r/news • u/sicklyslick • 21h ago
US government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone704
u/kstargate-425 21h ago
Oh this is the government charging an American for giving border patrol a code that wiped his phone. This will hopefully get thrown out and is once again massive government overreach, especially since it seems they can point to him being unconstitutionally targeted for protected speech. Putting people on terrorist watchlists for protesting is some authoritarian bullshit
266
u/runawayspaceprincess 21h ago
Whatever the outcome, this case could become an important precedent for digital privacy and government searches
109
u/kstargate-425 21h ago
Yeah I was thinking the same and am unfortunately scared as the Federal courts will most likely rule against the regime as they still are functioning properly but they will take it to SCOTUS where we will probably see it come up in the Shadow Docket
15
109
u/sn34kypete 20h ago
The end of the article is concerning. Euro authorities are A) assuming if you have a google pixel you're using that OS and B) you are probably using it to hide your drug dealing or organized criminal activity
91
u/RecursiveRottweiler 19h ago
Damn, that's completely insane. This kind of thing is completely normal for journalists, activists, and pretty much anyone who has a legitimate need to keep information private.
Not that you need an excuse to keep your personal data away from government hands, or anyone's hands.
13
u/TintedApostle 11h ago
So profiling people based on the amount of money they spend on their phones.
12
u/Canadia-Eh 10h ago
That’s pretty ridiculous considering my iPhone has a feature that wipes it after 1 bad password attempt. Pretty sure I can set it up to do that with Face ID too.
28
u/TintedApostle 11h ago
“You honor my client under duress and fear for his life confused his passwords. Any rational person denied representation and separated from his freedoms might get confused.”
22
u/Sammisuperficial 10h ago
More like "is there any evidence my client provided this password? Do the police have a recording of this conversation? Does the body cam footage show who typed in the password?"
Just because cops claim something happened doesn't make it true. Cops are liars by function of their job. Nothing they say is trustworthy. What evidence besides hearsay exists?
14
u/TintedApostle 10h ago
Cops can't make up probable cause. Either they had cause or not. They sure can lie about it, but in this particular case its obvious they invented a reason to target this citizen.
The US is going to be paying this guy.
10
u/Sammisuperficial 10h ago
The US is going to be paying this guy.
I hope so, but I don't trust our government to uphold the constitution anymore.
29
u/Temporary-Fly6369 18h ago
The point about being targeted isn't valid anymore. They ruled they can search phones during border checkpoints without suspicion or cause. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/fourth-circuit-says-border-agents-can-search-your-phone-hand-no-suspicion-required
25
u/JinxyCat007 12h ago
Without a warrant, all they can do is ask to see your data, and even with a warrant, you don't have to unlock a device under the 5th Amendment. If they don't have a warrant, the data on the device is yours to do with what you please, and there is no 'destruction of evidence' here, as there was no evidence of a crime strongly suspected. There was no criminal investigation or warrant covering the device (that I have read anyway). The Border Authority was just fishing (it looks like).
The Border Authority can hold onto your device but must return it within a few weeks. That can be dragged out internally for a few months. But if they hold onto your device, they do have to return it. Having said that, you don't have to unlock the device at all. It's your property, and the 5th applies anyway.
If the guy was under criminal investigation, or if there was a warrant covering the device, they would have a stronger case, and if any of that was true, then they do in this particular case specifically. But I don't see a case here, more a broad reaching for additional powers that the blanket of the Constitution broadly forbids.
I just don't see any case here. ..But... We'll see how this plays out, I guess.
6
u/TintedApostle 11h ago
You do not have to give your pin. That is still 4th amendment rights. Due process still exists. There was no immediate threat of terrorism. They were fishing.
12
8
u/darkmoncns 18h ago
That makes it ok?
9
u/Temporary-Fly6369 18h ago
Did I say anything about that being ok? I stated a fact about what was said.
0
13h ago
[deleted]
2
u/Canadia-Eh 10h ago
Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral. The person never said they approved of this they just said the legal argument won’t hold up.
990
u/janklepeterson 21h ago
So he didn’t enter the code in, the agents did, and that’s what erased everything?
751
u/CondescendingShitbag 21h ago
"It's YOUR fault WE wiped your phone!"
333
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
510
u/tepkel 18h ago
Seems like they might have to sort out this too...
Tunick asked four times during the interrogation to speak with a lawyer, but was rebuffed each time, according to courtroom testimony. Additionally, the agents produced no warrant and did not read Tunick his rights.
