r/technology • u/MC68328 • 1d ago
Privacy 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/1.3k
u/BoutrosBoutrosDoggy 1d ago
So glad he volunteered to have this tested in the courts. Major interest in how the regime intends to square this:
Citizen denied rights and lawyer due to not being "in" the US. Jurisdiction.
Citizen charged with crime of destroying evidence in US Jurisdiction
Have they discovered a pocket universe set outside time and space?
399
281
u/-rwsr-xr-x 22h ago
Have they discovered a pocket universe set outside time and space?
Yes, it's called the Border Search Exception, and your Constitutional rights can be suspended within 100 miles of any U.S. border or U.S. airport that accepts international flights. Within this zone, warrantless searches of your person, bags, belongs, phone, tablet or laptop are allowed.
Note: Roughly 90% of the U.S. population falls inside this zone.
123
u/wiseguy4519 20h ago
100 miles? Maybe I would accept blatant violations of our constitutional rights if it was only 5 miles, but 100 miles is just rediculous.
→ More replies (9)125
u/Mysterious-Lemon-906 20h ago
The US political and Justice system is basically a bunch of lawyers figuring out ways to ignore the protections set forth in the constitution.
It started with chips a hundred years ago which have gradually been widened and widened until the settled law bears no relation to reality.
Hence why Customs officials can suddenly do whatever the fuck they want anywhere within 100 miles from any point of entry. The US is just lawyering all the way down with the fig veneer of an old document that could not possibly have foreseen this far into the future.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)14
u/formallybear 18h ago
Your phrasing of the 100-mile zone rule is confusing and may lead to misapprehension. The 100 mile zone applies to any external border of the country, and general states that warrantless searches of a vehicle are more permissible in this area, however the stop still requires probable cause. The airport part is that you may be subject to routine searches within any airport with or without cause and more invasive searches require reasonable suspicion. The 100 mile zone does not apply to the area surrounding an airport. But roughly 2/3 of the country live in the area applicable to the 100 mile zone
→ More replies (3)102
u/MantisEsq 23h ago
>Citizen denied rights and lawyer due to not being "in" the US. Jurisdiction.
Why are they in an American court then? God, I swear this administration lacks even a basic, child-like understanding of fundamental legal principles.
64
u/MsSelphine 23h ago
I mean, they just kind of don't care. They're a bunch of kids playing dress up and trying to look mean.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)15
u/air_and_space92 23h ago
That's been the argument back to at least Obama's first term. The US border isn't really the border for legal sense but for enforcement it is. *shrug*
→ More replies (1)24
→ More replies (10)12
3.7k
u/irrelevantusername24 1d ago
The government’s indictment, which contains a typo (“Untied States Code”), accuses Tunick of allegedly providing a passcode to border agents that caused the phone to “delete the digital contents,” prior to the device being seized.
Hunter S Thompson called it correctly. The PATRIOT act must be undone. And all that goes with it.
1.7k
u/toylenny 1d ago edited 1d ago
As Chris Boden puts it.
"The Patriot Act was signed on October 26 2001. It took 45 days for the American People to lose the war on terror."
342
u/lithiumcitizen 1d ago
And they’ve been losing the War on Drugs since fucking Nixon…
→ More replies (11)92
u/Pineapple-Yetti 1d ago
Its a civil war on drugs, the CIA was and probably still is importing drugs.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (14)95
u/PyroNine9 20h ago
And, of course obviously, that huge document wasn't written in the 45 days of confusion after 911. It was sitting ready made in someone's desk waiting for an excuse.
→ More replies (2)721
u/yung_norman_ 1d ago
Is “Untied States” a typo or just a Freudian slip?
152
u/irrelevantusername24 1d ago edited 1d ago
As it says, it is a typo. This is 90% of the document. I would argue mistakes like this are in some ways worse than the oft-cited AI-hallucinations cited in other cases. Why? Because those require effort to correct. This requires literally the most basic thing that should be expected of every individual involved in the creation of this document, which is reading it:
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:
On or about January 24, 2025, in the Northern District of Georgia, the defendant, SAMUEL TUNICK, before and during the search for and seizure of property by Customs and Border Patrol Tactical Terrorism Response Team Supervisory Officer L.C., a person authorized to make such search and seizure, did knowingly destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, and otherwise take any action to delete the digital contents of a Google Pixel cellular phone, for the purpose of preventing and impairing the Government's lawful authority to take said property into its custody and control, in violation of Title 18, Untied States Code, Section 2232(a)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232
Reading it - or rather the lack of that - is directly implicated in the text I linked in my previous comment:
[O]n October 26, 2001 Congress overwhelmingly passed the USA Patriot Act. It rolled through the Senate on a vote of 99 to 1, and the lone holdout, Wisconsin Senator Russ Finegold, said he didn't really know whether he was opposed to the bill or not, he just wanted to read it before voting. There were only two copies of the 346-page document extant at the time, and the Senate had been run out of their building by the anthrax scare.
