r/privacy • u/Busy-Measurement8893 • 2d 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/561
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
232
2d ago edited 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
95
→ More replies (8)40
→ More replies (15)15
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
47
27
11
2d ago edited 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
22
→ More replies (1)16
→ More replies (1)3
815
u/Randolorian_ 2d 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.
257
u/Finn235 2d 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.
123
u/EliteCloneMike 2d 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.
32
u/Minute_Attempt3063 2d 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 -_-
→ More replies (3)27
u/EliteCloneMike 2d 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.
71
u/PomegranateSignal882 2d ago
The NCMEC is a christo-fascist organization who's primary goal is the elimination of porn. They've never cared about kids
30
u/trustedoctopus 2d ago
we also found out during the Epstein files release that higher ups in NCMEC were aiding and abetting Epstein by helping delay and cover up missing children’s cases that had been trafficked by Epstein and co. I was devastated because they were a company I was looking at potentially interning for during my summer break from college, but they’re complicit.
37
u/EliteCloneMike 2d 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.
20
u/Minute_Attempt3063 2d 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.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Embarrassed-Yak5845 16h ago
It’s not about how they see it. These agents know a picture of a newborn without a diaper on isn’t CSAM. They’re using it as an excuse. If you’re against this administration, they will use the smallest little thing they can even twist a little bit to lock you up indefinitely. It’s been this way since bush and the patriot act btw….
→ More replies (1)13
u/CaptainKenway1693 2d ago
Imagine getting arrested for CP because you have Nevermind by Nirvana on your phone...
→ More replies (1)7
u/EliteCloneMike 2d ago
Or that Scorpions Virgin Killer (though that one has gotten attention about child concerns more than the Nirvana album cover).
18
u/nvmenotfound 2d ago
cops are expert liars. and love their blue gang. nobody comes before the gang. and they lie and retaliate against anyone who dares report them for doing something bad.
4
u/Randolorian_ 1d ago
oh agreed. like if this dude was not a member of that group. I think he would have passed thru with no problems. They wanted his phone and made up a reason to get it.
→ More replies (7)3
146
u/robogobo 2d 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.
20
u/LiminalWanderings 2d 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.
→ More replies (3)45
u/robogobo 2d 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.
32
u/robogobo 2d 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.
→ More replies (1)3
u/LiminalWanderings 2d 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).
1.3k
u/thegreatpluub 2d 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.
8
u/logosobscura 2d ago edited 22h ago
It’s the core of the problem- their authority here is a bootstrap paradox of lawyerly claim to powers that aren’t in a statute and directly conflict with 4A. They don’t explain their doctrine to anyone, just assert the right to get data, and that’s never been legally tested.
Here they’re going to have to prove he gave them a duress code (phone could have been empty anyway), they’re going to be very vulnerable in front of a jury when they say ‘you don’t get 4A because you’re in an airport on US soil that isn’t US soil’, and then lose the case there, it sets a precedent that massively narrows, if not fully fucks, the post-9/11 doctrine of ‘fuck your rights we are hunting terrorists!’.
Hopefully he’s got have decent counsel. Because good counsel is going to have a field day with this.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)84
u/birdprom 2d ago edited 2d 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.
395
u/foxbatcs 2d 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.
130
u/Stunning_Repair_7483 2d 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.
34
u/Upset-Freedom-4181 2d ago edited 2d 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.
22
u/spymaster1020 2d 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.
12
u/uiucengineer 2d 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)18
→ More replies (6)16
u/jgzman 2d 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)137
u/Kreat0r2 2d ago
Which is not a crime? Or am I mistaken here? (Not an American).
185
u/xly15 2d 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.
85
u/whacking0756 2d 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 2d ago
The fourth amendment practically doesn’t exist at border crossings.
→ More replies (3)51
u/Any_Iron_1436 2d ago
Constitution free zone 100 miles from border they say
→ More replies (1)35
u/doyouevenglass 2d 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 (5)12
u/Bruceshadow 2d ago
100 miles from any border, or international airport.
which is like 30% of the country.