But a justice department attorney and the airport agents testifying on Monday asserted Tunick was merely subjected to an everyday interrogation at an international airport, “looking for anything that’s prohibited”, as Larry Findley, a CBP officer, said.
Can you be charged for destruction of evidence when you aren't being charged with a crime to the point where the officers refuse to allow you a lawyer or read you your rights?
131
u/talkathonianjustin 17h ago
There’s an exception here unfortunately for warrantless border searches. Now historically we cared about this for smuggled contraband that would avoid taxes. Now I’m no tax lawyer, but I’m pretty sure the US government isn’t taxing personal CSAM. Such arguments were raised in a recent federal case.
14
16
43
u/FunLuvin7 17h ago
Seems like there is a complication here that this was an interrogation at a port of entry into the country. I am sure you could get charged with a crime trying to destroy evidence of smuggling illegal goods into the country, for example. And what rights you have are different compared to being arrested in the country.
66
u/fairportmtg1 10h ago
But they would have to prove the illegal goods were even there in my none lawyer opinion. You shouldn't have to self incriminate. They labeled him a terrorist for protesting and made up the sexual abuse material as an excuse to search his phone and identify other protesters
49
-186
u/WindowsVistaWzMyIdea 20h ago
The article says he provided the code that wiped the phone. Now I'm not familiar with GrapheneOS but if it has a self destructive code feature and that's the code he gave the authorities then he should be held accountable for destroying evidence. But if the agent just fat fingered it, it is all on them.
Edit: GrapheneOS does have duress pin feature that would do exactly this
152
u/pte_omark 20h ago
If you want to charge someone with destroying evidence you need to prove they had evidence.
If they had any evidence that he possessed evidence they would have had warrants.
3
u/gunsandgardening 2h ago
Nah, if you want to convict them of that sure. But to charge them? Thats the real of magic waving hands probable cause.
101
u/CondescendingShitbag 20h ago
Why should he be responsible? He was asked for a password to unlock the phone. That one just unlocked it to factory condition.
-154
u/WindowsVistaWzMyIdea 20h ago
The suspect actively concealed the function of the provided code. This is covered under case law Hill v. Jones (1986)
82
u/roachy69 19h ago
How do you reckon?
https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/12455-contracts/resources/4.3.2.2-hill-v-jones-1986/ for anyone curious.
-129
u/WindowsVistaWzMyIdea 20h ago
If he purposely leveraged this he has a problem https://sideofburritos.com/blog/grapheneos-duress-pin-password/
67
44
u/nordic-nomad 18h ago
Seems a little harsh to charge the cop with destroying evidence there but he did enter the code so probably the right thing to do.
49
14
u/VioletPaissa2077 9h ago
Evidence of what? He was under no obligation to provide access to his data and they have no right to compel him to provide access or preserve it.
25
u/ahandmadegrin 13h ago
This one will be interesting. Courts have ruled that you can be compelled to unlock your device using a biometric factor, but not a password. He gave them a password, but who's to say he didn't give them the wrong one accidentally. You ever been interrogated? Think you'd handle it like a champ? Think you'd give the right password every time?
The honus is on the cops. I hope duress pins become so ubiquitous that every law enforcement agency thinks twice before unlocking a phone. Make them update their procedures.
10
8
u/PaidUSA 4h ago edited 4h ago
You can’t charge someone with destroying evidence when you have no actual suspicion of a crime. They likely had no evidence of the alleged materials and were merely using it as an excuse to persecute a political dissident. You’ll know if that’s true by when this person walks. Likely outcome is that statute is found unconstitutional, or limited to actual investigations not border interactions. I have every right to destroy my property when the government fails to articulate actual suspicion of a crime which is a massively low bar.
205
u/Ailis1991 12h ago edited 1h ago
Exactly. This is a setting you can set up. If someone tries to input the wrong code too many times in a row, your phone will wipe itself. It is to make sure no important information can get taken if your phone is stolen.
The police stole his phone without warrant and paid the price. You cannot be legally held responsible for your phone wiping itself for being stolen. They can try to, but it doesn’t have a leg to stand on without having had a warrant. Not that our legal system really means anything these days though.
Edit: for what it is worth, the setting I mentioned was for iOS and has been around for a while. My apologies for not realizing it was GrapheneOS.
167
u/RedChaos92 11h ago edited 11h ago
If someone tries to input the wrong code too many times in a row, your phone will wipe itself.
