• FauxLiving@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 minutes ago

    Write the duress PIN on a piece of paper in your wallet. Someone searching your phone is probably also searching your wallet and may try the PIN.

  • Malyca@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 hours ago

    What law did he break? Vs the warrantless search that is breaking the law. If only the supreme court didn’t give them a pass.

  • soratoyuki@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Without a warrant, it’s literally his phone to do with it what he pleases. Baffled that that’s not the end of the conversation.

    Assuming we lived in a rational world with a fair and impartial justice system, and not one that exists to funnel money from the working class into the Epstein class and kill or imprison everyone that makes that less easy.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Oh, because they are outside US borders they claim not to need a warrant, but that doesn’t stop them using US law to prosecute him though.

    • Malyca@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I think the supreme court has said they can search phones without warrants at the border and points of entry, so airports.

      • jaschen306@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 hours ago

        A judge issues a warrant when there is an active criminal investigation. If there’s no investigation, no warrant.

          • wewbull@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 hours ago

            It is how it works inside the united states. It’s just they claim that because he was on the flight side of the airport, he wasn’t inside the US.

            • cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours ago

              it is how it works

              Thanks but I live here and it’s not basically ever.

              Cops either use a pretense tools like a drug dog to establish probable cause for the search they want or do parallel construction after they’ve already built the general structure of a case, usually tracing things to a valid cause for search, usually via coached informant.

              Or its ice and they can just do whatever they want.

              You’re living in a fantasy world and your delusional ignorance is real danger is worrying. Please never approach or speak to me in person.

                • cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  That’s not how it works. I’m not sure that’s how it’s ever worked. You’re living in a fantasy. Warrants are not a meaningfully real thing.

  • AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    The headline is wrong.

    Fascist regime fucks over people’s constitutional rights and could send a man to prison for protecting his own privacy.

    There, fixed.

    • GMac@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Loading any profile allows the operating system access to root privileges, and opens potential for user privilege escalation.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 minutes ago

        The profiles are independently encrypted with a key derived from the user’s profile PIN. If the other profiles are not logged in then their keys are not in RAM (and they get zeroed beforehand so they can’t be read out of unallocated memory).

        Even if the bad guys get root via a LPE in a dummy account there are no keys to find and the profiles’ storage are not mounted.

        You couldn’t trust the device after that however, who knows what kind of persistent spyware they could have installed.

        • GMac@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          54 minutes ago

          That would be an interesting proposition… under duress load profile x and delete all other profiles, apps, settings and keys.

  • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    ·
    8 hours ago

    This is fucking stupid. If I delete something on my phone while I’m on vacation am I going to prison because the border patrol might have wanted to look at it?

    • Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Nah, they just lube up the rubber gloves and fist you, checking in case there’s a micro SD stashed up there. You should still make your flight if you relax.

        • FreeBooteR69@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It’s like pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. So obvious. Just because it is impossible to do is no excuse.

    • kaotic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It’s bullshit but with the current laws. Back up your phone before you head home wipe it before going through border control, and restore your backup when you get home.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      We don’t need hyperbole here …. If authorities have a legal reason to search and you interfere with that, destruction of evidence is a crime. Delete all you want …. Right up until authorities claim the legal reason to search. Usually that takes a warrant: investigators must convince a judge there is a good reason

      This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.

      The slippery slope here is “or within 100 miles”, but that wasn’t a factor here either

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 hours ago

        This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.

        Have to disagree with that one. Simply entering a country is not justification for searching someones phone. I don’t care what the law says. People have a right to privacy.

      • stopdropandprole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        as far as I understand, they were not there to serve a warrant. he was crossing a border and the feds are claiming that the 4th amendment doesn’t apply because he hadn’t yet crossed into America.

        border patrol was essentially using a loophole to preemptively collect potential evidence (they’ll figure out what to charge him with after they see his phone contents). he’s a political activist against a cop city, they were obviously trying to do him dirty.

        they were not serving a search warrant. they were abusing what should be an illegal search at the border in order to silence those who speak out against govt overreach.

