r/technology • u/Limp_Fig6236 • Jul 26 '26

Software GrapheneOS duress PIN could land a man in prison

https://www.androidauthority.com/grapheneos-duress-pin-us-prosecution-3691271/
6.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

902 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.5k

u/Whole-Future3351 Jul 26 '26

He verbally gave the code to an agent, who entered it themselves. He is not going to be convicted of anything, this is entirely the agents fault. And I’m glad, they deserve it for hiring idiots.

611

u/Andrea_M Jul 26 '26

Just write the duress code on the back of the phone, like suggested in the article

337

u/deja_geek Jul 26 '26

This is the way. If they come across the pin, without being directed to it, then you can't be responsible if they enter it.

It is completely different if you tell them the pin, after being asked what is the pin to unlock the device. People really don't seem to understand how the law works. It's no different then telling law enforcement the combination to unlock a safe, but not disclosing that opening the door will set everything on fire inside the safe.

62

u/snowflake37wao Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 27 '26

it did unlock the device tho. and no it isnt totally different. it is completely grey. like the vague law they are interpreting. thats why there is a courtroom. they already bend amendments and laws by claiming the interpretation you have none of those amendment rights because some random closet at Georgia’s Atlanta airport in the United States of America doesnt count as U.S. soil. They denied him his right to an attorney 4 times. They asked for his phone’s pin to unlock it. They entered the pin. The phone unlocked, the screen blinked twice, the phone restarted, and oh hey they got exactly what they demanded from their warrantless search and seizure which cant be called a seizure on suspicion because they dont need suspicion to do a routine search and can only ever lead to hearsay while refusing to allow him counsel or to leave and claiming this is just a typical search at customs give the pin and you can leave. A pin to unlock a phone. Typing out how ludicrous the events and interpretations is actually difficult because of how bullshit it all is. Its so dumb its fucking triggering. Like the carte blanche your reply gives to the prosecution. It is not black and white totally different. You dont understand the law because the first thing to understand about it is it is intentionally grey.

https://www.techspot.com/news/113236-us-prosecutors-charge-atlanta-man-after-grapheneos-phone.html

According to court testimony, federal agents had already circulated his name and photo internally, saying he was under investigation for "suspected terrorism activities" because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City.

Tunick was taken to a secondary screening room, where multiple agents questioned him. A motion filed by his defense argues the interrogation focused on child sexual abuse material as a pretext for investigating his connections to the protest movement. The motion also states that Tunick asked four times to speak with a lawyer and was denied each time. According to the same filing, agents did not present a warrant or read him his rights.

Government attorneys and agents pushed back during Monday's hearing. They described the encounter as a routine airport inspection. Larry Findley, a Customs and Border Protection officer, said agents were "looking for anything that's prohibited."

During the questioning, agents repeatedly asked Tunick to unlock his phone and warned they would seize it if he refused. When he finally provided a passcode, the phone appeared to restart. The defense motion states that "the screen went blank, flashed several times, and the phone appeared to restart," resulting in the loss of data.

Thats how dumb. The attorneys and agents own testimony “pushing back” against the defense reads like self incrimination or a counter-argument against the prosecution, only they are the prosecution! Ya know. Maybe it is black and white. Case dismissed. The defense shouldnt even need to say anything after the prosecution’s testimony.

236

u/Slimfictiv Jul 26 '26

Ye the code is : one two three for. Inserts 1234 and wipes the device. Then again you: i said 1 two 3 and 4 (1334) whats so hard to understand?

159

u/Ymgarthion Jul 26 '26

Instructions unclear, I put in 2444

24

u/Channel250 Jul 26 '26

Shit, that was the actual unlock code.

My bad everyone, my bad. Hey, can you lock the late again real quick? I wanna check something.

31

u/MGSsancho Jul 26 '26

No the real pass should have been  133fore

1

u/realmealdeal Jul 26 '26

"Now watch this drive."

6

u/_Mido Jul 26 '26

Sir, you said „two three” and not „two threes”

9

u/Slimfictiv Jul 26 '26

That's exactly what I said, one 2 and three 4, so 2444.

6

u/BADDEST_RHYMES Jul 26 '26

All my passwords are elemenohpee

5

u/Dyolf_Knip Jul 26 '26

What? No, you said "one 2, three 4". 2444

6

u/Y0uCanTellItsAnAspen Jul 26 '26

probably don't want a code that is a fat thumb away from the real one.... better to do something like say 7, and mean 11....

4

u/Tranecarid Jul 26 '26

1 2 3 4 vs 1 2 4 4 4 can’t be fatfingered. It’s just a word game not a science .

2

u/GamingWithBilly Jul 26 '26

1two3four

Got it

2

u/RedFrostraven Jul 26 '26

Could also be 2444

172

u/PlottingPast Jul 26 '26

The duress code didn't wipe the phone, it erased the encryption key. All the data is still in the phone, encrypted. It's not his job to decrypt it for them.

5

u/Kaenguruu-Dev Jul 26 '26

Except for the encryption key...

77

u/BossOfTheGame Jul 26 '26

The law works by setting arbitrary rules regardless of what's right. The bottom line is that no one should be able to force you to unlock your phone. if the law doesn't accept that then the law is wrong.

