A U.S. citizen has asked a court to throw out the government's claim that he gave over a passcode to border authorities that wiped his phone's data, opening up fresh questions about a person's constitutional rights at the U.S. border.

Ain’t that some BS

  • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2091·
    9 天前

    Friendly reminder that, per the fifth amendment, you are not required to disclose your passwords to the authorities under any circumstances. This protection does not apply to biometric authentication, so don’t enable those methods.

    • StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world
      569·
      9 天前

      That’s honestly a curiosity in this for me. You dont have to unlock your phone for them but the fact that he was made to even with a duress pass makes me think that this was more than a standard stop.

      He absolutely didnt have to unlock it under the law.

      He was within his right to wipe it.

      But what led him to doing so?

      This isnt a defence of the boarder officers. Im just curious what the other side of the story is.

      Edit: ah there it is. They suspected him of having csam and by implication being a sex tourist.

      Heavy accusations. So they did have some suspicion (or at least claimed to) to justify the search.

      • sleepydragn1@lemmy.world
        117·
        9 天前

        From The Guardian article on the same incident:

        The defendant, Sam Tunick, was stopped for interrogation at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport on 24 January last year, after vacationing in the Dominican Republic. Unbeknown to him, federal authorities had put him on a terrorism watchlist because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City.

          • halcyoncmdr@piefed.socialEnglish
            451·
            9 天前

            Every time I hear someone invoking “protect the kids” I know 3 things.

            1. It has nothing to do with protecting kids, they’re hiding their intention.
            2. It’s probably some outrageous bullshit they absolutely need to hide.
            3. It’s probably because they are fucking kids.

            Number 3 was added recently because apparently based on the facts we now know… that is MUCH more common with these people than I could even imagine.

            • EliteCloneMike@lemmy.zip
              14·
              9 天前

              That’s why I stopped using Google for anything. Their AI is calling people child abusers left and right. And even after a person is cleared by law enforcement, they will not let that person get their data back. It could be innocent family photos or legal adult content. Haven’t used their services in years after the NYT articles and the several others from other news organizations that followed about their awful practices. They don’t care about correcting false positives only about the perception to share holders that they are fighting child abuse by closing almost a million accounts a year. Same for Meta, who closes many millions of account per year to stop child abuse, while hosting child abuse for advertisers. I didn’t supply links to the articles, but they can be easily found through a StartPage or DuckDuckGo search or which ever search engine you use (hopefully not Google).

              • anomnom@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                7·
                8 天前

                The crazy thing is that tech CEOs hear that their bullshit machines are calling people pedos, so they look and at their own CEO social circles and see 50% are pedos, and think, “sounds about right”.

                Then they ask Grok to undress another minor.

      • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.worldEnglish
        411·
        9 天前

        Since they just let him walk after the phone wiped itself, they clearly didn’t actually believe he was a risk of any kind. If there was any actual reason for suspicion they would/should have detained him outright.

        • StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world
          51·
          9 天前

          He was put on a terrorist watchlist because he didnt want his tax dollars funding a cop city. Thats reason enough for the judge to throw this out.

          • uienia@lemmy.world
            2·
            7 天前

            Except of course that getting lifesentences for simply being an anti-fascist is now the tradition in the US.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        20·
        9 天前

        There are some of us that know these things happen and take steps to protect our rights and personal data.

        Most all of us here have multiple methods employed to avoid being tracked online via browser plugins or whatever. Some of us take it a step further and lock our phones should an encounter with LEOs be a possibility, and he had a wipe command to go even further.

        These days the US is closer to a lot of fascist authoritarian states, and it’s probably only a short time before they throw people in jail for whatever manufactured reason because they wipe a phone before the Gestapo can pry into it and charge us with the crime of being un-American or some shit because we posted a meme mocking trump.

        • busted_Anoose@aussie.zone
          2·
          8 天前

          If you really want to pass through customs without issues, you need to do what most companies do through their IT. use a burner phone or laptop. Of course you may get a bit of scrutiny, make sure you take heaps of holiday snaps and send messages and such before you leave so theres something for the fart tube pigs to look through.

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            1·
            8 天前

            While valid, I think people have a hard enough time affording the phone they have now. Adding an additional line or better yet separate account and international data access might be too much. I think for most people turning their phone completely off with biometrics disabled and a decent lock password is about the best we could expect.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.worldEnglish
      42·
      9 天前

      Yep.

