WorldRisk

Which passport do you hold?

Risk to a traveller depends on their nationality. A country that sanctions your destination, or is sanctioned by it, changes how you are treated on arrival. Choosing here adjusts every score on the site.

We hold travel advice written for four nationalities so far. Selecting anything else shows the neutral baseline, and every page says so where it applies rather than presenting it as an assessment made for you.

Kept in your browser only. Nothing is sent anywhere, and you can change it at any time from the header.

All countries

Australia

32Caution32 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49good confidence(7/7 dimensions)
What this score means
Extreme75 to 100
Severe and systematic. Device search, interception and detention over online activity are documented rather than theoretical. Reconsider what you carry and what you say.
High50 to 74
Substantial and consistently evidenced measures. Device inspection, monitored networks or restricted services should be expected rather than treated as unlikely.
Caution25 to 49
Some risk, and manageable with precautions. Measures are evidenced but are narrow, inconsistently applied, or the picture is mixed.
Low0 to 24
Ordinary precautions. No systematic device search, network restriction or prosecution of visitors for online speech is evidenced.

Government travel advice is written for one citizenry, so the same country carries a different assessment depending on your passport. Change it in the header.

Showing the baseline, which weights every issuer equally. No government in our corpus publishes travel advice written for you, so this is not addressed to you specifically.

Dimensions

Each dimension is scored independently, because the traveller who cares about legal exposure for what they have posted is often not the one carrying client data. Higher means more risk.

Network threat

How hostile is the network environment to a foreign visitor, from state actors and criminals alike?

65High65 of 100, High band, 50 to 74

good confidence6 independent sources

Why this score (7 sources)

  • ITU Global Cybersecurity Index 2024, Technical pillar: 17.95 of 20.

    International Telecommunication Union, Global Cybersecurity Index · observed 2024-12-31

  • Freedom House scored Australia 23 of 25 on obstacles to access in Freedom on the Net, a category covering state control over internet infrastructure and gateways, regulatory and ownership control over service providers, and the independence of the regulator.

    Freedom House, Freedom on the Net, obstacles to access · observed 2025-01-01

  • 銀行、クレジット会社、郵便事業、ＡＴＯ（税務署）、宅配業者等を巧妙に装い、メールやSMSを介して個人情報とともに金銭を搾取される事案や、賃貸契約を巡る詐欺被害が多く報告されています。

    Our translation: Many cases have been reported in which perpetrators cleverly impersonate banks, credit companies, postal services, the ATO (tax office), delivery companies and others, and extort money along with personal information through email or SMS, as well as fraud involving rental agreements.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Overseas travel safety information · observed 2026-10-16 · written for JPN nationals · extracted by language model

  • Australia and Papua New Guinea are also piloting a national Protective Domain Name System (PDNS) to automatically block websites that could launch cyber-attacks.

    The National (Papua New Guinea), via a site scoped search · observed 2025-11-26 · extracted by language model

  • クレジットカードの情報が、自身が知らぬ間に流出し、不正に使用されていた。

    Our translation: Credit card information had leaked without the person's knowledge and had been used fraudulently.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Overseas travel safety information · observed 2026-09-21 · written for JPN nationals · extracted by language model

  • A cyberattack on Australia’s second-largest sugar producer has forced farmers to keep crops in the ground, and looks like denting their incomes.

    The Register feed · observed 2026-06-17 · extracted by language model

  • AI assistant hacks gym booking system in first known Australian autonomous cyberattack

    The GDELT Project, GDELT Global Knowledge Graph 2.1 · observed 2026-08-10 · extracted by language model

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

5 excluded sources
  • Premium Times feed, observed 2024-08-12: aged out after 2 years.
  • The Record feed, observed 2023-12-22: aged out after 3 years.
  • The Conversation, via a site scoped search, observed 2024-10-09: aged out after 2 years.
  • Daily Maverick feed, observed 2023-11-13: aged out after 3 years.
  • Daily Maverick feed, observed 2023-11-13: aged out after 3 years.

Surveillance and interception

How comprehensively are communications intercepted, retained, and monitored, and is commercial spyware in use?

37Caution37 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49

good confidence7 independent sourcesEvidence is ageing: contributing sources are weighted at 55% of full strength.

Why this score (11 sources)

  • Freedom House 2026 scored AUS 4 of 4 on freedom to express personal views on sensitive topics without fear of surveillance or retribution.

    Freedom House, Freedom in the World · observed 2026-01-01

  • V-Dem Digital Society Project 2025 scored AUS 3.32 of 4 on how comprehensively the government monitors social media and private online communication, where higher is freer.

    V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project · observed 2025-12-31

  • V-Dem Digital Society Project 2025 scored AUS 3.54 of 4 on how far privacy protection law shields communications from government access, where higher is freer. This measures what privacy law permits rather than what monitoring is practised, so it is read here as a constraint on interception rather than a measurement of it.

    V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project · observed 2025-12-31

  • The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2025 scored AUS 0.82 of 1 on whether freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy is effectively guaranteed, a measure built from expert assessments of warrantless interception of communications.

    World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index, sub-factor 4.6 · observed 2025-01-01

  • The court was told police intercepted phone calls and a surveillance device in the plane helped the Australian Federal Police investigation.

    The National (Papua New Guinea), via a site scoped search · observed 2025-06-13 · extracted by language model

  • The ASD is so far succeeding in its monitoring of foreign influence operations, but struggling when it comes to domestic cybersecurity.

    The Conversation, via a site scoped search · observed 2024-08-27 · extracted by language model

  • Automated facial recognition is becoming widespread in Australia.