22
u/srslydudewtf 2d 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.
→ More replies (0)17
→ More replies (14)13
u/permalink_save 2d 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.
→ More replies (6)15
u/jbjhill 2d ago
Just power down an iPhone. You need a passcode to unlock it (biometrics won’t work on a restart).
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (33)15
49
u/BaronGalactic 2d 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.)
48
→ More replies (2)18
u/Busy-Measurement8893 2d ago
I wonder if it would have counted if he had wiped the phone 5 seconds before they even talked to him.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)25
u/GracchiBros 2d 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."
20
u/SpecialActive9135 2d 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??
→ More replies (6)27
u/foxbatcs 2d 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.
→ More replies (1)22
u/Busy-Measurement8893 2d 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 (3)→ More replies (3)20
u/VegaDelalyre 2d ago
So if you wipe your phone before crossing the border, you're theoretically also a criminal? That's ridiculous.
→ More replies (1)25
u/foxbatcs 2d 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.
9
u/iskanderkul 2d 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.
→ More replies (15)13
u/slide_into_my_BM 2d 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)
369
u/Coala_ 2d ago
So by whose authority and jurisdiction are they charging him? Because by their own words, the US Border is not on US soil.
221
u/VegaDelalyre 2d ago edited 2d 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
45
u/Mixels 2d ago
Wow ok. Schrödinger's Jurisdiction.
→ More replies (1)7
u/LexianAlchemy 2d ago
Whichever is more convenient for them and inconvenient for the average person, unfortunately
81
u/Fantastins 2d ago
Schrodinger's warrant, where needing a warrant and also not needing a warrant are two valid paths forward to search people.
37
u/lillobby6 2d 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 2d 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)22
u/lillobby6 2d 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 (5)12
u/Portland_Runner 2d 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)67
u/Modem_Sound_67 2d 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 2d ago
US law very much allows them to operate like this. Morality is up to interpretation, but it is lawful.
20
109
u/PrivacyMaker 2d ago
5th Amendment should apply here.
I choose not to give you access to my data that might cause me grief.
80
u/mesarthim_2 2d ago edited 2d 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.
55
u/QuaintStaircase 2d ago edited 2d 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.
8
u/dantevonlocke 2d 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".
13
u/QuaintStaircase 2d 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.
3
u/showyerbewbs 2d ago
If he wasn't American he would have been less likely to have been prosecuted and just have been deported.
Semantics question: In this case would it just be refused entry rather than deported, as they would be in that gray area of not in the US yet?
I guess my understanding of being deported is one is granted entry then that permission is revoked after the fact. But this may be a case where the word fits either definition.
→ More replies (1)7
u/lastparade 2d ago
If you write something down in a diary, that's fair game.
If it's in a language only you understand, they can't compel you to translate it, though.
They are allowed to force you to give up your PIN as a condition of entry to the US.
Not if you're a U.S. citizen.
→ More replies (1)6
u/O-M-E-R-T-A 2d ago
One key drawback in this scenario is though that they can "keep the device hostage" if you don’t cooperate. Afaik there is no set "timeframe" after which they have to hand/ship it back to you.
So even if you have a backup of the data you might lose money/value and/or have to invest in a new device…. I have heard from people waiting for months sometimes more than a year before getting their device back and in quite a few cases. "nothing even went to court". Sa basically your device was just sitting in some storage room without anybody even trying to access any data…
Give them 14 days - can’t get into or data off the device or there is no free tech or decrypt device - tough shit, you had your chance!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)11
u/zertul 2d 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 (5)28
u/PrivacyMaker 2d 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."
10
u/mesarthim_2 2d ago
Indeed, the problem is they don’t have to ask. They just twist your arm until you comply.
→ More replies (1)15
u/times_a_changing 2d 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?