          • frongt@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            37 minutes ago

            The US claims jurisdiction over its citizens wherever they are.

            Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because it means you can be prosecuted in the US for stuff like going to Thailand and sexually abusing children there.

    • Malyca@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      👆 cannot be overstated. My family refuses to leave or I’d be in Europe right now. I’m from there and have a house there. Do not come here.

  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    The indictment alleges that Tunick knowingly deleted the phone’s digital contents

    My hot take: the officer wiped the phone. With their own hands. They’re just stupid.

    • Cheebus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      6 hours ago

      If they succeed I guess in the future an officer could delete your phone to save face then blame it on you.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Those of us who have asked to avoid the cancer box and been subjected to a subjectively punitive pat-down and fashion show experience are already anticipating just that. Yay!

        (And for added fun, call it a cancer box. Wow, when you get that one TSA who only has bad days will you get a great speech as well)

      • iknewitwhenisawit@fedinsfw.app
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Parallel construction is a way to present evidence illegally obtained by coming up with a plausible-seeming other way it was found.

        So, rather than saying “we illegally stopped and searched the defendant” they’ll get an “informant” (sometimes paid, sometimes coerced) to swear that they tipped them off beforehand.

          • iknewitwhenisawit@fedinsfw.app
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            It’s a form of lying, but with a specific meaning.

            Like how the 9th (or 8th, depending on how you’re counting) Commandment says to not bear false witness. That doesn’t mean that people following an Abrahamic faith cannot lie… just that they can’t lie in that one specific way.

  • notabot@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    9 hours ago

    To be fair, a duress pin is definitely a good thing to have if you’re being mugged, but using it to deliberately destroy data when it’s been seized by a lawful authority is guaranteed to land you in serious trouble pretty much anywhere. Whether the border agents were, in fact, a lawful authority, and whether they had a lawful reason to seize his phone are very different questions.

    The much more sensible approach is to either have a separate phobe for travelling, that has nothing you care about on it, or wipe your phone before you travel, and spend a little time building up an innocuous history on it, without putting anything you care about on it. Anything you absolutely must have access to while you’re away can be stored, encrypted, online, and you can remember the details to retrieve it.

    • undrwater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Curious, why the innocuous history? Just to reduce friction?

      “Where’s your REAL phone?!? We’ll strip search you for your real phone!”

      • notabot@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        57 minutes ago

        Pretty much. A compketely blank phone is a clear sign that it’s wiped, and why would you do that, unless you have sonething to hide, hmm? A phone with a couple of weeks of boring use, maybe a few photos of nice sunsets, a few messages, a take-out ordering app, some boring history in the web browser, and maybe a login to a social media account that follows some celebs and an old school friends or two who don’t seem to post any more, just says you got a new phone a while back and you’re fairly boring.

        Obviously, if they actually have something on you, or they want to pin something on you, those precautions won’t actually help much.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Not a lawful authority.

      He was flight side at the airport. So either:

      • …they’re not subject to US law, and it’s fair to search his possessions without a warrant. In which case he’s also not subject to US law so destruction of evidence is fair game.
      • …everyone is subject to US law and it’s an illegal search.
      • notabot@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        US border patrol are considered a lawful authority as they are granted their powers by the federal government and are federal law enforcement officers. They are charged with enforcing US laws, including immigration laws, at the border and in any US state or territory.

        From their point of view, they are well within their rights to seize and search his phone, and he interfered with their duties by destroying the data on the phone. Whether that should be the case is a different matter.

    • WesternInfidels@feddit.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The much more sensible approach is …

      The fact that we’re discussing ways to sneak past the fascist border guards, by getting very lawyerly with a bunch of fiddly rules they don’t actually give a hoot about, is kind of a big hint that we’ve already lost our liberties to a degree we are reluctant to acknowledge.

      This guy was singled out for his political opinions. Border patrol held him as a political prisoner, and when we read the story about him, we all see only too clearly that this could be any one of us.

