I find Tommy Robinson repugnant. But the courts were right to clear him of terrorism related charges for refusing to give border officials access to his phone. Last July Tom Robinson was stopped at the border in  Folkestone, and after refusing to give access to his mobile device to  border personal, was charged under schedule 7 of the terrorism act 2000.  This legislation allows the police and border officers at ports,  airports and border areas to stop, question and detain people to  ascertain their involvement in terrorism. charged under schedule 7 of the terrorism act 2000 They can also demand access to your phones, laptops and other  devices. Failure to comply is a criminal offence that can result in a  three month prison sentence or a fine. The worrying part is that these powers require no reasonable suspicion.  You can be stopped and compelled to unlock your devices even if there’s  no evidence against you. Which in effect means you are being stopped  entirely on an officer’s gut feeling. no reasonable suspicion Access All Areas The problem is, that unlocking your phone, means giving access to  your entire digital life. Emails, financials, passwords, cloud  connections. The access you give, extends far beyond the device in your  possession at the time. The law does recognise exceptions for journalistic material and  legally privileged documents. But that is a very narrow slice of the  working world. For many professionals, compliance would mean surrendering confidential third-party data that they’re legally bound to protect. A One Sided Affair While the law makes it a crime to not comply, there is no  corresponding legal protection for how the officer handles what they  find. There are only guidelines, not statutory limits on how far the  search can go or how the data should be protected. This should be a matter of public concern. Particuarly considering how 56% of all cyber crime prosecutions in the UK, involve police officers mis-using access to data. Particuarly considering how 56% of all cyber crime prosecutions in the UK, involve police officers mis-using access to data Redrawing The Line The idea that the state should go no further than necessary collapses  entirely when handing over a single PIN can unlock your entire digital  existence. Security at the border is essential, but so is trust in the limits of those powers. We need legislation that balances legitimate counter-terrorism duties with enforceable safeguards  for digital privacy: judicial oversight for device searches, statutory  data-handling rules, and meaningful penalties for misuse. enforceable safeguards In an era when our devices are the keys to our professional and private lives, the current imbalance is no longer defensible.

This story contains new, firsthand information uncovered by the writer.

You Don’t Have to Like Tommy Robinson to See Why This Ruling Matters

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

8 Tips for Managing Developers for Non-Developers

Discord Data Leak Raises Questions Over UK’s Age Verification Law

SkinOllama: Create Unique, Personality-Driven AI Skins for Ollama (1 Free Credit to Try)

The Atlas Super-Browser: A Security Nightmare Dressed as the Next Big Thing

10 Reasons Wordpress Sites Get Hacked and How to Avoid Them

8 Tips for Managing Developers for Non-Developers

Discord Data Leak Raises Questions Over UK’s Age Verification Law

SkinOllama: Create Unique, Personality-Driven AI Skins for Ollama (1 Free Credit to Try)

The Atlas Super-Browser: A Security Nightmare Dressed as the Next Big Thing

10 Reasons Wordpress Sites Get Hacked and How to Avoid Them

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps