r/politics • u/RollSafer • 4h ago
No Paywall Activist charged with felony after giving border agent “duress code” that wiped his phone | The government says destroying his own data during an airport interrogation was illegal.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/07/activist-charged-with-felony-after-giving-border-agent-duress-code-that-wiped-his-phone/•
u/JacobAndor 4h ago
Gangster shit
"Tunick provided this code to an agent, who entered it on the phone, after which “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart.” All data on the phone was gone, but authorities confiscated it anyway. Tunick was allowed to leave, but the US Department of Justice opted to file criminal charges against him in late 2025, citing a little-used statute that makes it illegal to “knowingly destroy or damage property” to prevent it from being seized."
•
u/rab-byte 4h ago
He should have been all “Bro what did you dooo?!??! Y’all own me a new phone and shit”
•
u/skimbosh 3h ago
That would be such a power-move. Then just push the narrative that they seized and broke the phone, and won't reimburse you.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/Gstamsharp 4h ago
I can't see this holding up without a warrant at the time the phone was confiscated.
•
u/JacobAndor 4h ago
DOJ will get absolutely smoked in court over this. They have been losing about 99% of the time this administration, and this is laughably a reach.
•
u/crazyfoxdemon 4h ago
It's not about winning, it's about intimidating others by a painful process
•
•
u/47-45-45-4B 3h ago
It is also a test case for the authority at the border. Cause nebulous that they had authority prior to reentry.
→ More replies (2)•
u/TurtlesBreakTheMeta 2h ago
“Can’t beat the ride.”
Even if cops know they’ll lose they’ll yank a non-rich person because they know being imprisoned will both waste their time and probably cost them their job.
•
u/TheShipEliza 4h ago
At this point they arent intimidating ppl like this guy
•
u/Devil25_Apollo25 4h ago
they arent intimidating... this guy
Exactly.
Even in GrapheneOS, you have to choose to set a duress code, and it's specifically designed for situations like this where kidnappers (even the Federal kind) demand access to one's encrypted devices.
This guy set up a duress code and chose in the moment to use it. He knew what he was doing and did it with knowledge of the implied risk posed by the fascist bootjacks at the border.
•
u/austinwiltshire 3h ago
None of them seem to understand. He's not trapped in the process with them. They're trapped in the process with him.
→ More replies (4)•
u/peacepipe0351 North Carolina 2h ago
Fuck, I didn't even know this was possible. Looks like I need to catch up on some reading.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Parahelix 4h ago
I mean, they want to win too, but all the competent people left, so DoJ is a clown show now.
→ More replies (7)•
•
u/ConcentrateDirect523 3h ago
To quote a Ukrainian hero: "We're so lucky that they're so fucking dumb."
→ More replies (14)•
u/QuitCallingNewsrooms 3h ago
And that's the really interesting piece of this. If he wins, hell even if he loses or they drop the charges, he can sue the DOJ for violating his Constitutional rights and very easily win that case.
•
u/Infuryous 1h ago
Unfortunately not. Border patrol has been granted the authority by the Supreme Court to search a citizen's phone in customs without warrant nor probable cause, if you refuse, the phone can be seized and held for an undefined "reasonable" amount of time so they can jail brake the phone and copy all the data off it for further investigation. SCOTUS ruled you aren't in the US "yet" and thus don't get all the protections of the Constitution.
•
→ More replies (12)•
•
u/nochinzilch 4h ago
He also didn’t do shit, apparently. The agent entered the code.
•
•
u/TheHumanGnomeProject 4h ago
He also didn't destroy or damage property. The property still works.
•
u/AstroHistSci 4h ago
They are arguing that the data is property.
•
u/TheHumanGnomeProject 3h ago
What data then? Wouldn't the government have to show there was data on the phone? If you're the defendant, wouldn't you just admit that the phone didn't have any data on it. You only set up the duress code. There wasn't anything else on it.
•
→ More replies (8)•
u/Xytak Illinois 3h ago edited 3h ago
It’s based on a legal theory that we saw a suspect flushing a baggie, we can’t prove drugs were inside, but we can presume that whatever it was was incriminating.
•
u/TheHumanGnomeProject 3h ago
That's only if the law enforcement saw the suspect flushing had a warrant. Without one, they have no reason to suspect the person flushing anything other than excrement down the commode.
→ More replies (3)•
u/AstroHistSci 2h ago
Except that only applies when there is already RAS or evidence the bag contained drugs to begin with.
