• Salvo@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        They will try to pressure or force you into inputting your PIN.

        The other risk is that they will observe your PIN because you aren’t using biometrics.

        Nuke/Pave or have a decoy phone (with your primary phone powered down and packed in your luggage) for use when travelling.

        And if you are travelling to certain jurisdictions, just leave your primary phone at home!

        • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          They will try to pressure or force you into inputting your PIN.

          They can force my biometrics out of me, but not a password. When I travel for work, I don’t have the option of taking another phone with me.

          • Ilandar@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            I don’t know if you read the article but if you refuse to unlock the phone they will seize the device and can hold it indefinitely.

            • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              I read the article. If they want to keep my phone, fine. I’ll claim it as lost or stolen on my travel insurance, and restore from backup. Either way, I value my privacy more than I value my phone.

              • Ilandar@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                and restore from backup.

                If you’re going to do this anyway, why not wipe it? I don’t understand why you’d surrender your phone as is to the AFP if you value your privacy.

                • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  As I said in the reply you originally replied to, I need it when I travel for work. Border Force aren’t taking phones on the way out, but on the way in. And them taking my phone is not guaranteed to happen, whereas the inconvenience of me wiping my phone is.

                  The real question is why it matters to you so much what I do with my phone? Nice try Border Force…

  • Tregetour@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    What is the total airport traffic over the same time? I’m interested in getting a sense of the likelihood of a search request.

    In any event I’d buy a post office POS for the purpose and use an inflammatory password. Cuck those funts. Call it part of the cost of travel.

  • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    What’s the bet if you put a bunch of illegal shit on floppies they wouldn’t check them - would be a lot of floppies though with most modern stuff (unless its a fake floppy)?

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The ABF data shows less than 800 people had their devices “referred for further examination due to technical reasons or individual’s refusal to provide access”.

    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”.

    In a recent NSW district court judgment, a 39-year-old Maclean man, James Dean Apps, was sentenced to two years and six months in jail after Border Force officers discovered hundreds of images of child abuse material on his device.

    The judgment said Apps provided his passcode to his phone at the border during what was described as a “routine baggage examination” after returning from the Philippines in June last year.

    Senior lawyer for the Human Rights Law Centre, Kieran Pender, said last month more transparency was required of how the powers were used.

    “The Human Rights Law Centre has consistently raised concerns around the lack of transparency, safeguards and oversight of ABF’s extraordinary powers to seize electronic devices at borders,” he said.


    The original article contains 661 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!