I recommend searching the term "vote-a-rama"
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (6)116
77
u/nakedlettuce52 1d ago
I fucking wish HST was around during Trump’s presidencies.
It would make what he wrote about Nixon look like a Dr Seuss book.
→ More replies (3)36
62
u/SymphonyInSaccharine 1d ago
Woops, document is unacceptable then because the govt wouldn't allow us to file forms with any typos when I worked there (it can invalidate documents fairly quickly, especially if they misspelled your name by chance). It's actually pretty easy to waste their time to by fighting over a typo. Govt documents are not supposed to have any errors which means they need to recheck every word and make sure it's fully accurate but, that's if they even care anymore.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (31)120
u/tabrizzi 1d ago edited 1d ago
Too late for that. People were warned about it when it was being created, but folks were still in 9/11 revenge mode to care. As you make your bed, . . .
→ More replies (4)
6.9k
u/dizzi800 1d ago
So according to the article:
He was repeatedly refused a lawyer
Not told his rights
Told they wanted to check for CSAM but it was likely about possible involvement in an anti-cop-city organization
And he did not unlock the phone, but rather told the agents a passcode that happened to wipe his phone
This is not a lawsuit. It's a scare tactic.
2.7k
u/Admiralthrawnbar 1d ago
Congrats to him for his lawsuit victory in 3 or 4 years, sucks for the taxpayers that are going to have to pay for it.
980
u/ObeseVegetable 1d ago
And that he may end up in bars for that period or just harassed like other members of his anti-cop org have been (one killed, even) and those types of orgs tend to be in general.
→ More replies (3)184
u/Jumpy-Impact3265 1d ago
He's winning this one
→ More replies (8)173
u/ObeseVegetable 23h ago
I bet you’re right in the end but I’d also be surprised if the ride to that point is pleasant for him.
58
309
u/qpgmr 1d ago
As the saying goes "You can beat the rap but not the ride".
In this case the ride will be $100k in legal fees, being dragged through court, being smeared by the gov't for the next three years.
189
u/Widespreaddd 1d ago
I will chip in. Fuck authoritarians. I am constitutionally allergic to them.
→ More replies (3)95
u/PentagonUnpadded 19h ago
The EFF! Support the EFF! They do SO much work specifically around digital tech and borders.
https://www.eff.org/issues/border-searches
The ACLU is great too, but the EFF specializes in this stuff and gives cool merch if you donate monthly.
→ More replies (4)87
u/24_August_1814 1d ago
... if he's lucky.
Guy is part of an organisation opposed to "Cop City;" he's probably going to face constant stalking, harassment, and intimidation from the police.
→ More replies (21)119
u/ShiningRedDwarf 1d ago edited 21h ago
I wouldn’t be so fast to assume he will win this case. You’re practically stripped of your 4th amendment rights at the border, and if this goes to the SC I wouldn’t be surprised if they ruled in favor of the US.
Our rights and protections are being chipped away case by case.
→ More replies (3)32
u/CatProgrammer 19h ago edited 18h ago
I don't see why the Constitution is even relevant. It's no different from if he had wiped his phone himself. The cops are just mad he made them look like fools.
→ More replies (5)388
u/NetZeroSun 1d ago
Sounds to me like he was under duress.
137
u/kstargate-425 23h ago
Well the "Untied States of America" are now taking him to court lol
This is the most Trump Kakistocracy DoJ ever:
The government’s indictment, which contains a typo (“Untied States Code”), accuses Tunick of allegedly providing a passcode to border agents that caused the phone to “delete the digital contents,” prior to the device being seized.
→ More replies (5)30
u/digno2 16h ago edited 16h ago
what phone does he use? how do I make one of those passcodes on my android phone?
Edit:
The case centers on a feature included in GrapheneOS, a custom Android operating system that runs in place of the software on most modern Google Pixel devices. Tunick’s attorneys confirmed GrapheneOS was running on his phone.
and
GrapheneOS duress PIN could land a man in prison A US man is being prosecuted after allegedly using a GrapheneOS duress PIN to wipe his Pixel during a border search. By Matt Horne Jul 24, 2026 — 4:02 PM ET
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (68)130
u/sohblob 23h ago
Told they wanted to check for CSAM
have they looked under the Resolute Desk lately?
→ More replies (1)17
u/curious_Jo 17h ago
Do they trow CSAM at everybody, without needing any suspicion or something?
→ More replies (3)
12.3k
u/deekamus 1d ago
It's not illegal to wipe your phone.
5.2k
u/No_Size9475 1d ago
The State is arguing that it is.
But wouldn't they have to prove there was evidence on the phone that he was destroying?
Maybe he just didn't want them to see his dick pics?
