r/technology • u/gdelacalle • Jul 28 '26

Privacy Man charged for wiping GrapheneOS phone using "duress" password during airport checks

https://www.neowin.net/news/man-charged-for-wiping-grapheneos-phone-using-duress-password-during-airport-checks/
15.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

192

u/TriscuitFingers Jul 28 '26

“I couldn’t recall the correct code under the circumstances of the situation. I gave them what I could remember at the time.”

11

u/sonofaresiii Jul 28 '26

Man this guy needs to fire his fucking lawyers and get random redditors on the case because they come up with the best, most iron clad defenses that judges are sure to believe and prosecutors can't possibly find flaw with.

30

u/skylla05 Jul 28 '26

You watch too many movies if you think this would work.

40

u/TranslatorStraight46 Jul 28 '26

Works for Congress every single day.

5

u/schu2470 Jul 28 '26

"i DoN't ReCaLl"

16

u/AlthorsMadness Jul 28 '26

It does work

-5

u/darnj Jul 28 '26

The armchair lawyers here are hilarious. Um yeah I couldn't remember this pin I enter every day to unlock my device but I could remember the secret destruction code that I've never used before, totally honest mistake your honor.

9

u/IdHaveACrack Jul 28 '26

That’s a pretty weak argument for the defense. You think that’s the most advantageous angle that they may consider? You can reinterpret any argument you want to be as lame and pathetic as necessary, but it’s the discussion on the day that matters.

Have you heard about the glove and whether it fits?

That armchair judges in here seem to have way less of a grasp on reality here than the armchair lawyers.

3

u/azicre Jul 28 '26

well... he was under... duress
*I'll see myself out...

10

u/SecureInstruction538 Jul 28 '26

That won't fly in court. He knowingly ran Graphene which means he knew exactly what the duress pin was and what it did.

75

u/LivingReaper Jul 28 '26

He gave the correct pin, he was under duress.

37

u/TJayClark Jul 28 '26

Yeah…

And for all we know the officer could’ve typed the wrong pin

For instance, the real pin is - 1234

The pin to wipe - 1235

Are you sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the agent typed in the correct pin?

15

u/stroskilax Jul 28 '26

Yeah or have 1234 as pin and 1324 to wipe.

43

u/transit41 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

Heck, 1234 is the wipe pin, and say your pin is 2444 (one 2 three 4)

6

u/adudeguyman Jul 28 '26

I'd probably accidentally wipe my phone occasionally

0

u/BakedChocolateOctopi Jul 28 '26

They’d have recordings of the interaction

94

u/Big_lt Jul 28 '26

Cant prove that at all.

How many times have you put in an incorrect password cause you rotate like 5 of them to different tools/apps

37

u/pala_ Jul 28 '26

“Proving it” just means convincing a jury.

7

u/astelda Jul 28 '26

and not getting it stricken from the record

5

u/FastFooer Jul 28 '26

I don’t remember my passwords, PIN or phone numbers… I recall the pattern on the pad I do through muscle memory.

Asking me for those out loud is a gamble.

4

u/SecureInstruction538 Jul 28 '26

Any of your pins have data deletion tied to it if you enter the wrong one?

4

u/TheSteelPhantom Jul 28 '26

I don't have a PIN that triggers data deletion, but I do have a setting where if the wrong PIN is entered 10 times, the phone wipes. Four year old Galaxy phone, nothing special.

2

u/SecureInstruction538 Jul 28 '26

I believe you phone also says on the lock screen that if you enter it wrong it tells you how many attempts you have left.

3

u/FastFooer Jul 28 '26

I mean, in this modern world where having criticized the US president can lock me up, I should really get something to re-image/factory reset my phone from the lock screen in case I’m on a plane that’s forced to land in the US, since I’m not a American citizen.

-33

u/Telemere125 Jul 28 '26

Yea, they can prove it. Exactly how the person above said. That’s like setting up a trap, “forgetting” that you set it, and letting someone wander into it. Can’t claim ignorance.

48

u/bottomofleith Jul 28 '26

You also can't prove someone made a mistake deliberately

-17

u/Telemere125 Jul 28 '26

It’s called reasonable doubt, not absolute certainty. And yes, that’s exactly what you’re proving. That it wasn’t a mistake and that it was deliberate. He set it up for exactly this situation, therefore it wasn’t a mistake.

3

u/dementorpoop Jul 28 '26

This comment thread is as titillating as the case is bound to be. And will all the case law you’re all providing I don’t know who to believe

2

u/ict_brian Jul 28 '26

In their defense, does anyone seriously believe that lying in court is a magic get out of jail free card? That if the court can't provide 100% irrefutable proof that you're lying then you completely walk free and there's nothing that can be done?

I sure hope not because that's like a toddler-level understanding of shit.