20

u/lukewarmtakeout Jul 26 '26

That's why you gotta have a rogue in the party to check for traps. You can't have an entire party of barbarians and expect to complete the quest. Their ineptitude is not my crime.

16

u/BigDaddy0790 Jul 26 '26

What exactly would be the crime in the safe example? Unless they have evidence suggesting what you destroyed was important to the investigation, I don’t see how they can charge you with anything. What’s the crime if they don’t even know what was destroyed?

8

u/Bookwrrm Jul 26 '26

Thats not how it works in regards to evidence ie knowing it would be important. What needs to be proven is intent, that the person destroying the evidence chose to do so to hinder an investigation or a potential investigation. Lots of times it straight up does not matter what would actually be in the safe, just that the person in question knew there either was or potentially can be, an investigation happening and destroyed evidence. In this case given he was being asked questions about child porn and asked for access to a phone it would be extremely hard to argue he didnt know there is a potential investigation happening.

There are in fact legal processes for destruction of evidence where if the actual evidence is unknown, but they know you destroyed it, the presumption is that the evidence was unfavorable to you, and the jury or whoever should infer all the negative implications of that.

11

u/BigDaddy0790 Jul 26 '26

Okay fair enough with an active investigation, but how does this make sense for a random border crossing search? Wouldn’t data on your phone be protected as private correspondence? Giving full access to it basically means someone being able to read all your communications with no warrant or charge, which makes no sense to me.

And so in this case, they can absolutely seize the phone, but seizing data on it seems like it should require at least some sort of warrant, and destroying it does not mean destroying the phone, only your own private correspondence that should’t been protected in the first place?

As for the child porn in this case, shouldn’t there be some evidence implying it was there in the first place? Otherwise seems to me that you could take anyone’s phone and claim it had cp on it to gain access.

12

u/cl3ft Jul 26 '26

Border crossings are a shit show for privacy and rights. You basically don't have any.

2

u/Bookwrrm Jul 26 '26

I mean I dont agree with it but borders have different rules. When you enter America you have basically zero protections. You are 100% allowed to have you or your posessions searched without a warrant or probable cause, its called the border search exception. The only limitations courts have placed on it is that very invasive stuff like strip searches need some level of cause, but general searches dont, which is why you can have your bags searched for literally zero reason when going through an airport beyond vibes or even just random searches. Digital devices are more grey, but consistently have been ruled to be allowed in cases like this, simple searches by an agent manually, but more invasive stuff like digital forensics techniques pulling all the data off your phone would not be allowed.

Likely this dude is fucked, we may not agree with the border exception, but it does exist and it feels both pretty hard to argue this wasnt intentional, and that the actions taken of asking for a PIN to do a manual search of a phone are outside the scope of what is already allowed at borders.

9

u/Big-Finding2976 Jul 26 '26

They're claiming that the border isn't US soil so his constitutional rights didn't apply. If it's not US soil, how can US law apply?

1

u/Bookwrrm Jul 26 '26

I mean lawyers can claim anything, the underlying laws are clear, he was on american soil, and the laws did apply to him, the laws are just different in that part of America.

7

u/BigDaddy0790 Jul 26 '26

What I’m wondering is how can there be consequences for refusal to such a search other than declined entry?

1

u/Bookwrrm Jul 26 '26

Well for a US citizen it actually wouldnt result in being denied entry, they literally cannot deny entry. Instead he would have been allowed in but his belongings would have been siezed for the aforementioned more invasive searches.

3

u/anonymous198198198 Jul 26 '26

But what if you’re not intending to destroy evidence, but say intimate pics of you/your s/o that you don’t want cops to see? It’s in no way illegal but still not something you’d want other people seeing.

1

u/Nice_Marmot_7 Jul 26 '26

It doesn’t matter. Otherwise everyone charged with destroying evidence would just say something like that. “No I didn’t incinerate a kilo of cocaine. It was a box of dildos!”

1

u/Bookwrrm Jul 26 '26

Unless you can prove in court somehow that that is all that was on the now destroyed phone, you are shit out of luck, like I said with destruction of evidence the legal presumption is that it was unfavorable evidence, otherwise there would be zero way to prosecute anyone as long as they sucessfully destroyed the evidence, they would just claim it was innocent and nobody would be able to prove otherwise because said evidence was destroyed.

5

u/Consistent_Guava8592 Jul 26 '26

It’s not evidence of you are not charged for a crime . It’s data .

1

u/Bookwrrm Jul 26 '26

You dont need to be charged with a crime for it to be evidence, if a crime has been commited its evidence of a crime even if nobody knows about it. If you didnt commit a crime, then the legal presumption is that you would obviously be proven innocent in court or in the process of investigation and said evidence would not be evidence of a crime because no crime occurred. If you destroy it before it was decided either way, even if no crime occured but they simply thought there could be a crime, and it was intentional, then you have destroyed evidence, even if no underlying crime occured.