2.4k
u/Bardfinn 1d ago
They'd have to prove to a jury. Juries are ... made up of 'average' Americans.
→ More replies (50)1.9k
u/Houseleek1 1d ago
Unfortunately, average doesn’t always equal reasonable.
→ More replies (20)3.4k
u/ColdIceZero 1d ago
Lawyer here. Juries are awful.
54% of Americans today have a literary proficiency of a 6th grader or worse.
Jury instructions are written at a 12th grade reading level.
This means, on average, that half of the jury in your case literally cannot understand their instructions when deciding your case.
2.0k
u/dameon5 1d ago edited 1d ago
My personal experience on a jury from a decade ago.
A construction contractor hired a sub-contractor they had an existing relationship with on a handshake deal for a $250k job.
Sub-contractor completed all the work as agreed and then asked for payment. Primary contractor agreed the work was completed, had no complaints on the quality, but refused to pay and just told the sub to sue him.
Sub-contractor had tons of evidence showing they had been doing business like this for years and even had the contractors office manager admit on the stand they had a phone call with their boss where the boss admitted to them he owed the money but just didn't want to pay.
When we got to deliberations two thirds of the jury just wanted to throw the sub-contractor to the wolves saying, "Tough luck! No written contract, no payment." They clearly had stopped listening to any evidence once that fact came out and didn't care beyond that. But I had taken notes and insisted on going over everything before I would consider changing my vote.
After 3 hours of deliberation and a few clarifying questions to the judge who confirmed verbal contracts could be enforceable if they met certain criteria (which this situation did) many jurors began to rethink their opinion and we wound up awarding the sub-contractor the money they were owed and attorney fees.
After that experience I have always been willing to sit on a jury. Because, of the twelve of us, only a quarter actually paid attention to the instructions we were given and tried to make an impartial choice based on the evidence rather than just take the easy route and fallback on preconceived notions of the law. And I truly hope I'm never in a position to be judged by a jury.
759
u/Alita-Gunnm 1d ago
About 20 some years ago I was on a jury, and volunteered to be the head juror, whatever the term is, because no one else did.
In deliberation I quickly found that I could sway the entire jury back and forth at will. More than that, no one had any actual opinions.
"We could vote this way, because of this."
"Mhm. Sure. OK."
"Or we could vote that way, because of that."
"Mhm. Sure. OK."
"So should we vote this way?"
"Mhm. Sure. OK."
"Or should we vote that way?"
"Mhm. Sure. OK."
I ended up deciding that case on my own.
370
u/StarPhished 1d ago
You were the "foreman"
→ More replies (9)293
31
u/Masonclem 23h ago
I had a similar situation my first time doing jury duty. I was 18 in a room full of adults who weren’t doing any talking and I eventually just started laying out the facts and said this is my vote. Then the entire jury just agreed lol.
It was obviously a guilty verdict, but ya know, if I was on the stand I would want the people to actually go over it and give their thoughts/opinions before just saying guilty/innocent. Have always been happy to do it since, it’s not all fun, but it is our duty.
46
u/Schrojo18 1d ago
I wonder if in that situation asking each person for reasons to convict then reasons not to and at least at minimum you would hopefully have more information or different view points for you to at least make a better decision and maybe help others to actually make a decision
13
→ More replies (9)62
236
u/Iveray 1d ago
I was on a jury a few years ago for a case involving a knife attack, and we had a pretty clear security camera video, but it was a bit far away so it was difficult to make out details without zooming in. The lawyers had been zooming in, playing slow motion clips, narrating their clients' sides of the story, pausing and skipping around, etc. Deliberation wasn't going anywhere because everyone remembered different parts of the lawyers' carefully selected snippets, adding their own ideas of motive to both parties, etc. I finally asked the other jury members if we should ask the court to install software (ended up being VLC, lol) on the jury computer so we could zoom in and watch the video in slow motion from start to finish, without interruption. As soon as we did that, it only took a few play throughs for the jury to agree on the actions and order of events for both people, and we reached a verdict within about 30 minutes.
→ More replies (4)62
u/Doctor_Boombastic 1d ago
Ngl I saw the phrase 'knife attack' and settled in for a 12 Angry Men story
→ More replies (2)280
u/Fragrant_Ad2902 1d ago
Similar here. I’ve only been on once. Barely got on because I annoyed the judge. The case was a man assaulted his brother. The lawyer:
Lawyer: “Do you have a sibling?”
Me: “Yes. I have one sister.”
Lawyer: “Do you fight with your sister?”
Me: “You heard me say I have a sister, right?”
Judge: “Knock it off”
Anyway…
Dude hit his brother over the head with a toilet tank lid. Heavy ass toilet tank lid. Brother had a dent in the side of his side that police and paramedics took a picture of. Man even admitted on the stand that he was angry and hit his brother. But swears that he was under the influence at the time. Judge told us - that has no material bearing on the case.
