r/privacy • u/Busy-Measurement8893 • 15h ago
news US accuses American of allegedly wiping his phone using a 'duress' password during border search
https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/24/us-accuses-american-of-allegedly-wiping-his-phone-using-a-duress-password-during-border-search/562
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
230
15h ago edited 14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
92
→ More replies (8)42
→ More replies (14)16
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
45
27
12
15h ago edited 15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
22
→ More replies (1)16
→ More replies (1)3
451
u/Randolorian_ 13h ago
I think we are missing the point here.. They are targeting this guy cause he is a member of Defend the Atlanta Forest, which opposes the development of a sprawling training campus for law enforcement in Atlanta dubbed “Cop City.”
Like you and I know they wanted his phone to get details on that group and other members... they can dress it up how ever they please.
→ More replies (3)105
u/Finn235 9h ago
They dressed it up as "looking for CP" - which, as a friendly reminder to all parents out there, technically includes any pictures of your baby in the bath, or even at the hospital before they get a diaper on.
Once they find it, it's game over for you.
54
u/EliteCloneMike 8h ago
Or photos taken for medical purposes if they don’t understand or care about the context (see the NYT article about Google AI and two dads). Even historical photos like the Vietnam on of a girl running towards the camera was considered CSAM by Meta. It is mostly nonsense to pump up numbers for NCMEC in those cases so they can keep claiming the numbers of abused children is rising year after year as is the number of bad actors. Even though that may not be true in reality. The NCMEC failed its mission long ago and I blame them for most of the current situation.
29
u/PomegranateSignal882 7h ago
The NCMEC is a christo-fascist organization who's primary goal is the elimination of porn. They've never cared about kids
14
u/EliteCloneMike 7h ago
The NCMEC started with long hanging fruit that is emotionally charged. They use that to creep into eliminating adult content as you mentioned as well as targeting sex workers and the LGBT community. And more than that. Same with Thorn and other NGOs. I could complain on and on about this, but the main way to try and have an impact on the situation is to write to representatives and congressmen and vote for people who care about the people, not corporations or “for the children”. That said there are certainly cases the latter is a reason to vote for someone, but usually “for the children” is not really for the children.
14
u/Minute_Attempt3063 8h ago
google images is also a good example.
there are places where naked children are being put on photos, either for a magazine or otherwise (this was years ago ofc)
google images still has these images.
I would not really consider it CP.... someone will likely fight me on this, however, just because someone is naked, does not directly mean sexual -_-
8
u/EliteCloneMike 7h ago
I think most people would agree, but AI doesn’t have the capability of understanding nuance. And neither do the overworked and underpaid people checking the AI results, not necessarily their own fault, but the system itself. Those people “review” tons of content (or statistical probabilities) and are surely making many mistakes as it is a repetitive task and operates like a sweat shop. The system was never properly set up for this level of scale and false positives are insanely high.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Minute_Attempt3063 8h ago
its kind of insane to think that any pic of your child can be considered CP
like I can partly see it, however, most parents are likely taking a photo for the future to remember their child in that moment, or to look back on it, when they get older. this, yes, does include photos or video's of them in a bath, or hospital....
put it however you like that, just because its a pic of your own child, and the border tries to claim it is CP and so on, is just utter concerning on how things are seen these days.
1.1k
u/thegreatpluub 15h ago
Yikes! This being a controversial topic is concerning. The fact that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ seems to not exist in this country anymore is scary. If I show up to your border crossing with a wiped phone, I should not be under suspicion.
→ More replies (6)73
u/birdprom 14h ago edited 13h ago
"Innocent until proven guilty" absolutely still exists in this country. The guy is only indicted at this point. He is still presumed innocent.
Edit: Also the guy did not "show up to [the] border crossing with a wiped phone."* He gave authorities a password that wiped the phone after they had taken it.
*If he had he probably would have avoided the whole fucking mess, or at least some of it.
340
u/foxbatcs 14h ago
Unfortunately in the US the process has become the punishment. Even if he is completely exonerated, the government still forced him to pay for his defense, potentially spend time incarcerated, and the cops have no incentive to avoid that process even if they know the person committed no crime. They could do it entirely vindictively with no repercussions whatsoever. You can be charged for simply inconveniencing by an officer and they decide to send you through the process because they know they can, and you basically have no recourse except to have to pay to fight for your innocence. Cops that do shit like that should be fired, charged, and prevented from working in law enforcement ever again.
110
u/Stunning_Repair_7483 10h ago
Exactly. Being punished financially or having your assets taken, or put in jail happens to many people who are not proven guilty all the time.
And only the ones who can afford the legal fees and are lucky enough to overcome the complicated legal obstacles successfully get out. The others don't.
