bureaucratic coughry

[MEL_Traveller]

Sure - it may have the power... but I guess most people don't give it a second thought until it happens to them, or someone they know. Then questions get asked.

How many politicians, or senior managers at Border Force, actually go through the search themselves so they know what they're asking for and granting (legislatively).

Probably there are some cases where the powers are potentially required. But I'd feel much more comfortable is there was some sort of review mechanism. I like the idea of a justice of the peace (or something similar) being available to hear both sides if someone wants to challenge a search.

Whether or not keeping private or intimate photos on your phone is a wise idea is probably a separate topic... but would any parent feel comfortable with a customs officer viewing their 18 year old's private photos? I wouldn't.

 

[DC3]

… and said they were just doing their job...

So, they actually said that they were just doing their job. That's the best that they could say?

 

[tgh]

Interesting…thanks drrron..
So I guess they can't take your phone if you decide not to fly ?

Interrogation is an interesting term, are you suggesting they can force you to answer their question/s ?
Some good points have already been made about basic rights and a presumption of innocence
I can see a (publicly funded) challenge in the wind.. sometime… perhaps once William is throned.

Seems to me bf probably rely on time as a weapon .. do you want to fly ? .. so answer….. now...

Folks with commercially sensitive stuff on laptops or phones must find this both challenging and irritating.
I will ask #1 son what procedures they have in place.

I find the exit ( us entry) interviews quite entertaining and my interviewers so far have always been smiling but sharp.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Interesting…thanks drrron..
So I guess they can't take your phone if you decide not to fly ?

Interrogation is an interesting term, are you suggesting they can force you to answer their question/s ?
Some good points have already been made about basic rights and a presumption of innocence
I can see a (publicly funded) challenge in the wind.. sometime… perhaps once William is throned.

Seems to me bf probably rely on time as a weapon .. do you want to fly ? .. so answer….. now...

Folks with commercially sensitive stuff on laptops or phones must find this both challenging and irritating.
I will ask #1 son what procedures they have in place.

I find the exit ( us entry) interviews quite entertaining and my interviewers so far have always been smiling but sharp.

No one can force you to answer questions. But they can escalate the search (or interrogation/questioning). Eventually they would need to hand you over to AFP. I don't know at which stage you have the right to ask for legal representation (would be interesting to know if they even tell you!).

Seizure of the phone would likely depend on the situation you are in. If you are in a relevant controlled area (or whatever else it's called under the legislation) it probably doesn't matter if you decide you don't want to fly. Once they have the ability to seize it, they probably can, regardless of your subsequent actions. Not much different than a check of luggage once you have entered the departures area. if they want to search for say medicines, drugs, or money, if you decide you don't want to fly it's almost certainly too late to escape the search.

The commercial sensitivity is an issue. I read somewhere a representative from a European company had their computer taken. They then had to notify all their clients under the European data protection rules.

 

[tgh]

To summarise : The price of flying is abrogation of (surrender of our rights under ) common law ?

My spin….I don't think we should give bad folks a millimetre , but effectively surrendering the basic rights many of our ancestors died for ?…hmmmmmmmm

 

[MEL_Traveller]

To summarise : The price of flying is abrogation of (surrender of our rights under ) common law ?

My spin….I don't think we should give bad folks a millimetre , but effectively surrendering the basic rights many of our ancestors died for ?…hmmmmmmmm

Indeed. But we, as citizens, have allowed it.

Why/how? Probably several reasons... the culture of fear propogated by media and politicians ('we're doing this for your safety'); as mentioned above, some people don't give it a second thought because it hasn't affected them (yet); and then there are those that say 'well, if you've nothing to hide you shouldn't be opposed to these laws'.

The problem with the last line it that it can create the assumption that if you are a vocal opponent that you 'must have something to hide', and secondly it is just plain wrong. People like the Op's example have nothing to hide but are affected by the laws. Your 18 year old kid coming back from Bali with private photos on their phones have done nothing wrong but are humiliated by the laws. (Again, the prudence of having photos of this nature on your phone is another matter.)

