cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/49853131
Feels to me like GrapheneOS did exactly what it should, passing the US border test with flying colours!
Funny part about this lawsuit: “With a little planning ahead of time, you can always download the data you need once you get to where you’re going,”
GrapheneOS - the only OS that i just installed and forget about it. Sure i spend time to tweak things like profiles but thats it.
And I am a distro and rom hopper.
The security model is that good: duress pin, scrambled pin, separate profiles with their own passwords, usb c restriction (you can set it charge only, charge while phone is off (most secure state).
He would have had a lot better legal leg to stand on I think if he had just refused to give them any passcode. Now instead of a potential case of being forced to compel speech, he is facing what will be argued is an attempt to destroy evidence. His defense is probably a lot stronger with the former than the latter.
Would be cool to have your device partitioned by separate passwords, so you could unlock a dummy system.
yes you can. On Graphene you can set the main profile as just there with nothing except to control wifi/add esim/etc. Then you can create many profiles with their own passwords. You can store your work stuff in 1 profile, private stuff in another. You can even create a dummy profile with fake Google. .
The downside currently is that the OS autoboot to main profile. Then you switch to your other profiles.
This is an excellent idea honestly.
That’s it. I’m getting a burner phone if I leave the country.
Edit: Serious question… what if you just wiped your phone and then restored it when you got wherever you were going?
Honestly I’m not considering leaving at all while this administration is in power. We’ve already heard too many stories of arbitrary detentions even for lawful citizens or visitors that I simply don’t want to roll the dice on whether my vacation ends with a nightmare or just another flight in as normal
Ditto.
What? US police can ask you for the phone password? No way! That is 100% police state. Stalin was amateur comparing to present day USA.
I don’t believe you can be compelled to provide a password. That does after all (at the very least) constitute speech. And freedom of speech is also freedom of non-speech, they can’t make you say something.
They will however try to make you do that… In many situations authorities are allowed to lie to you. So that’s sucks. They can tell you that you’re required to unlock your phone, you just have to know that your not actually.
Also they can’t make you say anything, but they can make you do things, like for instance “put your finger here” or “look into this camera”, which is why biometric unlock is unsafe around cops.
There’s that one guy who is being held in contempt of the court (to be clear this is not the police asking for his password, but a judge in a court of law) because he won’t give a password to decrypt a hard drive.
They believe it is highly likely that the drive contains sexually explicit material of children, which is why he’s being held in prison until he gives up the password.
claimed they did not need a warrant to search Tunick’s phone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border.
Also no right to search / seize his phone then. US law doesn’t apply on non-US soil.
If it’s not US soil, it’s not a detention, it’s a rendition, a kidnapping.
Also, I don’t know how citizenship works I this respect in the US, but in my country a citizen cannot be denied entry. It can be detained upon entering, but by then you are in sovereign soil.
Its the same in the US. They can’t deny entry to US citizens.
Good.
That’s legal, fuck you. It’s my data, and I want it (gone) now!
deleted by creator
Perfectly legal. Unless they were legally charged and ordered by a court to preserve data considered to be used in a crime, they can’t be charged with shit. Cops don’t dictate this, courts do, AND that scope only applies to an active prosecution anyway.
If it was evidence, they fucked up BIG TIME if their actions weren’t read-only from the beginning. A distress password would be an attempt at destruction of evidence, but completely unsuccessful.
Legality seems to be a fairytale concept in the USA, except for oligarchs. They get full legal coverage.
There’s a bunch of legislation and case law saying that searches are OK within x (50?) miles of a border crossing which covers something like 90% of the population because they count international airports.
So it might get sticky for the person.
Not every search is comparable to one another. Searching a car for immigrants near the border fence is one thing while searching an American citizen’s personal phone containing all kinds of private informatoon at an airport in the middle of Georgia is another. This is all based off allegations of CSAM, but I would imagine the federal government would actually have to make a case for why they suspected CSAM in the first place to make the seizure legitimate. In reality, they probably wanted this guys messages and phone calls related to his activism so that they can target those people too, which is going to be hard to make a case for in court depending on the judge.
100 miles, but it does not include airports. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
Search is not the same thing. Search means they CAN legally search. It absolutely does mean that wiping your phone prevented, obstructed, or obscured a SEARCH. Search all you fucking want, that data is gone. It’s not retroactively comparable.
That being said, had there been a judge that said “You can’t wipe your phone, because you are being charged with a crime, and we believe there is evidence of this crime on your phone, and here is why…”
Way different, and these laws only exist to prevent law enforcement from being caught in a cyclical legal roundabout in court related to the 4th amendment, and even then, many defense lawyers get “gray area” material data evidence thrown out because of Miranda Rights, or illegal searches by law enforcement of data harvested when the defendent was not properly advised or advocated for their ability to refuse.
Murderers get off for this shit because Cops get overzealous and don’t follow the letter of the law or chain of custody in evidentiary collection.