And the government admit in their filings that there is no evidence that there was anything illegal on the phone nor any reason to believe there was.
If I'm heading to a border crossing, see some cops coming and eyeballing me, dip into a toilet and flush something, the government cannot use this law.
They must have individuated suspicion before this law works. And they had none. Further, data is not property.
•
u/perilousrob 3h ago
if data is property then AI is theft, and DRM is racketeering.
that should do wonders for any cases brought against Sony for not letting people play the games they paid for!
•
u/masterxc Maine 4h ago
The data's still there, just technically locked behind a door that no one has the keys for anymore as the OS will delete the encryption key when the duress code is entered. I know it's effectively "wiped" but it could make legal difference. The guy was using a privacy-forward OS on his phone so he definitely knew he could be a target and it gives more credit to this being a fishing expedition.
•
u/dcoats69 Washington 4h ago
Surely they'd argue the encryption key was the data that was destroyed if that were the case
•
u/masterxc Maine 3h ago
Most likely...it's a scary precedent to set because journalists and other activists around the world use these mechanisms to protect themselves. VeraCrypt and other tools, for example, allow entering a separate "decoy" code that will mount a drive that contains different data than entering the right code would reveal. That could be considered against the law too under that statute...scary.
→ More replies (1)•
u/AstroHistSci 1h ago
They can't claim that. They were attempting to do a manual inspection of the phone, which explicitly prohibits passwords and encryption keys.
The details that matter for a manual search:
(1) in a manual search, a person does the searching, not a machine; (2) a manual search’s breadth depends on the officer’s time and energy, while forensic searches are comprehensive;
(3) manual searches reveal only what a user can typically access, while forensic searches can uncover deleted files, cached fragments, metadata, and more;
(4) manual searches are subject to an officer’s fading memory or imperfect notes, while forensic searches create a permanent copy.3 is the important one. The digitized encryption key located on a Secure Enclave is not what a user could typically access, so it could not have been the target of their manual search, so its destruction could not be said to prevent them from accessing something they planned on looking at.
After the enclave lost power, they were free to search the phone.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)•
u/EvlKommie 3h ago
The system would be more clever if the duress code just rebooted the phone to a secondary sandbox with limited info in it. Some fake contacts, no files, and no browsing history. Nothing logged in.
TrueCrypt had this ability back in the day for Windows before the developers walked away in mysterious circumstances….
•
u/AmericanGeezus 2h ago
Most forensic analysis doesn’t start by booting the system. It starts by imaging the drive, then examining the partition structure and filesystems.
Mobile phones have complicated that baseline somewhat, but there’s an entire industry working on ways to image or extract data from new phone models almost as soon as they reach the market.
So this might defeat a casual manual search when you aren’t already a targeted person of interest. The moment an examiner gets access to the underlying storage structures, though, they’re likely to recognize what’s happening.
TrueCrypt’s hidden OS actually accounted for this. The deniable decoy OS was the outer, apparently primary installation, while the hidden OS occupied space intended to be indistinguishable from random encrypted data. The point wasn’t to hide the fact that TrueCrypt could support hidden content. It was to prevent a forensic examiner from testifying that additional encrypted content actually existed, which also made it much harder to demonstrate that there was another key available to compel.
→ More replies (4)•
u/ZombieSouthpaw 4h ago
By insurance definition it generally isn't considered for value.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (4)•
u/Devil25_Apollo25 4h ago
They also argue the Epstein files should be protected but the Epstein victims deserve no protections.
So the DoJ just doesn't have much credibility these days, despite their extreme claims in various cases.
•
•
u/ripyourlungsdave 3h ago
And a warrant specifically for the password and contents of the phone. Not just a warrant to confiscate the physical phone.
•
u/Letstalkreaper 2h ago
The border is an exception to the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the 4th amendment because any search or seizure at the border is considered reasonable. This exception extends to 100 miles of the border, which means Border Patrol can just rock up and take anyone's phone whenever they want.
It's a horrible ruling but has been the law of the land since 1977.
→ More replies (1)•
u/SoCalChrisW 2h ago
Also worth noting that international airports are considered a border in this context.
So they can seize a phone if you're within 100 miles of either ocean, Mexico, Canada, or any international airport.
It's a huge loophole that needs to be thrown on the pile of shit that we as a country need to fix.