      As far as anyone knows, the CP thing was an excuse, a lie. The authoritarians aren’t following the rules, the rules exist to serve as excuses to hurt us. There isn’t going to be some magic combination of smartphone hygiene and “I know my rights” phrases that will let us escape targeting by the most corrupt cops in the country.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      The much more sensible approach is to either have a separate phobe for travelling, that has nothing you care about on it

      and people have gotten in trouble for that, too, for having a travel phone, a phone that was too clean, etc etc.

      Because its not about the phone. Its about stealing data. pictures for facial recognition, contacts so they can map groups, communications so they can search for whatever bullshit excuse they want to string people up.

      This isnt about law. its not about protection people/the country.

      Its about being fascist dicks to undesirable groups of people. Aint seen one motherfucker on the epstein list, one motherfucking CEO, or any trump cockface have their phone seized by border patrol to steal any data.

    • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      6 hours ago

      The fifth amendment applies to this because he was a US citizen. He had every right to not give them his pin and it would only be destroying evidence if charges had been pressed. In this case some butt hurt border guard just really wanted to look at his vacation pictures or some shit.

      • notabot@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The charge wasn’t destruction of evidence, but destruction of property, probably for exactly the reason you mention. He could certainly have arguwd with the agent, but he certainly wouldn’t be getting on the flight if he did, and I suspect he’d be lucky to walk out of the airport without being arrested. As I said in another comment, this isn’t something you can beat at the point of application, it needs to be cut off at the root.

        • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Ooo so wiping data is destruction of property now? That means data is property.

          Let’s apply that to Microsoft for the times their updates wiped user data, to apple when you take the phone in for a screen repair and they “had” to wipe your data, to Sony for deleting movie collections, and all the data collectors for stealing property…

          • Windex007@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 hours ago

            The crux of those scenarios you outlined doesn’t hinge on weather or not data is property. Their arguments are that it isn’t YOUR property.

    • Lemmayng@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Third option: Refuse to give your phone credentials unless these fascist pigs have a warrant or provide you with a lawyer.

        • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          6 hours ago

          He’s a US Citizen. Legally they cannot deny him entry into the country.

          Central to these protections is the absolute right of a U.S. citizen to return to their country. This right is unequivocal. No matter where an individual has traveled, the duration of their absence, or their personal or legal background, a U.S. citizen cannot be denied entry into the United States. This principle is supported by both statutory and constitutional law. A landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), established that citizenship includes the right to reenter the nation. Unlike lawful permanent residents or visa holders, U.S. citizens are exempt from admissibility criteria. Consequently, even if a U.S. citizen lacks proper documentation or is subject to further questioning, the government is obligated to permit their entry once their citizenship is verified.

        • BillyClark@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The guy from the article was referred to as “a US man,” so I’m assuming he has US citizenship.

          The border cannot legally deny US citizens from entering the US. But they can do all sorts of other things, like detain or delay or prosecute people for not complying.

          • Signtist@bookwyr.me
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Unless they’re going to see real repercussions for doing so, get definitely can do whatever they want. Rules and laws only matter if people care enough to follow them and enforce them. All they have to do is pretend the person didn’t comply, and now they’ve got all the authority in the world to anything they want, regardless of what it says in the law books. Just look at what ICE is doing to US citizens; border patrol knows they can do all of that, too.

      • Fishnoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        What about give them the wrong pin, they initiate the device wipe, then you say they did it intentionally?

        • Hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 hours ago

          That is what happened. The accused told the boarder agent the duress pin when asked. The agent entered the pin that initiated the wipe.

          Could make a difference at trial, didn’t stop the case prior to the arrest.

          • Fishnoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Then a lot of it could come down to the wording the officer used. If they just asked ‘what’s the passcode’ then the person DID give them a passcode.

      • notabot@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        8 hours ago

        As far as I understand, from their point of view they have the lawful right to seize and inspect your phone. You could certainly refuse to hand it over, but that would certainly lead to incarceration or worse, with no positive outcome for you or society. It’s one of those things that you’re bot going to beat at the point of application, vut needs to be cut off at the root.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          7 hours ago

          they have the lawful right to seize and inspect your phone

          Sure. They can look at the outside of the hardware all they like. But if they can’t access the data on it, that’s (Constitutionally-speaking) purely their problem, not ours.