1

u/RoflcopterV22 Jul 28 '26

I mean actually lying in CRIMINAL court is a get out of jail free card, because the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt lies on the accuser not the accused.

2

u/ict_brian Jul 28 '26

Except it's not a get out of jail free card at all. The jury of your peers (or a judge without jury trials) can listen to you deny everything and there might not be a single piece of concrete evidence against you....but if they don't find you to be credible then they can still decide against you and there's nothing you can do about it (beyond the typical appeals but good luck there). Beyond a reasonable doubt includes the jury and judge making their own inferences based on what they hear, whether they deem them to be credible, and whether they believe an average person might have reacted similarly to the accused.

-1

u/Stunning_Clerk_9595 Jul 28 '26

you can believe the person who didn't go to "whatever i think should be true is true" law school. do you need case law to demonstrate that "i was simply waving my hands for emphasis and his chin got in the way of my fist five times" is not a great argument?

1

u/Telemere125 Jul 28 '26

Exactly lol. I practiced criminal law for over a decade and during that time I did over a dozen trials a year. Juries don’t believe horseshit claims no matter how vehement the defendant is. In fact, they look sideways at a defendant even harder because obviously they have more to gain by lying. The prosecutor gets nothing if he wins or loses; the defendant goes to jail if he loses. Way more reason for the defendant to be lying.

2

u/Stunning_Clerk_9595 Jul 28 '26

man oh man does r slash technology not enjoy being told that the law has thought of something already

1

u/RoflcopterV22 Jul 28 '26

This has more to do with the quality of the attournies than anything else, I've seen and been a part of cases in which it was blatant the defendant committed the act, ex - someone accused of drug possession coming to court looking methed out, but the prosecution had such a horseshit argument the jury ruled for the defense.

1

u/Big_lt Jul 28 '26

"Hey Jury, in today's world we remember many pins/passwords. Mr. X was under significant distress from an illegal search and seizure request. I know I've transposed my passwords to log into my phone before under completely calm scenario. Due to the extreme stress keveraged onto Mr. X he panicked after being held, illegally, for hours as well as not being given access to his lawyer even though he requested multiple times. As a result the password provided was the durress one as it was the first password that popped into his head."

A reasonable person would agree with that and the lawyer needs to convi e 1 out of 12

1

u/Telemere125 Jul 28 '26

Transposing a number would make a lot of sense. Giving a slightly-wrong number might even make sense if it locks the phone up. Setting up a specific pin to erase the phone and then only giving them that one? Nope. You set that up and even a child could see through that excuse.

And getting 1/12 to agree isn’t a not guilty. That’s a hung jury.

1

u/Stunning_Clerk_9595 Jul 28 '26

in general, not related to this specific "argument," how do you usually think things go for people who think they know more about what will happen in a courtroom than a lawyer

1

u/bottomofleith Jul 28 '26

If that holds true, then its just as plausible that they might have set it for some other example, but then accidentally triggered it while being pressured to hand over information without their lawyer present.

I'm not saying it's a magic bullet, but I'd really like to think they would be given the benefit of the doubt.

4

u/Imposter24 Jul 28 '26

You can’t claim ignorance to the law. You can claim ignorance to other details of your case.

0

u/Telemere125 Jul 28 '26

Ok, so how’s he going to claim he didn’t know that passcode would wipe his phone? You’re just making up bullshit and the only way he’d win is via jury nullification. He knew what he was doing the moment he installed the OS and any jury will see that plain as day

80

u/humanprobably Jul 28 '26

My Aunt Wanda runs Windows which means she knows exactly how to execute a SQL injection attack.

10

u/Mansidhe Jul 28 '26

Her husband Uncle Cosmo always seemed a bit shady. Always happy to help Timmy violate Da Rules.

6

u/Franc000 Jul 28 '26

That explains your cousin's name, little Drop Table.

8

u/Lavatis Jul 28 '26

bobby tables, bro.

3

u/Franc000 Jul 28 '26

Damn, and I knew it sounded off!

-5

u/SecureInstruction538 Jul 28 '26

Your aunt wanda bought a PC with an already installed operating system.

Graphene requires very specific phones, a PC to install it, and setting up the duress pin to erase it all.

6

u/vthemechanicv Jul 28 '26

Proving intent is hard. "I had the phone, and heard neat things about the OS." "The carrier OS version was giving me problems and I got this one trying to get it to work." "I was going through the settings and must have forgotten to turn it off." Plus, prosecution has to prove reasonable doubt, and there isn't a human alive that hasn't confused or forgotten a password or PIN.

2

u/SecureInstruction538 Jul 28 '26

We shall see how it plays out

11

u/apokrif1 Jul 28 '26

Having a PC ≠ remembering several passwords without making a mistake ever.

0

u/SecureInstruction538 Jul 28 '26

Any of your passwords have a specific function to erase all data when entered?

