This has always been a well known rule.
Smartphones and the rules surrounding them at border searches are still pretty new, and they’re likely enough to change. I think you’re hugely overestimating the well-known-ness of these customs.
Comment on U.S. Citizen Who Deleted Phone’s Data Says His Prosecution Puts Privacy at Risk
furrowsofar@beehaw.org 1 week ago
This is not mysterious. You do not have to unlock your phone if it uses a password, but you cannot delete your data. This has always been a well known rule.
WesternInfidels@feddit.online 1 week ago
balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Yeah and it’s even more stupid for him to be giving out interviews right now defending his actions. If I was him I would shut up in public and tell prosecutors that I was under extreme stress and pressure of the detainment and accidentally mixed up the real password with the duress password. The government can easily prove all elements for obstruction of justice and/or destruction of evidence here, except for intent.
notfromhere@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Would having a duress password at all be what they need to prove intent? Did he go out of his way ahead of time to set it up or is it part of the setup process of the OS?
balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
I think stuff like that would be up to the jury to decide. If I was on that jury I definitely wouldn’t consider just having a duress password to imply intent of “knowingly preventing the Government to take property into its custody”, especially since GrapheneOS doesn’t really mention state actors in its FAQ. It would be reasonable for him to claim that he enabled this feature to protect himself from illegal searches or kidnapping, and accidentally gave the wrong answer to the cops.
But reading the OP interview it seems to me that he is almost admitting that he wiped the phone intentionally, tipping the scales significantly. Is it “beyond reasonable doubt” that he intentionally gave the duress password now? Maybe.
Kissaki@beehaw.org 1 week ago
it seems to me that he is almost admitting that he wiped the phone intentionally,
Seems like he’s trying to change the system, to do a public good, rather than only escape his conviction.
colournoun@beehaw.org 1 week ago
My understanding is that he is not the person who deleted the data, the agent did it by entering the pin. That’s an interesting wrinkle. Is that materially different than entering the wrong pin 10 times which often also wipes the device?
balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Nah, it doesn’t change anything. The statute says
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.
It’s clear that if he intended to wipe the phone and told the officer a password which would erase the contents, he “knowingly took an action for the purpose of preventing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody”.
slauraure@beehaw.org 1 week ago
That’s why you write the duress pin on a note and “hide” it poorly inside the phone case.
balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Honestly yeah, that’s the best solution if you want to do something like this.
tracelr402@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
But it getting wiped didn’t impede them from taking the property into custody
balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Data contained on the phone is very much the property which they wanted to take into custody or control, and it was wiped.
furrowsofar@beehaw.org 1 week ago
The problem. You cannot lie to an agent, but you can remain silent. Your also taking an action with a known consequence and an action that is not allowed.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 week ago
I want to see the agent’s proof that he entered the pin correctly
SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
but you cannot delete your data
Said who?
irotsoma@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
The current administration has stated that even for US Citizens, border entry suspends all constitutional rights. They’ve also said they believe this applies to allow warrantless searches within 100 miles of a border, which includes most major US cities, thus allowing ICE to search and kidnap basically anyone, not just immigrants. And they have stated that searching an electronic device is not a “search” as mentioned in the 4th Amendment and so you can’t refuse to unlock the device or “destroy evidence”. And that once you give them that access, that you have also “freely given” them access to your private social media, bank, etc., records and so those no longer require a warrant to access. And it’s “gun to the head” tactics because they also believe they can detain you indefinitely in the 100 mile zone without a lawyer or any other usual rights, because you aren’t being arrested, just an extended interview or whatever they call it. All in the name of terrorism prevention, of course.
Since they have corrupted the Supreme Court, this has been mostly upheld in various court cases so far. But any legal scholar will tell you it’s nonsense. But that doesn’t matter to authoritarians. They don’t work within the law.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 week ago
This started long before the current admin.
This was in place under Obama, and I’m pretty sure it started with 9/11.
megopie@beehaw.org 1 week ago
The difference is that previous admins have just abused it much more sparingly because they knew that it would undermine the regime’s legitimacy if those powers got to much attention.
WesternInfidels@feddit.online 1 week ago
Legal Information Institute, Searches at International Borders suggests that the Supreme Court decided “searches made at the border … are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border” in 1977.
irotsoma@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
Oh, yeah, but at least the courts would intervene back then. Now many of the courts have been corrupted and the ones that haven’t are bound by precedent which the supreme court no longer obeys and courts above them that are corrupted. So these specific interpretations are becoming more and more common and not just against poor people who can’t afford lawyers.