          • notabot@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            My understanding is that, for the purposes of inspections during border crossings, that is not the case. Also, remember that the border agent can decide, for pretty nuch any reason, that you’re not getting on the flight, and, I’m sure, can add a note to your record to suggest to agents on other flights that they stop you too.

            • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              6 hours ago

              US citizens have an unequivocal right to re-enter the county regardless of where they have been, how they returned, how long they were gone, or what they were doing. This was already determined by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

              • dhork@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 hours ago

                US citizens have an unequivocal right to enter the country, eventually, just not necessarily on a flight they booked (or any flight in the next few weeks, until the goons are done with them…)

              • notabot@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 hours ago

                I admit, I didn’t check, but if he was stopped on returning, then yes, he must be allowed in. He’d then be arrested.

                • Telorand@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  The other two issues are that he was allegedly repeatedly denied access to a lawyer when asked and not read his Miranda rights. Given how border patrol has acted lately, this is incredibly plausible and will hopefully lead to the motion to throw out the case being granted.

    • FlordaMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Maybe instead of wiping the phone and restarting the duress pin should show a pre-selected number of apps and wipe everything else.

      • notabot@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 hours ago

        That wouldn’t avoid the destruction of property charge, just (possibly) make it harder to notice. It sounds like it was the screen flashing and the phone restarting, which is probably necessary for a full wipe, that tipped them off.

        • ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The man was in duress and being forced to hand over his PIN while being denied access to legal counsel, that is the very reason for a duress PIN. I don’t think the charge is even going to make it to real court, his defense has a great case for it to be thrown out.

          • MangoCats@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            7 hours ago

            The fact that he’s in the news is a VERY good sign. In a real 3rd world shithole he would just disappear because he pissed off an unaccountable field goon.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              7 hours ago

              (That’s why arrest data is required to be public, despite the damage it does to the arrestee’s reputation, BTW.)

              • MangoCats@feddit.it
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                6 hours ago

                It’s a tough balance, it puts cops in a position to destroy someone’s life with zero proof of any law being broken - like Paul Reubens…

          • notabot@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Whilst, yes, he probably did feel under duress, he had a choice to make; hand over the phone, or wipe it and face the repercussions from doing so. Bear in mind, that from the agent’s point of view, they had the lawful right to search his phone, so arguing duress will be tricky at best. In his position, I’d like to think I was comfortable handing over the phone because I’d wiped it before travelling.

            Having said all that, yes, I agree that his defense has some strong arguments. However, if they decide to make an exame of him, those arguments wont do him much good.

    • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      This is the correct take. Its common across various business contexts: destroying evidence after you learn you are being investigated is big time illegal. If you destroy data, you better be able to demonstrate you did so beforehand (I.e. an expiration policy), or you don’t have it in the first place (because sensitive data doesn’t touch a given mobile device and all.). Dedicated device for travelling is the best idea.

      You could also take a video of yourself wiping the device before travelling for security in case it gets stolen. (Not a lawyer disclaimer).

      • CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I was thinking he should have asked a lawyer prior to trying to go through customs. ie: a week ago.

        • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          36 minutes ago

          The cops were trying to search him under duress, while denied legal representation, without being read his Miranda rights, and without a warrant. Why are you trying to blame the victim of this bullshit?

          He’s a US Citizen. He should be able to re-enter his own country without being subjected to this bullshit.

      • CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I was thinking he should have asked a lawyer prior to trying to go through customs. ie: a week ago.

        • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          35 minutes ago

          Yes because he’s a fucking mind reader who should have thought beforehand that his rights would be tramped in his own country.

          Shut the fuck up with your victim blaming bullshit.

          • CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 minutes ago

            It’s a good idea to know the possible implications of your actions. That’s just being reasonable. However, the 4th amendment says police need a search warrant, do there is nothing to prosecute.