bureaucratic coughry

[nutwood]

The scope does extend to documents and electronic devices now.

Was almost certain that it did now, but wasn't sure if it did in the earlier Customs Act.

 

[DC3]

… These are things that can't happen outside the airport and are therefore likely to be unfamilair when in an airport setting ...

… There is also probably scope for better communications during the search. When asked why, a gruff 'we don't have to tell you' might be lawfully correct, but it can also be intimidating. (An 'I'm sorry, the Act doesn't allow us to disclose reasons due to potential sensitive information' (or whatever) might be less so.)

Yes, acting 'within the law' is often a good cop-out of course. No need for 'niceties' at the ABF, I guess (even with old ladies)

 

[love_the_life]

Should little old ladies be exempt from security screening?

If so, I know who the terrorists are going to be recruiting PDQ.

There never has been a suggestion that little old ladies be exempt.

 

[love_the_life]

Thanks Ozduck.

And here is the potential detachment between ABF and the person being detained or searched (my bolding in the above quote).

ABF may see there is no need or requirement to release the information, but the the person being searched there may be every need. It helps with closure.

What we have is a border force dressed in para-military uniforms, sometimes with dogs, who are able to separate people away from percevied safety, and conduct a search without providing any information - eiher about what's being looked for, or the rights of the person being detained.

These are things that can't happen outside the airport and are therefore likely to be unfamilair when in an airport setting.

Notwithstanding any provisions around protected information, perhaps a simple solution would be to provide better communication?

Every arriving passenger is given a leaflet, available in multiple langauges that reads something like the following:

Searches:

• you may be subject to a search by customs
• officers may not be able to disclose the reason for the search
• you may request to speak to a senior officer at any time
• at the conclusion of your search you will be given a reference number
• you can use this reference number to request an independent review of your search

The independent review:

• will be conducted by a senior officer who was not present or involved in the original search
• may not be able to disclose the reason for your search but will review whether it was lawful and appropriate
• will not be recorded or used against you in future border crossings
• will provide you with a further avenue to seek review if you are not satisfied with the outcome

The above is just me thinking quickly, and probably can be refined a bit. But what it attempts to do is partially address the imbalance of power and remove some of the intimidation. It might also put officers on notice that there is a very real chance that their actions that day will be subject to review.

There is also probably scope for better communications during the search. When asked why, a gruff 'we don't have to tell you' might be lawfully correct, but it can also be intimidating. (An 'I'm sorry, the Act doesn't allow us to disclose reasons due to potential sensitive information' (or whatever) might be less so.)

Based on the topic of the thread, the leaflet would also need to be provided to outgoing passengers as well.

 

[drron]

On one occasion when visiting the USA mrsdrron got the SSSS on her BP virtually any time.One TSA agent told her because there was an alert that the next terror attack was likely to be a Caucasian grandmother.Not sure if it was correct but certainly would explain her luck with the SSSS.

 

[Pushka]

On one occasion when visiting the USA mrsdrron got the SSSS on her BP virtually any time.One TSA agent told her because there was an alert that the next terror attack was likely to be a Caucasian grandmother.Not sure if it was correct but certainly would explain her luck with the SSSS.

Mmm. So I should be fine if I don’t have grandkids, and I won’t, next time I travel to the US. Phew.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

False positives

View attachment 148501

My wife had three of those on the right! ... she's now a midwife and we now have 3 pikininis!! (soon to off load the last)

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Did you read the OP? Pretty clearly states there was a complete lack of respect.
But then you also seem to think there was some evidence against the OP's sister, except none has been presented. That leads into a comment about witch hunts - they work both ways. You seem to be assuming the OP's sister was guilt of something on your assumption there was some evidence to suggest wrong doing. Witch hunt?

Oh dear. I dis-followed this thread only to be be dragged in by an alternate means, to read this drivel.

No where in the OP did it say the OP's sister was disrespected so the obvious answer to your question is "Did you read the OP"?

Further, what I think (and what you think, what he thinks, what she thinks ... ad nauseum ) will only become relevant when we have a position to make change. Until then, lobby your MP, not a frequent flyer forum! You (as I and everyone else here who has responded) have absolutely no idea what has been presented, I've been very clear about that ... and we won't know either. That's life! Also, I think you are the forumster that needs to be re-reading as I have made no comment at all about the OP's sisters guilt or otherwise, but to be even more clear than I already have been, I think the OP's sister was subjected to routine scrutiny that came at a stressful time for her. She is a frequent flyer. We known that can happen, at any time. It's one of the perils of being a frequent flyer and guess what? That's life! Deal with it or don't fly. BF did not issue terrorists licences. They are just the poor sods who are tasked with dealing with those scum and dealing with the "you have no right to view my panties" brigade. YES, THEY DO!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Oh dear. I dis-followed this thread only to be be dragged in by an alternate means, to read this drivel.