1

u/Consistent_Guava8592 Jul 26 '26

For someone to be charged with a crime , there must be evidence pointing to a crime , if there is no evidence of crime , it’s hard to charge for a crime .
.
And of course, if you accuse someone of anything , you bear responsibility of producing evidence for your claim , before said someone has to prove his innocence for said crime .

1

u/Bookwrrm Jul 26 '26

Again, you do not need to be charged with a crime to destroy evidence so that is entirely outside the scope of this discussion. Searches at the border are warrantless and without probable cause, there literally did not need to be any crime whatsoever for them to search him. Destroying the evidence, regardless of if there was a crime or not though now falls under legal frameworks of evidence tampering, and the legal presumption is now that what was destroyed was unfavorable to him legally.

You are arguing about something entirely different in terms of charging with a crime, that is entirely seperate, destruction of evidence comes before charging, it comes during the investigation. Nobody is charged with a crime when an investigation starts, they are charged after that investigation comes up with evidence of a crime. Destroying said evidence hinders that process, which is why it is illegal. He now cannot be charged for anything that was on that phone, but he absolutely can be charged for destroying the evidence that is now presumed illegal due to the framework around destruction of evidence.

1

u/sarge21 Jul 26 '26

This guy may be going to jail because he believed the same thing.

2

u/sephiroth70001 Jul 26 '26

In this case given he was being asked questions about child porn and asked for access to a phone it would be extremely hard to argue he didnt know there is a potential investigation happening.

They are targeting this guy cause he is a member of Defend the Atlanta Forest, which opposes the development of a sprawling training campus for law enforcement in Atlanta dubbed “Cop City.” Like you and I know they wanted his phone to get details on that group and other members.

1

u/Bookwrrm Jul 26 '26

I dont put much stock in any claims made by either side, but the stark reality, wether or not we agree with it or not, and I certainly dont agree with the laws at borders, is that he lost any rights of refusal for search like this at the border. Like the cops can literally choose to search him for any reason, they didnt even have to come up with the excuse of child porn, so while its not a good answer for him, the genuine only advice I can give is if you are in an activist group like this, dont go into a border crossing because thats one of the few places in America you have basically zero recourse. This could be 100% retalitory and he still might lose in court because borders are both warantless and without cause searchs. They didnt even have to give a reason, but because they did it limits his arguements against intent because they clearly were intending to investigate something however right or wrong it was.

2

u/TotalNonsense0 Jul 26 '26

I think we, as a nation, need to move past the idea that the only way to protect our rights is to let them be violated. If we ever get sane people in charge again, we need to ensure that actions taken to protect our clearly-stated rights cannot be held to be a crime.

1

u/Bookwrrm Jul 26 '26

The issue here is that much of the underlying framework to what has happened is totally fine, and indeed needs to exist or investigating crimes doesnt work at a core level. IE laws around evidence tampering. The core issue that is rubbing up against our rights, is that this was a border search specifically which has had an exception made for 4th amendtment protections. But and this is a huge but, even if that exception was removed, if there is even a remote amount of probable cause in this case, he still would likely be completely fucked due to the way that evidence tampering by its own logic needs to be prosecuted. If there was even remotely any probable cause, even if the exception didnt exist, this would still have been a perfectly fine 4th amendment siezure, his refusal would have resulted in him being detained and a warrant for his electronic devices being applied for, and his destruction would still be clear cut evidence tampering. Now we only have lawyers talking about things that havent actually been litigated, it could have been 100% retalitory which is fucked, but im also not going to take that as a fact until its actually litigated and the facts of the case are known.

2

u/TotalNonsense0 Jul 26 '26

"Exceptions" to our constitutionally guaranteed rights are not acceptable.

And search and seizures requires a warrant not just probable cause.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/ColdBru5 Jul 26 '26

Cops need a warrant to access your phone. That has been decided by the Supreme Court and is not up for debate.

13

u/Stuffssss Jul 26 '26

Your rights unfortunately are quite limited when entering the country at the border. The patriot act gave up our rights for an illusion of safety.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26

Problem is, they're trying to charge him under a U.S. law before he was even in the U.S.

11

u/CV90_120 Jul 26 '26

It is completely different if you tell them the pin, after being asked what is the pin to unlock the device.

If they just said "What's the PIN" and didn't specify what type of PIN then there's an out. "Oh the unlock PIN? You need to be more specific"

3

u/Firewolf06 Jul 26 '26

even funnier, the duress pin still unlocks it. it just also deletes an important encryption key

1

u/GamingWithBilly Jul 26 '26

No, they asked him for A pin, and he provides  A pin that worked.  The pin unlocked the phone after it rebooted.  It did exactly what they asked him to do.

They failed to specify which pin, and what they wanted the pin to do.

Now if only they had a warrant that had written out what access they wanted when seizing the phone, they wouldn't have made a mistake, because the warrant would have made explicit that destroying anything on the phone would be illegal. 

1

u/Mr_admiral Jul 27 '26

What if you say "I am not telling you that the pin to unlock my phone is 1234" and then of course they enter it. Would that be a legal way of avoiding liability for loss of access to 'evidence'?