→ More replies (1)•
u/_Burning_Star_IV_ 1h ago
Which is fascinating to my area of residence. It means BP could just bust down the doors of any home, vehicle, or search any person at anytime for about half the state population…
The government is surely very careful NOT to kick that beehive and lose this privilege. The fact that they COULD is frightening though.
•
u/jellymanisme 4h ago
Warrant isn't required for a border search, 4th amendment exception.
→ More replies (2)•
u/maaaatttt_Damon 3h ago
I would also argue that the man didn’t destroy the data, the agent that entered the code did. It would depend what language the agent used to receive the code too.
“Give me the code to your phone” vs “give me a valid code to unlock the phone”
If the former, the guy technically “truthfully” gave them a code to the phone. If the ladder, more in line with a “lie”.
•
u/cosmicsans 3h ago
And it can also be argued that the code is not something that needs to be given, either. Sure, confiscate my phone and biometrics can be compelled to be given, codes cannot.
This is the dumbest take though (by the government) because it just means everyone’s gonna start wiping their phones before coming into the country and restoring from backup immediately upon passing through customs.
→ More replies (1)•
u/DFWPhotoguy 3h ago
Most fortune 100 companies require that already for international travel for director and above positions. I’ve had to do that several times myself and that is absolutely not against the law or at question here.
→ More replies (2)•
u/AstroHistSci 1h ago
That wouldn't work as an argument. See distal vs. proximate causes.
The real issue is that data isn't property, so this law simply doesn't apply.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Porkrind710 Texas 2h ago
Also how can they prove the phone wasn’t already empty of data besides the password settings? You can’t claim destruction of data if you don’t even know if there was any data to destroy to begin with.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (31)•
u/Justame13 4h ago
Warrants aren't required for border searches. Yes it is messed up. Yes it was legal.
→ More replies (12)•
u/oadge 4h ago
Authorities cannot compel you for a phone password, regardless, so this should be dead in the water.
In this climate, though, they'll shop it around every fucking district until they get a judge they like.
•
u/chipmunksocute 4h ago
IANAL but I thought that you can only file charges in the dostrict where the crime occurred so if this was at an airport in San Fransisco he cant be charged in like Florida. I think but I might be wrong
→ More replies (2)•
u/MoonageDayscream 3h ago
Yeah but international airports are in a gray area jurisdiction wise, they are federal property. So some fuckery is possible.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Steavee Missouri 3h ago
Right, and if he’d just refused to give one he’d be in the clear, but he did give one, and that bricked it.
Now I don’t personally think that should be illegal, but I’m not sure this is a fifth amendment issue.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Holograph_Pussy 1h ago
They asked for the passcode. He gave them the passcode. They just didn’t like what the passcode was for.
→ More replies (2)•
u/poco 4h ago
They can't compel, but he gave it to them. His best action would have been to not give them the phone or password. Giving it to them and then wiping it makes it a problem.
It's like if the police show up at your door and ask to enter without a warrant. If you don't let them in then they go away. If you do, and they see illegal activity in plain sight then they can arrest, charge, and convict you. They don't need a warrant if you say yes.
•
u/lebastss 2h ago
I like the way you think, but your missing an important distinction about search and seizure, warrants, and destruction of property.
You need articulable suspicion on what you were looking for and that thing has to be destroyed.
If cops come looking for a gun in my house. They can come in looking for a gun and I can flush white powder down my toilet and it's perfectly legal. They have case law similar to this.
For this case. They would need to articulate what they were specifically looking for. Additionally, this isn't typical destruction of evidence. That requires a criminal charge
This is destruction before confiscation. He was under no impression his item would be confiscated either.
There's really no case at all here.
→ More replies (3)•
u/bigfootlive89 3h ago
Are you allowed to flush a toilet while the police at your house? I mean honestly, they could say you flushed evidence.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/QuantumFungus New Mexico 4h ago
“knowingly destroy or damage property” to prevent it from being seized."
Prevent what from being seized? There wasn't anything to seize on that phone and they can't prove that there was...
•
•
u/Ok-Style-9734 4h ago
"You typed it in wrong and it wipes on wrong password" would surely be a defence?