To a certain degree we accept that travelling to other countries we are going to be subjected to customs procedures. We don't have much control over that. but we should have control over what happens here at home. And if citizens of every country did that it might not be a bad thing.

In 'ye olde days' customs searches were designed to uncover physical contraband. you most likely wouldn't have had private material in an electronic format. Now days these searches cover a whole range of things and have the real potential to include - quite incidentally - things that they aren't (and shouldn't) be looking for (whether that is photos, or commercially sensitive information, or private information such as medical notes).

Yes we need searches. Genuine threats need to be countered. But law enforcement should always have a measure of transparency and accountability. Which is what we seem to have lost.

 

[drron]

Except I have experienced something worse though it was at LHR as I have recounted.Stripped naked.No reason given.No questions.No apology and I doubt very much that there had been any tip off.We had flown from JFK and were transiting to MAD.
I am not concerned with what happened in this case.I would be worried though if I were in a business where important work related documents could be copied and distributed as is almost certainly the case in China.
No sympathy if you are caught with cough or similiar on your phone or laptop.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

No sympathy if you are caught with cough or similiar on your phone or laptop.

Commercial cough - fine. But while that may be embarrassing it is not personal. With photos they are personal. Kids are going to take intimate photos. And they don't give it a second thought that they're going to be viewed by customs officers. And customs officers shouldn't have the right to view those (unless illegal). The problem is they almost certainly won't have satisfied any suspicion that a schoolie coming back from Bali is carrying illegal coughography - rather they'll just be flicking through the phone's contents - photos, text messages, social media, dating apps... (basically phishing).

Even if we accept to disagree on that part. Do you want one of your schoolie kids strip-searched? unless there is an immediate danger posed by the searchee, I think they should probably require sanction by an independent party, and only be performed by an independent party (perhaps a medical practitioner).

 

[Pushka]

To summarise : The price of flying is abrogation of (surrender of our rights under ) common law ?

My spin….I don't think we should give bad folks a millimetre , but effectively surrendering the basic rights many of our ancestors died for ?…hmmmmmmmm

Many countries don’t recognise common law. I was having this conversation with a lady doing my nails last week; it turned out she was a Prosecutor from Vietnam here to study Australian law on scholarship and who did nails to get some extra income. It doesn’t exist in Vietnam.

Ok, so what constitutes cough in some countries? Probably some movies that are perfectly fine here but completely unacceptable in some countries. What is offensive?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Many countries don’t recognise common law.

No. But while many of our 'rights' may have their roots in common law, many of the procedures and protections arising out of these 'rights' can be found in legislation (although granted, legislation can be changed). Things like police needing reasonable cause to do certain things, or seeking court approval for others (for example phone tapping), and that we, as citizens can only be detained for certain periods of time without charge... etc.

Other countries have civil codes or other bodies of law. Depending on the nature of the policitcal system, some have more emphasis on rights than others.

 

[OATEK]

I wrote:

A mate of mine, now retired from the Federal Police, was involved in tracking the Grandma's in the Kombi some years ago. When they pounced there was a considerable quantity of drugs involved. And a Grandma was recently arrested at SYD with a couple of kilos of cocaine (2017?). So over 60s are bound to be included in daily briefings from time to time when working out who should receive greater scrutiny. And additional flags over flying patterns are generally based on more than a whim.

I am sure it was not very pleasant, a bit like the time they took MrsOatek aside thinking she had hash or similar in her carry on, only to find it was a Christmas Pudding. And I am sure they could have shown some sympathy for someone who was here for a funeral.

And you quote and reply:

"… and said they were just doing their job..."

So, they actually said that they were just doing their job. That's the best that they could say?

I think that is known as verballing...

 

[love_the_life]

If you discard your preconceived bias you will be more than pleasantly surprised.

OT and my last comment on this. It has nothing to do with a preconceived bias as you assert. It is my view based on my political beliefs about the Palestinian homeland issue. It’s my right to decide not to go, others can do what they like. End of discussion.

 

[Pushka]

OT and my last comment on this. It has nothing to do with a preconceived bias as you assert. It is my view based on my political beliefs about the Palestinian homeland issue. It’s my right to decide not to go, others can do what they like. End of discussion.