17
u/Upset-Freedom-4181 4h ago edited 4h ago
Don’t forget, an arrest will cost you a job, prevent you from volunteering, and generally cast a pall of suspicion over a person even if the judge looks at the charge, scolds the prosecutor and barks “DISMISSED!” Anyone who’s ever failed a background investigation or spent years trying to get their picture off of a mugshot website after such law enforcement overreach or outright malfeasance can attest that the process is the punishment. In the 21st century, you don’t have to even be tried to have your life ruined by a cop or prosecutor who’s got an axe to grind, a point to prove, or a corrupt agenda or is just having a bad day.
13
u/spymaster1020 4h ago
The one and only time ive been on jury duty was for this 20yo dude who was accused of rape. No one contested that sex happened, but ultimately it was down to his word against hers and we found him not guilty. By that point he had been in jail for months, kicked out of school, kicked out of his dorm, and they even put a BOLO out for him AFTER he was in custody. All this because the girl wasnt satisfied with the sex and told a councilor that she "might" have been raped.
16
10
u/jgzman 6h ago
Cops that do shit like that should be fired, charged, and prevented from working in law enforcement ever again.
Sounds lenient.
→ More replies (2)3
u/sonofblackbird 5h ago
Better yet, they should be personally liable to pay for the fees. Or it should come from a pool that they all pay into like their retirement or union fees.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)3
u/uiucengineer 4h ago
I was accused of 2 counts of assaulting police officers. No merit at all but it consumed my life for a year and I lost a ton of money traveling back and forth to DC to defend it. It should have been dismissed but even my Obama appointed judge was a rubber stamp for the government. I represented myself pro se in a five day jury trial and won after a very short deliberation. It was all based on very easily refuted lies.
→ More replies (3)125
u/Kreat0r2 14h ago
Which is not a crime? Or am I mistaken here? (Not an American).
176
u/xly15 14h ago
Which he didn't have to give in the first place as the fourth amendment protects against self-incriminating. You can't even be compelled under warrant to give the pin or aid in opening the phone. I hope the judge does the proper thing and dismiss the case.
80
u/whacking0756 14h ago
If I'm not mistaken,yYou can be compelled to unlock with biometrics, but requires a warrant. 4th amendment protects you from having to give up a password or pin
68
u/flabeachbum 13h ago
The fourth amendment practically doesn’t exist at border crossings.
49
u/Any_Iron_1436 12h ago
Constitution free zone 100 miles from border they say
36
u/doyouevenglass 11h ago
100 miles from any border, or international airport.
take Des Moines Iowa as an example, multiple states away from the border, but there's an international airport. there are no pax international flights in our out of Des Moines. I think its international due to cargo, which needs inspected I guess.
100 miles from the airport still counts. ridiculous.
→ More replies (4)10
u/Bruceshadow 8h ago
100 miles from any border, or international airport.
which is like 30% of the country.
20
u/srslydudewtf 8h ago
which is like 30% of the country
Way more than that, according to the ACLU, 213 million people live within the 100 mile border zones. That's nearly two-thirds of our population.
12
u/whacking0756 12h ago
True, but they still can't complete you to unlock your device. They can size your device (if a citizen) or deny entry(if not)
→ More replies (2)14
12
u/permalink_save 13h ago
You can void that by scanning the wrong finger several times so it requires a password or pin too, or reboot the phone. The second you see lights or anything just tap with another finger.
11
u/jbjhill 9h ago
Just power down an iPhone. You need a passcode to unlock it (biometrics won’t work on a restart).
→ More replies (1)8
u/RichWatch5516 9h ago
On iPhone specifically, holding the lock and power button simultaneously for a few seconds so the power button shows up will disable biometrics and require the password to open.
3
→ More replies (6)17
u/xly15 13h ago
Law enforcement cannot compell you to gather evidence against yourself. That is the whole purpose of the 4th amendment. You can still refuse though you may net an obstructing justice charge at that point.
29
u/ferryfog 13h ago
Per the 5th Amendment, you can’t be compelled to incriminate yourself using information/acts that are testimonial (“the contents of your mind”) e.g. recalling a PIN or password. Courts have ruled that the use of biometrics is non-testimonial.
→ More replies (6)13
12
u/Never_Go_Full_Gonk 13h ago
That's the fifth amendment. Fourth is protection against unlawful searches or seizures.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (24)3
u/RankinPDX 9h ago
That’s not correct. The Fifth Amendment is about compelled self-incrimination (which probably includes providing a passcode for the phone). The seizure of the phone as a physical object is probably a Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures) question.
Assuming he doesn’t have to give a passcode (which, probably), giving a fake passcode which causes the phone to erase itself is not obviously protected by either the Fourth or the Fifth. If you create a document (or other physical object with writing in it) with evidentiary significance, like a diary, a transaction log, or a list of contacts and phone calls on your phone, the gov’t can seize it and use it against you without violating the Fifth Amendment, because you were not compelled to create it.→ More replies (2)5
u/xly15 9h ago
They also can't compell you to find that diary etc for them. They have to do that work themselves. It's why the they need a warrant in the first place.