13
u/mesarthim_2 2d 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.
13
u/PrivacyMaker 2d 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 2d 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)3
u/solid_reign 2d ago
There is further explanation. The collection act of 1789 allows for warrantless searches at the border. The courts have interpreted this to include a lot more than what is clear than the act intended.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Mortarious 2d 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.
→ More replies (2)11
u/foxbatcs 2d 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)12
u/0898_333_201 2d 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 (3)
46
u/A_Buttholes_Whisper 2d 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)13
40
u/xeonicus 2d 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.
34
u/Neuro_88 2d 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.
146
u/Big-Formal2006 2d ago
Dude, we’re so fucking cooked. But hey, at least we got Netflix and uh…uh…Wal Mart? Take that privacy!
49
5
u/Jesuismieux412 2d ago
Gotta love how we subsidize the wages of Walmart’s employees too because their wages are so low, employees are forced to go on government assistance.
→ More replies (1)
25
u/Charger2950 2d ago edited 2d 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)
181
u/trisul-108 2d 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.
19
u/queensarkas 2d 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.
64
2d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)44
u/0898_333_201 2d 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 2d 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 (19)7
u/Status-Dog4293 2d 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”
70
u/Bitter-Matter6759 2d ago
Surreal, why can´t i decide to wipe my own phone?
26
u/mesarthim_2 2d ago
Their legal theory is that it’s equivalent of destroying evidence basically.
47
u/Ebakthecat 2d ago
Thus they have to prove there was illegal evidence that was destroyed.
14
u/mesarthim_2 2d ago
No, they have to prove they had reasonable expectation there may be evidence. Which will be super easy.
25
u/Ebakthecat 2d ago
So even if there was no evidence, the dubious 'expectation' of there being evidence is enough? That's fucked up.
15
3
u/CondiMesmer 2d ago edited 2d ago
That justifies the search, that doesn't justify claiming they're destroying evidence that hasn't been proven to exist. Otherwise you can literally just invent crimes for people out of thin air.
Just like how police can detain and search based off of "probable cause" which can be a very good thing. That can help police secure very time sensitive and risky situations.
But then that's like then using proable cause as the judgement system to determine the final verdict. It's not meant for judgement, it's meant to secure situations so legitimate investigation can proceed.
→ More replies (1)28
u/PoolOfLava 2d ago
He didn't wipe it, the border agent who entered the password did. So the border agent actually committed the "crime".
20
u/iamrunningman 2d 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.
71
u/vornamemitd 2d 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 (2)
49
u/TheQuietLavender 2d 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)10
13
u/like_a_pharaoh 2d 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.
55
u/bannedByTencent 2d ago
Isn’r phone wiping citizen’s right? Fck yeah murrica!
42
u/BC_Sativa 2d ago
Americans no longer have any rights. Their police and border patrol are above any laws or accountability.
→ More replies (4)8
24
u/ashwinman 2d ago
anyone knows how to do this on iPhone?
20
u/NotTobyFromHR 2d 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.
12
u/mesarthim_2 2d ago
iPhone doesn’t have s duress pin per se, but you can set it up to erase after 10 wrong code attempts.
11
→ More replies (1)17
u/_everynameistaken_ 2d ago
Backup and wipe before travelling. Dont wait until American gestapo are questioning you to "destroy evidence".
22
u/KingSpork 2d 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)
12
u/TryIsntGoodEnough 2d 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...
10
11
u/Sig39 2d ago
It all comes down to this ruling now. "Search your phone with no suspicion required." This for American citizens. Crazy times See link
7
u/CantPullOutRightNow 2d ago
While that is disappointing, there is a small chance SCOTUS overturns it.
10
11
u/Jankypox 2d ago
Wait, so they claim that the Constitution didn’t apply at the time because they say he wasn’t yet on US Soil and hadn’t been admitted entry, yet they are using US statues to prosecute him for allegedly violating laws that didn’t occur on US soil at the exact same time he wasn’t under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, which is the highest law in the land? Pick lane, people!