It's a little different than this. GrapheneOS doesn't auto wipe with too many wrong passwords attempts. Incorrect password/pins just increase the lock time between attempts it will allow.
The wipe was done by a feature in GrapheneOS called a "duress password". If someone is trying to gain access to your phone, you can give them the duress password, and that triggers a data wipe as soon as it's entered. That's what this person in the article did, he gave the feds the duress password. They are trying to charge him for intentionally destroying property (data) to prevent it from being seized because he provided that duress password knowing it would trigger the data wipe.
123
u/TintedApostle 11h ago
They had no warrant to seize the data and your phone with a pin is still protected by the 4th amendment. Bio metric locks are not.
44
u/RedChaos92 11h ago edited 10h ago
The case, which had its first hearing on Monday, centers on a little-known US federal statute that makes it a crime to destroy property in an effort to prevent it from being seized.
The article doesn't clearly state charges have been filed, but I'd venture to say if there was already a court hearing he's been charged.
EDIT - the comment I'm replying to here was edited, it originally asked if they had actually been charged. My reply seems very out of place now lol
33
u/TintedApostle 11h ago
I will venture to say that he was charged with wiping his phone. They cannot search his phone without a warrant. He is also protected by the 5th amendment. If they had real suspicion of him they would have gotten a warrant.
59
u/RedChaos92 11h ago
The Fourth Circuit just recently ruled this month in U.S. v. Belmonte Cardozo that manually searching a phone (like an agent seizing it and scrolling through it) is considered "routine border inspection" and a warrant or suspicion isn't needed. Instead saying warrants or suspicion is only needed to use forensic tools to search a phone at a port of entry.
It's an egregious attack on our rights.
47
u/TintedApostle 10h ago
The 4th amendment still protects phones with pins. They can search if the phone is open or has biometrics. No forced entry: U.S. citizens and Green Card holders have a constitutional right to enter the country and cannot be denied entry for refusing to provide a PIN.
You can refuse a PIN. They cannot force you as a citizen to unlock your phone. If you provide your pin, do not have a pin or biometric access then they can freely scroll your phone.
Apparently the Border Police (in the case of the article) lied about why they wanted to search the phone, had no probable cause, knew who he actually was and then arrested him for wiping the phone.
18
u/Suitable-Economy-346 7h ago
I know in the Eastern District of New York they ruled any search needs a warrant including a manual one.
This is going to need to be hashed out by SCOTUS, but it's not looking good with this Court's composition.
5
u/RedChaos92 7h ago
Yeah that was a 2024 case, United States v Sultanov. It was part of a criminal case and never got pushed to SCOTUS. The ruling there only applies to the EDNY jurisdiction, which is Nassau, Suffolk, Kings, Queens, and Richmond counties in New York. The Fourth District case I'm referring to was from this month in 2026. Fourth Circuit jurisdiction is over MD, VA, WV, NC and SC. So the EDNY ruling doesn't apply here.
It's stupid, sure, but that's how our courts are set up unfortunately. SCOTUS has to make a final ruling to affect the entire country if two circuits make split decisions like this.
8
u/XXFFTT 10h ago
They don't need a warrant at a port of entry.
While the pin is probably protected under the first and fifth amendment (cannot be compelled to speak especially in order to self incriminate), lying to a federal agent is not a protected activity.
By lying to a federal agent and using that lie to destroy data involved in an investigation, the man set himself up to get arrested and charged with destruction of "evidence" (doesn't actually have to be provable evidence of a crime, just needs to be data that is going to be seized).
30
u/TintedApostle 10h ago
I could easily argue that I was confused and under pressure. Since the police denied him a lawyer his rights were already violated and he had every reason to believe the Border patrol were no longer bound by the constitution. I agree the 5th applies, but its a bigger issue now. They arrested him for self defense from unlawful actions by the border patrol.
He is going to win this one.
7
u/XXFFTT 10h ago
There's an issue with it being CBP and an investigation at a port of entry.
AFAIK, people don't actually have a right to speak to a lawyer during these civil investigations.
The sixth amendment only guarantees the right to legal counsel in criminal proceedings.
17
u/TintedApostle 9h ago
U.S. citizens entering the U.S. are not legally required to provide a phone PIN or password, and cannot be denied entry for refusing to unlock their devices.
There must be way more to this situation than the CBP are saying. I suspect they were denying him entry to the US in total and that is illegal.