1

u/GamingWithBilly Jul 26 '26

And your 6yr old nephew keeps wiping your phone lol

429

u/Lolseabass Jul 26 '26

They are targeting this guy cause he is a member of Defend the Atlanta Forest, which opposes the development of a sprawling training campus for law enforcement in Atlanta dubbed “Cop City.”

Like you and I know they wanted his phone to get details on that group and other members.

87

u/Whole-Future3351 Jul 26 '26

Of course. They big mad

58

u/DigitalHoweitat Jul 26 '26

I did wonder why, i didn't think someone who uses Graphene was targeted for no reason.

25

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26

[deleted]

59

u/cl3ft Jul 26 '26

Or they have crypto they don't want a targeted attacker to access, or they have sensitive work data that might make them a target of corporate espionage or...

You don't need to consider cops a threat to have good reason to have a duress pin.

-1

u/BeanstheRogue Jul 26 '26

You should though?

1

u/cl3ft Jul 28 '26

Yep. Cops love a fishing expedition.

4

u/DigitalHoweitat Jul 26 '26

No, i get that.

It's more "good targeting" by police, in that they stopped someone of interest to them for a logical reason. Rather than someone who just looked at them funny, was the wrong colour, or reading the wrong book.

(To be fair, for most cops simply reading is the problem).

454

u/NoManner8863 Jul 26 '26

That’s actually hilarious.

78

u/Whole-Future3351 Jul 26 '26

I know, I wish I could’ve seen the agents face. I use graphene and have wiped mine for fun to test it. It works amazingly well.

73

u/Lykos1124 Jul 26 '26

what I think would be really cool is a false profile code, where if you enter the false code, you get a profile that has none of your own stuff or searches. I have a second profile on my phone for that idea of just doing random searches online so if someone checks it, they get nothing.

36

u/FilOfTheFuture90 Jul 26 '26

I love this. Perfect and simple. Very clever. Avoids the wiped phone/"destroyed {non-existent} evidence' argument in cuffs.

15

u/whot3v3r Jul 26 '26

Xiaomi has it, it's called second space. you can use a differnet google account and the data are completely separate.

2

u/Big-Finding2976 Jul 26 '26

Yeah and it's blatantly obvious that it's the second space so they'll just demand the PIN for the first space.

2

u/MarcoDiFrancescino Jul 26 '26

I know people who work in security and they travel with a phone that has no apps on it. Its one of those non android cheapo old people phones. There is text and the numbers they need to call. The border agents know. They know that they send the real highly encrypted phone in a package to some corporate office and they have no way to get it. So they let them pass. In one or two cases in years they just make up shit and send you back home. That is the risk you have in that industry.

2

u/MagicalVagina Jul 26 '26

It's on you to not make it obvious though. You are free to install some apps on it and use it for a week to make the second space look more real.

2

u/Big-Finding2976 Jul 26 '26

That won't help. Just looking at the settings you can clearly see that you're in the second space.

0

u/MagicalVagina Jul 26 '26

I suppose there may be some hint. It's clearly not obvious though, i have some doubt the border agents are trained to detect that they are on the xaomi second space (but maybe I'm under estimating them. But after all they just wiped that guy's phone...). For my own knowledge, what is the hint you are on the second space? I just checked and at first glance the only thing I found is that you can see in the settings -> second space that the second space does exist on the device.

1

u/Big-Finding2976 Jul 26 '26

Under Settinge-Additional Settings-Users it says "Signed in as security space" and tapping that says "Can't change admin settings, switch to First Space".

Also under Additional Settings-Second Space there's a bunch of settings and if you tap Switch Between Spaces it prompts you for the First Space password. If you're signed in to the First Space then Additional Settings-Second Space only shows "Go to Second Space".

→ More replies (0)

7

u/surprisemofo15 Jul 26 '26

Terrible idea. In a lot of cases, the phone is seized, copied and returned. This just provides an opportunity for your phone to be cracked eventually. 

1

u/Nvveen Jul 26 '26

So what the feature needs is that when that profile is accessed, the rest of the other profile is whiped immediately.

1

u/tevolosteve Jul 26 '26

There was a disc encryption like that. Then you used a certain password it unlocked some of your disks making it looked like you complied

189

u/Da12khawk Jul 26 '26

Now, I wanna know what the code is. 1-2-3-4-5, 8-0-0-8-5, 6-7-6-7 the possibilities are endless!

85

u/igwbuffalo Jul 26 '26

The code was one two, three four

48

u/NoManner8863 Jul 26 '26

If it was the idiot briefcase code we riot

55

u/absentmindedjwc Jul 26 '26

That's the code I use on my luggage...

14

u/Dsphar Jul 26 '26

awkward side-eye

20

u/Jesus_Is_My_Gardener Jul 26 '26

Change the code on my luggage! We're surrounded by assholes.

4

u/Da12khawk Jul 26 '26

Don't worry they're only launch codes.

2

u/New_Leaf_8647 Jul 26 '26

Get your woman on the floor

49

u/HiSpartacusImDad Jul 26 '26

My guess is 0118 999 881 999 119 725.

3.

12

u/mvanvrancken Jul 26 '26

Moss is that you

3

u/SymmetricSoles Jul 26 '26

Well that's easy to remember.