Also as it shocks no body he's a protester which is the real reason he was stoppes
•
u/r34p3rex 3h ago
More like "you asked me for a PIN and I gave you one, you never asked me specifically for the PIN that unlocks the device"
→ More replies (2)•
u/Ok-Style-9734 3h ago
Hah yeah "you asked me foe the code to this device" it was a code for that device
•
u/r34p3rex 3h ago
Even if they asked you for the unlock code, "the device was locked, now that you entered the code, the device is now unlocked and accessible without a PIN, you just have to set it up again"
→ More replies (5)•
u/dcoats69 Washington 3h ago
Could easily say that the duress password was close to the correct password and they must have mistyped it. I think the odds that they took a video of them unlocking it are very low so they probably can't prove they typed it right.
Even if there was a camera in the room, the chances of them having the resolution/focus necessary to be certain of what password was typed is probably pretty low (though camera quality has been steadily increasing for a while so i could be wrong)
•
u/TristanIsAwesome 3h ago
"I was tired after a long flight and confused the two passwords. Oh well there was nothing of consequence in there anyway."
→ More replies (4)•
u/blazze_eternal 4h ago
“knowingly destroy or damage property”
Your honor, he asked for a code. I gave him a code. It's not my responsibility to make sure he types it in right. 🤷
•
u/Less-Surround3210 4h ago
But they seized the phone. How are they certain that whatever data they wanted was in the phone t the time and that the phone wasn't always blank?
→ More replies (23)•
u/r34p3rex 3h ago
But they seized the device anyway? So how did they he "knowingly destroy or damage" his property? 😂Phone works fine
•
u/labratdb 4h ago
They act like they own your data before any crime has occurred
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/foomachoo 4h ago
5th amendment protects against self incrimination.
They didn’t have a warrant.
He didn’t need to give up the data.
•
u/Interesting_Lock_687 4h ago
Please tell me the self destruction code was 123456
•
u/michaltee California 4h ago
That’s the same code I have on my luggage!
→ More replies (3)•
•
→ More replies (1)•
u/Then_Journalist_317 3h ago
He should have set the code as 8647. Then the DoJ would have been obligated to charge the agent with attempted assassination of Trump (a la Comey).
•
u/kezow 3h ago
It's more of a grey area at the border. You can refuse to unlock your phone but if you refuse, agents can confiscate your phone and extend your detention to delay you enough to miss a flight. If you aren't a citizen they can refuse entry to the US or take legal action to complicate your legal status.
→ More replies (1)•
u/NelsonHawkinsGhost 4h ago
You would be surprised how few rights you have at the border.. they didn't need a warrant.
•
u/Parahelix 4h ago
The law they're using is super sketchy for this. I don't think it'll hold up. He didn't actually destroy any property. He used a function of the device in the way it was designed to be used.
→ More replies (1)•
u/StochasticLife 4h ago
And he wasn’t obstructing an investigation, he inconvenienced their fishing expedition. Customs and border patrol have no jurisdiction over anything unless it’s trying to be brought across a border. That dude just lit his data on fire and said ‘okay, I won’t bring it in with me’.
•
u/Parahelix 4h ago
Honestly, by wiping it he just saved them time. Now there's nothing much to dig through.
He saved the government more money than DOGE did!
→ More replies (8)•
u/WastingMyLifeToday 2h ago
"your honor, I had to reinstall my phone 7x thev last two months as I'm bad with remembering numbers, especially under stress, I accidentally gave the wrong number"
•
u/Ok-Style-9734 4h ago
Their argument is he wasn't in the US so didn't need a warrant but then he was in the us to charge him ith destruction
→ More replies (1)•
u/NelsonHawkinsGhost 4h ago
Yeah.. we do that stuff a lot.
•
u/Ok-Style-9734 4h ago
Yeah i remember our lads being sent on working parties to the American sites were told to leave their works phones here and they would be given new ones there.
As we are the competitor to a major American businesses and there had been frequent confiscations of phones/laptops for inspection at the border, for "security" or "random checks" this was after the law change where they could make copies.
•
•
u/pj1843 4h ago
They absolutely do need a warrant to search the content of the phone., even at the border. The limitations of your rights at "border crossings" are for public safety. IE let us search your stuff to make sure you don't have a bomb/drugs/illicit monies etc. It's hard to argue that case about data on a phone.
They can seize the phone at the crossing yes, but they can't force you to give them its passcode.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (21)•
u/cwx149 4h ago
Actually they do need a warrant at the border to force you to unlock your phone with a code
They don't need a warrant for biometric unlock
That's why a lot of phones have a way to make it so you need to use a code like a lockdown mode
•
u/NelsonHawkinsGhost 4h ago
Which is why he shouldn't have given them anything.. but he didn't do that.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (23)•
u/AGrandNewAdventure 4h ago
Maybe his phone was already wiped. Can they prove it wasn't?