And we all have places we simply do not wish to go to. Just as well. Otherwise we’d either be broke or never be home. Nothing to do with pre conceived bias but a decision made on various ideals that we as individuals find important.

 

[JohnK]

I think you'll find that is exactly what they are doing. While there are criminals in this world doing things that are very bad, then there will also need to be some degree of inconvenience to the innocent.

I don't necessarily agree with this statement. It's like saying collateral damage is acceptable in the fight against crime.

Border Force need to treat everyone with respect instead of looking down on people.

 

[wandering_fred]

OTOH CBP should be required to state (at least in general terms) why they are (temporarily) detaining/querying an Australian citizen.

Or is this far enough a position to be considered inappropriate wandering?
Fred

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I don't necessarily agree with this statement. It's like saying collateral damage is acceptable in the fight against crime.

Border Force need to treat everyone with respect instead of looking down on people.

To start with, in the OP, there was no suggestion that the lady was treated without respect. The issue as I read it, was that she had a traumatic few weeks, culminating in some difficult days. The death of a loved one, a funeral, a short duration trip with huge travelling times and delayed/cancelled/diverted flights due to weather plus some degree of electronic verification failure. This would try all of us I'd imagine and the subsequent search and questioning was stated (very understandably) as "the limit". All the ridiculous conjecture on this thread is simply that ... conjecture. Despite the "holier than thou" attitudes of some asserting that customs and/or quarantine should not have the power to do what they did, they did it. No one on this forum (unless they have insider knowledge) has enough information to make any judgement as to whether it was right or wrong or even whether it was rude or professional. The info is just not there. The OP simply states the lady was overwhelmed by the sad events of that time and implied the added scrutiny at the airport was the straw that broke the camels back. There is not even information as to how long it took. The long delays mentioned, referred to the check in and issuing of the BP's. The search itself was possibly not long, yet so many contributors to this thread seem to have jumped to the conclusion that she was subjected to everything short of a public stoning.

Secondly, anyone who believes there is no collateral damage with law enforcement is living in a bubble. If that were true, we'd have no need for a not guilty plea, however my statement did not in any way reference collateral damage. It was referencing inconvenience. That is all that happened in this case. It just happened at a distressing time for the OP's sister.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Despite the... attitudes of some asserting that customs and/or quarantine should not have the power to do what they did, they did it.

And here you have identified the problem 100%: despite people thnking they shouldn't have the power to do it, they did it anyway.

That's the problem. 'They did it anyway'.

These laws are designed to give powers to border agents to catch criminals. But instead they are being used against ordinary people who have done nothing. There should be just cause. And accountability. The fact they found nothing is evidence in itself that their risk assessment was wrong.

Changing your travel plans by a day may, in some cases, be contributing evidence towards the need for a search, but it is in no way an indicator in and of itself.

I think the OP's post makes it clear this wasn't a five minute search:

++
got through to customs and after the eGate was stopped by two customs officers and escorted to an area by myself in front of hundreds of people, asked to surrender my passport and phone and told to wait. No explanation.

Then another two officers escorted me through several back hallways and through 2 locked doors into an inspection room.

They proceeded to interrogate me, and search every single item in my bag - every scrap of paper. Looking for money laundering I guess. It was the limit and I did cry. but they kept going and left all my belongings in a huge pile and said they were just doing their job. Apparently a disrupted trip sends up a red flag.

Awful awful awful.
++​

There might be 'collateral damage' with law enforcement - but outside of an airport we have rights to protect us from that collateral. Those same rights don't apply in the airport where the response may be 'we don't have to tell you' or 'we're just doing our job'. If a police officer did that to us on the street the arrest may be unlawful.

Again, this seems to come down to your misunderstanding of what 'rights' are, and how our legal system is desgined to protect those. It shouldn't matter if the OP's story concerned someone who had had a difficult week. Or they were emotional. Or they had a series of delays. That doesn't negate that a detailed and upsetting search took place. That found nothing.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

MT, just about every point in that post of yours is either your assumption of what happened or personal opinion of how utopia should work. I revert to my previous comment that we disagree. I'm sorry, but I cannot debate with you further as I find it's like what I assume conversing with a revolving door would be like.