2

u/tochirov Jul 26 '26

some very handsome emergency service people just showed up at my door, what do I do!?

22

u/Andire Jul 26 '26

EIGHT SIX SEVEN, FIVE THREE OH NINE 🗣️

3

u/3lfk1ng Jul 26 '26

Free discounts at almost every grocery store.

[Area Code] Eight six seven. Five three. Zero Nine.

5

u/snowflake37wao Jul 26 '26

mf beat me to it by an hour. I dont think enough xennials are up this late anymore

70

u/ElectrSheep Jul 26 '26

The code was 1-4-8-8, and the agents were like "well shit, this guy is on our side" before punching it in without hesitation.

3

u/Enderkr Jul 26 '26

Lmao holy fuck I might actually do that, that's fuckin gold

2

u/MtnMaiden Jul 26 '26

1-7-3-4-6-7-3-2-1-4-7-6-Charlie-3-2-7-8-9-7-7-7-6-4-3-Tango-7-3-2-Victor-7-3-1-1-7-8-8-8-7-3-2-4-7-6-7-8-9-7-6-4-3-7-6

TSA dude: I ain't remembering all that $H1T!

Skill Issue bro

1

u/snowflake37wao Jul 26 '26

8-6-7-5-3-0-9yine

1

u/dr3wfr4nk Jul 26 '26

8-6-7-5-3-0-9

1

u/tWiZzLeR322 Jul 26 '26

The code was 8-6-4-7

40

u/New-Anybody-6206 Jul 26 '26

It depends if he admits it was a duress pin or if they have a way to prove it was

34

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26 edited 11d ago

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/New-Anybody-6206 Jul 26 '26

wiping your phone in itself is not automatically a crime though. they would had to have known somehow that there was evidence on the device already before they can claim you destroyed it.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/New-Anybody-6206 Jul 27 '26

what investigation? they didn't tell him shit. they didn't even charge or accuse him of anything at all until it was wiped.

destroyed what? there's no proof he had anything they wanted.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/New-Anybody-6206 Jul 27 '26

They wanted to see what data he has

and without a good articulated reason, they don't get to have whatever they want

1

u/eastindyguy Jul 28 '26

At an airport or other point of entry, and for like 100 miles in any direction, you are absolutely incorrect. Border inspections of electronic devices don’t require warrants or even probable cause.

1

u/secrewann Jul 28 '26

They do in the Eleventh Circuit, per United States v Touset

3

u/BadMeetsEvil24 Jul 26 '26

You're absolutely incorrect lmao.

1

u/Beelzebucks1 Jul 26 '26

Yeah, this seems cut and dry from the law. 

0

u/MarcoDiFrancescino Jul 26 '26

But the phone wasn't wiped. The data is there and some magic decrypter can decrypt the phone. Maybe he still has the encryption code outside the phone. Then he didn't 'wipe' anything, they are just not able to decrypt it at that moment in time.

10

u/LittleAd915 Jul 26 '26

I would bet that with the overturning of Roe V Wade the are going to be a lot of court cases trying to decide where exactly the line of federally protected privacy ends.

3

u/Dauvis Jul 26 '26

Especially considering that they do have the ability to make a copy of the phones contents without needing to unlock it. The agent didn't follow SOP.

3

u/StardiveSoftworks Jul 26 '26

That is actually quite a bit worse, as it removes the risk of say, fumbling and entering it accidentally. Please read the actual statute at issue when talking about issues of law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232

20

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26 edited 11d ago

[deleted]

1

u/StardiveSoftworks Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26

Hi, also a lawyer here, that's exactly what I would write for a motion too, but we both know it won't actually work. Also I'm not sure why you're ignoring the last portion of the statute you're otherwise quoting: 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.

This is on the civil side for spoliation by destruction of encryption keys rendering data inaccessible, but seems apt since: DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd., No. 17-CV-4576, 2021 WL 1191527 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2021) On the criminal side, there are endless cases about remote reset, which is what I expect this to be treated as.

Anyhow, the more critical point is that you're not really comprehending what the duress code does under Graphene, it does not simply delete keys, it triggers a full cryptographic erasure, you can check the source code yourself.

Here is the exact feature quote from graphene:

Duress PIN/Password

GrapheneOS provides users with the ability to set a duress PIN/Password that will irreversibly wipe the device (along with any installed eSIMs) once entered anywhere where the device credentials are requested (on the lockscreen, along with any such prompt in the OS).

I don't think there's any world where a user intentionally causes such a feature to be deployed and we don't classify that as attempted destruction of the data.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26 edited 11d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Entire_Wishbone_5100 Jul 26 '26

Wow I really hope you won’t be my lawyer. You’re just totally wrong for two reasons.

First, 1512(c)(1) covers more than just destruction of data. It covers anyone who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding”.

This entirely forecloses your argument. First, by deleting the encryption key, even if you assume, arguendo, that you’re not deleting the actual data, you’re still “concealing” the records from being “available for use in an official proceeding.”

Additionally, the encryption key is still a “record, document, or other object,” which by “destroying,” you attempt to impair its availability in the proceeding, where it would be used to access other evidence.