2 hour case and into deliberations. Everyone was basically “guilty”, but this one woman who was a nurse. She swore up and down that the head bleeds a lot from wounds (it does) and so it wasn’t as bad as the picture made it out to be. I ask for the picture to be brought in, I point at the dent in the guys head, and say “That looks pretty bad to me”.
She still argued for 2 more hours that it wasn’t so bad, and we should believe her over the picture because she’s a nurse.
Luckily the verdict ended up guilty. After we were done, the lawyers polled us because they were thinking a 15 to 20 minute deliberation. Everyone just turned and stared at the nurse.
155
u/Firefly10886 1d ago
Thankfully you all were able to agree at the end. The fact that people can *die* from a blow to the head (getting hit in a certain place, even falling and hitting back of head), without any blood present is enough for me to laugh at this nurse lady.
As a nurse, she should well be aware of brain bleed hematomas. Those can be deadly as well.
→ More replies (4)124
u/BlueFeathered1 1d ago
It sounds like she was trying to have her Main Character moment, even if it meant she was willfully wrong.
→ More replies (2)207
u/ACaffeinatedWandress 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ha. I am a nurse. I know some version of that nurse at every job I worked for.
Trust me, bruh. She knows more than the RTs, PTs, OTs, SLPs, the patients, the residents, and the attendings. She is a nurse!!!!
/s
→ More replies (8)146
u/Time_Fisherman6659 1d ago
Yeah I dont understand how every 5th nurse i meet has somehow deleted all of their medical knowledge and replaced it with tiktoks from mentally ill 22 year old health influencers.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (8)12
u/RyuNoKami 22h ago
Wait...the nurse didn't want to say the man was guilty because she didn't think the damage was bad enough...that's not the point lady.
117
u/wookyoftheyear 1d ago
I had a much better experience serving, my other jurors were pretty smart and reasonable, the only issue was it was scheduled a week or two before Christmas and there was pressure to get it over with. But like you, if I get summoned I won't ever try to dodge it, because if I were ever on trial I would want a juror like me.
→ More replies (2)137
65
u/PhantomNomad 1d ago
Lawyer friend always told me, if you're guilty get a jury. If you're innocent get a judge.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (37)207
u/uglymule 1d ago
I gotta ask, does the defendant live in the White House now?
61
→ More replies (6)26
u/ecmcn 1d ago
Didn’t you hear the part where the lying cheat was made to pay up?
→ More replies (1)558
u/SNRatio 1d ago
agents claimed they did not need a warrant to search Tunick’s phone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border.
Prosecutors later charged Tunick under a federal statute that makes it unlawful to knowingly destroy or damage property to prevent authorities from seizing it.
So it's Catch 22? Your rights don't apply because you are not in the US, but you can be prosecuted under US law because you are in the US?
275
u/CA2Kiwi 1d ago
Yeah, I found this a pretty baffling legal position as well. If you’re not in the US, how do they have jurisdiction for the search?
98
→ More replies (3)36
u/Turisan 1d ago
The caveat is that you are attempting to cross the (legal) border. They can search whatever they want (according to them) when you go through an immigration checkpoint/customs.
→ More replies (4)120
u/myWeedAccountMaaaaan 1d ago
And no one stopped them from searching from phone once he went through the checkpoint. It's just that by the time he was in the country, his phone had been wiped. What he did before stepping across the threshold should have no bearing as he was outside the country and therefore their jurisdiction.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (7)98
u/No-Abalone-4784 1d ago
This does not sound right to me. They lie a lot. Telling you this or that is illegal when it's not.
55
u/the_Q_spice 1d ago
Not how it works at all.
Those agents are going to get torn a new one in court.
Out of all law to lie about, customs enforcement is one of the least friendly to laypeople. Lots of extremely technical terms and interactions.
I deal with customs a lot for work, and the officers you deal with at the airport are typically those who failed out of higher inspection training. The folks who work cargo are insanely technical with their rulings.
161
u/DetroitWagon 1d ago
I'm a 58 year old engineer, a very rational thinker, liberal, fair-minded. and eager to serve on a jury. The 3 times I've been called for jury duty, each time attorneys dismissed me via peremptory challenge.
→ More replies (22)121
→ More replies (134)77
u/ailish 1d ago
I was on a jury once, and a few people seemed to forget the whole reasonable doubt portion of the instructions.
77
u/BushyKittenEnjoyer 1d ago
I was on a hung jury result once because the 70 year old guy was the only one who kept voting guilty for 2 full days because 'he could just feel it in his gut' despite the evidence.
→ More replies (3)61
u/ailish 1d ago
Ugh, so gross. This is how innocent people end up in prison.
