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!