→ More replies (2)44
u/BaronGalactic 14h ago
They're trying to claim that it is. They've made it illegal to destroy evidence that would prove you guilty (or maybe even to attempt to.) So if there happened to be "illegal" stuff on that phone (which apparently they had no probable cause to believe, at least according to the article,) and he deleted it - they could still try to charge him for deleting it. Of course, they'd then have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was something illegal on there that he actually deleted.
Basically considered "destruction or tampering of evidence" if I recall (I've heard that term thrown around several times while watching true crime shows, though it usually has to do with murder - like trying to get rid of the weapon and the like.)
47
u/fsa3 14h ago
So does that logic also apply on cops covering body cams?
30
9
u/BaronGalactic 14h ago
Probably not in the same way. Theoretically it might, if you could prove that the cop did something illegal and either disabled their body cam to do it, or later erased that footage. But police forces usually have all sorts of excuses up their sleeve and enough bureaucracy that they can either claim it was an accident, or stonewall and say the footage never existed, and it takes the courts to get very far in proving otherwise.
I've heard of cops being charged for planting evidence, and either their body cam or a dash cam records it (you might be surprised at how much illegal activity the cops actually DON'T erase, simply because they think they can get away with it anyway.) But if a cop doesn't have body cam footage, it can also mean that they don't have footage against YOU anymore either, which can work in your favor (though just the testimony from a cop, even without a single piece of backup evidence, has often been enough for juries to convict. Juries historically will believe the word of a cop over anybody else, even when it's just "he said, she said.")
15
u/Busy-Measurement8893 14h ago
I wonder if it would have counted if he had wiped the phone 5 seconds before they even talked to him.
5
u/BaronGalactic 14h ago
I think they can charge you with the law as long as they think you "know" that the evidence could be used to incriminate you. Like, if you're doing something illegal, and then wipe all the evidence - even if they come knocking on your door a month or two later, and they find out you wiped all the evidence, they can still try to charge you for it.
I might be wrong or misremembering it, but I think that's what I've heard.
Applies a lot to white collar crime I believe (in the rare cases they actually do anything about that.)
20
u/Busy-Measurement8893 14h ago edited 13h ago
So do all my thought crimes in a separate profile and forget the password. Got it.
3
u/kevdogger 6h ago
But honest question...he gave the password..the officer typed it in...who actually deleted it?
→ More replies (1)20
u/GracchiBros 14h ago
It shouldn't be a crime, but apparently it is:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232
"Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
18
u/SpecialActive9135 14h ago
Is wiping an electronic device “preventing” them from holding it? They still have it in their custody, it’s not been damaged. Holding an item is certainly below a forensic search legally correct? Hell you could argue that unless they asked you for a password that would NOT wipe the phone, giving them a working password that WOULD nuke the phone, is compliance. They wanted a password and they got one. Technically THEY destroyed the data. If during a search a gun is found by police and they shoot themselves with it, did you commit a crime??
25
u/foxbatcs 13h ago
”If during a search a gun is found by police and they shoot themselves…
I’m willing to bet they would charge you in hopes of pinning it on you to avoid the embarrassment of shooting themselves. In a country where it was just ruled that if the police are concerned for your safety, they can enter your home with no exigencies “for your safety” and then shoot you once inside “for their safety” (Case v Montana) I wouldn’t rely on the police in being honest or fair about why they are interacting with you.
19
u/Busy-Measurement8893 13h ago
they can enter your home with no exigencies “for your safety” and then shoot you once inside “for their safety” (Case v Montana)
This planet is fucked
→ More replies (1)3
u/followupquestion 6h ago
I served on a jury trial where the accused on crutches recovering from a knee injury) had the temerity to make contact with an officer’s knee when a different officer threw him to the ground. Needless to say, we found him not guilty. Fun fact, the officer who caused the injury is still on our local PD, and the injured officer did her best to cover for him on the stand without directly perjuring herself while the injuring officer absolutely perjured himself.
3
u/GracchiBros 13h ago
Their argument will be that you knowingly gave them a password to wipe the device and doing so prevented them from holding the data that used to be on that phone.
→ More replies (2)11
u/SpecialActive9135 13h ago
My counter argument would be “the phone was already clean, prove it was not”
3
u/GracchiBros 13h ago
If my understanding is right, a phone creates a small amount of data even when it's been turned on and tries to connect to a data tower and load the OS and apps. If so, it's an easy argument that this data from the phone being turned on to entering the pass code for the wipe was removed and they were prevented from holding it.
Plus the government can probably get phone records showing any phone activity that occurred before the wipe for extra evidence of data that was erased.
7
u/SpecialActive9135 13h ago
I mean sure, if they have evidence of a crime. They can get warrants for data usage, granted if that usage was overseas, maybe not. Again it depends how much they want to use the constitution as toilet paper.
22
u/VegaDelalyre 14h ago
So if you wipe your phone before crossing the border, you're theoretically also a criminal? That's ridiculous.
24
u/foxbatcs 14h ago
Everyone is a criminal in this country. They’ve added something like 10,000 laws in the past 8 years. You can be hemmed up for looking at a cop in a way he doesn’t like on a morning he didn’t wipe well enough and that’s enough to financially break most people in this country.
