>Basically I don’t think that this logically extends from suitcases to full phone access
I get that you don't think that is the case, but you're not really explaining why you believe so.
> but to be concerned about a persons digital life is a concern of a different kind
But as I said, they're just inspecting the same thing they've always been inspecting. The medium is different and it incidentally happens to be housed with a bunch of different data that historically was kept separate, purely for technological reasons.
You're implying that the cause here is "concern over a person's digital life" but you present no statement or proof that's what these policies are actually aimed at. I think it's fairly obvious that it's a simple reconfiguration of a policy to adapt to changing habits. And if it's not obvious I think the statements from government agencies explaining these policy changes shed further light on why it's being done. But you need to have a reason you believe this to not be the case. It can't just be.
Let's review some statements that hit on some of the above points:
Here's Canada, actively instructing people about to handle sensitive information: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/public-safety-and-l...
>Individuals entering Canada who are concerned about how this policy might be applied may wish to exercise caution by either limiting the devices they travel with or removing sensitive personal information from devices that could be searched. Another potential measure is to store it on a secure device in Canada or in a secure cloud which would allow you to retrieve it securely once you arrive at your destination.
Here's New Zealand's review of why they're changing the law: https://www.customs.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/c--e-subm...:
From page 63:
>Customs’ interest in relation to digital files is in the following enforcement areas:
> * Intercepting prohibited or restricted items
> * Identifying infringements of intellectual property rights
From page 64:
>Our Act does enable us to enforce the law in relation to the following prohibited goods when
they are in a digital format:
> * Objectionable material and images – “objectionable” has a very broad definition under
the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, and can capture material
ranging from violent or degrading sexual images to material that encourages criminal
acts or terrorism
> * Designs for weapons or for other items of potential military use
> * Designs and blueprints for making nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological
weapons.
Pretty far away from "concerns about a person's digital life."
>in the same way I don’t think that the right to bear arms allows you to train and arm a private army with tanks and fighter jets.
This analogy in no way is relevant to data organization and transmission. It's pretty hyperbolic and distracts from any point you are trying to make.