    The Conversation, via a site scoped search · observed 2024-07-30 · extracted by language model

  • Connected cars sold in Australia can transmit data about the car, its driver and passengers in real time via the internet .

    The Conversation, via a site scoped search · observed 2024-11-19 · extracted by language model

  • Australia's privacy commissioner Carly Kind on Tuesday found "Bunnings collected individuals' sensitive information without consent, failed to take reasonable steps to notify individuals that their personal information was being collected, and did not include required information in its privacy policy."

    The Register feed · observed 2024-11-19 · extracted by language model

  • This can include facial recognition technology, digital IDs and credit card details.

    MyJoyOnline, via a site scoped search · observed 2026-03-09 · extracted by language model

  • The tribunal set aside the Privacy Commissioner’s finding that Bunnings violated one of the privacy principles by collecting facial information from customers without consent, arguing that Bunnings’ actions fall under an exception to the requirement for consent.

    The Conversation, via a site scoped search · observed 2026-02-10 · extracted by language model

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Speech and legal exposure

What legal risk attaches to what I have said online, or say while I am there?

35Caution35 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49

good confidence7 independent sources

Why this score (10 sources)

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

1 excluded source
  • Rappler, via a site scoped search, observed 2024-04-23: aged out after 2 years.

Encryption and VPN legality

Are VPNs and strong encryption lawful, and can I be required to install an application or hand over keys?

32Caution32 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49

moderate confidence4 independent sourcesEvidence is ageing: contributing sources are weighted at 61% of full strength.

Why this score (4 sources)

  • Some restrictions. Australia’s legal framework contains some restrictions on encryption. These include export controls and obligations on providers and individuals to assist authorities. The export controls prohibit exporting, supplying or publishing certain forms of encryption software or technology unless authorisation is granted, but commonly used forms of encryption and cryptography tools are exempt. The legal framework also provides for three types of requests and notices that the government and certain security and law enforcement agencies can issue to communications providers. The legal framework provides

    Global Partners Digital, World Map of Encryption Laws and Policies · observed 2019-06-01

  • V-Dem Digital Society Project 2025 scored AUS 3.36 of 4 on whether the government regulates the internet in a way consistent with international human rights standards, where higher is freer. This does not establish whether encryption or VPN use is lawful. It measures internet regulation in general, and is used as indirect evidence because the only survey that reads encryption law directly was published in 2019.

    V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project · observed 2025-12-31

  • OONI recorded no confirmed blocking across 92,054 measurements of anonymity and censorship circumvention tools in AUS over the 90 days to 2026-10-16, with 2,149 further results inconclusive.

    Open Observatory of Network Interference, OONI measurement data · observed 2026-10-16

  • Technical Capability Notices (TCNs): TCNs are orders that require a company to build new capabilities that assist law enforcement agencies in accessing encrypted data.

    Schneier on Security feed · observed 2024-09-09 · extracted by language model

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

1 excluded source
  • ARTICLE 19, via a site scoped search, observed 2023-12-19: aged out after 3 years.

Connectivity continuity

How likely am I to lose access to the internet, or to the specific tools I depend on?

28Caution28 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49

good confidence17 independent sources

Why this score (28 sources)

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

1 excluded source
  • Rappler, via a site scoped search, observed 2024-04-23: aged out after 2 years.

Data jurisdiction

What happens to corporate or client data I carry into the jurisdiction?

18Low18 of 100, Low band, 0 to 24

moderate confidence1 independent source

Why this score (1 source)

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Border device risk

How likely is my device to be searched, imaged, or seized at the border, and can I be compelled to unlock it?

10Low10 of 100, Low band, 0 to 24

good confidence5 independent sources

No reports were found of devices being searched, imaged or seized at this border, or of travellers being compelled to unlock them. The score below is drawn from general indicators for this country rather than from anything observed about this risk, so it describes an absence of reports rather than evidence that the risk is absent.

What the score rests on (5 indirect sources)

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Trend

02550751002026-08-162026-10-16

The overall score is up 10.1 points over 61 days, from 21.7 to 31.8. Most movement is the event overlay decaying rather than anything happening: a news signal loses half its weight every three weeks, so a score drifts back toward its structural baseline on its own. A step that holds is the one worth reading.

Check this yourself

These are not inputs to the score for Australia. They are where to look if you want to test what is above against something we did not use.

Sources

This assessment draws on 27 sources: Auswärtiges Amt, Reise- und Sicherheitshinweise; CIVICUS Monitor country updates; Colombia One, via a site scoped search; Daily Maverick feed; Freedom House, Freedom in the World; Freedom House, Freedom on the Net, obstacles to access; Georgia Tech Internet Intelligence Lab, Internet Outage Detection and Analysis; Global Affairs Canada, Travel advice and advisories; Global Partners Digital, World Map of Encryption Laws and Policies; International Telecommunication Union, Global Cybersecurity Index; Jamaica Observer, via a site scoped search; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Overseas travel safety information; MyJoyOnline, via a site scoped search; Open Observatory of Network Interference, OONI measurement data; Rappler, via a site scoped search; Schneier on Security feed; The Conversation, via a site scoped search; The Daily Star (Bangladesh), via a site scoped search; The GDELT Project, GDELT Global Knowledge Graph 2.1; The Guardian feed; The National (Papua New Guinea), via a site scoped search; The Register feed; Times of Malta, via a site scoped search; UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Foreign travel advice; US Department of State, Travel Advisories; V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project; World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index, sub-factor 4.6. Every contributing claim is quoted with its origin and date above. Model version 0.12.0, computed 2026-10-16.

If something here is wrong, say so. Corrections are handled in public, and we correct because the evidence is wrong, not because someone objects.