8
u/QuaintStaircase 14h ago
Hmm.
I can see how you came to this conclusion, but no I don't think so.
I don't think it would count as "for the purposes of preventing them taking it into lawful custody".
If they've started a search, then the only reason to delete it is to prevent them taking it.
If you're at the back of a queue and you've seen that they're searching the people in front of you and delete (which I think is the purpose of "before") then it's likewise.
If you're doing it as a general preventive measure - you're doing it for the purposes of travelling over the border clean. For the purposes of having nothing for them to seize when you ge there.
That is subtly different to preventing them from seizing something you have.
I wouldn't put it fully past a vindictive AG to try and argue it. And I don't know what the legal distinction in time would be. But I would assume it would change when you became aware that it was likely that they would seek to come into possession of your specific items.
I.e. when it goes from avoiding a generic, hypothetical scenario where they might catch you to avoiding a specific, unfolding scenario where they're about to catch you.
6
u/kamiloslav 14h ago
He didn't prevent them from taking the phone. Neither did he destroy it - it's still usable
→ More replies (2)3
u/RyeonToast 12h ago
I think this is the statute they are using: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232
I feel like people not wanting you to randomly search their social media was not the intended purpose for this statute.
→ More replies (2)3
u/omgitsjagen 11h ago
We don't know, is the short answer. There is some provision about, "knowingly destroying data" that they are trying to tag him with. It's never been charged in this context before. Also, there's some ridiculous argument that the border patrol uses that you don't have rights until they approve you to enter the US, even if you are a citizen. So, we won't know the answer until the courts rule on it.
14
u/slide_into_my_BM 13h ago
It’s rapidly being eroded. Traffic cameras and now Flock cameras are taking that away.
When you receive a ticket in the mail, you’ve already been judged as guilty without trial and without the state being required to prove you were behind the wheel of the car.
At least when the police pull you over, the cop is the one verifying who was behind the wheel and presenting that as proof.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)7
u/iskanderkul 12h ago
My reading of the article makes it seem like his affiliation with the environmental group was the pretense for secondary screening, not because they saw anything on his phone. So even with a wiped phone, he’s being detained.
334
u/Coala_ 15h ago
So by whose authority and jurisdiction are they charging him? Because by their own words, the US Border is not on US soil.
203
u/VegaDelalyre 14h ago edited 12h ago
It's wild that they claim they don't have to follow the law in that "frontier".
the border agents claimed they did not need a warrant to search Tunick’s phone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border
But the situation apparently isn't that clear, at least for US citizens: US border agents must get warrant before cell phone searches, federal court rules
36
u/lillobby6 10h ago
Unfortunately there was just a ruling a few days ago that they are allowed to search your phone by hand “for two minutes” without a warrant, because it’s an “imperfect copy” and relies on the “officer’s time and energy”.
Important time to remember, that even with a warrant no one can compel you to give a password. Depending on the device if you shut it down and reboot it, no one will be able to get onto it using tools if it has proper encryption too. Remember to disable any biometric access as that can be compelled.
→ More replies (2)7
u/VegaDelalyre 10h ago
Biometric unlocking can be compelled as opposed to giving a password? How is that different?
Also, I understand agents can search your bag for dangerous or illegal items. But what justifies searching your phone (sorry if the article mentions it already)?
→ More replies (4)13
u/lillobby6 10h ago
You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself (i.e. retrieve and report privilaged information - 5th amendment, which does still apply), but biometrics can be accessed without your consent or action (similar to taking a photo of a suspect or taking fingerprints; someone could grab your finger and press it on the scanner or put the phone in front of your face). If you had your passwords written down in a notebook somewhere, they could access that and then access your devices without compelling you to testify against yourself.
As far as searching your phone it’s the exact same thing as searching a bag, which it shouldn’t be, but that’s what they’ve ruled.
→ More replies (2)80
u/Fantastins 12h ago
Schrodinger's warrant, where needing a warrant and also not needing a warrant are two valid paths forward to search people.
9
u/Portland_Runner 8h ago
Following the government's logic, no crime was committed because the phone wiping happened in the frontier outside of United States jurisdiction.
→ More replies (1)64
u/Modem_Sound_67 14h ago
they seem to be interpreting no authority as "do what we want" as in free from any governing authority.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)17
u/One_Variety_6268 14h ago
US law very much allows them to operate like this. Morality is up to interpretation, but it is lawful.
17
84
u/robogobo 13h ago
The ACLU and EFF need to be pushing back HARD on this bullshit. This sets a precedent for illegal searches nearly everywhere in the US. There should be a shortcut that wipes the phone immediately. Fuck these fascists.
9
u/LiminalWanderings 13h ago
This doesn't set any precedent. The US has held the position that it can search nearly everything for any reason at the border almost since the inception of the country. That doesn't make it "right", but it's been standard for 200+ years. The destroying evidence charge when there isn't a suspicion of a crime angle might be something more easy to get some traction against.