      Biometrics are SUPER unsafe, and insecure, because you can be physically forced to put your finger on a sensor, or to stand still for them to hold a phone infront of your face for faceid. I’ve literally seen videos of cops holding a guy in a choke hold whole another cop unlocks his phone with his face.

      but they can’t physically manhandle you into typing in a password.

          • Lumelore (She/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            121·
            9 天前

            I wish I read more of this thread first. In GrapheneOS it first opened my camera app and then attempted calling 911. Freaked me out so much cause I was relaxing in bed with my titties out. Also the setting is called Emergency SOS if you want to disable it.

            • Sunflier@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              8 天前

              Not sure what the difference is between my adroid locking when I just tap the power button one ane when I enter lockdown mode after holding the power button. They both get to tge same needing to put in a pattern to unlock.

        • halcyoncmdr@piefed.socialEnglish
          11·
          9 天前

          Android varies a bit depending on the software/manufacturer. It was added in Android 9 but some software releases remove it.

          By default it is not enabled. You can search settings for “Lockdown”, and then it will just be an option in the menu when you hold the power button.

        • sculptor0725@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          8 天前

          The thing with android lockdown is that it turns back off as soon as you unlock it. For something like going to an airport, I would go into settings and disable “use biometrics to unlock” under the biometric settings. Lockdown is more of an “oh shit” button, if you have the time to do it properly make it stick until you’re safe.

          • Railing5132@lemmy.world
            1·
            2 天前

            Good to know - thanks for pointing that out. On my version, if I were to simply shut down my phone, it requires a pin to start - no biometrics - and (iirc) the data contained within is encrypted until the pin is entered. So the smart play would be to simply shut it off, giben the opportunity?

            • sculptor0725@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              2 天前

              I’m not saying “don’t use lockdown” or “don’t turn it off”. What I’m saying is in addition to that if you need to unlock it while you’re in the airport then you want it to not be unlockable from that point with biometrics. You want the pin to kick back on by default after it’s been unlocked and relocked.

          • phobiac@lemmy.world
            3·
            8 天前

            Better to just turn the phone off if you’re in the power menu anyway. On boot up the phone requires a non-biometric credential to decrypt it.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        8 天前

        Depending on your skin color, reaching into your pocket to do this may be punishable by immediate execution. Just don’t use biometrics.

      • Eh-I@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        8 天前

        It is actually harder to torture a password out of someone than hold the phone up to their face.

        Constitution ain’t got shit to do with that one way or another.

      • FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world
        7·
        8 天前

        They’d need a warrant signed by a judge to crack your passcode or everything would be inadmissible and any half-assed lawyer could win you a civil rights settlement.

        • Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          7·
          8 天前

          Not at customs. Courts have consistently held warrantless searches are a-ok before you are officially admitted entry to the country.

      • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        8 天前

        It takes more than minutes, especially with an OS that doesn’t have a back door built into it. Also that’s a forensic tool, IIRC those require a warrant to use.

    • dreamkeeper@literature.cafe
      15·
      8 天前

      “except within 100 miles of the border where you have no rights at all, because that’s convenient for me so I made it the fuck up”

      –SCOTUS, defender of FREEDOM

      • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        7 天前

        Circuit Court: “Here is our very thorough and nuanced opinion on the matter”

        SCOTUS: “Judicial review bribery go brrrrrrrrrrr”

      • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
        3·
        8 天前

        But if he wants to spy on you in your home, suddenly there’s a perfectly valid reason (in hsi book) why your house is special and doesn’t get the right.

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        11·
        8 天前

        to be fair there’s a flip side to that too. I don’t want to be charged with invasion of privacy because I took a photo of my friend at a party and someone is in the background who sues me.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    67·
    8 天前

    Guy was innocent until they had proof of a crime. They didnt have any proof so boohoo for them. And they charged him of damaging property. Its his property, and its not damaged.

    • Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      351·
      8 天前

      The intent of the law was to have something to charge corporate fraudsters with if they destroyed the accounting records with proof of their fraud when served a warrant. Or illegal drug manufacturers destroying their chemlab. Ownership of the property doesn’t come into it.

      The envisioned cases were always domestic crime investigations where there was already enough evidence to get a warrant. The application at customs where they don’t need a warrant is the novelty, and I really hope the government loses its case.

      • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
        8·
        8 天前

        That isn’t their property. That belongs to the company.

        Case should be thrown out and the prosecutors charged with something.

    • cecilkorik@lemmy.caEnglish
      1021·
      9 天前

      The laws are now made up when needed and justice doesn’t matter. So, yes. Anything the authorities don’t like is a crime in a fascist regime.

