed that I would never discuss operational matters with her.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Thanks Ozduck.

 

[UP4014]

Have seen the term 'false positive' mentioned a few times.

The new buzz words are 'non negative'.

As you/it is not yet proven to be a negative and clear to continue.