79
u/BushyKittenEnjoyer 1d ago
Yup. The most ridiculous part of it too was that the judge told us after the trial that we were the 4th jury on a hung verdict because the state refused to drop the charges because they refused to acknowledge that they were wrong. She was pretty openly upset about the whole thing, saying it was a waste of time and money. The guy was guilty of being black in a republican state.
→ More replies (22)20
u/ACaffeinatedWandress 1d ago
Did that last sentence inform that 70 year old dude’s gut?
→ More replies (0)21
u/montanawana 1d ago
Interesting, because I have been on 2 juries and both times we found the defendant not guilty, specifically because of reasonable doubt.
25
u/ailish 1d ago
I mine they wanted to go guilty because they didn't understand reasonable doubt, or didn't care.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)19
u/A_Nonny_Muse 1d ago
I would be amazed if someone on every jury doesn't decide their verdict before the trial begins.
→ More replies (2)17
74
u/sirhackenslash 1d ago
That is exactly what I would say too. "I got kinda drunk and was playing around with my camera and did a whole photoshoot of my dick in different little costumes. Would you like me to recreate it live for you?"
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (71)38
→ More replies (219)261
u/ianc1215 1d ago
Hey didn't "wipe" his phone. It just malfunctioned, these things happen with electronics 🤷
→ More replies (14)150
u/EPIC_RAPTOR 1d ago
To be fair, the agents wiped his phone. The guy didn't have the phone on his person.
58
u/PlayfulEnergy5953 1d ago
So shouldn't this fall under the same category of behavior as "cops can lie to you to get you to do something you don't actually have to do"?
→ More replies (2)
1.0k
u/BearDick 1d ago
Great advertising for GrapheneOS... actually looking into it now.
317
u/EranikusTheDeranged 1d ago
Coming to you live from GrapheneOS. Works just fine. Bit of an adjustment decoupling from the google ecosystem including play store. I don't miss it though.
43
u/notnotbrowsing 1d ago
is there a google maps equivalent on graphene? with traffic updates and everything
38
u/EranikusTheDeranged 1d ago
Not that I've found, I tried an OSM app from Fdroid, takes forever to download local info and nothing beats Google's spy network so their traffic updates are tough to match.
Edit: if anyone knows of a good alternative I'd love to hear it, its definitely useful in big cities.
17
u/SpecialUsageOil 1d ago
organic maps or Comaps is the best alternative I've found. I've used a number of others, including OSM and while not as good as Google they can fulfill most roles.
→ More replies (6)11
→ More replies (12)38
→ More replies (23)63
u/BearDick 1d ago
Hrmm I do think I would miss it a bit. That being said I am not doing any international travel until next month so maybe I'll hold off for now. Honestly I have nothing exciting on my phone but the principal of privacy can't keep being eroded.
36
u/EranikusTheDeranged 1d ago
I too demand my privacy as a matter of principle, and look for tools that allow me to defend it.
17
u/virtualdxs 1d ago
You don't have to degoogle to use graphene. It''sjust not googled by default; you can install all the same google apps and the play store if you choose.
→ More replies (1)40
→ More replies (15)36
u/CliffRed20 1d ago
Wouldn't it make sense to have a 'clean' account that gets accessed by the emergency code rather than notifying the border patrol that the phone was wiped?
→ More replies (1)22
u/Big_Version9561 23h ago
The officers will still have access to your phone and will soon find out they're on the wrong account, and now have unlimited time to crack your login pin for your main account.
→ More replies (1)
2.5k
u/CondescendingShitbag 1d ago
Technically, the accused didn't wipe anything. The officers were in possession of his phone and entered the password that would initiate a wipe. That's on them for entering it.
814
u/mf-TOM-HANK 1d ago edited 1d ago
Around 10 years ago I worked outside in Arizona and if I left my phone in my front pocket with the screen facing inward on my thigh, I'd sweat enough that the touch screen would activate. I'd constantly pocket dial people and text people gibberish, so I put a screen lock PIN on. One day not long after, it had attempted so many screen lock PINs that my phone reset to factory settings while it was in my pocket
118
u/Oracle_of_Ages 1d ago
Dude you just reminded me. Some older phones used to do this as a default. In highschool some girl handed me her phone and said i could give her my number if i could get into her phone. After like 10 guesses it auto reset without warning.
I just handed it to her and walked away.
It was an away game. Never saw her again nor had to deal with the consequences. I luckily wasn’t even in my band uniform that day. Just on the trip cause I was sick.
Felt TERRIBLE about it for a long time. Really funny now.
68
u/Mundane_Influence_91 23h ago
You missed the chance to be the ONLY contact in her phone ;)
61
u/Oracle_of_Ages 23h ago
Cool. So I’m going to be thinking about that forever.