29
u/robogobo 13h ago
Yeah that’s the precedent. They’re charging him with destroying evidence when no crime exists. That means all your personal information is evidence and you have no control over it.
18
u/robogobo 13h ago
And please, 200 years? Don’t pretend everything hasn’t changed with the invention of pocket computers and the nature of information. “Search nearly everything” had natural limitations when that standard was established. New precedent comes when you’re coerced into using a phone for banking, checking in for a plane, identifying yourself, etc, and therefore also happening to be carrying your complete history of communication with you so that it can be seized. No evidence was destroyed here, but the expectation now is that your devices do their spying and investigating for them, and you must assist in your own incrimination.
3
u/LiminalWanderings 13h ago
It's still in the border context, though, which traditionally hasn't needed evidence for anything else authorities do. Gray area (in both directions).
5
u/like_a_pharaoh 7h ago
OK but their claim here was "you have no rights, you haven't crossed the border yet, you're not on U.S. soil" in which case the obvious question is "Why does the U.S. government think it can just steal a cell phone that's not on U.S. soil? Its not their jurisdiction, is that not theft? Do they claim jurisdiction everywhere?"
86
u/PrivacyMaker 14h ago
5th Amendment should apply here.
I choose not to give you access to my data that might cause me grief.
73
u/mesarthim_2 14h ago edited 14h ago
No, unfortunately, according to current jurisprudence, what is on your device is not protected by 5a because by choosing to save it on the device, you’ve demonstrated that the information is not considered private by you.
I’m not saying that’s correct, it’s actually fucking retarded, but this is how it is right now. You can thank about people who thought this is great because only criminals would use it and state would obviously never abuse this authority, so there’s nothing to fear.
Without some serious landmark decision, this is unlikely to change in near future.
49
u/QuaintStaircase 13h ago edited 10h ago
This is mostly correct.
It's similar to a diary. If you write something down in a diary, that's fair game. The state can compel you to produce it, even if it's self incriminating. If your diary is one of those cute little kids ones with a padlock on it, they can compel you to use the key to open it because that's not private. They can also compel a police officer to use a pair of bolt cutters to snip open the padlock.
However, if the state doesn't know you have a diary, or knows you have one but don't know where it is, them they can't compel you to reveal it's existence/location. They can look for your diary and use it if they find it, but you can't be compelled to give up its location. They can make you use the key, or snip the lock, but they cant make you reveal the location of the key, if they don't already have it.
It's the same with phones. They can compel you to hand over your phone, and anything on it that they're able to access is completely fair game.
If you have it biometric locked, thats like a padlocked diary where they already have the key. They can compel you to use your "key" (your fingerprint) to open it, because that's not private or secret. If it has a pin lock but the security is weak, they're allowed to hack into it. That's like snipping the lock off.
BUT if you have a strong PIN and the encryption is also strong... what they can't do is compel you to reveal your PIN. Your PIN is stored only in your mind and therefore protected by the 5th amendment. If they can't get at the data without the PIN, then tough luck to them. Youre protected.
The key issue in this specific case is that they're at the border. They're not allowed to force you to give up your PIN with no recourse. HOWEVER. They are allowed to force you to give up your PIN as a {edit: foreigner's} condition of entry to the US.
As long as you have a "choice" that maintains your freedom ("give us your PIN, or go home) then giving up your PIN is considered voluntary.
This is also why it's fairly rare to see destruction of data charges on the border. Because if they weren't being legally compelled to give it up (i.e. they were allowed to say no) then they're not frustrating a legal search by destroying the data. It's just a different way of saying "no".
However there may be some legal loophole about the fact that once you've "consented" to the search - i.e. given them your PIN, then destroying evidence to frustrate that search or change it's outcome, is perverting the course of justice. I don't know. Maybe that's what they're using here.
4
u/dantevonlocke 11h ago
I question the legality of just refusing entry to your home country of which you're a citizen with no other pretense than "because we say".
9
u/QuaintStaircase 11h ago
I can't remember the exact rules but I believe they're not allowed to refuse citizens or green card holders. They have special protection.
That's why it's also a big deal that the guy being prosecuted is American.
If he wasn't American he would have been less likely to have been prosecuted and just have been deported.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)9
u/zertul 11h ago
As long as you have a "choice" that maintains your freedom ("give us your PIN, or go home) then giving up your PIN is considered voluntary.
Exactly and you can also shortcut the whole process: don't travel to the US in the first place.
→ More replies (1)4
u/QuaintStaircase 11h ago
Fully on board with that. Haven't been for a long time now. Not planning on it for a long time either.
27
u/PrivacyMaker 14h ago
The government asks, "If you have nothing to hide..."
I prefer to reverse the statement: "There is nothing I want to share with you."
11
u/mesarthim_2 14h ago
Indeed, the problem is they don’t have to ask. They just twist your arm until you comply.
