- cross-posted to:
- android@lemdro.id
- cross-posted to:
- android@lemdro.id
You must log in or register to comment.
The headline is wrong.
Fascist regime fucks over people’s constitutional rights and could send a man to prison for protecting his own privacy.
There, fixed.
Land of the “free”…
Free to get fucked over
Land of the free™
This is fucking stupid. If I delete something on my phone while I’m on vacation am I going to prison because the border patrol might have wanted to look at it?
Should have been born a child fucking billionaire if you don’t want to be sentenced to prison for 30 years.
I always forget that “choose better parents” one weird trick. ;-)
It’s like pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. So obvious. Just because it is impossible to do is no excuse.
It’s bullshit but with the current laws. Back up your phone before you head home wipe it before going through border control, and restore your backup when you get home.
That’s what I do but evidently that pisses them off
Their mood isn’t your responsibility. Carrying a blank phone is perfectly legal.
“It’s SOP for my business. The risk of phones getting lost or stolen at or near airports is high.”
This is great advice thank you
deleted by creator
Nah, they just lube up the rubber gloves and fist you, checking in case there’s a micro SD stashed up there. You should still make your flight if you relax.
And thats why you dont travel to countries with ropey regimes
We don’t need hyperbole here …. If authorities have a legal reason to search and you interfere with that, destruction of evidence is a crime. Delete all you want …. Right up until authorities claim the legal reason to search. Usually that takes a warrant: investigators must convince a judge there is a good reason
This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.
The slippery slope here is “or within 100 miles”, but that wasn’t a factor here either
as far as I understand, they were not there to serve a warrant. he was crossing a border and the feds are claiming that the 4th amendment doesn’t apply because he hadn’t yet crossed into America.
border patrol was essentially using a loophole to preemptively collect potential evidence (they’ll figure out what to charge him with after they see his phone contents). he’s a political activist against a cop city, they were obviously trying to do him dirty.
they were not serving a search warrant. they were abusing what should be an illegal search at the border in order to silence those who speak out against govt overreach.
If he wasnt in the US how can the US claim he violated a US law?
The US claims jurisdiction over its citizens wherever they are.
Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because it means you can be prosecuted in the US for stuff like going to Thailand and sexually abusing children there.
So the law applies, but protection under the law does not.
Isn’t all law essentially derived from powers granted by the constitution?
If the powers granted by it to enforce a law are applicable when not within the US then then it very reasonably ought to apply to any and all amendments.
But, reason is on the extinction list with the magafascists. (And all LEO)
Are we reading the same article?
The incident took place at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport in January 2025
So the important takeaway is to delete your phone before customs. Presumably you have an encrypted backup you can restore without too much effort
In addition, the law that he’s charged with relates to knowingly destroying property that the police have a warrant to sieze.
There is no precedent of it being applied to border searches where they may not even have reasonable suspicion of a crime and can stop people for questioning on a whim.
The State has absolutely no claim over your personal property at that point and destroying property that the police hope and dream of siezing isn’t the same as destroying property where they’ve demonstrated probable cause to a judge.
This argument from the border patrol that you can be arrested for destroying data that is in your possession without ever been given due process and 4th amendment protections isn’t supported by precedence.
These fucking conservatives crawl out of the woodwork like cockroaches anytime the government does something heinous and use their piss poor understanding of EVERYTHING to try to justify the heinous actions. It happens every time, and I wish just once to see one of them use real and relevant facts, just so I can pretend that these people live in reality for just one second.
Hasn’t happened yet though.
Everything is a conspiracy theory when you don’t understand how anything works.
Finally a sensible reply. Quite a few NAZI bootlickers here. They’re the first the sign up it seems.
This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.
Have to disagree with that one. Simply entering a country is not justification for searching someones phone. I don’t care what the law says. People have a right to privacy.
Not since 2001 they don’t.
They do, just because the government says otherwise doesn’t make it true.
Yes, it does. Thats what governance means.
That’s how it should be. But that’s not what the law says.
I don’t care what the law says. People have a right to privacy.
I’m not saying I agree with it, just that it’s always been so
There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.
You literally said they are not violating rights by doing this.
He’s saying that right was taken away by George W Bush.
Governments cannot take rights away. They can only infringe upon them. They are rights. Not privileges.
Then clearly you’re talking about deontological rights and they’re talking about legal rights and both wasting your breath
Good to know thanks
The indictment alleges that Tunick knowingly deleted the phone’s digital contents
My hot take: the officer wiped the phone. With their own hands. They’re just stupid.
Hotter take: The phone was empty when he handed it over. There was nothing to delete.
It doesn’t look like anything to me.
“If you can’t tell, does it matter?”
If they succeed I guess in the future an officer could delete your phone to save face then blame it on you.
Those of us who have asked to avoid the cancer box and been subjected to a subjectively punitive pat-down and fashion show experience are already anticipating just that. Yay!
(And for added fun, call it a cancer box. Wow, when you get that one TSA who only has bad days will you get a great speech as well)
Why do you call it a cancer box? I’ve been through plenty of them and never seen anything to indicate they’re unsafe. Then again, we also used to let people x-ray their feet in shoe stores, soo…
Fun fact: Logan TSA asked the FAA for paperwork showing those things are safe. Anything.