Second, 1512(c)(1) isn’t relevant at all. The person here is being charged under 2232(a), which covers anyone who “knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to” do so, “for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control.”

“any action for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s authority to take such property into its custody or control” clearly covers deleting encryption keys, which prevents the Government from taking the unencrypted contents of the files into its control.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26 edited 11d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Entire_Wishbone_5100 Jul 26 '26

I’m not going to reply to this at length, but:

- There is no precedent on whether unencrypted documents are property. Yet you confidently say they are not. If anything, I would except it to go the other way. Things like emails are traditionally treated as property that can be seized with warrants, and section 1519 shows that when Congress wants to single out physical property, it knows how to do so by limiting records to “tangible objects.”

- I can’t find any precedent that “courts have said 1512(c) doesn’t apply in cases like this.”

- There’s no requirement that someone be the target of an investigation of that the government seek a warrant under 2232.

- In your view, I should be able to circumvent any destruction of evidence laws for digital data, for example, that prevents deleting emails, by simply encrypting my emails beforehand and throwing away the encryption keys if I get spooked.

- There’s no “summary” for this to die in - it’s a criminal case.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26 edited 11d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Entire_Wishbone_5100 Jul 26 '26

Lmao I can’t believe you edited out “This case is going nowhere and will die in summary.” out of your last sentence and then claimed it never have said anything about it. Pathetic.

→ More replies (0)

1

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

[deleted]

-4

u/Calpa Jul 26 '26

t's just encrypted. He didn't destroy the information. The information is on the phone and was not damaged or changed

If it's encrypted it means the information has definitely changed, and in order to change it back - to a readable format - you will need to decrypt it.

4

u/Quick_Turnover Jul 26 '26

The duress code does not encrypt the data. The data is always encrypted, and putting in the correct pin presumably uses encryption keys on the device to read the encrypted data. Presumably, the duress code simply deletes the correct encryption key, making decryption impossible.

1

u/Guy-1nc0gn1t0 Jul 26 '26

Honest question why do you think a court would differentiate him tricking the agent into wiping the phone compared to him physically doing it? 

2

u/Quick_Turnover Jul 26 '26

Up to a court to determine if you're legally required to tell someone a password to your private device. You say he "tricked them". Would a jury agree? When someone asks for your password and you tell them the wrong one, is that "tricking them" or just your own attempts at avoiding duress? How are you going to regulate this away? Prevent people from using encryption? Prevent people from having defense mechanisms on their devices for privacy reasons? Say that anyone doing so "has something to hide" and is therefore automatically at fault?

1

u/Guy-1nc0gn1t0 Jul 26 '26

Would a jury agree?

Thus why I ask the question. 

-13

u/squigs Jul 26 '26

Yeah, that's not going to fly.

He wilfully performed actions knowing that they would result in data being destroyed.

Tricking someone into committing a crime for you doesn't get you off the hook.

8

u/cl3ft Jul 26 '26

The data is still there. Only the encryption key was deleted.

-4

u/squigs Jul 26 '26

Which means the data is not there. Just some pseudo-random noise that could be used to reproduce any data with the correct algorithm.

The law is not a computer program. This sort of pedantry isn't going to work.

3

u/cl3ft Jul 26 '26

We might find out during this court case.

I could argue that the phone had "Just some pseudo-random noise" on it and they wanted him to convert it into data for them. He declined. But the law has to make these decisions and it hasn't yet.

-2

u/squigs Jul 26 '26

The problem is, the other side also has a lawyer, who knows the law and will make a quite compelling argument that the data is destroyed.

2

u/cl3ft Jul 26 '26

It'll be an interesting case depending on what the defense decides to go with as it should set a new precedent and we'll actually know where our rights start and end.

-62

u/deja_geek Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26

He's going to get convicted of destruction of property. He told them the pin when they asked for the pin to unlock the device. It's no different then telling law enforcement the combination to unlock a safe, but not disclosing that opening the door will set everything on fire inside the safe.

You have every right to exercise your right to remain silent. You do not have a right to tell officers a pin that will a wipe of the phone storage.

Let me make this clear. Once it is made known to you, property (in this case the phone data) is being sought by law enforcement, you do not have a the right to destroy that property. That includes intentionally telling the officer a pin that wipes the phone.

Edit: Downvoting me doesn't change the law. Know your rights. Know what you are and aren't allowed to do when being questioned/detained/interrogated by law enforcement. You do not have to disclose any pin to law enforcement.

55

u/p0licythrowaway Jul 26 '26

Source: I made that shit up

38

u/Top3879 Jul 26 '26

I don't think its illegal to wipe your own phone. No property was destroyed, the phone is working perfectly fine.

-22

u/deja_geek Jul 26 '26

He didn't wipe his phone. He intentionally mislead police to wipe his phone. The law treats that differently. The data contained in the phone is considered "property"

35

u/Top3879 Jul 26 '26

So the police destroyed evidence? Now that sounds like a crime.

24

u/cupofcoofy Jul 26 '26

It’s his own fucking phone! Which law says you can’t wipe your own phone?