No where in the OP did it say the OP's sister was disrespected so the obvious answer to your question is "Did you read the OP"?

Further, what I think (and what you think, what he thinks, what she thinks ... ad nauseum ) will only become relevant when we have a position to make change. Until then, lobby your MP, not a frequent flyer forum! You (as I and everyone else here who has responded) have absolutely no idea what has been presented, I've been very clear about that ... and we won't know either. That's life! Also, I think you are the forumster that needs to be re-reading as I have made no comment at all about the OP's sisters guilt or otherwise, but to be even more clear than I already have been, I think the OP's sister was subjected to routine scrutiny that came at a stressful time for her. She is a frequent flyer. We known that can happen, at any time. It's one of the perils of being a frequent flyer and guess what? That's life! Deal with it or don't fly. BF did not issue terrorists licences. They are just the poor sods who are tasked with dealing with those scum and dealing with the "you have no right to view my panties" brigade. YES, THEY DO!

I guess you only read what you want to read.

The OP's sister makes it very clear... taken aside in front of hundreds of people. Made to wait. Phone confiscated without explanation. Taken down corridors and searched without explanation... 'just doing our job'. She cried and they kept going. Belongings left in a pile. 'Awful awful awful'.

Short of the OP's sister saying 'I felt disrespected', what other evidence do you need?

What we think is important if we want to effect change. But it is astounding the number of people on this board who actually don't see the use of coercive powers, by officers who aren't properly trained, and without any rights to the detainee, as a problem. The bottom line is that with up to one third of searches being innappropriate and ten percent being unlawful, there is a strong possibility that this search either wasn't necessary, or was not conducted properly.

We are right to ask questions.

 

[Pushka]

Sleeping bears just got poked again.

 

[JohnK]

This isn't a false positive though.

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

A fishing trip then?

ABF are a law unto themselves and rude. About 10-12 years ago I was travelling to/from Thailand quite a lot. From memory I was searched a couple of times with them going through my bag in detail.

One time my phone was taken from me and I assume they went through the stored phone numbers, SMS and photos of which there were not that many in those days. This was a gross invasion of my privacy.

One other time a female officer going through my bag and asking me stupid questions like what I did in Thailand, who I talked to, where I went out. My answer was close enough to "None of your business what I do on holidays". Left me to put everything back in my bag.

My recent experience with partially damaged passport did not leave me with a glowing assessment of their actions either. I don't take kindly to being treated like a criminal so these half wits can get their kicks.

 

[opusman]

Hadn't you been told several times to get your passport replaced?

 

[JohnK]

Hadn't you been told several times to get your passport replaced?

Done and dusted long time ago.

By the way I've never had an issue with that passport overseas. Ever. Only issue with rude ABF officer.

 

[juddles]

The outrage against authority only lasts and is permitted because they keep you safe. The affront of being stopped in your car and suffering an "embarrassing" random breath test in front of your family, soon disappears when your loved one gets killed by a drink driver.

If every traveller showed the same courtesy and respect for the serious job that any border control people do that they expect in their own small world, everyone would be a winner. The system is not perfect, the people are not perfect. But they (border force) are doing the best they can, with the only people that will do such a shiite job, and every day confronting a million pretentious, perfect, idealistic know-it-alls that just make the whole task so much harder.

 

[juddles]

.....One other time a female officer going through my bag and asking me stupid questions like what I did in Thailand, who I talked to, where I went out. My answer was close enough to "None of your business what I do on holidays". .....

JohnK, we have to clash here.

YOU say the questions were "stupid". Please, forget your personal circumstances and give them some credit. Maybe they are actually professional.

If you had ever worked on the other side of the fence you may have learnt that human behaviour and deciphering it is actually a complicated thing, which to the non-professional is very hard to grasp. That you think that questions are "stupid" actually shows that they are successful in deciphering you.

As I no longer do this stuff, I will share with you a personal technique I used to use as a police officer when doing late-night intercepts of cars and their occupants. My favorite question (and this is before terrorism was such a fad) was something like: "Do you have a bomb or heavy weapons in your car?".

Obviously the answer was always "No!" And I am sure that most of the receivers of that question would later laugh about that "stupid" copper that seriously asked them if they had a bomb. What they do not realize is that I never suspected them of having a bomb, but with that simple "stupid" question I would "disarm" them, break their planned thought plan, and be able to gauge from their reaction if they were concealing something else.