FAA said fuck you.
That’s kinda all I need.
I know the anecdotes say it’s good. But with anything introduced hurriedly and without clear need - we know the TSA doesn’t have good track record anyway - the hype-to-utility ratio is too high.
Yeah, they are masters of parallel construction. ( Aka lying)
that was the issue I was going to bring up. If the officer wants to try varuous pin numbers how is it the owners responsibility as to what the phone does.
My phone is set to automatically wipe after X number of incorrect pin attempts. If I just kept telling law enforcement the wrong pin number because I cant remember it exactly, what is the difference if the phone wipes. Once the phone is out of my hands how can I be responsible for what the phone does? (Assuming I dont issue a remote wiping command)
Write the duress PIN on a piece of paper in your wallet. Someone searching your phone is probably also searching your wallet and may try the PIN.
The charge treats the alleged wipe as destruction of property intended to prevent a government seizure.
He is being charged with destroying “evidence” but he was never charged with anything in the first place. That is like saying deleting any files at home is a crime. I’d think forcing you to present evidence necessary to charge you with something would fall under the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Unfortunately according to the federal government you automatically consent to limited 4th amendment protections when you choose to fly. Domestic flights have more legal protections, but international flights basically wave your right to privacy.
They are allowed to ask for your phone’s password and do a “non-forensic” search of your phone for just about any reason. A more extensive “forensic” search where they plug your phone into another device can be made if they present reasonable suspicion. If you refuse a search they can hold onto your phone for several weeks.
The smarter move would have been to just refuse to give the password and trust that they wont want to go through the hassle of cracking your phone once it’s in custody.
Basically the only real way to protect yourself is to not keep any incriminating information on your phone. The courts have ruled that these searches only extend to data that can be physically accessed on your device and things like social media and cloud storage are not subject to the search. So it’s just best to save everything on the cloud and then restore it once you are done traveling.
What a shithole
GrapheneOS should update the duress passcode to load a dummy profile like Only Key’s Plausible Deniability Feature.
Loading any profile allows the operating system access to root privileges, and opens potential for user privilege escalation.
The profiles are independently encrypted with a key derived from the user’s profile PIN. If the other profiles are not logged in then their keys are not in RAM (and they get zeroed beforehand so they can’t be read out of unallocated memory).
Even if the bad guys get root via a LPE in a dummy account there are no keys to find and the profiles’ storage are not mounted.
You couldn’t trust the device after that however, who knows what kind of persistent spyware they could have installed.
Then it should delete the data while loading a dummy profile
That would be an interesting proposition… under duress load profile x and delete all other profiles, apps, settings and keys.
I like this option, save a snapshot and restore that snapshot deleting everything else. So it looks like a regular profile but won’t contain anything you want to remain private.
Guys don’t travel to fascist countries.
If the duress pin makes obvious it’s the duress pin then it’s not really doing its job. It should instead open a profile with not much in it while erasing the other profile and files in the background.
What law did he break? Vs the warrantless search that is breaking the law. If only the supreme court didn’t give them a pass.
Search without a warrant is valid at the border.
So I’ve learned :(
Not without probable cause or your consent it’s not.
Or within 100 miles of it. Including all international airports. That just soh appens to be like 80% of the population or something.
It does not include airports. People need to stop repeating that
https://www.aclumaine.org/know-your-rights/100-mile-border-zone/
Huh, you seem to be correct. I’m finding plenty of pages that claim that “international ports of entry” includes airports, but none of them source it or seem like very trustworthy sites.
Prosecuted for what, exactly? If push comes to shove, it’s a fifth amendment issue.
I would wager that this is going to become a test case that is intended to appeal it’s way to the SCotUS. The SCotUS has already ruled that many constitutional protections are waived at the border, so it wouldn’t be surprising if that is the intended outcome.
Land of the Free™
Prosecuted for what, exactly?
For not being nice to the gestapo?
I’m half-expecting for it to turn out that he was being wholly compliant, and he’s being accused of destruction of evidence because they were looking for something that never existed to begin with.
Don’t travel to fasist country. Problem solved.
It’s where he lives. He’s a citizen and was returning home from DR.
He already got out! Should have stayed
If only it was as easy as it is simple
👆 cannot be overstated. My family refuses to leave or I’d be in Europe right now. I’m from there and have a house there. Do not come here.
Keep in mind we have our fascists too, and the morons that vote for them.
My understanding is you can’t actually be forced (legally) to give up your phone’s PIN or password as part of a police search, because it violates the 5th amendment against self-incrimination, even at the border. Now will they still find a way to fuck up your day if you refuse to unlock your phone, sure, but I feel like saying “I have a right under the 5th Amendment to not reveal my password” is going to be a lot easier to defend than “I intentionally wiped/locked/bricked my phone when you asked to look through it.”
Depends
Most phones can be accessed by forensic software. The more secure phones are protected as long as they’ve just been restarted but before they’re unlocked for the first time.
Some phones, like an up-to-date GrapheneOS on a supported Pixel, may resist forensic imaging after first unlocking but the information is in memory so there could potentially be zero days or other exotic methods of obtaining the data.
A duress wipe lets you know 100% that the data is not accessible.
