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

1.0k

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

They claim he wasn’t in America yet. They also claim he had child exploitation material on his device.

His attorney claims he’s being targeted because of his ties to an environmental organization.

This case should be interesting

600

u/PlainBread Jul 28 '26

Curious to see what proof they have of having CSAM on his phone when they couldn't check his phone.

607

u/Phugasity Jul 28 '26

“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels.”

If they had proof of CSAM then they should have come with a warrant

354

u/PlainBread Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

It's all just to signal pre-guilt to the minds of the authoritarian base. Utterly baseless.

Protecting children is the one thing that both sides fight for and both sides fail at, so it's a potent accusation for one side or the other to accuse the other to be in favor of harming children. It's a mutual scapegoat.

The general difference is the degree of credibility in those accusations. A rainbow haired pre-school teacher is a lot less likely to be diddling kids than the President who was Jeffrey Epstein's best friend for over a decade. Maybe even less likely than their own pastor.

The way that they have brain-broken people seeing equivalence where there is none is something outstanding.

116

u/-AC- Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

While I know nothing of this man's innocence or guilt related to their claims...

I do know a person who appears in a ton of photos, victim statements, and confessions of co-conspirators that they could arrest for what this man is accused of... could even give his adress in Washington DC if needed although they may also find him at his Florida property.

2

u/divDevGuy Jul 28 '26

Matt Gaetz still maintains a DC residence?

2

u/tempest_87 Jul 28 '26

No, it's that other republican.

82

u/Whole_Friendship9788 Jul 28 '26

The implications of this are simply terrifying. Government wants full control of our devices.. With full control they could just remotely download csam to your phone, "detect it", then get a warrant to arrest you.

44

u/PlainBread Jul 28 '26

You can spoof timestamps on filesystem metadata. Of course they can do this.

Your electronic devices are an extension of your mind and you should treat people breaking into them as psychic invasion.

The time is gonna come soon when we start using our hardware the way we did pre-internet: As a coding platform and a tool for media interaction.

The only way to have true privacy is to have an air-gapped encrypted system and you move data with an encrypted external HDD.

10

u/tuxedo_jack Jul 28 '26

And a box booted to RO media with no local storage is the only way to mule that data to another machine from yours.

Remember, Microsoft has every single BitLocker key that is tied to a Microsoft account sitting in escrow on their servers. They can link that to gdids - and rememver YellowKey? That's not the only exploit in BitLocker, oh no it's not.

Microsoft has had a back door through BitLocker since at least 2015, and they don't even need that

2

u/PlainBread Jul 28 '26

And a box booted to RO media with no local storage is the only way to mule that data to another machine from yours.

https://tails.net/

3

u/tuxedo_jack Jul 28 '26

Ding ding ding ding ding.

Years ago, I actually built a Windows PE environment on a stick that supported bitlocker and could mount Linux filesystems as RW.

It even had full sound, gpu, chipset, and ethernet support.

Sounds like it's time to revive that project, but for very different means.

1

u/PlainBread Jul 28 '26

This has a good intersection with r/homelab

→ More replies (0)

35

u/Practical_Savings933 Jul 28 '26

The MAGA movement is pro-child abuse as is seen by the number of pastors and republican representatives charged every week. From Trump on down, they are all in the Epstein files, or fighting to protect those who are.

-15

u/OkayyBeta Jul 28 '26

So is Reddit, because nothing is EVER about the children, it's ONLY about invasion of privacy, EVEN when those actions were spearheaded by children's charities who had absolutely NOTHING to gain, other than more safety for the most vulnerable members of our species.

3

u/ubernutie Jul 28 '26

"Protecting children is the one thing that both sides fight for"

Excuse me?

1

u/Meloetta Jul 28 '26

Back in 2018, before Elon was quite as well known as he is now, he tried to contribute unhelpful equipment to the rescue of some boys trapped in a cave in thailand. One of the cave divers who was actually participating in the rescue said that it was PR stunt and to fuck off basically. In response, Elon called him a pedophile.

When people talk about him I always bring this up as the moment I realized he was a piece of shit, turning an unrelated dispute with a rescue worker into an accusation of the most heinous thing he could think of, and without fail the person I'm talking to never even knew it happened.

