top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 153 points 2 months ago (3 children)

That's precisely what a duress password is for. Feature working as intended, get a warrant.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 125 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Pick a lane. Either it counts as US soil so you need a warrant or it doesn't so theres no reason for US law to apply until the person is approved.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    No one tell them about international airports...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    They have a point though. Technically from what I've read just living near an airport would give ICE the authority to search your phone and anything else you might be carrying if it's within a certain mile radius. Even if you aren't using the port of entry (airport for instance). Regardless of whether or not they have any other form of probable cause.

    I don't understand how others don't understand that. Because it's a hell of a conclusion to come to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 90 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    So? My data, my choice and right to delete it, so fuck off!

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    He didn't delete it. The officer did.

    I wonder if he'll sue them for damages

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    "They asked for my password. They didn't specify which password."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    More like "sorry I couldn't remember the password. I guessed, but I have a bad memory"

    This is exactly the reason the government can't force you to give your password in the US. They can't prove that you remember the password.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 66 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Citizen enforces his own right to the Fourth Amendment and is prosecuted by the government for not letting them try to find incriminating evidence on him. For something. Maybe. Because he looks suspicious.

    I hope that lawyer gets it thrown out. I'm not holding my breath. We've gone so far into fascism I'm not sure it'll take anything less than violence to end it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    A reason to try grapheneos if you are technically inclined.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    It's easy enough for anyone willing try. Grab any Pixel from the last few years, plug it in to a computer, and click buttons in your web browser on the GOS website and watch GOS get installed on your phone. The instructions hold your hand the whole way through.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    do you know how much does any pixel from last year cost?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 44 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Sounds like the police officer tried to gain unauthorized access to a device. And, while they were trying to crack it, they wiped all of its data.

    I wonder if the police officer that did this will face criminal charges of unauthorized access and destruction of evidence.

    And also there's a civil suit in there. The officer may have deleted valuable data on the victim's device, causing them harm. I wonder what the monetary value will be.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 40 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence

    Tunick’s attorneys accused the government of demanding access to his phone under the pretext of searching for child exploitation imagery, but without providing evidence to justify its suspicion.

    Even if I had more information, I still wouldn’t have the law chops to predict where this may lead.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I don't have those chops either. Also NAL. The wiki page says Tampering charges require there to be an ongoing investigation, which wasn't the case here, so I'm thinking it wouldn't apply. But! I wonder about spoliation. Spoliation before a case is brought, while not illegal per se, can result in negative inference,

    spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a trier of fact can draw from a party's destruction of evidence that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding

    Negative inference, to my NAL understanding, means the tampered evidence may be taken in the worst light for the defense. Here, it's all resting on flimsy and politically motivated pretext with no evidence. Still.

    Needs an immigration lawyer to give an answer to this, but I'm thinking it may be legally safer to have strong encryption and refuse to unlock, rather than to wipe. Not unlocking isn't tampering, so no spoliation, but wiping might be. Well, safest of all is to use a burner. But next best, strong encryption + don't unlock. CBP can confescate the device, but they cannot compel you to produce a pw or unlock code.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    From what I've gathered, I think you're right to assume it's legally safer to refuse to unlock rather than wipe. Also, worth noting that you can be compelled to unlock with biometrics, but not a password. On grapheneOS this means simply shutting off/restarting your device as it requires a pw after a fresh boot, even if biometrics is enable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 40 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    no he didn't. They asked for a password that the phone would accept. They weren't even supposed to ask, but he gave them one. They're the ones who entered it on the phone. And by extension they're the ones who erased the phone.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    FYI if you are using GrapheneOS with the duress password, you can natively backup your phone. Its in settings.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 34 points 2 months ago

    this is literally what they accuse china of

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Sounds like the cops entered the passcode... Therefore the cops erased the evidence.

    who knows what would've happened if they bothered to get a warrant first.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 2 months ago

    When Tunick provided his passcode and the authorities entered it, “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart.” The authorities seized his phone anyway, before telling him that he was free to go and could enter the United States.

    Very glad to hear that he's a free man while the courts try to figure out what to do.

    Also it's hilarious that he didn't wipe it. The officers did it. I think it's going to be very hard to get a conviction of this activist when it was the officer that wiped the data.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    "Sorry, my fat American fingers accidentally entered the wrong code, you understand."

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago

    The authorities conducting the illegal search entered the code, so the phone owner could assert that he gave them the right password and they were the ones that screwed it up. It's a bit late for that argument, but someone could use that in the future and there'd be no way to prove it wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    they’re gonna use this case as pretext to ban graphene os

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 16 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    for research purposes, how would one go about setting this up?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    GrapheneOS also has options to turn off USB port so that authorities plugging in devices to try to bypass phone lock can't be exploited. And user needs to supply password to change the USB options.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 2 months ago

    Hmm this sounds like government overreach 🤔

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Regardless of how it happened, entering a fascist state means that you must be prepared to wipe all your devices before crossing the border. They’ll naturally fabricate justifications to employ totalitarian measures as it’s their directive to do so. If they seize your items and violate your privacy, which they will do, at least there’s nothing but a blank slate. These days I feel it’s more important than ever to have two devices, with one being a basic phone for communication only and the other a smartphone that’s backed up and ready to be wiped at a moments notice, then stuffed into your luggage.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    sorry accidentally did a duress oopsie uwu bite me

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›