 

[OATEK]

And here you have identified the problem 100%: despite people thnking they shouldn't have the power to do it, they did it anyway.

That's the problem. 'They did it anyway'.

These laws are designed to give powers to border agents to catch criminals. But instead they are being used against ordinary people who have done nothing. There should be just cause. And accountability. The fact they found nothing is evidence in itself that their risk assessment was wrong.

Changing your travel plans by a day may, in some cases, be contributing evidence towards the need for a search, but it is in no way an indicator in and of itself.

I think the OP's post makes it clear this wasn't a five minute search:

++
got through to customs and after the eGate was stopped by two customs officers and escorted to an area by myself in front of hundreds of people, asked to surrender my passport and phone and told to wait. No explanation.

Then another two officers escorted me through several back hallways and through 2 locked doors into an inspection room.

They proceeded to interrogate me, and search every single item in my bag - every scrap of paper. Looking for money laundering I guess. It was the limit and I did cry. but they kept going and left all my belongings in a huge pile and said they were just doing their job. Apparently a disrupted trip sends up a red flag.

Awful awful awful.
++​

There might be 'collateral damage' with law enforcement - but outside of an airport we have rights to protect us from that collateral. Those same rights don't apply in the airport where the response may be 'we don't have to tell you' or 'we're just doing our job'. If a police officer did that to us on the street the arrest may be unlawful.

Again, this seems to come down to your misunderstanding of what 'rights' are, and how our legal system is desgined to protect those. It shouldn't matter if the OP's story concerned someone who had had a difficult week. Or they were emotional. Or they had a series of delays. That doesn't negate that a detailed and upsetting search took place. That found nothing.

It is pointless talking about what police can or can't do on the street. In the UK they took away stop and search and juvenile deaths from knife crime have risen steadily - the dead are collateral damage from restoring people's perceived "rights".

But the situation inside the airport has no parallel with that outside on he street. The laws, rules and regulations are specific to that situation.

And I would think the vast majority of searches do not find anything, in fact having two family members who have served in customs/border force, that is exactly the feedback I have heard. And I also understand from both observation and feedback that the majority of searches are accepted by the pax as part of the process without complaint. And yes sometimes, it comes at a bad moment, or the person concerned feels targetted, like Julie Bishop was.

I am sure that if people are concerned that their rights have been ignored then they can seek redress, but I suspect you are more saying that their rights are different in different settings, and that is certainly the case, but not necessarily unlawful.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It is pointless talking about what police can or can't do on the street. In the UK they took away stop and search and juvenile deaths from knife crime have risen steadily - the dead are collateral damage from restoring people's perceived "rights".

But the situation inside the airport has no parallel with that outside on he street. The laws, rules and regulations are specific to that situation.

And I would think the vast majority of searches do not find anything, in fact having two family members who have served in customs/border force, that is exactly the feedback I have heard. And I also understand from both observation and feedback that the majority of searches are accepted by the pax as part of the process without complaint. And yes sometimes, it comes at a bad moment, or the person concerned feels targetted, like Julie Bishop was.

I am sure that if people are concerned that their rights have been ignored then they can seek redress, but I suspect you are more saying that their rights are different in different settings, and that is certainly the case, but not necessarily unlawful.

The underlying issue is exactly that our rights shouldn't be different just because of a different setting. An airport is no more or less dangerous than the street... in fact it's probably a lot safer as weapons have been screened out.

Just because we are at an airport shouldn't mean we can be stopped and searched without being given a reason and without an obvious right to review (or stop what is about to happen).

If the majority of searches come up with nothing, that means the risk assessment is flawed, and the officers may be on little more than a phishing exercise. Police on the street can't do that. Why at an airport?

Do your family members in customs really belive most passengers actually accept and are happy just because they don't complain? That would be naive. It's proably more likely that passengers don't want to complain for fear of being marked for similar treatment in the future.