That's addressed by the OP
>People spoiled by western TV shows may talk about probably cause, privacy, rights etc. (which may exist on paper in these places too), but you’d be in a lot of trouble if you’re not very rich and know powerful people. These checks can also take an ethnic or other angle where only certain people are stopped.
There's a strong legal system (eg. due process, habeas corpus) that protects you in uk. No such system exists in Russia. Similarly, if you tried pulling this in china, and you're a Uyghur, that's just going to end up with you in a reeducation camp.
Sometimes the authorities appear to have the law on their side, examples included people detained under the Terrorism Act(s)[0] and those who are singled out by the police under "stop and search" powers[1]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwal...
[1] https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/analyses/no-105-u...
Did you read the parents comment? Resistance might work in the UK but in places like India, unless you’re well connected the police can make your life miserable.
Really most people don’t have the ability to defend themselves from this and the police know that.
The problem is that this is where the downward spiral starts.
and https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/documents/2620095/ico...
I’ve been there, I’ve done that, I keep a €50 in my passport when travelling in those parts, it’s acceptable identification if it’s what they’re after, if it isn’t, it was in there accidentally.
I think it’s a mistake to think that as a foreigner you can just do as the locals do when it comes to bribery. It could end very badly. Doing it to avoid some inconvenience is a bad idea.
It’s also worth noting that if you are an obvious foreigner, you will be a bribe magnet, and will be accosted only in the hope of a bribe.
It’s not so much about avoiding inconvenience, it’s about moving freely in a police state.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/schengen-borders-...
> 23(a) the exercise of police powers by the competent authorities of the Member States under national law, insofar as the exercise of those powers does not have an effect equivalent to border checks; that shall also apply in border areas. Within the meaning of the first sentence, the exercise of police powers may not, in particular, be considered equivalent to the exercise of border checks when the police measures:
> (i) do not have border control as an objective;
> (ii) are based on general police information and experience regarding possible threats to public security and aim, in particular, to combat cross-border crime;
> (iii) are devised and executed in a manner clearly distinct from systematic checks on persons at the external borders;
> (iv) are carried out on the basis of spot-checks;
This check likely broke both 23(a)(i) and 23(a)(iii), as at the first train stop past the border everyone was asked to present ID.
[1] Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)
That depends on what would have happened had you not complied. In France if you are unable to produce an acceptable ID, you're taken to a police station where you're held until your identity is established. Once established, you'd have been allowed to go your way.
It would only constitute "the exercise of border checks" if the response to your non-compliance was to escort you back to the country where you boarded the train.
I'd be surprised if that's what generally happens. One instance I observed on a train going through Switzerland involved an English-speaking student. It took a while but after some discussion and the police making a few phone calls seemingly to their satisfaction, warning her to carry appropriate ID in future.
Not true according to the regulation:
> ‘border control’ means the activity carried out at a border, in accordance with and for the purposes of this Regulation, in response exclusively to an intention to cross or the act of crossing that border, regardless of any other consideration, consisting of border checks and border surveillance;
Note, it covers "response to crossing a border" and includes "border surveillance".
edit:
For full context:
> ‘border checks’ means the checks carried out at border crossing points, to ensure that persons, including their means of transport and the objects in their possession, may be authorised to enter the territory of the Member States or authorised to leave it;
> ‘border surveillance’ means the surveillance of borders between border crossing points and the surveillance of border crossing points outside the fixed opening hours, in order to prevent persons from circumventing border checks;
The point is really that a lot of people are intimidated and compliant and will hand a device over when requested. This is never a good thing. Even if you’re legitimately a victim, you shouldn’t even let them at your stuff.