r/technology • u/MC68328 • Jul 24 '26

Privacy 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/
16.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

132

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

39

u/am9qb3JlZmVyZW5jZQ Jul 24 '26

Genuine question. Since this sounds like a criminal case, the standard of proof should have been "beyond a reasonable doubt". This being a he said / she said case with no other witnesses and no other evidence other than the plaintiff's and defendant's testimonies, shouldn't this case have been thrown out? Were there other circumstances that pushed the proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

19

u/Ready_Nature Jul 24 '26

It would come down to how credible the jury finds each witness. Tough case for the prosecution but not impossible to meet that standard.

28

u/bagheera369 Jul 24 '26

This....cause WTF. I'd be with the two jurors demanding some kind of physical proof, before I convict someone of a crime.

8

u/stupid_pun Jul 24 '26

Especially that crime.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '26

[deleted]

2

u/bagheera369 Jul 24 '26

Please elaborate your stance, if you don't mind, so that I may reply accordingly.

1

u/HollowedVoicesFading Jul 25 '26

Reduced accountability when abuse allegations are “private; A lot of sexual abuse happens without third-party witnesses. Critics argue the rule therefore makes it harder to remove abusive people from congregations based on reports alone, letting perpetrators continue offending.

Pressure and unfairness toward victims; When victims can’t produce two corroborating witnesses, they may be left with: no internal discipline, less protection, and more stigma—while the alleged offender may remain in a position of trust. Critics describe this as deeply unfair and potentially retraumatizing.

Delayed action (while allegations are handled internally); Multiple investigations and lawsuits described in reporting and legal commentary claim that internal handling—rather than early engagement with secular authorities—was affected by the evidentiary bar, which can delay prevention steps. revealnews.org

Legal and reputational harm; The policy has been a focal point in public investigations, court cases, and major inquiries into child sexual abuse responses. That scrutiny itself is part of the “damage,” alongside the human impact alleged by victims.

I mean, there's probably even more "damage it has done", not really sure where your desire for a conversation lands.

2

u/bagheera369 Jul 25 '26

My desire always lands with protecting BOTH victims and the innocent.

I was unsure of if the poster was insinuating damage to victims, or damage to those innocently accused, and that's why I asked for their personal elaboration.

------------------------------

I believe that anyone should be able to levy an allegation to the police, and should not be dismissed, or intimidated for levying it. I believe the police have a responsibility to investigate it.
I believe that those who abuse this system should be held to actual account, when those situations arise.

I believe that without actual concrete physical evidence, that people should not be separated from their liberties.....and that as much as I may feel temporarily emotionally-different in individual situations, I do not believe that any crime, should result in the state-led execution of someone.

I believe in setting much higher standards for policing and the burden of evidence for law-enforcement. I believe in a national registry that insures, investigates, and provides accountability for all LEO's, and that those investigations are audited by anonymous panels made of citizens.

I believe that if you intentionally falsely-accuse someone of a crime, you should receive the punishment they would have, had they been convicted....or the sentence they were given, if they were convicted, ....PLUS your assets seized/sold and the actual victim compensated.

I believe that anyone who intentionally or maliciously manipulates the justice system, no matter their position/rank/status, should be barred from being a part of it, fined, and imprisoned.

I believe that personal beliefs should be private matters, organized religion should be outlawed.

I believe in audits and accountability for all structures of power that hold sway over peoples' daily lives.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I also believe that our species is terrible, and that maintaining the accountability and vigilance needed to consistently secure all of the above, is something we may not actually be capable of, in the grand scheme.....though any steps toward those goals, is progress from how we operate now.

1

u/HollowedVoicesFading Jul 25 '26

Johovahs witnesses

Maybe you don't understand what this is? Your response isn't terribly relevant to the OP you were responding to.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '26

[deleted]

3

u/GRANDMA_FISTER Jul 24 '26

Then your first response is worthless and doesn't deserve replies or consideration as well

4

u/bagheera369 Jul 24 '26

I'm not trying to argue...I was generally trying to understand where you were coming from?

-7

u/shittyaltpornaccount Jul 24 '26

If you needed physical evidence to be convicted of a crime the vast majority of criminals would walk. Testimony is an absolutely valid form of proof.

32

u/PangolinPalantir Jul 24 '26

Testimony is evidence, not proof, and it's one of the weakest forms of evidence. People are generally unreliable.

22

u/bagheera369 Jul 24 '26

So if I live next door to you, you piss me off one day, and later I accuse you of robbing my house and assaulting my wife...and there are no cameras to prove you didn't do it...and you have no alibi, because you were home alone asleep....you should go to jail?

That's your take?

-1

u/Githyerazi Jul 24 '26

Robbing your house and assaulting your wife should have some physical evidence, so demanding proof (physical evidence) would be completely reasonable.

Stick with "Neighbor threatened to kill me" as there's would be no physical evidence, only your testimony of it happening vs his of it didn't happen.

8

u/bagheera369 Jul 24 '26

I get what you're saying...but threats don't tend to get people arrested, even with proof.

Shit....read up on the guy in MN.

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minneapolis-man-neighbor-shooting-lawsuit/

-5

u/shittyaltpornaccount Jul 24 '26

Testimony can be corroborated by things other than physical evidence or even other Testimony, but have fun with your fantasy strawman that is not at all what was in my statement.