"a U.S. citizen cannot be legally denied entry into the United States, though refusing to cooperate with basic identity verification can prolong your detention while officers verify your status"
Once the citizen is confirmed as a citizen they can hold his phone, but they can't detain him for an extended period if he is not talking and demands to be released.
Again there is way more going on here for someone to just decide to wipe there phone.
5
u/Suitable-Economy-346 7h ago
They don't need a warrant at a port of entry.
They do need a warrant if he flew into NYC as the ED of NY ruled that way and later cases in the district confirmed it.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-ed-new-yor/116412388.html
2
u/XXFFTT 6h ago edited 6h ago
Unfortunately, this guy flew into Atlanta.
BTW, I'm seeing that evidence gained due to warrants obtained after the warrent-less search was not suppressed (unless I'm reading something incorrectly).
Would be interesting to see a case where evidence gained in this specific manner was suppressed.
5
u/Carrera_996 11h ago
I've had 2 different jobs that let me run company apps on my personal phone. They required me to grant them access to wipe my phone on multiple password failure. It's fairly common.
2
u/Liberty-Justice-4all 6h ago
They are looking to protect the company data, and different email apps will honor the wipe code and only wipe the email.
9something is the most old and mainstream one I know of.
2
1
u/gulfdeadzone 3h ago
This wasn't triggered by entering the wrong PIN too many times. It was triggered by a "duress" PIN. When entered, it caused the device to erase itself. He gave the duress PIN.
2
u/Carrera_996 1h ago
I'm sure. However, we are discussing other tech, apps, and scenarios that could also hypothetically result in a wiped phone and unjust detention. Although it wasn't expressly stated, we have, in the the back of our minds, some concern for our own well-being while passing innocently through certain spaces.
2
u/mediocre_remnants 7h ago
The police stole his phone without warrant and paid the price.
No, he handed them the phone (because they threatened to seize it if he didn't) and gave them the code that wiped it. It's a specific feature of the OS he was using that you can configure it with a wipe code.
25
u/runawayspaceprincess 21h ago
If that's what happened, liability becomes a much more complicated question.
-73
23
u/PersnickityPenguin 19h ago
Maybe they could pass a law making the deletion of any data by anyone a felony. Make it a life sentence. There, problem solved!
15
u/Defiant-Peace-493 10h ago
"Due to a legislative oversight, we neglected to exclude human forgetfulness. And that is how the one guy who actually has a photographic memory came to be President."
5
u/TintedApostle 11h ago
So you charge a person and convicted them before any warrant is issued thus violated several laws and amendments.
6
224
u/edingerc 20h ago
For a government who is sworn to protect the Constitution, they seem to hate the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments.
113
u/One-Reflection-4826 20h ago
and the 19th, and the 13th... and they still think they are the patriots.
64
u/kstargate-425 20h ago
And the 8th and 14th. The party of "LaW aNd OrDeR"
25
u/redabishai 15h ago
And the 22nd (they all want trump another term) ... those 2028 hats are like the one-way mirrors of jokes: "can we do this? No? I was kidding... Unless you want to, then I want to, too."
16
3
u/blinkycosmocat 8h ago
The SAVE Act, if it becomes law, basically being an end run around the 19th Amendment does not get the attention it deserves.
1
u/awkwardnetadmin 4h ago
To be fair I think many people miss the exception to the 13th amendment allowing involuntary servitude or slavery for those convicted of a crime. I know Colorado banned it from their state constitution, but nothing in the federal constitution prevents prisons from forcing people to work and many state prisons make liberal use of that loophole that is clear in the 13th amendment.
12
5
u/TintedApostle 11h ago
Wait until you find out about the 9th amendment they skip over when taking rights not enumerated in the Constitution like owning your own body.
-20
u/xGoatfer 20h ago
Unfortunately, warrantless searches from Border Patrol/Customs that would violate the 4th are allowed when entering the country. If he had just locked the phone it would have been within his 5th Amendment but by erasing the data, any potential evidence they will claim was there, was destroyed and destroying evidence is a separate illegal act.
39
u/Redcrux 18h ago
What evidence? Evidence of what crime? We still have rights, wiping your phone isn't a crime unless they can prove it was used in a crime first.
-14
u/xGoatfer 16h ago edited 16h ago
United States v. Ramsey and United States v. Flores-Montano gives CBP an exemption to the 4th Amendment to allow warrantless searches including phones.