      • tidderuuf@lemmy.world
        21·
        9 天前

        Kinda wild that most Americans are just going about their day while this is going on all around them.

        • halcyoncmdr@piefed.socialEnglish
          13·
          9 天前

          They too busy getting by day by day, as designed by the billionaire-run system. Commuting back and forth possibly up to an hour each way, getting paid a fraction of what they should be, unable to afford a mortgage, little to savings, probably working paycheck to paycheck. Reliant on work for their insurance coverage for chronic issues that would otherwise cost tens of thousands of dollars because the medical system inflates all costs to justify its existence on paper. No time to research issues, reliant on things like an hour of TV news to inform them. And those are owned by the billionaires as well, pushing their propaganda and ignoring the real issues.

          There are a lot of smaller independent things keeping people busy and stuck. While they almost all come back to the billionaires and end-stage capitalism, the propaganda from them is nearly inescapable for the average person.

          • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
            6·
            8 天前

            This. Freaking thank you.

            I called my reps to tell them to oppose the slew of bad Internet bills (badinternetbills.com) and even something so simple felt like I had to make myself an appointment to get around to it.

            And it turns out I should be calling a lot more often. Oh boy.

            Working class folks must struggle excessively to even be civically active while managing a ton of responsibilities domestically. That’s why you mostly see old people at local government stuff.

            And these keyboard warriors are talking crap because we’re not forming militias and running weeklong campaigns against the secret police.

            I really wish direct action was a lot more exciting but while we’re fighting for our rights, any number of dozens of private institutions are waiting eagerly to punish us into the pavement for missing payments.

            Yeah this system needs to be rebuilt from scratch, but this is what we’re working with right now, and it sucks!

            • halcyoncmdr@piefed.socialEnglish
              2·
              6 天前

              I really wish direct action was a lot more exciting but while we’re fighting for our rights, any number of dozens of private institutions are waiting eagerly to punish us into the pavement for missing payments.

              And THOSE people are being paid by the billionaire class to do it as a job. Both on the lobbying front, and on the back end at the banks, debt collection, and other companies you work with and buy from daily that are beholden to their wall street shareholders that ONLY care about quarterly profits.

          • busted_Anoose@aussie.zone
            1·
            8 天前

            And when you don’t have kids because you can’t afford them, they just open the borders and fill however many positions they need. because f you.

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          2·
          8 天前

          Americans have a false belief in their elections and that they can simply vote this away later. Or when that illusion is shattered, they often develop a political nihilism, having no further concept of political power.

          This is not actually unique to Americans, either.

          • busted_Anoose@aussie.zone
            2·
            8 天前

            thats because they have voted for octogenarians the last couple of times. might as well run the elections at nursing homes.

          • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            8 天前

            This is particularly frustrating amongst my Chinese friends who just absolutely trip over themselves to defend the status quo because one person can’t change the world etc.

            • NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
              4·
              8 天前

              Especially when Americans are attacking their “allies”. Why the fuck should Canada help Americans when half their country is calling to annex us and actively economically attacking us for “wildfire smoke” (the same kind of thing we sent our own citizens to help the US with last year). Fuck that we’re done helping

          • stylusmobilus@aussie.zone
            1·
            7 天前

            If it was our responsibility, which it isn’t, how are we expected to help?

            The government was elected. Quite a number of us said that if Trump was elected we couldn’t help.

            Besides which, before 2016 the general view toward us and our suggestions toward Americans to vote was to mind our own business.

      • sculptor0725@sh.itjust.works
        11·
        8 天前

        Where have you been for the past 500 years that you think laws weren’t just “made up” before that? Standing here absolutely slapping the “stolen land” sign

    • titanicx@lemmy.zip
      6·
      9 天前

      Under the border search exception, federal officers may generally conduct routine, warrantless searches of persons and items entering the United States without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity.

      No.

    • CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      27·
      9 天前

      I believe it’s only currently possible on Android. There’s Graphene’s built-in solution which uses a pin or password, and then there’s other android apps that can trigger the wipe if you get a text message with the code.

    • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
      5·
      9 天前

      Probably. The “Shortcuts” scripting language is actually quite functional if not well documented.

      Probably a good project for vibe coding.

      Definitely download the “Pulled over by the cops” one.

      It sends a text with your location to someone, turns off your screen, and starts recording video.

  • phoenixarise@lemmy.world
    501·
    9 天前

    Even if he did, so what? His phone, his property, his business. He should be able to do what he wants.

  • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    45·
    8 天前

    Everyone is cheering but the case was not thrown out yet. For now we just know this is technically possible which we knew already. Now we will find out if you can do this and not go to jail. I will cheer when this guy walks free.

  • ZephyrXero@lemmy.worldEnglish
    412·
    9 天前

    And…? There’s nothing illegal about wiping your phone if not already under indictment of something

        • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          46·
          9 天前

          Your questions miss the point.

          The burden of proof is on those making the claim that this not illegal, when that claim is directly contradicted by the news story right in front of your eyes. The person was indicted, which means the government had to at least convince a grand jury the act was illegal.

          Here’s the indictment.

          Here’s the law cited in the indictment:

          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.

          Unless you can make the argument that the search itself was illegal, then wiping your phone when an officer is actively trying to search it is indeed illegal.

          It seems the key thing here is to not confuse what actions you can take just sitting at home with the actions you can take while actively being searched by a federal agent.

          You actually hint at this with your “under indictment” comment. The law treats destruction of evidence only as a crime under certain specific circumstances. Basically in a setting where it’s reasonably clear that you’re not doing it to stymie an investigation, then it’s legal. For example, you can normally delete personal financial records whenever you want. But if you’re under indictment for a financial crime, that would likely be illegal. So one of those is when you’re under indictment. But for the same reason, another case is when an officer is searching you. In both cases the philosophy is that it’s very unlikely that someone happens to want to destroy something for innocent reasons right at the moment they fall under indictment or search.

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.worldEnglish
    436·
    9 天前

    Prosecutors later charged Tunick under a federal statute that makes it unlawful to knowingly destroy or damage property to prevent authorities from seizing it. Tunick has pleaded not guilty.

    Security experts also said they had not seen charges brought in this way before.

    “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.

    Zip it with a password. Upload it a couple of places, download it when you get home. Simple as. Anyone can do it.

    • n7gifmdn@lemmy.caEnglish
      561·
      9 天前

      Anyone can do it.

      Are you sure? My mom can’t tell the difference between posting on Facebook and doing a Google search.

      • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
        501·
        9 天前

        This site has an insane amount of people who don’t understand how inept the average person is at using technology.

        • OS2Warp@lemmy.zip
          5·
          9 天前

          Yes. Like every time someone says “oh just do X because you have device Z” and you ask, “ok, but what about if I have y” and people come out of the woodwork to downvote you because you don’t own device Z, you own device R.

      • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        9 天前

        When it is said that anyone can do x, I generally take that to mean that the means and methods are available to everyone if they cared to look, not that everyone already knows how to do that thing.

        • n7gifmdn@lemmy.caEnglish
          6·
          9 天前

          Can you mail it to me? I could really use it. I have like 1,000 VHS tapes and both my VCRs died.

          • aramis87@fedia.io
            5·
            9 天前

            Try thrift shops and eBay. I converted all my tapes, but still need to hang onto my vcrs because various friends and relatives keep asking me to convert.

        • n7gifmdn@lemmy.caEnglish
          4·
          9 天前

          Yeah like one time I called her “Mom, what about ‘[Local Grocery Store]’?” she didn’t even stop to question why I was asking she just went on “I was looking up their phone number on the computer but the computer didn’t do what I told it to, it just showed me all my friends posts instead.”

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          2·
          9 天前

          Android doesn’t have as easy an option. iPhone users if they pay for iCloud storage would just wipe the device and when they get to their destination with wifi restore via iCloud.

          If they don’t pay for iCloud storage they can still go to transfer or reset and kick off a temp storage where it’ll back up their whole phone for 21 days so once backed up they can wipe it an restore later. (It was designed for if a device needs to be dropped off for repair or traded in, but it would work for this as well)

        • Free Trampoline!?@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          13·
          9 天前

          I’m 38 and I do it. Level-up, Grandpa. Your age can’t be your excuse forever. And we say young people don’t like to read, fml…

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      18·
      9 天前

      The thing is, data isn’t just property. It is also speech. The right to remain silent is so fundamental to the legal system that a whole case can be thrown out if you are not reminded of this right while being arrested.

      • sculptor0725@sh.itjust.works
        21·
        8 天前

        You have a right to remain silent but you don’t have a right to lie. This is super important legally. If you’re asked “what is your device pin” and you say nothing you’re OK, but if you say “my pin is 12345” and that’s actually your duress PIN then you can be in trouble for that.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          1·
          8 天前

          I was speaking more broadly about the constitutionality of being charged under a destruction of property statute. In a sense, deleting your data is choosing to remain silent.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      3·
      9 天前

      My iPhone is backed up in the cloud and it’s a matter of minutes to restore it, though the data can take longer to appear. It’s not a real big deal for me to lose my phone, cost aside.