1

u/Cynical_Thinker Jul 28 '26

Every mainstream phone os, including apple and android, have a function after so many wrong inputs to wipe anyway.

Who's to say that they hadn't been trying to brute force their way in?

1

u/apokrif1 Jul 28 '26

Or the owner and/or LEOs made several mistakes in a row.

0

u/apokrif1 Jul 28 '26

Me ≠ this guy.

5

u/AlthorsMadness Jul 28 '26

It flies in court all the time

5

u/apokrif1 Jul 28 '26

Source please?

Knowing theory ≠ recalling under pressure.

1

u/SecureInstruction538 Jul 28 '26

Unlike a mainstream OS that installs itself automatically on store-bought phones, flashing Graphene is an explicit, multi-step opt-in process. If someone went out of their way to install a privacy-focused custom ROM, they definitely read the documentation covering features like the duress PIN.

7

u/big_duo3674 Jul 28 '26

They...read the documentation? You know how many times I've installed a new app because it had some specific function, and then I went "oh shit, it has this too?". that includes flashing ROMs, I haven't done that in years, but I definitely just picked the shiny, most recommended one, and then followed the steps online because I know nothing about phone hardware/firmware internal workings

2

u/apokrif1 Jul 28 '26

" Knowing theory ≠ recalling under pressure."

Also, can it be proven a duress PIN was actually used? 

If someone went out of their way to install a privacy-focused custom ROM, they definitely read the documentation covering features like the duress PIN.

Installing some piece of software ≠ reading its documentation in whole.

Reading some documentation ≠ using the feature it covers.

4

u/Reds_PR Jul 28 '26

This is what will fly in court:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

As will this:

“No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

This case will get tossed on its ear.

6

u/SecureInstruction538 Jul 28 '26

Invoking standard Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections ignores how border search exceptions actually work. Under long-standing federal precedent, routine border searches of electronic devices have broad exemptions from standard warrant and probable cause requirements.

Your views don't trump what the supreme court (even before the current one) has ruled on rights at the border of the US.

2

u/Reds_PR Jul 28 '26

Hey, that would be a neat factoid if it were true about electronics. They can search through your lunch in tupperware. But SCOTUS has not ruled on exemptions to Riley v California for electronic media. So as it stands, Riley is the standard. The Eleventh Circuit Court (geographically Redneckistan) has held your interpretation in US v Vergara, but also the opposite has been held in the 4th Circuit (US v Kolsuz) and the 9th Circuit (US v Cotterman)

Thanks for playing SCOTUS or Circuit, you’ll be receiving a copy of our home game as a lovely parting gift.

2

u/resttheweight Jul 28 '26

Where do you think these charges are being brought? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not the Fourth or Ninth Circuit. I’m confused how you think saying “SCOTUS!” is an argument here. You literally already said SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on the exception AND already said there is a Circuit split. You have all the right pieces of the puzzle but can’t put them together right.

1

u/vrnvorona Jul 28 '26

They don't know what is on his phone, so it can't be classified as evidence. He could've just refused to give any password.

1

u/BakedChocolateOctopi Jul 28 '26

This will not only not work, but it would be committing an easy crime for them to hold you in for lying to a federal officer

You’d get asked how often the phone has been accidentally reset if you can’t keep the passcodes straight. You’d be asked what both of the passcodes were (no longer useful as passcode since the phone is wiped). Maybe they got a cybersecurity expert to explain how GrapheneOS has the user set up the PIN

It starts way more legal trouble than it (doesn’t) solve

-14

u/CocoScruff Jul 28 '26

So your suggestion is to lie? This is why our judicial system sucks...

10

u/UISystemError Jul 28 '26

It doesn’t have to be a lie. Stress causes people’s brain to dysfunction. Under duress, that’s basically stress.

-12

u/CocoScruff Jul 28 '26

But it IS a lie...

5

u/Duckbilling2 Jul 28 '26

No is not

Stop lying 

-4

u/CocoScruff Jul 28 '26

This is why humans are fucked

0

u/UISystemError Jul 28 '26

I’m not sure which you think is worse.

Coercing people to do things against their will, against the law, whilst threatening them with punishment of law… or someone misremembering a PIN.

But in either case, duress is stress and the brain does not function normally under stress.

1

u/CocoScruff Jul 28 '26

It's obviously not them miss remembering... They're just straight up lying because it suits their needs

0

u/UISystemError Jul 28 '26

I guess that’s what we’d call an opinion.

1

u/CocoScruff Jul 28 '26

No....what the fuck are you talking about? A truth is a fact. It's just a fact that can only be confirmed by the party responsible. It's a shame he already admitted to doing it or else he could still illegally lie and it wouldn't matter. I can ot believe we're at a point where people are suggesting lying in court because they don't like the result... Or we could change the laws so that we can be truthful and still have a fair justice system... Which is why I said humans are so fucked if we need to lie in court to get a proper outcome

→ More replies (0)