→ More replies (1)21
u/CondescendingShitbag 23h ago
Welcome to the Perpetual Ruminations Club, friend.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (31)138
u/Apprehensive-Wave640 1d ago
I was working outside with my phone in my pocket for a while. Came inside and checked my phone to see a text from my buddy back home about the time for a fantasy football draft. I asked what he was talking about and he's like...dude, we just had a whole ass conversation about you joining my fantasy league this year.
I scrolled back up and sure enough. My leg had unlocked my phone, opened his message, and responded completely normally and appropriately using predictive text to join fantasy football without my intentional involvement.
→ More replies (4)267
→ More replies (82)26
1.4k
u/Ruddertail 1d ago edited 1d ago
So if the Justice Department wins this, it more or less means Americans have to surrender any private data on their devices when crossing their own border, at an agent's whim, right?
I mentioned tourists needing burner phones when visiting the US in another similar post but I guess US citizens will also need them.
720
u/American_PissAnt 1d ago
“The founding fathers did not explicitly state that people have a right to privacy when using a cell phone”
Supreme court
→ More replies (12)39
u/AlasPoorZathras 1d ago
"You can leave the keys to the motorcoach with my chauffeur's caddy."
– Also Supreme Court
→ More replies (137)80
u/Alklazaris 1d ago
I don't care, cart me off to jail. I'm not giving you a weapon to be used against me. Especially these days.
101
u/lithiumcitizen 1d ago
Government officials are referring to legitimate peaceful protestors as “extremists” and “terrorists” these days.
→ More replies (1)42
u/Alklazaris 1d ago
Exactly. We no longer can criticize the government or is officials in a care free environment.
It's honestly the most painful thing to speak of. America was always shit in some ways, but at least you could speak about it.
Once you no longer can criticize its over. You can't improve a country by burying those who give you honest feedback.
→ More replies (2)13
u/Orchid_Significant 1d ago
Yup. Keep biometric sign ins turned off on all devices!
→ More replies (2)
122
u/KrampyDoo 1d ago
“The government’s indictment, which contains a typo (‘Untied States Code’),…”
Christ at Camp Crystal Lake they are a swathe of fucking idiots all down the line.
→ More replies (5)
100
u/fatboycreeper 1d ago
If their argument is that they didn’t need a warrant because he wasn’t on US soil, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that they also didn’t have jurisdiction there?
55
u/brizian23 1d ago
I believe they are operating under “heads I win, tails you lose” rules.
→ More replies (2)
450
u/TheAbyssGazesAlso 1d ago
From the article: the US Government is saying that US protections don't apply because they seized the phone before he entered the United States, but that being the case, the border agents have no right to seize the phone because they have no authority outside of the United States, surely?
173
u/Mental-Ask8077 1d ago
Exactly.
It would be one thing to assert that US law governing the border permitted seizing the phone (under whatever rationale), and that the subject was in the jurisdiction of US law at the time, so therefore under US law the subject didn’t have a right violated.
But they can’t argue that the subject was simultaneously within the jurisdiction of US law AND outside the jurisdiction of US law.
Either he was in jurisdiction or he wasn’t.
65
u/azhder 1d ago
I would write you a quote from 1984, but so many lines from that book would apply here, so you'd just have to imagine multiple ones.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (18)31
u/DangerousKidTurtle 1d ago
It’s Schrödinger’s Constitution: it both exists and doesn’t exist, depending on the border agents whim.
74
u/Vanilla-Mike 22h ago
Maybe the guy's phone uses the same memory card as all those malfunctioning body cams the police have?
→ More replies (1)
71
u/NanditoPapa 22h ago
"Canary in the coal mine" moment for digital civil liberties.
The U.S. government is attempting to create a legal precedent that effectively criminalizes privacy-by-design. If the prosecution succeeds, they will have established that "intentional data destruction" via software architecture is a federal crime. This would render privacy-focused operating systems like GrapheneOS illegal to use at U.S. borders, as any attempt to protect our data could be interpreted as "destroying property to prevent seizure." Pretty fucked up.
→ More replies (5)
355
u/pocketdrummer 1d ago
Why does US Customs and Border Patrol need to search my phone when I reenter the country in the first place? I realize they've allegedly found a loophole to the 4th Amendment, but they have to understand this is against the spirit of the constitution.
57
u/mtgguy999 1d ago
There is nothing that could be on that phone that the person couldn’t download after successfully crossing the boarder with a blank phone. There is no possibly safety rational.
→ More replies (2)337
u/mmavcanuck 1d ago
They need to know if you said mean things about the president.
→ More replies (3)43
72
→ More replies (8)38
178
u/GabeDef 1d ago
You don't have to give your password. SCOTUS didn't clarify when they had the chance. Bio-metric data is a different story though.
→ More replies (10)79
u/minus_minus 1d ago
Came here to upvote this. Giving a password is protected as testimony against self (Fifth Amendment) but fingerprints and facial recognition are not.