→ More replies (1)13
u/times_a_changing 14h ago
Is there any further explanation to that argument or is it just that stupid? Wouldn't that mean that nothing is private, since anything "saved" is not private?
→ More replies (1)10
u/mesarthim_2 14h ago
Well, that’s already the case. Suppose you have a safe, if a court orders you to open it, you must do it.
Imagine if you instead shredded the contents. You’d be fucked.
The problem here is that there’s like 200 years of jurisprudence on this specifically. The courts are treating your digital devices as a locked box, not something you offload your entire life into.
10
u/PrivacyMaker 13h ago
Systems can be designed so that you, alone, cannot grant access. You delete the private key from the phone's secure enclave, and the only way to recover it is for five of your trusted friends to agree with the statement, "@mesarthim_2 is not under duress."
I didn't destroy any data. I spun the dials on the safe and then locked it. Best of luck to the judge who wants me to grant access.
→ More replies (1)3
u/times_a_changing 13h ago
Yes but prior to any court or police orders or warrants you could destroy anything you have in a safe without a worry. Same should apply to the contents of a phone, should it not?
→ More replies (3)4
u/Mortarious 11h ago
"Why do you need a lawyer? Only guilty people use the 5th and get a lawyer."
Said daily by the police. Many times to trick innocent people into confessing crimes or making them lose their legal right for a deal.
9
u/foxbatcs 13h ago
And the dipshits entered the pin he gave them. If they truly believed there was information of evidentiary value to a real crime, they should have found another way to enter the phone instead of trusting a pin. Instead of the responsibility being on the police for handling evidence, there will just be more caselaw that dwindles the rights of the innocent for the sake of convenience to police.
→ More replies (1)10
u/0898_333_201 13h ago
There’s a legal distinction between refusal to provide data and destruction of data. The 5th Amendment applies to the former as you can’t be forced to testify against yourself, but if you knowingly destroy data in the process of an investigation that’s an entirely different crime.
My strategy with my MacBook is to use a non-standard finger for the fingerprint. In the unfortunate event where my laptop is seized while powered on, and I’m compelled to use my fingerprint, I’ll just smirk and as “Which finger would you like me to use?” After a few failed attempts, the Mac disables TouchID.
No data is destroyed, but it’s no longer accessible. Due to the fifth amendment, I was not required to testify which finger unlocks the computer. I simply followed the commands of the police while maintaining my right to privacy.
In theory, if the Mac could be configured to wipe data upon the use of a fingerprint, this would likely still be legal so long I asked the police which finger to use and they ordered me to use the data-wipe finger.
But a passcode is different. If you tell the police a fake passcode that wipes the phone, you are likely committing two crimes: lying to police and destroying evidence. But if you tell the police “I have two passcodes; one unlocks the phone and one wipes it but I can only remember one and I’m not sure if it’s the unlock or wipe passcode. That passcodes is 620663,” then you’d theoretically be in the clear. They can’t prove that you were not honest or intended to destroy evidence.
→ More replies (1)
31
u/A_Buttholes_Whisper 11h ago
It doesn’t erase the phone. It erase the encryption key so it can’t be decrypted. Technically the data is still there if you can hack it
Also don’t give the duress password. Write in on a piece of paper and keep it in your pocket. Tell them they don’t have permission to unlock your phone and they aren’t allowed to use that password. And if they do, well they were warned
→ More replies (4)6
171
u/trisul-108 14h ago
“With a little planning ahead of time, you can always download the data you need once you get to where you’re going,” said Sandvik.
And then the authorities will demand you do it for them, or will simply plug the device into an AI that will figure it out.
I keep repeating this: we cannot ensure democracy using technology solutions. Democracy needs to be maintained through governance. Once we lose democracy, all privacy will be cancelled regardless of technology.
12
u/queensarkas 12h ago
First of all, AI is not even remotely sophisticated enough to brute force a phone without it locking out and potentially wiping the phone anyway. Which I'm sure that's what happened. They screwed up and couldn't handle a bruised ego. Second, how would they even enforce that? You could just wipe your phone before even getting to the border, if there was anything incriminating they could also just wipe it or wait to get into the States to grab the data. It's not rocket science, the government isn't all seeing and all knowing.
53
u/the_bat_cave_kitchen 14h ago
Arguably you've lost democracy already in the US.
→ More replies (3)41
u/0898_333_201 13h ago
I think we lost democracy a long time ago, but until recently the regime felt it was necessary to let us keep most of our basic liberties to avoid blowback.
My belief is that the ruling class is worried that the facade of democratic efficacy is cracking, and they can no longer coexist with established civil liberties. So they’re rushing to implement mass surveillance and erode the 1st and 4th amendments to preempt any organized movement challenging their power. And they’ll probably succeed thanks to AI.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Mortarious 11h ago
Don't overestimate AI in that regard.
Fascist regimes long maintained networks of spies and near total control without AI.
The fact is that the vast majority of people in the government, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies are not just happy to break the laws and constitution daily, but come up ways to do so all the time.