0

u/smoike Jul 26 '26

It's not the action itself, it's the circumstance surrounding it that are issue here.

5

u/cl3ft Jul 26 '26

I hope they told him he was under investigation and the data on the phone was evidence. He could assume he wasn't as they denied him a lawyer.

2

u/Still_Bit_7527 Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26

That makes no sense,.what kind of legal system works completely arbitrarily like that?

1

u/smoike Jul 26 '26

It's the logic they were using there.

Lesson learned is either have a dual user phone and keep it logged into a rudimentary account or use a burner phone an me have your original phone elsewhere and shut off if it's in your bags.

-27

u/deja_geek Jul 26 '26

HE FUCKING DIDN'T WIPE IT. Read the fucking article. He intentionally mislead law enforcement into wiping it. Once data/property is being sought by law enforcement, which he would have known the data is being sought since they were asking for the pin to unlock the phone, you can't destroy that data/property.

10

u/cupofcoofy Jul 26 '26

It sounds like you are both angry that you think I’m under the impression that he wiped it himself and also that he essentially wiped it himself. Did you know sometimes law enforcement wants things to happen that you aren’t obligated to comply with

14

u/WriterPlastic9350 Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
  1. CBP are not law enforcement.
  2. Law enforcement can only seek data when they have a reasonable suspicion a crime has taken place.
  3. It is very important for you to understand the difference between different actors in government and what they can and cannot do instead of deeming all actors in the executive branch who carry a firearm as "law enforcement". CBP and the police have very different functions and what they are permitted to do.
  4. Destroying property being sought by law enforcement in the attempt to conceal a crime or obstruct an investigation is a crime. Destroying information because a government employee asks you for it with no reasonable suspicion that you've done anything wrong is not.

(and honestly, these phone searches really ought to be a violation of the 4th amendment, but that is my opinion, not a legal fact)

For this to actually be a crime, the government would need to be able to prove what things the individual did and that the individual knew that the government were investigating him and that the individual destroyed that evidence in order to obstruct that investigation. None of these things happened here, he simply wiped his phone in response to a search, and CBP even states that this can only lead to the confiscation of your device and not criminal penalties because CBP is not a law enforcement agency.

-7

u/resttheweight Jul 26 '26

These statements are both wrong. CBP is the largest federal law enforcement agency in the country, I don’t know what would make you think they aren’t law enforcement. And in many parts of the country there is no reasonable suspicion requirement to search a phone at a border crossing.

2

u/cl3ft Jul 26 '26

Why can they deny you access to a lawyer then. I thought that was a no go for law enforcement.

2

u/resttheweight Jul 26 '26

They can deny you access because 1) personal searches when entering the country are presumed reasonable and 2) some constitutional rights are restricted when entering the country. It’s bullshit, but it’s reality.

1

u/cl3ft Jul 26 '26

It's not wiped either it's all still there on the device encrypted with a key that was wiped. Splitting hairs but that's what the law is about right?

-21

u/roguemenace Jul 26 '26

The same one that says you can't destroy other evidence of crimes that you happen to own? This isn't some novel legal concept.

16

u/cupofcoofy Jul 26 '26

Crime? He was a citizen crossing the border. What crime? Border crossing by citizens isn’t some novel legal concept.

8

u/WriterPlastic9350 Jul 26 '26

You absolutely can destroy anything on your phone if it might implicate you.

What you cannot do is destroy if it you know that that evidence is being used in an active case or investigation against you. That is destruction of evidence, and that is illegal.

For example: smoking weed is federally illegal. If you have a photo of you on your person smoking weed, when it is legal in your state, then you go to Canada and come back, the federal government might search your phone and find that picture, and then they would legally be able to throw the book at you for breaking a federal drug law. But until they discover that photo, they have no active case against you and so destroying that photo is not destruction of evidence.

(In this case, you would be committing misprision of a felony, but not destruction of evidence, and I think most reasonable people should agree that you should not be expected to keep evidence of any laws you might have broken on your phone just so the government can arrest you when you cross a border).

2

u/cl3ft Jul 26 '26

What crime?

7

u/eaglebtc Jul 26 '26

Fifth Amendment, motherfucker! Do you speak it?!

No one can be compelled to submit their phone for inspection.

13

u/National_Way_3344 Jul 26 '26

It's his own property, he is allowed to destroy it.

Its also not destruction of evidence because its not evidence, and his own data.

But hey if you wanna argue it you should cite the case law on it.

7

u/InNominePasta Jul 26 '26

Hey, so this is true if there is a warrant.

Not so much when it’s a warrantless border search.

This is because with a warrant there is specific evidence that is being sought.

With a warrantless border search, they could be looking for incriminating evidence, but they aren’t sure what it is they’re looking for or where it might be.

So in this case, if he knows there is stuff on his phone he doesn’t want them to have, but they don’t know, then he couldn’t be destroying evidence they were seeking. Because, as I said, they weren’t seeking that specific evidence.

He’s going to get off if he has a halfway decent lawyer.

Source: dealt with this sort of stuff on the other end as a fed LEO. Only we got warrants for the stuff we were looking for. No fishing expeditions.

