Sounds like the police officer tried to gain unauthorized access to a device. And, while they were trying to crack it, they wiped all of its data.
I wonder if the police officer that did this will face criminal charges of unauthorized access and destruction of evidence.
And also there’s a civil suit in there. The officer may have deleted valuable data on the victim’s device, causing them harm. I wonder what the monetary value will be.
They charged people with terrorism for using Signal chat.
no he didn’t. They asked for a password that the phone would accept. They weren’t even supposed to ask, but he gave them one. They’re the ones who entered it on the phone. And by extension they’re the ones who erased the phone.
Plus he provided a passcode that unlocked the device I don’t see the issue.
Citizen enforces his own right to the Fourth Amendment and is prosecuted by the government for not letting them try to find incriminating evidence on him. For something. Maybe. Because he looks suspicious.
I hope that lawyer gets it thrown out. I’m not holding my breath. We’ve gone so far into fascism I’m not sure it’ll take anything less than violence to end it.
Unfortunately, the 4th is pretty well destroyed at the border. And within 100 miles of the border.
they’ve expanded the 100 miles to 250, and include cities with international airports now. we’re at a point now where USBP jurisdiction is wherever a USBP agent happens to be
Pick a lane. Either it counts as US soil so you need a warrant or it doesn’t so theres no reason for US law to apply until the person is approved.
<whisper>No one tell them about international airports…</whisper>
They have a point though. Technically from what I’ve read just living near an airport would give ICE the authority to search your phone and anything else you might be carrying if it’s within a certain mile radius. Even if you aren’t using the port of entry (airport for instance). Regardless of whether or not they have any other form of probable cause.
I don’t understand how others don’t understand that. Because it’s a hell of a conclusion to come to.
So? My data, my choice and right to delete it, so fuck off!
He didn’t delete it. The officer did.
I wonder if he’ll sue them for damages
“They asked for my password. They didn’t specify which password.”
More like “sorry I couldn’t remember the password. I guessed, but I have a bad memory”
This is exactly the reason the government can’t force you to give your password in the US. They can’t prove that you remember the password.
If you’re in this situation, don’t say this. You are under no obligation to explain anything, and anything you say will be used against you (and will not be used to defend you). Just shut the fuck up.
Yeah, you’re right
Just put a note in your wallet that says cell password with the distress pin. You didn’t give them the pin their illegal search uncovered it.
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.
Very glad to hear that he’s a free man while the courts try to figure out what to do.
Also it’s hilarious that he didn’t wipe it. The officers did it. I think it’s going to be very hard to get a conviction of this activist when it was the officer that wiped the data.
Hmm this sounds like government overreach 🤔
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence
Tunick’s attorneys accused the government of demanding access to his phone under the pretext of searching for child exploitation imagery, but without providing evidence to justify its suspicion.
Even if I had more information, I still wouldn’t have the law chops to predict where this may lead.
The accused is a Stop Cop City activist in Atlanta.
I don’t have those chops either. Also NAL. The wiki page says Tampering charges require there to be an ongoing investigation, which wasn’t the case here, so I’m thinking it wouldn’t apply. But! I wonder about spoliation. Spoliation before a case is brought, while not illegal per se, can result in negative inference,
spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a trier of fact can draw from a party’s destruction of evidence that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding
Negative inference, to my NAL understanding, means the tampered evidence may be taken in the worst light for the defense. Here, it’s all resting on flimsy and politically motivated pretext with no evidence. Still.
Needs an immigration lawyer to give an answer to this, but I’m thinking it may be legally safer to have strong encryption and refuse to unlock, rather than to wipe. Not unlocking isn’t tampering, so no spoliation, but wiping might be. Well, safest of all is to use a burner. But next best, strong encryption + don’t unlock. CBP can confescate the device, but they cannot compel you to produce a pw or unlock code.
From what I’ve gathered, I think you’re right to assume it’s legally safer to refuse to unlock rather than wipe. Also, worth noting that you can be compelled to unlock with biometrics, but not a password. On grapheneOS this means simply shutting off/restarting your device as it requires a pw after a fresh boot, even if biometrics is enable.
you can be compelled to unlock with biometrics, but not a password
Yah, I’ve been trying to get my friends to use a pw rather than biometric unlock, for that exact reason.
I’m batting like 0 for 5, lol. Biometrics are just too convenient I guess. Plus they don’t think it will impact them personally. Which is prob true. I still think it’s best to use the way that preserves more civil rights. I just can’t convince them.
Sheep will always be sheep.
for research purposes, how would one go about setting this up?
I can’t seem to find it in my set up. There is no option for duress pin under device unlock selection
Are you using grapheneOS?
Yep e/OS 3.7.1
E: well I’m a fucking idiot
Lmao, the edited comment
E/os isn’t graphene and doesn’t have a duress pin feature.
Eos is not GrapheneOS
sorry accidentally did a duress oopsie uwu bite me
US is a dystopia
That’s precisely what a duress password is for. Feature working as intended, get a warrant.
it needs to be reworked so that it’s difficult to discern to strangers if the phone has been wiped.
it’ll probably have to include fake phone logs, fake text messages, fake pics, etc. to make the wiped phone look like it wasn’t wiped to everyone except its owner.
Edit:Other connent said GrapheneOS Can we get a source for this app/technique?
https://grapheneos.org/features#duress
Graphene OS Team has developed quite a lot of other useful features and some of them have even been merged into upstream AOSP allowing others also the benefits. Recent example is contact scope for apps starting Android 17 but it was initially developed by GrapheneOS team long ago.
this is literally what they accuse china of
they’re gonna use this case as pretext to ban graphene os
“Sorry, my fat American fingers accidentally entered the wrong code, you understand.”
The authorities conducting the illegal search entered the code, so the phone owner could assert that he gave them the right password and they were the ones that screwed it up. It’s a bit late for that argument, but someone could use that in the future and there’d be no way to prove it wrong.
From what I read, upon demand he gave the code to the Investigator, whomst had to watch the phone start to load and then erase it self. What a joy it must have been to watch them gifauh at that