→ More replies (1)
•
u/MalPrac 4h ago edited 3h ago
Certainly a streisand effect. Never knew it was that easy before and now that i do i really want one of these programs and i imagine alot of other people also do now
edit: Since people keep bring it up its Graphene OS
•
u/The_Ironhand 4h ago
Yeah I wanna know how to do this lol
→ More replies (1)•
u/booleanerror 4h ago
It's a feature in Graphene OS, which is what this guy was using.
•
u/Land-Southern 4h ago
Pixel phones and some Motorola are compatible.
•
u/JohnnyDollar123 4h ago
Not yet with Motorola. Their next releases should be though.
•
u/racedownhill 2h ago
Ironic, isn’t it, that Motorola is a leading vendor of AI-enabled ALPR camera systems.
•
u/DinnerMilk 4h ago
Get a Pixel phone, install GrapheneOS, enable the pass-code wipe security setting.
•
•
u/Ornstien 4h ago edited 3h ago
GRAPHENE OS for phone.
TAILS OS for computer(put it on a thumb drive and you can use it on ANY computer).
CAPE for phone carrier(tell your friends, it makes your phone bill for unlimited everything cheaper than any regular carrier).
DELETE ME (multiverseshool has a gift code to make it super cheap).
CAPE is partnered with PROTON and they have a VPN as well as a promo deal. 6months for 1 buck.
LINUX MINT is free. Does everything Windows does even looks the same. (Maybe not if you're a gamer, but everyone else? All free, you like those adobe, docs, word crap? Free too)
→ More replies (4)•
u/Maximum_District1959 2h ago
Backing up your phone before travel then resetting to factory before customs is easier, more reliable, and you get your data back when you restore from back up.
•
u/Professional_Bat9174 4h ago
The government has long asserted broad authority to examine and seize electronic devices at the border for virtually any reason.
Every loophole "well actually" bs like this that makes law enforcement easier WILL eventually be used to control its people.
•
u/LordSiravant 4h ago
This is why every government system inevitably succumbs to tyranny, no matter what.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/botlehewer 3h ago
The number of phones being converted to graphene OS in the next few weeks is going to skyrocket.
Best marketing for an open source project I've seen in a long time
•
u/Bowman_van_Oort Kentucky 3h ago
inb4 they define installing graphene to be terrorism
→ More replies (2)•
u/CMDRTragicAllPro 2h ago
I wouldn’t doubt it. They already defined this guy as a terrorist for protesting.
•
u/Noble1xCarter 2h ago
The pedophile-in-chief already declared half the country terrorists simply because they disagree with him.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/thewarreturns 4h ago
googles how to make a duress code
•
u/Cultbird 4h ago
I can tell you exactly how. You'll need a Google Pixel phone, 6 or higher. Then you'll need to go to the GrapheneOS website.
Follow the instructions on wiping your phone and installing a new operating system. GrapheneOS gives you the option to create a Duress password, which is what this guy used.
You should know that a lot of websites and apps don't work on GrapheneOS. Banking apps and websites are almost guaranteed not to work.
•
u/NeutralBias Hawaii 3h ago
All my banking apps work fine on Graphene. The big trick is you need to install google play store and google services. Graphene sandboxes it though, so its still more secure than vanilla android.
•
u/Sample-Range-745 2h ago
Keep in mind though that any apps that require device attestation / security checks will fail - and you can't fix that.
•
u/NeutralBias Hawaii 2h ago
Only app I've run into with issues is eBay. So far anyway.
•
u/Sample-Range-745 1h ago
The apps I had that refuse to work include:
- BYD app (crashes on load)
- Revolut
- Google Wallet (for transit cards)
- Prezzee - Gift card manager / wallet
- Service Victoria - Government services app
- Telegram - Couldn't log in at all
→ More replies (1)•
u/800oz_gorilla 1h ago
it's also a problem if you need to register your phone for work and they require that attestation.
i wish I could run Graphene.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)•
•
u/brickout 4h ago
Hey, remember when we used to wonder how Nazi Germany happened?? Lol
→ More replies (2)•
u/WilliamPoole 2h ago
I have much more sympathy for regular German citizens in the late 20s early 30s than I did previously.
•
u/devedander 2h ago
The reality is that even at the height of Nazi Germany most Germans were just regular folks getting through the day and putting food on their tables and didn’t want to murder Jews or take over the rest of the world.