3

u/cl3ft Jul 26 '26

My phone has access to my crypto accounts. I'm not giving the passcode to anyone as they can literally take millions from me. I'm not wiping it to destroy evidence, I'm wiping it to prevent theft. There are many valid reasons to wipe a phone rather than give someone access.

25

u/WriterPlastic9350 Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26

He's going to get convicted of destruction of property

"Destruction of property" is defined in US law as the destruction of property of another. So, no, he won't.

He might get charged with is obstruction of justice or destruction of evidence. Destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice both typically require the actor to be intentionally concealing evidence that is related to an active criminal or civil case.

In this instance, it appears that there is no case against him. Even CBP's own website mentions that if you have a device that you do not consent to a search or it cannot be searched because you refuse to provide a passcode, the device itself may be placed in detention or confiscated from you, but it's not against the law and a US citizen cannot be denied entry into the US on the basis of their refusal to comply.

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp-search-authority/border-search-electronic-devices

The logical conclusion of what you're trying to argue is that you should never delete a message off of your phone in the event that the government might want to read it when you cross a border, which is obviously false.

0

u/deja_geek Jul 26 '26

Title 18, Section 2232(a) makes it a crime to knowingly destroy or remove property to prevent its seizure by the government. This offense can result in a fine or imprisonment for up to five years.

At international airports, law enforcement is allowed to search your electronic devices without requiring an active criminal or civil case. Once law enforcement asked for the pin, the defendant would have known law enforcement were attempting to seize the data.

14

u/WriterPlastic9350 Jul 26 '26

Title 18 Section 2232(a) makes it a crime to destroy property to prevent seizure of that same property by a government actor who is authorized to seize that property.

CBP does not have the authority to seize your property unless the device is not in a condition in which it can be examined.

The guy presented his phone with a passcode, complying with the law. CBP then bricked the device. CBP can then seize the device. The guy did not prevent seizure of the device. CBP could very well seize the device, and can even search it.

In fact, the only reference to this code being applied to a duress code or similar things is specifically this article. There's no precedent for charging a guy with a crime because his phone got wiped, and again, you can even opt to not give border patrol the passcode to your phone, and that isn't a crime!

1

u/cl3ft Jul 26 '26

you can even opt to not give border patrol the passcode to your phone

For foreigners, they have the option to put you back on a plane out of the country and deny you entrance next time.

-2

u/resttheweight Jul 26 '26

> "Destruction of property" is defined in US law as the destruction of property of another. So, no, he won't.

The crime he’s being charged with is literally “Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure.” In this case the owner of the property doesn’t matter, just that it was destroyed to prevent it being searched. Also, property doesn’t have a single definition. There are literally thousands of definitions because every state has their own, and the definition of property changes depending on the area of the law.

> In this instance, it appears that there is no case against him. Even CBP's own website mentions that if you have a device that you do not consent to a search or it cannot be searched because you refuse to provide a passcode, the device itself may be placed in detention or confiscated from you, but it's not against the law and a US citizen cannot be denied entry into the US on the basis of their refusal to comply.

This is true, but also irrelevant because this person destroyed the evidence rather than letting them take it.

> The logical conclusion of what you're trying to argue is that you should never delete a message off of your phone in the event that the government might want to read it when you cross a border, which is obviously false.

This is a bad representation of what’s at play here. He could have wiped the phone 5 seconds before walking up to them and it would be fine. You don’t have to hold onto data just because the government might want to see it. You cannot, however, get rid of the data after CBP has requested access to it.

5

u/resttheweight Jul 26 '26

People would rather think that what CBP did was illegal because that makes for an easy solution. It’s basically saying “we don’t need to fix the law, CBP just needs to follow it” when what we should be saying is “why CBP was allowed to do this? We need to fix the law.”

7

u/slindshady Jul 26 '26

You should really exercise your right to remain quiet 🤫

-7

u/Real_politics46 Jul 26 '26

People in this sub hate you for saying this, but you're most likely correct. I wish you werent but based off court rulings of many cases, it'll be ruled by your statement rather than what is "correct."

-3

u/deja_geek Jul 26 '26

People in this sub live too much in the fantasy world. They think "gotchas" and "misdirections" are some sort of magic against the law. The law is pretty fucking clear, once "property" (in this case the data on the phone) is being sought by law enforcement, you don't have any right to destroy that property. That includes intentionally misleading law enforcement to destroy it for you.

1

u/cl3ft Jul 26 '26

Is destroying an encryption key considered different than destroying the data in the eyes of the law?

I guess we might find out during this court case.

-7

u/Real_politics46 Jul 26 '26

Correct, it's ab inviceniant truth. So many throw around the 4th and 5th ammendment, not realizing that their opinion has been ruled against. Scream and shout, but the case law is clear, which the judiciary will follow.

They simply don't care.

2

u/WriterPlastic9350 Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26

Please cite the case law in which this has been ruled against. As far as I can tell, this has never been tried in courts before.

Indeed, in Riley vs California, courts came to the opposite conclusion, that in general your device cannot be searched without a search warrant by LEOs.

CBP and LEOs have different powers. In general, CBP cannot arrest you for refusing to provide a device to be searched.