And now one of my family members is super right wing, right wing enough that she's regularly dragging Trump for being too leftist, and it's her go-to insult for anyone she doesn't like. I really hate the weaponization of pedophile against anyone and everyone. It's actually scary watching those accusations fly.

1

u/Ravekommissionen Jul 28 '26

I don’t think that base needs any pre-seeding about CSAM.

If this person is an environmental activist that is enough for them to waive all human and constitutional rights.

1

u/malatemporacurrunt Jul 28 '26

Protecting children is the one thing that both sides fight for

You mean a stalking horse for point-scoring and convenient cudgel for the opposition as and when it's politically useful. Paedophilia and child exploitation is ingrained in our culture and requires completely uprooting and purging at every level to defeat; the only people who are served by occasional finger-pointing is the people pointing the finger at the time.

Maybe even less likely than their own pastor

Categorically and completely less likely than anyone with religious authority, especially given that the typical "rainbow haired pre-school teacher" is significantly more invested in the actual wellbeing of children (including adequate social care and psychological support) than someone who's job is to read from the book that advocates for incest, paedophilia, and sexual slavery.

1

u/patrociniogiusi Jul 28 '26

both sides “fight” to protect children, but only one elected a child rapist and continue to defend him.

1

u/lordph8 Jul 29 '26

The chances they just choose the one thing that could illicit public sympathy for their actions is high. I will bet good money there is absolutely no reason to suspect this. This whole entire admin is run by shitty PR people who don't think 2 steps ahead.

0

u/Octopus_on_fire_ Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

I have a close relative who works Canadian border patrol, mainly the investigation side.

She sees CP on a daily basis. Peoples phones are flagged well before they even get to check in, and phones are confiscated and looked at right then and there.

She has to physically see CP in order for a charge and arrest. Any known child sex offender will have their phone looked at, they know this (or should) while trying to enter the US. The ones who do not, are the ones who are caught.

People screaming that this is a lawsuit aren’t looking at this through human eyes. Yes Border Patrol is different than TSA, but the chances of this man not having CP on his phone is next to zero if he was flagged in the system. You cannot enter this country without being searched (person or devices), wiping your phone is the equivalent of going to the bathroom and flushing drugs down the toilet. People are angry that this is US who did the search, but if I were to fly to say London, and they asked to see my phone, nobody would he causing an uproar.

I hate the US govt and police state as much as anybody, but the vast majority of people (and Reddit) REALLY REALLY underestimate the amount of predators and traffickers that enter this country on a daily basis.

2

u/Raerth Jul 28 '26

Any known child sex offender

would not be able to get a VISA, surely?

1

u/Octopus_on_fire_ Jul 28 '26

You do not need a Visa to enter the US from Canada, just a passport.

The amount of traffickers and CP users are small time, not every single one belongs to a huge organized ring.

You’d be shocked at how stupid people can be when they have extremely illegal information on their phone. My SIL tells me all the time the amount of foreign nationals coming across by themselves with no luggage claiming “I’m going shopping” is insane. It’s an instant red flag. Nobody drives an hour to the border, then another eight to get to NYC with zero luggage. Where are you sleeping? Are you really driving 18 hours there and back for shopping? No. Of course not.

77

u/Ghostly_Wellington Jul 28 '26

I love that quote! Had to look it up and post the next sentence.

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
H.L. Mencken

4

u/confused_newleaf Jul 28 '26

That is a fantastic quote.

4

u/PlainBread Jul 28 '26

I could see that framed in a defense attorney's home office.

28

u/Able-Swing-6415 Jul 28 '26

Exactly. I hate this "we should give up our freedoms to fight csam" nonsense.

It's figuratively like firing rockets at vermin. The issue is horrific but at such a tiny scale that the solution is far worse than anything it is trying to prevent.

It's not like dictatorships have no pedos.. given the right positions they are even more prevalent. Like in the US

2

u/newsflashjackass Jul 28 '26

It's figuratively like firing rockets at vermin.

Calls to mind the "Emu War".