Please understand you throw mud at a system that has a gazzillion more real knowledge than you do, as a pax.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The outrage against authority only lasts and is permitted because they keep you safe. The affront of being stopped in your car and suffering an "embarrassing" random breath test in front of your family, soon disappears when your loved one gets killed by a drink driver.

If every traveller showed the same courtesy and respect for the serious job that any border control people do that they expect in their own small world, everyone would be a winner. The system is not perfect, the people are not perfect. But they (border force) are doing the best they can, with the only people that will do such a shiite job, and every day confronting a million pretentious, perfect, idealistic know-it-alls that just make the whole task so much harder.

But that's not what is happening here juddles.

The BF as a department is not doing the best they can. The staff are not properly trained and lack adequate instruction and guidance. Their searches are unlawful in 10 percent of cases. And inapprpriate in a third.

A breath test is akin to an explosives swab at the airport. No one is complaining about that. If a police officer pulled you over for a breath test and did a strip search at the same time it would be akin to what some people feel they are experiencing at the border.

The difference is that we have protections to stop that happening with the police. And that's where the trust in the system stems.

Border force is different. No answers. No information. No accountability. Nothing about our rights or protections. If they introduced some more of these things I don't doubt they'd enjoy the same trust we have in other areas of law enforcement.

 

[Forg]

The difference is that we have protections to stop that happening with the police. And that's where the trust in the system stems.

Border force is different. No answers. No information. No accountability. Nothing about our rights or protections. If they introduced some more of these things I don't doubt they'd enjoy the same trust we have in other areas of law enforcement.

While I don't think I feel the same fervour as you appear to feel about this (and I admit it's hard to tell the extent of ones passion about anything on Teh Interwebz), I do dislike the whole 1984'ness of it all.
I suspect that the reason it is what it is would be due to the small percentage of the population that's affected by it. While I couldn't quickly Google up stats, I suspect I'm around average with around one OS trip every couple of years; but my wife goes OS around once a month which is WAY above average. Now she's never been pulled aside for any of this stuff, incoming or outgoing. So the percentage of the Australian population who're subjected to any of this 1984-ish behaviour is going to be tiny; chance of anything changing, when so few of the voting public encounter it, is going to be miniscule (and frankly would be more likely to result from cost-related changes than behavioural problems).

 

[Vic]

I am sorry if you thought I was misleading anyone, my intention was purely to point people towards the relevant Act for their information. However we still don't know why the baggage examination, not a body search, was carried out. It may have been at the request of a Foreign Government, it may have been at the request of the ATO or Medicare or some other body or for any number of other reasons. In many of those cases I still believe that the release of possibly confidential information would be prohibited under the Act. Especially, when there is no requirement or need to release it. After trying to refresh my memory, Sec. 186 of the Customs Act gives an officer the right to examine any goods under Customs Control. This right is not subject to any requirement for "probable cause" etc it is an absolute right and no reason needs to be given to employ that right. As far as I am aware that law, or similar, has been in force since Parliament passed the first Australian Customs Act in 1901.

We are obviously not going to agree on this matter and as I have said previously my knowledge base is way past its use by date.

Edit: In fairness I must add that in over 35 years in Customs I only dealt directly with passengers for less than 1% of my career. If you wish to discuss Tariff Classification or Customs Valuation of goods, Anti-Dumping measures, The Ships Bounty Act, International Terms of Trade or the audit of importers or exporters etc I am more comfortable.

It's a big assumption that there is no need to release information to the person being interviewed. That person has a burden to provide evidence in relation to the operation of the exemptions on release of information. From a equity perspective in allowing the interviewee to determine if the exemptions apply there is absolutely a need to release the information (from, the interviewee's side). In reading the Act (the same situation as you, no practical experience) only the release of national security type information is prohibited. That clearly does not include all confidential information. Medicare or ATO is not national security, there is also no limitation on release of ATO/medicare information to the person concern. The only limitation on release of personal information is to protect an individual's privacy. As in don't give information to tabloids. Telling me my personal tax information does not compromise my privacy.

 

[Vic]

Oh dear. I dis-followed this thread only to be be dragged in by an alternate means, to read this drivel.

No where in the OP did it say the OP's sister was disrespected so the obvious answer to your question is "Did you read the OP"?

I guess some people read words only, and others interpret the words written.

 

[JohnK]

JohnK, we have to clash here.

YOU say the questions were "stupid". Please, forget your personal circumstances and give them some credit. Maybe they are actually professional.

Give them no credit at all. This was not professional. This was a power trip. I could easily see that from the beginning.

"Did you go out?"
"Where did you go?"
"Did you go to any bars?"

You need to understand the tone of the conversation and where it was heading. I don't need to any answer any of these stupid questions. It is none of their business what I do on holidays. Seriously.