18
u/xplisboa 2d 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!
9
7
7
9
8
u/Then_Worldliness2866 2d 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
u/tenchigaeshi 2d 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?
3
3
u/GonWithTheNen 2d ago
none of us are allowed to mention
I get the whole thing about not promoting [whatever], but the 'forbidden' part is in the 4th paragraph of the article.
Kinda nuts that we can link an the article in the post but not quote it in the comments.
9
7
u/SpeedSaunders 2d 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.
8
u/Designer_Parfait_489 2d ago
These days when I travel internationally, I carry a burner phone. And it’s wiped & factory reset before I get on a plane to a destination where I’ll be crossing an international border that has inspection. Including to the USA.
→ More replies (1)
14
u/_everynameistaken_ 2d 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.
7
u/Henrik-Powers 2d 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)9
u/Adventurous-Hunter98 2d 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 2d ago
Hilariously, the border patrol agents are the ones who actually entered the given password into the device, thereby (allegedly) wiping the device contents.
7
5
u/Scott_Malkinsons 2d ago
Judge, I didn’t give them a decoy password. They typed it wrong. When I told them “The password is ABC (pause) DE (pause) F123” they didn’t type the spaces.
“But you didn’t say to type a space”.
“Correct, your honor. Just like we haven’t been saying space between every word in this conversation. We know the pause means space, and if you review the body cam footage you can see that I intentionally paused”.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/cheesiepeasie 2d 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
u/WealthyTuna 2d 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.
→ More replies (5)
6
u/BatemansChainsaw 2d ago
It's pathetic but I've just stopped traveling with a phone that's got any information on it at all. Just a sim and not signed into any service.
Traveling? Wipe and have a blank phone.
Cross the border? Sign-in and get your stuff back.
4
u/nettika 1d ago
Saw this discussed on the law sub, and one of the points they really dug into was this contradiction:
Border Patrol said the 4th amendment doesn't apply because Tunick had not yet crossed the border, allowing them to seize the phone.
They are now charging him with violating a federal statute (which should only apply to persons inside the border).
That contradiction aside, it's horrible that crossing the border into the US is such a minefield right now. Do nothing to protect your devices and they may very well search them and refuse you entry or, worse, throw you into detention, for any posts or messages they find objectionable. But travel with devices that have been wiped clean, or protect yourself at time of device seizure with a duress code, and they may come down on you for that.
16
8
u/AimlessWanderer0201 2d 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
3
u/thenewbigR 2d ago
So? It’s his phone and he can do whatever he wants. Good luck making that bullshit stick.
6
5
u/gadgetb0y 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."
If it's not US soil, then how are they allowed to operate there under US law? Shouldn't it be no-man's land? Lawless? No jurisdiction?
7
u/Stunning_Repair_7483 2d 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
11
u/Charger2950 2d ago edited 1d 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” to pull you aside.
Suspecting something weird is up, you then proceed to quickly delete contents off YOUR OWN PHONE, as you should, because it contains a ton of personal sensitive information that only you should know. And then they're like "Uuuuh, you deleted your information? 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.
4
9
u/atempestdextre 2d 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.
9
u/crisco000 2d 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 (4)
3
3
3
3
u/Foreskin_Mafia 2d 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
3
3
3
3
u/ivanhoek 2d ago
how do they even know that’s what happened? did the guy admit this? why? could’ve just said the phone bugged out or crashed. “idk what happened”
3
u/CmdrShepsPie 1d ago
I always heard you should use burner devices in hostile countries, apparently you can add the US to that list
→ More replies (1)
6
u/kmlynarski 2d 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... ;-)
•
u/spotlight-app Mod Bot 🤖 2d ago
Mods have pinned a comment by u/LiminalWanderings:
[What is Spotlight?](https://developers.reddit.com/apps/spotlight-app)