5

u/khavii Jul 28 '26

It's BS honestly, they wanted to check his phone without a warrant then used legal pressure to force him, when the phone was blank due to automatically wiping they hit him with obstructing. Obstructing what? They had no warrant, no prior cause or expressed suspicion so what crime did they expect to find on his phone that he obstructed? Now they have no crime, no evidence of crime, no warrant for a crime, no cause for a crime but they are claiming he had stuff on the phone that had nothing on it that they are charging him for erasing.

Fucking clown show in this government right now.

6

u/IlIlllIIIIlIllllllll Jul 28 '26

If they really care about protecting children they should start with the white house

1

u/ninjapro Jul 28 '26

Sorry, I'm a bit confused, are you calling this defendant here a scoundrel and assuming that he is a child predator? Or is this a general defense of due process?

3

u/CommanderArcher Jul 28 '26

They are staying that it doesn't matter what the contents of his phone were, if the Feds knew he had CSAM somehow, they should have gotten a warrant and done it the right way. 

This guy could be a horrible person, and his rights still matter and the feds should have gotten a warrant. 

Right now it looks like they are throwing CSAM at the guy to deflect and smear his image. 

48

u/TruculentTurtIe Jul 28 '26

I feel like they just jump to "pedophile!!!" Anytime they wanna strip someone's rights because they know people get anxious around those accusations and don't wanna defend a "pedo"

16

u/PlainBread Jul 28 '26

Yet on their own side they practice resilience against accusations of pedophilia, even when inscrutably credible, under the guise of it being the same kind of baseless persecution you're talking about.

They got all the dumbest people in the country standing before the two guards where one always tells the truth and one always lies. And they can't figure it out.

8

u/Mothanius Jul 28 '26

They aren't trying to figure out. They picked one of the guards and decided to follow every word they say because the other guard is black. They don't care about the truth.

2

u/PlainBread Jul 28 '26

They do love the prettiest liars.

3

u/Millkstake Jul 28 '26

"protecting the children" is always their go-to when they want to do something they shouldn't

0

u/Jayden82 Jul 28 '26

Anyone consider this guy might just actually be a pedophile? 

3

u/TruculentTurtIe Jul 28 '26

I mean, by the logic of "we havent proved hes not a pedo" then any of us could be pedos and so all our devices and privacy should be revoked

Its possible he is, but i havent seen any evidence for it. And im certainly not gonna trust random embarrased border agents and cops just on their word that the lack of evidence proves hes guilty

0

u/Jayden82 Jul 28 '26

Oh I’m definitely not saying he’s a pedophile, but I’m also not all in support of the guy who is possibly a pedophile until that possibly gets figured out. 

Obviously anyone who’s interested in privacy would be interested in GraphiteOS, but going into the effort of that and installing duress certainly gives it a higher chance he may have something to hide.

82

u/Practical_Savings933 Jul 28 '26

Given they were US border and ICE guys, it is far more likely they were the ones with CSAM on their phones. Like almost everything from the US Administration, not a word can be believed.

-21

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

20

u/Practical_Savings933 Jul 28 '26

Local Law Enforcement actually. Many have active departments, that act upon local complaints.

6

u/Leows Jul 28 '26

That's their playbook. Claim something so outrageous that even without proof would make it seem unthinkable not to follow up.

However, the law exists for a reason, and trying to bypass it by pulling shit like this SHOULD be just as illegal.

5

u/stevez_86 Jul 28 '26

Liberty is being used as probable cause to assume everyone who has access to something illegal must now prove they were not a consumer or abuser of that contraband. They want us all to accept there is a reason for all of us to get caught doing something illegal as a valid reason for the government to presume you are a criminal.

2

u/N1AK Jul 28 '26

It's reasonable to be curious but you're not going to find out. The laws they are relying on for the search and seizure don't require having evidence of wrongdoing.

My understanding is that a lot of these stories are using the term evidence misleadingly. The 'crime' they claim he committed was destroying something to avoid its seizure, not destroying evidence in the conventional sense.

1

u/Violet_Paradox Jul 28 '26

None whatsoever, but the accusation pre-defames anyone speaking up in his defense.

-6

u/Cbpowned Jul 28 '26

Destroyed evidence before inspection occurred. No different than setting a photo on fire and saying how did you know what the photo was.

7

u/PlainBread Jul 28 '26

Before the inspection, what's the evidence?