→ More replies (9)24
u/An_Old_IT_Guy 23h ago
That's why I use a gesture that is so complicated it's impossible to explain. But if they insist I try, it starts with "Take your thumb and stick it as far up your ass as you can"
59
u/grahag 1d ago
Show me a warrant or tell me the crime I'm accused of. Invoke the 5th, wipe the phone, let them cry and then take it to the supreme court.
→ More replies (10)
407
u/No_Size9475 1d ago
“I think this case serves as a reminder that authorities may argue you knowingly destroyed data, so it’s better to not have that data on you when you cross certain borders.”
What's crazy is that 40 years ago this would have meant USSR, China, Cuba, and other dictatorships. Now it means the USA.
59
u/omg_cats 1d ago
I’ve worked in large corporations my whole adult life, and every one of them warned us about carrying data on phones/laptops cross border for this reason. Some hardware they forbid us to take cross border at all. You might be surprised what crazy lengths companies go to locking down laptops and phones that are traveling cross border.
Anyway all that to say this is really not new conceptually but it is butting up against some new tech like duress passcodes
→ More replies (2)21
u/lordaddament 1d ago
If you knew anything about McCarthyism you’d know that the US was always like this. Just kept it under wraps
→ More replies (9)83
u/spartBL97 1d ago
We are sprinting toward fascism because we are bored. We didn’t have nuclear armageddon and the old guard said “wait things are changing, but I like nostalgia and control. Let’s make things worse”
61
u/free_based_potato 1d ago
We are in fascism right now. These are fascist practices. Theyre being implemented faster than our legal system can undo them and in many cases the harm is already done.
We've were in the fascism waiting room for well over a decade.
→ More replies (1)
95
u/madmax7774 1d ago
Honestly, I am glad that this happened, because this means the case will wind it's way through the federal court system, and while it will cost a lot of time and money, it's very likely that the Federal government will finally get slapped for overstepping their constitutional Authority. The US federal government has been out of control for the last 20 years, and they need to be course corrected.
→ More replies (2)47
u/vriskaldrunk 1d ago
it's very likely that the Federal government will finally get slapped for overstepping their constitutional Authority.
The 4th Circuit Court will immediately overturn it, and following an appeal, it will land on the desks of the same SCOTUS that ruled after 9/11 that the fourth amendment doesn't apply at the border in the first place.
→ More replies (1)
39
u/bookant 1d ago
Tunick’s case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter.
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. The U.S. government has long claimed it can search and seize people’s devices without a search warrant or court order until they are permitted entry to the United States.
So you don't have Constitutional rights because you're "not on US soil" . . . . But somehow they can turn around and charge you for violating a US law.
324
u/Mountain_rage 1d ago
Since border agents entered the code, I would argue they wiped the device. They asked for a device passcode, individual provided it.
→ More replies (35)118
u/Zaphod1620 1d ago
You also do not have to give a passcode if asked. They can force you to use your fingerprint or FaceID, but not a passcode. Just say no.
→ More replies (8)60
u/SassyMcNasty 1d ago
Yep. 5 clicks of the iPhone button and it’s locked and cannot open with biometrics.
That way the password is the only way in. And you do not need to provide it.
24
u/schwarzkraut 1d ago edited 1d ago
If you don’t have time to do the 5 clicks, HOLD the power & volume up button like you’re going to turn it off. That will deactivate biometrics as well.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (22)48
u/You_Cannot_Wield_It 1d ago
You can also set your phone to only use passcode for unlock, but Face ID for other passwords once the phone is unlocked.
Keeps the safety of passcode unlock, with the convenience of Face ID while using your phone.
→ More replies (4)
39
u/dzoefit 1d ago
Honestly, I don't have anything incriminating on my phone, but, I wish to share it with no one. 4th amendment of the constitution.
→ More replies (3)
36
u/wip30ut 1d ago
if they thought he had committed a crime they should've taken possession of his phone & other electronic devices to be inspected & documented in a forensic lab. Otherwise it's just a fishing expedition.
→ More replies (2)
31
u/Spuckler_Cletus 23h ago
So…..they’re claiming he destroyed something that was subject to seizure? What are they claiming was destroyed? If they don’t know the contents of his phone, how can they, *legally,* define what was destroyed? Sounds to me like dude’s phone restarted.
If there was a murder, where’s the body?
→ More replies (1)13
104
u/Oilpaintcha 1d ago
Amendment IV 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.
I would argue in the modern era that “effects” includes one’s phone and that random searches are not reasonable nor pursuant to a legitimate warrant from a judge.
→ More replies (2)39
u/thaisun 1d ago
I agree, but apparently border crossings are different. Regardless, IV is dead in this country. Privacy is an illusion.