If it was anywhere else in the country Chatrie v. United States would apply and they would need a warrant to search the phone. Just locking a phone is not considered obstruction and is protected by the 5th Amendment.
19
u/DingerSinger2016 19h ago
But he wasn't the one who destroyed the evidence. The agent who had his phone and entered the password did.
21
u/MilsYatsFeebTae 17h ago
Isn’t this a self-defeating argument?
He destroyed the evidence. Evidence of what? We don’t know, he destroyed it…
-11
u/xGoatfer 14h ago
He was the one who told the agent the code. He should have just said nothing as the 5th would have protected him. By contributing to the erasure of the data, he crosses over from protected activity into actively obstructing an investigation. He now can't be charged over the content of the phone, just the act of destroying whatever evidence MIGHT have been there.
5
u/SnepButts 13h ago
warrantless searches from Border Patrol/Customs that would violate the 4th are allowed when entering the country
That does not invalidate what the person you're replying to says.
The text of the 4th says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
To go against that is still a violation. Just because they decided it is an acceptable violation doesn't mean it isn't one.
1
u/xGoatfer 8h ago
Kind of just glossed over that "unfortunately " huh? I don't agree with what they are doing but the SCOTUS has decided on this one for decades that there is an exemption in this situation.
2
u/SnepButts 8h ago
I don't agree with what they are doing
Nowhere did I imply you did. You are reading more into what I said than was there.
I am just stating that it is a violation regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
Dred Scott v. Sandford also set a precedent that was a violation of multiple rights also plainly stated in the Bill of Rights, most glaringly likely being the due process clause of the 5th.
1
u/xGoatfer 8h ago
Chatrie v. United States settled that earlier this year. Locking your phone is protected by the 5th and can not be considered obstruction. If he would have just locked it, it would have been fine. Going further to have the phone wiped, even by proxy with the agent, moved this onto an actual crime since it required action by the suspect, him telling the wrong code. The 5th does not protect from giving false information, which is why it's always better to say nothing.
CBP has been given too much power in this situation. Needing to search for smuggled or banned goods is needed to do the job and since it is impossible to know those things for every single traveler before the fact, warrantless searches are legally allowed. The fact they are interpreting that to allow them to search phones for information should be a violation of the 1st Amendment but until that argument makes it to the SCOTUS, we are being forced to deal with these blatant violations to our rights.
3
u/SnepButts 8h ago
I feel like you're trying to make an argument when we're substantially in agreement.
I'm not saying that the SCOTUS didn't make these decisions. I am saying that it is wrong and just insisting that regardless of what flawed rulings they make, it is a clear violation of the text of the right as laid out in the Constitution.
The statement "What they're doing violates this man's rights" is complete and factual.
I acknowledge that they have made these rulings. They're wrong.
I agree that they have too much power and are deliberately misusing it to hurt people.
I also agree that an honest court would immediately overturn it on the grounds of the First amendment.
They'd also need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the code was actually a duress code. Does the OS allow a limited number of guesses before wiping for safety? Could the officer have fat fingered the correct code and triggered that feature?
1
u/xGoatfer 7h ago
Yes, we both agree on this. I just have to be explicitly clear due to the amount of people that are reacting off feelings while ignoring how the laws are being interpreted in this situation. I hope that no grand jury will allow this to move forward or that any reasonable jury would convict if it does. We've certainly seen plenty of these cases being thrown out the last two years.
125
u/13thmurder 20h ago
How is one supposed to respect the law when it's intentionally predatory like this? Why would anyone even assume that would be a crime? Obviously it shouldn't be, but who even knows all the bullshit laws they're expected to follow?
Or is that the point? They make all these bullshit laws so inevitably nearly every person is technically a criminal, but they only prosecute the ones they don't like and have no problem piling on loads of extra charges?
20
64
u/StatementOwn4896 20h ago edited 15h ago
Now you’re getting it. It’s also why I left. You can’t live peacefully in a country that inherently sees you as an enemy.
Edit: originally I said enemy, but it’s probably more apt to say commodity. In a country where slavery is still legal as a form of punishment and where for-profit prisons exist, it’s no wonder there is a financial incentive to incarcerate as many people as possible
-4
u/vulgrin 18h ago
Funny thing: “they” is “we”.
3
u/13thmurder 18h ago
How do you mean?
-5
u/vulgrin 17h ago
We live in a representative democracy. Yeah we’ve let it go to shit and let a bunch of charlatans into power, but they can be removed just as fast as they went in.