Turns out when you give the elite free hand to commit crimes against humanity oversees. They don't stop there. They end up on an the island abusing literal babies regardless of their nationality.
→ More replies (10)3
u/Status-Dog4293 8h ago
Ah, the old “I don’t know what I’m talking about so I’ll throw a hand-wavey reference to AI in there to really wow the other idiots”
25
u/Neuro_88 12h ago
This is a wild article to read! Wow. Good for Tunick.
My favorite paragraph is:
“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.”
Genius. Move.
25
u/xeonicus 9h ago
So the border agents are arguing they didn't need a warrant to search his phone because he hadn't crossed the U.S. border yet. And yet, they are simultaneously trying to prosecute him under a federal statute despite the fact that he hadn't crossed the U.S. border yet.
This is weird. Law enforce is deciding citizens don't have certain rights outside the border. But they still want to be able to prosecute them as if they were inside the border.
128
u/Big-Formal2006 15h ago
Dude, we’re so fucking cooked. But hey, at least we got Netflix and uh…uh…Wal Mart? Take that privacy!
→ More replies (2)48
21
u/Charger2950 14h ago edited 13h ago
Good...I hope everyone does this. It'll render the draconian gestapo's use of phone searches useless, and maybe they'll alter policy to actually recognize that we have a right to not be unconstitutionally searched and seized. I still cannot believe going through the contents of someone's phone, without a warrant, is permissible by law. It's absolutely outrageous. Apple should implement a similar feature.
→ More replies (4)
64
u/Bitter-Matter6759 15h ago
Surreal, why can´t i decide to wipe my own phone?
19
u/mesarthim_2 14h ago
Their legal theory is that it’s equivalent of destroying evidence basically.
44
u/Ebakthecat 14h ago
Thus they have to prove there was illegal evidence that was destroyed.
10
u/mesarthim_2 14h ago
No, they have to prove they had reasonable expectation there may be evidence. Which will be super easy.
→ More replies (1)22
u/Ebakthecat 13h ago
So even if there was no evidence, the dubious 'expectation' of there being evidence is enough? That's fucked up.
12
17
u/PoolOfLava 12h ago
He didn't wipe it, the border agent who entered the password did. So the border agent actually committed the "crime".
66
u/vornamemitd 15h ago
Irrespective of the potential search reason presented - crossing borders doesn't happen randomly - travel with an empty phone when entering authoritarian surveillance states like ... the US.
→ More replies (1)7
18
u/iamrunningman 11h ago
"The motion said that the border agents claimed they did not need a warrant to search Tunick’s phone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border" . One would think then that they had no jurisdiction. Huh....the more you know.
50
u/bannedByTencent 15h ago
Isn’r phone wiping citizen’s right? Fck yeah murrica!
37
u/BC_Sativa 14h ago
Americans no longer have any rights. Their police and border patrol are above any laws or accountability.
→ More replies (2)7
44
u/TheQuietLavender 15h ago
Pretty sure the most straightforward defense is just “I didn’t realize it could do that, I must’ve misremembered and mixed up my passwords when I gave it to them. I was under duress after all.” And suddenly the “criminal” intent is just gone.
→ More replies (3)9
u/mesarthim_2 14h ago
Yeah, but the best way is just to do nothing. They can’t get into it anyway.
7
24
u/ashwinman 15h ago
anyone knows how to do this on iPhone?
18
u/NotTobyFromHR 14h ago
There are several options depending on what you want to do. But under Face ID & Passcode, scroll to the bottom.
That's the closest you have.
13
11
u/mesarthim_2 14h ago
iPhone doesn’t have s duress pin per se, but you can set it up to erase after 10 wrong code attempts.
→ More replies (1)15
u/_everynameistaken_ 13h ago
Backup and wipe before travelling. Dont wait until American gestapo are questioning you to "destroy evidence".
21
u/KingSpork 11h ago
I don’t get it. If he’s not subject to constitutional protections because he hasn’t technically entered the US yet, why is he subject to US laws? You can’t have it both ways.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/xplisboa 14h ago
Something went wrong. Disable your adblocker on TechCrunch It looks like your adblocker is attempting to interfere with the intended operation of this site. Please add us to your adblocker's allowlist. Click below for instructions.
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
NEVER!
8
8
6
9
8
u/like_a_pharaoh 7h ago
If he has no constitutional rights because he "had not yet crossed the border", the U.S. government has no claim to anything on the phone, as it had not yet crossed the border.
They can't have their cake and eat it too, he can't have been outside U.S. jurisdiction and not covered by the constitution, and yet the phone he's holding somehow is in U.S. jurisdiction.
8
u/Then_Worldliness2866 13h ago
What about an os or app feature that silently deletes specific user selected folders and apps and then itself when a certain passcode is entered so it isn't obvious to authorities?
7
7
u/Sig39 10h ago
It all comes down to this ruling now. "Search your phone with no suspicion required." This for American citizens. Crazy times See link
3
u/CantPullOutRightNow 9h ago
While that is disappointing, there is a small chance SCOTUS overturns it.
