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.

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.

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.

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.

In an era when our devices are the keys to our professional and private lives, the current imbalance is no longer defensible.