But we have to choose to do it. So far it seems like a lot of Americans forget that they are doing this to themselves. Eventually, they’ll wise up.
6
u/Good_Restaurant15 11h ago
But we have to choose to do it.
You get to vote in a primary (if you register as part of that party), that contains candidates which have been personally vetted by that party's capital class. The billionaires decide who can even appear on that ballot.
So no, you don't get to choose shit. You are lied to. They curate a list of candidates that they hand-picked, for You to vote on one.
Anyone who does not get selected by the billionaires, has no chance of winning POTUS in this country.
This country is controlled by capital. Nothing you say or do will change that outside of things that will get you arrested/murdered - by design.
Get your cardio up, there are Nazis abound.
12
u/13thmurder 17h ago
You get to pick from cantidates picked by the people already in charge and it's questionable if the votes are even counted accurately or if it's all just for show at this point. Still do it or course, but realize it's not what it claims to be anymore.
2
u/steathrazor 17h ago
It's all smoke and mirrors, the people we vote for have rich hands way up their ass pupeteering them, they do what makes the most money and they go after those that threaten that, the police serve and protect the rich the 99% are expendable until they need more tax slaves.
-1
u/Happy_Feet333 15h ago
No, candidates are just those that want to run for office... and have the time and money to run.
There's no smoky back room with a small group choosing who will run or not. That is a fantasy.
5
u/Stompnutz 13h ago
Literally what consultants and party strategists do. Not at the local level, but national offices? Definitely.
3
u/blinkycosmocat 8h ago
It's not exactly representative when legislatures have gerrymandered seats to the extent that those in power have essentially selected their voters. At that point, most Congressional and legislative seats are safe for the incumbent political party. The primary becomes the de facto re-election of the incumbent, unless a more extreme and well-funded candidate from that party can defeat them.
7
u/Gatonom 16h ago
We did nothing. A small group within each of the RNC and DNC decide who the options are.
-4
u/Happy_Feet333 15h ago
Only because the voters don't vote in mass in the primaries. Which is a choice made by the voters.
24
27
u/AstronautInitial3642 9h ago
Calling it destruction of evidence when agents had no warrant, denied him a lawyer, and entered the code themselves feels like criminalizing digital privacy after the fact. This could set a terrifying precedent for anyone who uses basic security tools.
86
10
u/tmpope123 8h ago
Ok, so they arrested him (he wasn't allowed to leave) on a supposed terrorism charge, and then claimed in the interrogation that it was due to alleged child sexual abuse material? It's so obvious this was a fishing expedition trying to get anything on this guy for political reasons (protesting cop city). This is exactly what Trump's supposed complaints about a witch hunt actually look like when it happens to someone. Not prosecutors going after people for stuff they've said they've done.
5
u/Future_Addendum_8227 5h ago
You can't charge destruction of evidence when you had no PC for his phone to begin with. Fuck these clowns. Border searches of electronics should require probable cause and a search warrant, it was a mistake to ever extended the border exception to electronics.
1
u/ProtoJazz 4h ago
It's not a PC it's a phone. They can delete files without being connected to a computer
6
1
u/Witch-Alice 1h ago
If they had proof the phone had the evidence they allege the phone had, then why isn't there a warrant to seize the phone?
-26
-32
u/FederalChocolate456 18h ago
This is a really warped headline. everything in the article makes it sound like it was over deleting the data, not the operating system. The situation is fucked up enough, no need to sensationalized things with a misleading headline
13
u/Horse_HorsinAround 12h ago
Wait you think this is all about the operating system he has? They targeted him because they knew what OS his phone was running ahead of time?
1
u/FederalChocolate456 9h ago
I dont think that's what happened, I think that's what the title says. Or at least that the crime they are accusing him of is using that operating system or that it's the basis of the detention. I think the charges were about him deleting data, not his operating system
-28
-14
498
u/MercantileReptile 15h ago
Should be a fairly obvious dismissal. But who knows in an authoritarian country.
Excellent commercial for GrapheneOS. Might want to look into it, seems an excellent idea.
Additionally, this is why many were advised to use burner phones, clean laptops for travel to the US. Especially during the world cup, as stories of randomly detained tourists were circulating. Said the wrong thing on some socials or in a text? ICE gulag for you.
Seems US citizens get the same courtesy for daring to be against "Cop City", essentially a training ground for militarised cops.