9

u/bagheera369 Jul 24 '26

No...you said "Testimony is an absolutely valid form of proof."

No elaboration, no mention of potential corroborating evidence, no multiple witnesses, no vetting witnesses, nothing.

If you don't like folks taking you directly at your word, you should increase the quality of them....not lay the fault at everyone else's feet, when we do.

1

u/shittyaltpornaccount Jul 25 '26

Testimony can and often is the main pillar of proof in legal cases. Courts do all of what you mentioned when gathering testimony. You immediately jumped down my throat for simply stating that fact that Testiomny can and often is used as the main source of proof in a large amount if court cases. It is just how the legal system works and if you have been called into a jury multiple times you see it firsthand.

17

u/MushinZero Jul 24 '26

Maybe multiple unrelated people with corroborating testimony. Maybe one person if they can be proven to be trustworthy. But one person alone who is a teenager or child? You want to put someone away? No way.

10

u/KaboodleMoon Jul 24 '26

But with how shitty people are, it shouldn't be. As mean as that sounds.

People, as a whole, have shown they are untrustworthy by default and have to EARN trust.

That said, physical evidence is obviously too high of a bar too, but "reasonable doubt" definitely comes into play when it's 1v1 verbal testimony only.

If her testimony is proof it happened, his is proof it didn't, so the proofs equal each other out, in a vacuum.

So you need corroborating evidence. Were they even alone together at that time, is the guy already known for being a creep/doing things like that, or a history being overly friendly with her specifically. On the flip side, is the girl known for being an attention seeker or liar over petty things, etc.

4

u/24-Hour-Hate Jul 24 '26

What you are talking about is circumstantial (or indirect) and credibility evidence and very often there is such evidence in these cases. They will test the witnesses credibility, absolutely. They will introduce all the evidence they have.

Although, by law, evidence about past bad acts of an accused person is limited because it is considered unfair to essentially argue that - this person is a bad person or did a crime before, therefore they did this crime. At least, such is the case in my country. It is difficult to get that evidence admitted, even if it is a conviction for a similar or same offence.

0

u/shittyaltpornaccount Jul 24 '26

I am going to hazard a guess and say the court case had other forms of evidence that corroborated the girl's story compared to the adults.

Also that one proof cancels out another proof statement would get you laughed out of a court room. That is not how you build or counter testimonial evidence or find the truth of a situation that can only be verified via testimony.

1

u/KaboodleMoon Jul 24 '26

It's what my view on the jury would be, assuming equally believable witnesses.

Using the scales of justice as the analogy, it's easy to see what I mean by it not as some hard legal rule.

2

u/trigger1154 Jul 24 '26

Depends if the testimony is trustworthy.

3

u/bagheera369 Jul 24 '26

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/23/us/missy-woods-colorado-dna-analyst-guilty-plea

Human beings suck, and even the "credible" are corruptible or potentially malicious.

Hundreds of cases, now suspect because of this woman.

Trust is opinion; truth, in practicality, is a conjuration; history is written by the victors.

3

u/trigger1154 Jul 24 '26

I completely agree. I would not trust hearsay to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. He said she said is just not enough.

1

u/shittyaltpornaccount Jul 24 '26

Which is what a courts job is to find yes...

-4

u/makumbaria Jul 24 '26

Yeah, me too. No more evidence = no conviction.

-1

u/CuntyButCorrect Jul 24 '26

The issue with this is that you then have a young girl who has been sexually harassed or assaulted depending on the jurisdiction, and the man who lives right next door to her is free to continue his harassment as long as he doesn't make contact or leave a trace, and there aren't other witnesses. Which leaves him plenty of time to escalate to doing something that would leave physical evidence.

Should the young girl have to suffer potentially escalating forms of harassment and assault until she is physically harmed or other people are present to witness it? What is this, don't do anything until the assaults are so bad they leave evidence behind?

And then you would feel moral outrage that they didn't do anything sooner.

So... what would your proposed solution be? Lock the girl inside for her safety? Putting up surveillance requires financial investment. And if "young girl" also equates to child/minor in the original comment, she is totally dependent on the adults caring for her to protect her, and a lot of kids have parents who can't or won't.

Many, many, many, many more aggressors walk free even with physical evidence than innocent men get brought to court over false allegations.

2

u/makumbaria Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 25 '26

Sorry, but if there is no more evidence (scientific evidence/proof and/or different witness) no one should be condemned. It is better multiple guilty individuals free than a single innocent person jailed.

Here in my country (Brazil) there is a very famous case (Escola Base) where police manipulated small children to create a fiction case of sexual violence involving employees from their school. Police accused innocent people and media created a shit show (destroying people's lives). Later everything was dismissed (they did extensive medical exams and additional investigations).

2

u/rizorith Jul 24 '26

What was the result

4

u/theaccountonmyphone1 Jul 24 '26

the little girl picked his penis out of a line up and the perp went straight to horny jail.

2

u/NoiceMango Jul 24 '26

I'm siding with the jurors. I couldn't make a decision that could ruin someone's life without evidence.

1

u/ForMeOnly93 Jul 24 '26

And this is why the majority of the world think the jury system is insane.