From the article
“The government’s indictment, which contains a typo (“Untied States Code”), accuses Tunick of allegedly providing a passcode to border agents that caused the phone to “delete the digital contents,” prior to the device being seized.”
“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.”
Yes, and only JUDGES are able to make that determination.
There is no stature in Federal or State law that says this is a crime, and no superceded precedent for this.
No it can be police that charge.
My state 100% has this law and police charge suspects for this.
ORC 2921.12 Tampering with evidence.
(A) No person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall do any of the following:
(1) Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation;
(2) Make, present, or use any record, document, or thing, knowing it to be false and with purpose to mislead a public official who is or may be engaged in such proceeding or investigation, or with purpose to corrupt the outcome of any such proceeding or investigation.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of tampering with evidence, a felony of the third degree.
In your Section A right there: “official proceeding”
There was no crime in progress, suspicious activity, or active charges brought against this person.
Maybe reread the article.
Also, Police do not bring charges, Prosecuting Attorneys do. Police are only responsible for investigations and arresting. Everything else is cleared by the legal system first.
You’re wrong and arguing in bad faith now.
People get charged with tampering for all types of shit, like eating drugs during an arrest. The laws surrounding the bordes are dumb as fuck, but legally-speaking border operations can be construed as official proceedings, although it’s only an investigation that is required. Which it obviously was.
Prosecutors ultimately argue charges, but police organize those charges before presenting them to the the state.
Knock it off. Stop being a contrarian weirdo.
You didn’t even read past that. It then says “or investigation”
I’m kinda done talking as you’re not even reading what I post.
Good day!
Perfectly legal. Unless they were legally charged and ordered by a court to preserve data considered to be used in a crime, they can’t be charged with shit. Cops don’t dictate this, courts do, AND that scope only applies to an active prosecution anyway.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not arguing that you’re wrong here, but the article describes the federal law the journalist was charged with. It seems very broad, and it’s a bullshit law, but from what’s here, it seems more grey area than perfectly legal. All of 2232 seems to require knowledge (which it seems like he had, but might be arguable) and action. You could argue that the journalist didn’t take any affirmative action to wipe the phone. The action that wiped it was the feds entering a code.
Yeah, you’re wrong in a number of different ways. No, you’re not a lawyer.
What you linked to is precedent par notice. Every single subordinate literally mentions notice.
A law enforcement officer of ANY type is not able able to issue that notice.
It depends. If the police suspect the owner has evidence of some sort on the phone, destroying it can lead to a tampering with evidence charge from the police.
A tampering charge doesn’t have to be from a court order. If someone eats or dumps out drugs where the police can’t collect the physical drug, it will stick.
But in the story’s case, it falls within the 100 miles of the US boarder (called a boarder search exception) a warrant, probable cause, or RAS aren’t needed here. It’s considered a reasonable search so the 4th amendment is limited here.
There is a lot to it and really don’t think this is the best format for it here.
It does not depend. 4th amendment is superceded by any state law, and it’s SUPER clear that unless a crime has been committed and prosecutorial procedures are in place, no search or seizure is legal.
That’s the whole point.
It’s a federal law. It’s been legal since the constitution was written. There have been numerous court hearings stating it’s legal.
You might want to reread the 4th again. The supreme court has ruled international boarder crossing as a reaonable search, thus no warrant, RAS, or PC needed.
Again…you can SEARCH all you want. Whether you find anything is not mandated.
I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about this.
And if you destroy evidence during an official investigation, it’s tampering.
I’m not sure why you’re so confidently wrong. It’s fucking embarrassing.
Did you read the article and the laws pertaining to data seizure at the border? Crossing the border doesn’t constitue an investing ANY kind, and also doesn’t suddenly conjure up some sort of suspicion that a crime is in progress or has been committed, meaning no pretense for charges because PERSONAL DATA was not seized. Good lawd.
Anyone know if this feature is available on Murena e/os? Can’t seem to find it :(
Good. Annoying to rebuild his phone, but better than handing it to fascists who don’t even have a lawful court order for it.
Surely he was also using the built in backup feature, if he was he would have been able to grab another used Pixel, install GOS, then just recover from his backup (I haven’t tried the restore yet just because I’m lazy, fingers crossed it works).
In all likelihood they kept his phone and will retain possession until charges are dismissed. Get a burner phone and wipe it before going through security. I assume if they see your phone is “fresh” they’ll take it on suspicion anyway.
If you change phones regularly you can use an old phone. No need to buy a new one.
Would you want the phone back after it’s been in their hands? I wouldn’t trust them to leave it alone.
GOS has boot attestation. But yeah, if I would travel to the US (I will no longer do that) I would bring a sacrificial device.
I mean yeah, might be a fun reverse-engineering project to look for any backdoors or other modifications to the device.
Hmm. Maybe DHS can fuck all the way off?