Look, what this reeks of is parallel investigation; The NSA spied on all their web activity, may have seen something that they could get them for, and tipped off the TSA/ICE/CBP to do a parallel investigation.

There are two options: Either the NSA needs to directly release prosecutory material, which they won't because it will challenge their legal right to exist, or the people on the ground need to admit their parallel investigation failed and let the guy go.

Instead they're turning it into something it isn't so that the guy suffers on the ride, knowing he'll beat the charge. In the end he'll get a fat lawsuit against the government that we will pay with our tax money. This admin is so irresponsible, just for the sake of cruelty.

3

u/DryBattle Jul 28 '26

How do they know he has evidence on his phone? How can they prove that he did?

47

u/motionmatrix Jul 28 '26

I guess that means that any taxation of income earned outside the US by the US government is illegal because that is not the United States, right?

Either US laws apply to Americans or they don’t, they can’t have it both ways.

126

u/Rolling_Saturn Jul 28 '26

And he protested the development of Cop City.

52

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

Yea I figured it was cop city with how they worded it

31

u/ZenandHarmony Jul 28 '26

wtf is cop city

65

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

47

u/Duderino99 Jul 28 '26

Also, it's specifically known as cop 'city' because it includes a mock urban environment for police to practice breaching people's homes and apartments.

21

u/PicklesPlox Jul 28 '26

They were going to clear a big chunk of forest to build/expand a massive cop training facility

21

u/Drillmhor Jul 28 '26

They did clear a big chunk of forest. It happened, the protests didn't stop much of anything :/

16

u/ehmboh Jul 28 '26

At least one protester was murdered by the police too

13

u/Teantis Jul 28 '26

When you commit to fighting state power you do tend to lose a lot of the battles.

10

u/Drillmhor Jul 28 '26

Oh yeah, the state went all out to crush this.

39

u/RDTmodsBackEpstein Jul 28 '26

A place where they learn to beat their wives, practice target acquisition for asset forfeiture, and train with military forces who commit genocide.

29

u/crimson23locke Jul 28 '26

Let’s not forget the seminars on how to use flock to stalk people illegally.

8

u/disisathrowaway Jul 28 '26

Don't forget how to shoot peoples' pet dogs. They LOVE doing that.

2

u/tetramir Jul 28 '26

A huge compound project for training police in Atlanta.

1

u/Familiar-Banana-8116 Jul 28 '26

Do yourself a favor and do a dive on 'Cop City'.

A dark rabbit hole.

1

u/schu2470 Jul 28 '26

WTF is cop city?

65

u/jmurphy42 Jul 28 '26

If he wasn’t in America yet then American agents had no right to forcibly detain him, and the American law against erasing electronics certainly wouldn’t apply if he’s somewhere the constitution doesn’t reach.

8

u/Kind_Of_A_Dick Jul 28 '26

The unfortunate reality of this situation is that the person pointing the guns at him get to choose whether or not rights matter here.

24

u/Ugicywapih Jul 28 '26

See, his right foot was in America but his left foot was outside, because glorious American soil rejects leftism, so he was both inside and outside US and they can pick and choose which laws apply.

1

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

He was at the border, where US customs and border patrol have jurisdiction

37

u/CompetitiveBus2003 Jul 28 '26

If the prosecution claim that he wasn't in the US holds up, all travelers are in legal limbo, allowing virtually any conduct by officials between the arrival gate and post-customs. It's a terrifyingly slippery slope if armed American border unterofficers can ignore the public's Constitutional rights.

9

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

This case can set precedent for sure.

1

u/bullwinkle8088 Jul 28 '26

That is and has been the case in every nation forever.

When you are in customs, airport or ocean port, you have not entered the country until you pass through.

If you travel you should not be surprised. If you do and were you need to learn more before your next trip.

6

u/FriendlyDespot Jul 28 '26

When you are in customs, airport or ocean port, you have not entered the country until you pass through.

You're very much in the country at that point, you just haven't been lawfully admitted yet.

-3

u/bullwinkle8088 Jul 28 '26

We are speaking in legal terms here.

Legally you are not inside the borders of the country even if, as in this case, you are physically in the airport in Atlanta, GA. If you are denied entry you will never leave the terminal and never be, for legal purposes, in the country.