      • homes@piefed.worldEnglish
        3·
        9 天前

        Also, if you know it’s gonna be seized, you can just click the power button five times, and that puts it in lockdown mode which disable all interface ports, wired and wireless, and completely encrypts it with a special lockdown password. Enter that incorrectly enough times, and the phone wipes itself.

    • titanicx@lemmy.zip
      131·
      9 天前

      https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-6-6-3/ALDE_00000239/

      No need for a warrant, and the 4th amendment doesn’t apply in this case.

      Under the border search exception, federal officers may generally conduct routine, warrantless searches of persons and items entering the United States without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity.

      They have near autonomy to search you and your belongings for any reason upon entering the country.

      • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.comEnglish
        151·
        9 天前

        We don’t have to let them. We can fight it to make change happen.

        And we should. They are no masters.

        • andrewta@lemmy.world
          42·
          9 天前

          Trying to fight them when you’re re-entering the border I guarantee you will lose. If you want to fight them, you do it in court.

          But you do you

          • Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world
            9·
            8 天前

            If you want to fight them in court, you need standing. To have standing, you have to have been affected by the law.

            You can not fight them in court until they do something. You can not sue for what someone might do.

            • andrewta@lemmy.world
              1·
              8 天前

              Is it true that you have to have standing to fight them in court, yes.

              But to be completely honest, 99% of the people have no interest in actually going to court . they figure they can just fight them while standing in line.

              • Null User Object@lemmy.world
                3·
                8 天前

                You’re contradicting yourself.

                Trying to fight them when you’re re-entering the border I guarantee you will lose. If you want to fight them, you do it in court.

                There’s an implied “instead” in there. You’re saying don’t fight them at the border, because you will lose. INSTEAD, fight them in court.

                To fight them in court, you have to have standing. You get standing by fighting them at the border and losing.

                • andrewta@lemmy.world
                  12·
                  8 天前

                  I’m not contradicting myself, you’re just not understanding what’s being said there.

                  So let me spell it out for you. If a person thinks they can just stand at the border and just fight it. And that’s it. And win. No they’re going to fail. Damn near every single time. It’s kind of like trying to argue with a cop alongside the road. Good luck you’re basically not going to win.

                  Now, if your intent is to fight in court, if that is your end goal, then yes you would have to fight it at the border. You have to say something at the border so then you have legal standing.

                  The point of my statement was 99% of the people have no intention going into the courtroom, so therefore there’s no point in fighting at the border because they’re going to lose at the border.

            • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              8 天前

              This is no longer true. The Republican idiots on the Supreme Court have made a habit of ruling for plaintiffs with demonstrably zero standing. There is no longer rule of law in this country.

      • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
        11·
        8 天前

        I’m not convinced this applies here as it’s discussing traffic stops to look for illegal immigrants and contraband near land border crossings. The article is referencing an American citizen getting detained and having his phone searched in the Atlanta airport without probable cause or a warrant.

        • titanicx@lemmy.zip
          1·
          8 天前

          This is exactly describing that if you read the part that I quoted it specifically quotes upon entering the United States. At an international border. And air flight at an international airport is an international border. And they do not require a warrant. It’s already been settled in a court of law although as we can see that can be overturned however it would be very difficult to do so

          • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
            11·
            7 天前

            That doesn’t mean agents have a free-for-all to do whatever they want at the border. Would you assume agents can just imprison anyone or perform warrantless searches at homes along the border too? There’s a lot more nuance to this than what you think and seizing a device chock full of personal information and private communication is a lot more invasive than someone performing a routine, (from your quote) fairly non-invasive visual inspection of a vehicle looking for entire human beings.

            • titanicx@lemmy.zip
              1·
              7 天前

              There isn’t nuance. You are bringing up things beyond the scope of the conversation and article to try to prove something you can’t.

              Article states: man enters country. Border patrol requests search of phone. Man is accused of wiping phone.

              Person states: 4th amendment says you cannot search me for no reason!

              Court says: yea, actually they can.

              Person states: nuh uh. You can’t, I’ll take it to court, we can fight this!

              I state: sorry, already been to court. The law says, yea, they can.

              Person states: nuh uh! Cause what if this, or what if that! Random bullshit that doesn’t have anything to do specifically with this situation, or anything.

              Whatever dude. You want to win. Go ahead. You win. Keep moving your own goal posts to try to prove something unprovable.