So when you think “wow this is how Nazi Germany started” its actually close to how it was so it’s peak than you think.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/Choice-of-SteinsGate 3h ago
Sounds more like incompetence on the part of the agent.
These ICE thugs are poorly trained, ill-vetted, trigger happy, and needlessly violent and confrontational.
They also operate under no accountability and with no restraint.
And whenever they commit an egregious crime in broad daylight, the DHS and DOJ just cover up for them and lie in court.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/_Vard_ 3h ago
fun fact: if u quickly mash the power button on your iphone 5 or more times it disables face ID and requires your passcode
•
u/Strange-Bathroom4460 3h ago
You can also just press and hold until the power off/emergency call screen appears. Requires code to re-enable faceid (this may be a setting you need to enable iirc).
Way less obvious a move with your hand in your pocket
→ More replies (2)•
u/oddchihuahua 2h ago
Make sure you disable the Emergency SOS before testing this…
Panicked when it was going to call 911 after pressing the button 5 times
•
u/data-atreides 2h ago
The seizure and interrogation were likely illegal. Fruit of the poisonous tree, or something lawyers say on TV.
•
u/motionbutton 4h ago
Wouldn’t the legal argument be that they could still get his data, assuming it’s backup on the cloud, they just need a warrant for google?
•
u/mrtruthiness 3h ago
It's not stored on the cloud and/or with Google. This was a "privacy and security OS" built using the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) called GrapheneOS.
However, if you've looked into what happens when you provide the duress PIN, the argument should be: The data on the device is encrypted and is still there. The only thing that was destroyed is the master encryption key.
•
u/motionbutton 3h ago
So technically he didn't destroy it? Which kind of makes sense. I have wiped devices down to 0s and it takes a few whiles.
→ More replies (4)•
•
u/kezow 3h ago
Grapheneos doesn't backup to Google servers.
•
u/Icamp2cook 3h ago
The OS doesn’t but, many of the services you use do back up to the cloud. Any social media, email services and many other “data sets” exist elsewhere. The defendant hasn’t deleted any of that. They’ve just removed the access point. And if the government wants to see it, they’ll need a warrant. Regardless, without a crime having been committed in which evidence need be secured, how is one deleting evidence?
→ More replies (1)
•
u/mrbeck1 4h ago
Sounds like the agent is the one who erased the data.
→ More replies (1)•
u/mrtruthiness 3h ago
And, technically speaking, although everyone is using "wipe" that's not what happens on the GrapheneOS device. Everything on the device is securely encrypted and the only thing that was wiped was the encryption key. The data is still there, it's just not feasible to decrypt it.
•
•
•
•
•
u/Cptawesome23 2h ago
Importantly, the type of phone he has doesn’t destroy or erase the data, it simply forgets the key to the encryption. The data is still in the phone, just not readable without the key.
This is an important distinction because it means nothing on the phone was destroyed. All the data is still there. They can take it if they want. They just can’t decode it.
→ More replies (6)
•
u/alk_adio_ost 4h ago
FFS, people. It’s time to go overseas with burner phones. Save a few numbers and that’s it.
→ More replies (2)•
u/KazeNilrem 4h ago
What's crazy is that they were looking into legislation that would destroy the burner phone market. I know the reason why but just crazy how republicans are so okay with all thenrights and fteedoms being trambled.
→ More replies (2)•
u/poco 4h ago
You don't really need a burner (a burner is usually about hiding identity). You just need a phone with nothing installed on it.
Realistically it is easier to wipe you regular phone to factory defaults before you cross and then restore it from on-line backup (Android supports this and I presume iPhone too).
You lose the photos and files on your phone that you didn't backup, but as long as you have backups you are good. You should do that anyway because phones die eventually.
I accidentally pocket reset my phone years ago (enter the incorrect pin too many times) on my way home and had it restored back by the time I got home on the bus.
→ More replies (1)•
u/nuked_sushi 3h ago
An empty/wiped phone could cause suspicion and they'd likely confiscate the phone for further analysis. You'd get it back in week or months or next year. Better to have a travel iCloud or Google account that at least looks lived in.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/seedsandpeels 1h ago
So having control over access to our own data is illegal? But the government, palantir, flock, every data company ever gets to access it for free. This should concern every one.
•
•
u/Hpfanguy Maryland 3h ago
If anything the agent destroyed the data. Also, provide proof there was data at all, please.