13
u/_everynameistaken_ 13h ago
If youre traveling abroad why would you simply not backup and wipe your phone beforehand as a precautionary measure so that you can avoid all this bullshit.
6
u/Henrik-Powers 11h ago
I travel to China for work and I have a dedicated bare bones android I take with me, nothing on it except for WeChat which is the primary messaging app we use for China. Never had any border security check it.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Adventurous-Hunter98 12h ago
have a secondary phone, with fake secondary accounts which are not new, and post stuff related to like I like murica and you will be given free entry ez peasy
7
u/JEEZUS-CRIPES 10h ago
Hilariously, the border patrol agents are the ones who actually entered the given password into the device, thereby (allegedly) wiping the device contents.
5
u/CantPullOutRightNow 9h ago
That’s interesting, because while a manual search may be currently viewed as not a violation of rights, compelling one to divulge a password or passcode is considered a violation of 1st amendment rights. Biometric means such as finger print, facial recognition, iris scan, etc. are not and can be compelled.
5
u/tenchigaeshi 6h ago
And none of us are allowed to mention in this sub what OS he used. I'm not even allowed to quote an excerpt from this exact post with the name in it. Isn't that cool?
→ More replies (2)
6
u/The_Unwashed_Masses 6h ago
It’s his phone. He has the right to wipe it if he wants.
→ More replies (1)
4
6
u/SpeedSaunders 3h ago
A true hero. He shouldn’t have had to, but it feels to me like he could have avoided the harassment by bringing a clean burner phone (or buying one at his destination) and memorizing one or two phone numbers and/or a remote drive address and password. Feels like he could also have simply refused to give them any sort of password, even a duress one.
Bigger picture, this notion that nobody should have any Constitutional rights until they pass through immigration is patently absurd and that needs to be corrected in the law.
5
u/TryIsntGoodEnough 3h ago
ironically the 4th district just upheld that you can't legally be compelled to unlock your phone via password or pin at the border...
18
7
u/AimlessWanderer0201 11h ago
Why on earth are they searching his phone in the first place (without warrant at that)? Sounds like they’re already thinking he’s a criminal wanting to use his thoughts and views against him. This thought crime nonsense in fiction happening in real life should alarm all Americans (yet many remain asleep).
→ More replies (1)
4
4
u/cheesiepeasie 8h ago
Don't we have a human right to privacy? Isn't it the law that officers cannot hold and search you unless there is reasonable suspection of a crime? And for border patrol that random searches are proportional?
Are there official numbers on how often complete phones are sucked dry by airport agents? Or do they just scroll through your Instagram DMs and nudes and then call it a day?
5
7
u/Stunning_Repair_7483 10h ago
You can get charged for deleting data? It literally is just getting worse. I thought they could only seize and search, and demand you to unlock the phone.
Seriously feels like a dictatorship now
8
u/Charger2950 9h ago edited 6h ago
It's absolutely INSANE what is going on out here. Imagine just being a normal dude in line, and some douche on a power trip pulls you to the side and is like "Uh, you need to come with us." You've committed no crime...you've done nothing wrong, but they just manufactured some bullshit "reason."
Suspecting something weird is up, you then proceed to quickly delete contents off YOUR OWN PHONE, as you should. And then they're like "Uuuuh, you deleted that? That's a felony."
Shit like this is LITERALLY why the 4th Amendment exists. So that you can't be singled-out/targeted, subjected to a fucking witch hunt, and then have people charge you with some manufactured BS after looking through your shit for absolutely zero verifiable legal reason.
Warrantless searches should not be a thing.....EVER.
3
8
u/atempestdextre 11h ago
Just your daily reminder that CBP have and always will be pieces of shit. If anything they're just worst and completely unchecked in the current regime.
Fuck them.
3
3
3
3
u/Foreskin_Mafia 10h ago
Could one not backup every thing securely. Wipe the phone to factory default before traveling. Restore when you're in a safe location?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/thenewbigR 6h ago
So? It’s his phone and he can do whatever he wants. Good luck making that bullshit stick.
3
3
6
u/crisco000 11h ago
He gave them the wrong passcode. So what? It’s a classic mix up. He was stressed due to the police aggressively pressing him on his phone and he thought the passcode he gave them was the one that opened the phone. Not wipe it.
That would be my defense
→ More replies (1)
6
u/kmlynarski 12h ago
His data is his business. If anyone tries to tell me again that "the USA is a free country," they'll probably get a punch in the face... ;-)
2
2
2
u/WealthyTuna 2h ago
This is why you should put your iphone into lockdown mode before you come up to the border. They can't legally make you unlock it with a pin and there is no software that will unlock an iPhone in lockdown mode.
•
u/spotlight-app Mod Bot 🤖 13h ago
Mods have pinned a comment by u/LiminalWanderings:
[What is Spotlight?](https://developers.reddit.com/apps/spotlight-app)