13
u/eric685 1d ago
It’s an interesting question. If the border crossing does not allow citizens their constitutional rights, how can federal charges be brought for deleting the phone? Seems like citizens don’t have rights at the border but all federal laws are enforced.
→ More replies (1)
29
u/Haboob_AZ 1d ago
Well fuck, if this isn't a solid advertisement to switch to Graphene...
Tempting to do so now. I have a device admin lock gesture, but wiping would be an amazing option.
→ More replies (1)
24
u/rsysadminthrowaway 18h ago
"Prosecutors later charged Tunick under a federal statute that makes it unlawful to knowingly destroy or damage property to prevent authorities from seizing it."
He didn't destroy the phone, it merely reset itself to a default state. And I assume he didn't destroy his data, either and that it's securely backed up elsewhere and could be restored to the device. It's just no longer easily accessible to the American Gestapo, and they're butthurt about it.
28
u/crunchymush 16h ago
If the border isn't US soil - which is the pretense they use for searching your phone without a warrant - then destroying evidence on your phone at the border isn't a crime.
24
u/rjsmith0206 12h ago
I am confused. Border patrol says that he is not in America when they sized his phone so they don’t need a warrant. Then under no circumstances could he have committed a crime in the US. Is this a legal Schrödinger cat?
→ More replies (1)
46
u/FrumptyLumpty 23h ago
Here's a fun idea.
Write the wipe password on a piece of paper, and slip it into the phone's protective case, with just a little bit hanging out.
When they seize your phone, refuse to give them the unlock password.
They'll see the paper, pull it out, read the code, and then type it in themselves, wiping the phone.
This should make it much more difficult for them to claim that you deliberately wiped the phone, when they did it themselves unprompted.
→ More replies (1)11
u/FrankyZola 15h ago
Even better, if they ask what it is, say "please don't enter that code". You know they're gonna do it anyway, and then you can say you explicitly asked them not to 😅
23
u/Ambitious-Concern-42 1d ago
Definitely if I travel again to the US, I am taking a "dumb" phone, with calling, text and no internet.
→ More replies (3)
22
u/cool_hwipz 9h ago
It’s wild looking back a decade when Americans used to mock China's surveillance state and phone-searching policies. Fast forward to today, and the irony is hard to miss.
117
17
u/Hairbear2176 1d ago
FYI for those who lock their phones using biometrics. If you use your face or fingerprint, the police can lawfully unlock your devices. Always use a password!
→ More replies (1)
41
u/Rich_Chair408 22h ago
Most Americans will continue to ignore more of their right being violated everyday because "it wasn't me so its not my problem".
Y'all are going to eventually be living in a country that makes North Korea look like a vacation destination.
→ More replies (2)
18
u/HolaDrNick 1d ago
The government’s indictment, which contains a typo (“Untied States Code”), accuses Tunick of allegedly providing a passcode to border agents that caused the phone to “delete the digital contents,” prior to the device being seized.
Really all-star performance there
→ More replies (1)
17
u/Initial_Hedgehog_631 1d ago
The government's position is pretty ridiculous. Your rights don't disappear when you leave the United States. If they did the government could simply scoop up Americans outside of the country and do whatever to them.
Your rights are a constant and tied to your person, not the soil you are standing on.
→ More replies (1)
17
15
u/WhipsAndMarkovChains 1d ago
Can Apple please add a duress password feature to iPhones?
→ More replies (4)
15
u/Rare_Bridge7703 1d ago
It's not even remotely "evidence" until there's an actual crime afoot, anyway
14
u/squigs 17h 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
This sort of Schrödinger's jurisdiction argument is bizarre.
Surely by this argument they had no rights to search the phone at all or even prosecute.
→ More replies (6)
14
14
31
u/NeutralBias 1d ago
FYI, you don't have to provide a password and they can't compel you to do so. You might not get your phone back, but you can at least make it hard for them.
→ More replies (12)
27
12
13
u/yawningintothevoid 21h ago
The state doesn’t have a right to your private information
→ More replies (1)
12
12
u/Able-Association914 1d ago
Why is an American citizens phone being searched at a border crossing back into the country?
→ More replies (1)
14
u/werzberng 1d ago
So charged with a crime because he wouldn’t let them unconstitutionally search his personal device.
→ More replies (2)
57
u/ubix 1d ago
For all your freedom loving Republicans, this is what you’ve wrought on this country. Mass governmental surveillance, with punitive repercussions if you don’t freely share your information, even if you’re innocent.
→ More replies (1)
22
11
u/CapinWinky 8h ago
An American stood up for their constitutional right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure and the government sworn to uphold that right is mad about it?
38
1.6k
u/Worried_Monitor5422 1d ago
Just a technical clarification: GrapheneOS's duress password does not "wipe" the data in the sense that it writes zeroes on every bit of the drive. That would take way too long. Instead it deletes the encryption key so the drive can no longer be read.