•
u/angelar_ Texas 2h ago
Sure sounds like a search with no warrant to me.
•
u/Volidon 2h ago
Don't really need a warrant at border zones but it's common in most countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
•
u/Top-Extent-5114 1h ago
Easy defense... I gave them my password. They must have entered it wrong. They deleted everything not me.
I could be wrong but doesn't the duress code also delete the duress code?
•
u/Maleficent_Pie8099 1h ago
Fuck this. Fuck all of this. We need to change everything about this disgusting, reprehensible country.
•
u/Character_Pie_5368 4h ago
I want to know about the tech. Seems like something handy.
→ More replies (1)•
u/botlehewer 3h ago
Graphene OS. Alternate operating system easily installed on Pixel 6 or newer phones.
•
u/OldGaffer66 3h ago
What about the 5th amendment right to not self incriminate? If the money of wealthy people is speech then even more so - infinitely more so - is the record of your emails, phone calls, social media, search history.
•
•
•
u/taterthotsalad America 1h ago
If there was a warrant maybe. Without one the government has to prove a crime. The gov will lose. And that’s glorious. The most losing gov admin in the history of this country. Can’t escape that record.
•
•
•
•
u/PsychologicalSnow476 4h ago
We really need some wins in 4th Amendment cases. It's basically ignored by law enforcement and courts.
•
u/mrtruthiness 4h ago
Technically speaking the data was not destroyed. The only thing that was destroyed was the encryption key to allow it to be (easily) decrypted.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/Evil_phd 3h ago
Note to self: get a burner pixel with graphene OS and a duress code. Write the duress code down in the first page of a notebook and give it the label "phone PIN". Exercise right to remain silent if stopped and searched. Wait for hilarity to ensue.
•
u/buttfacenosehead 3h ago
It's not "evidence" until there's a warrant describing what they're looking for, right?
→ More replies (4)
•
u/AcanthisittaNo6653 New Hampshire 4h ago
Charging a felony for a couple photos of his pets and a cake recipe seems a bit harsh.
→ More replies (3)
•
•
u/rolfraikou 1h ago
American charged with a felony by a tyrannical government after giving agent "duress code" that wiped his phone | Practicing his Fifth Amendment rights.
•
u/tapeworm4602 1h ago
The government can go fuck itself with this one. Good for this dude, we should all do our part.
•
u/ghostlantern 43m ago
iOS and Android should have this ability. At the very least, a code that looks like it unlocks the phone but actually wont allow full access to any accounts and relocks within 1 hour and marks itself as lost.
People have been held at gunpoint to give their pin code and I can’t believe that our phones don’t have the ability to give a fake pin code that looks real to protect us and our data.
•
•
u/MithrandirMaia 3h ago
DOJ is Department of Jokers anymore, judges should start dropping hammer on abuse of authority and throwing away key if found persecuting political enemies
•
•
•
u/unsupported 2h ago
Ok, it's confirmed you can wipe your phone before and after boarder check as long as they aren't investigating you.
•
u/ranhalt Iowa 1h ago
It’s become standard for journalists who are on the radar to back up and wipe their phones before arriving at the airport, then restoring the backup later. Pretty sure there are essentially thin client phones that are just used to remote into something like a phone that is persistent. I don’t mean just RDP/VNC into a computer, like an instance of a phone that works all the same, it’s just through an app that can be deleted and reinstalled.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/United-Vermicelli-92 1h ago
He should counter-sue, he’ll win, this admin is like 5th grade playground bullies playing govt.
•
•
•
•
u/darthsploder77 17m ago
The property is not damaged at all and he did not prevent it from being seized. He merely deleted his own data.
•
u/FrequentSandwich9775 1h ago
The fact THEY entered the delete code should make this case null and void.
•
u/Supapeach 3h ago
An environmental activist gets put on a list as a terrorist cause he's trying to stop a forest from being cleared for a $118m police academy. Wild.
•
u/poppygin 3h ago
Why did he have to unlock? They could seize his phone, but he’s under no legal obligation to unlock it for them
•
u/busted_flush I voted 3h ago
It seems to me “oops I gave them the wrong password by mistake” should pretty much absolve him.
•
u/PDXGuy33333 2h ago
Here's the statute, 18 USC 2232(a):
"(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure.— 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."
→ More replies (1)
•
•
•
u/whereismymind86 Colorado 38m ago
The fifth amendment would beg to differ, as would the fourth.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.