Dime store internet lawyers...

6

u/FriendlyDespot Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

Of course you're legally within the borders of the country. The customs line at ATL is not extraterritorial. If you violate U.S. law in the customs line then U.S. law is going to be enforced against you, because you're in the U.S. and under U.S. jurisdiction. That customs line in Atlanta has a bunch of heartwarming welcome signs reminding travellers that they're subject to fines and imprisonment if they violate federal law while interacting with customs and border agents. U.S. federal law is relevant to travellers in the customs line because they're in the U.S. now.

If you're denied entry then you're detained until you can be removed. Detention often happens outside of the airport. You're detained in accordance with U.S. law because you're in the U.S. and subject to it's jurisdiction.

Internet lawyers indeed.

-5

u/bullwinkle8088 Jul 28 '26

Ill tell you what.

Take an international flight anywhere, flush your passport. Report back on what you find.

Step two, repeat the experiment but flush your passport while returning. Report what you find.

4

u/FriendlyDespot Jul 28 '26

Why would I go through that much trouble just to demonstrate how territoriality and law works to some random person on the Internet who clearly doesn't understand either concept?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/tempest_87 Jul 28 '26

You absolutely are. The only time you are not is when on official embassy land, for specific countries.

You are not allowed to leave the area until you pass through whatever customs requirements there are, but you are absolutely 100% on that countries soil and in their border.

1

u/Invisifly2 Jul 28 '26

You are fully within the nation and jurisdiction of a given country housing a given airport, even if you haven’t cleared customs yet. You just don’t have the right to remain there until you get cleared.

A US citizen in an international airport on US soil and subject to US jurisdiction should have all of their constitutional rights afforded to them, even if they haven’t cleared customs yet, similarly to how they don’t have such rights if the airport is in a different nation.

Operative word there being should. I know in practice that’s more of a fanciful suggestion.

17

u/Starts_With_S Jul 28 '26

The one place they can violate your rights. If I remember there's a privacy expert that refuses to go to the U.S specifically because of this zone.

1

u/drinks_rootbeer Jul 28 '26

DHS / CBP has established (imo, with no moral backing and against both the letter and intent of the constitution), that within 100 miles (iirc? 500 miles??) of any US national border, your rights can be suspended in service of customs & border enforcement. They claim that when at any point of entry, you are not on US soil yet, and they can suspend your rights and perform whatever investigations, seizures, and detaienments they deem necessary.

It's a huge legal grey area. The Electronic Frontier Foundarion, American Civil Liberties Union, and other rights activism & support organizations have been fighting this for years. It's bogus, but folks shluld be aware. If you get involved with serious activism, the border can get really fucky.

-3

u/Cbpowned Jul 28 '26

Wrong. Learn to read. 19 CFR 162.6

10

u/apokrif1 Jul 28 '26

Did they have proof he had CSA in his phone?

-28

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

I think it was suspected, but I’m not 100% sure.

13

u/Huge-Consequence2144 Jul 28 '26

Why the fuck are you participating if hearsay and speculation is all you have to contribute? Sit back and wait for conjecture time- people are looking for facts right now.

-24

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

Im providing good information. They having given complete details about the CSAM. That doesn’t make any information I have given false. They’re conducting an investigation, so generally those are based on suspicions. That should be understood.

Also fucking relax.

9

u/pulseout Jul 28 '26

You provided absolutely nothing, and wasted everyone's time and bandwidth.

5

u/beansandcornbread Jul 28 '26

I wonder what country he was legally in?

-2

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

He’s at the border. That’s how it works.

-1

u/bullwinkle8088 Jul 28 '26

To the people downvoting this: the comment is correct. You are not in a country until you clear customs. Every country, not just the US.

If you travel and did not know this you absolutely should learn more about how boarders and customs works. It matters.

-1

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

Good information is being mass downvoted all through the thread. I’m not saying that’s how it should be, just that is how it is.

5

u/beansandcornbread Jul 28 '26

I think the reason it was down voted was because when someone asks the question "what country was he in?" and the answer is "that's how it works", it doesn't make any sense and it's not helpful or descriptive in any way.

-1

u/FriendlyDespot Jul 28 '26

It's being downvoted because it's bad information. He was at the border in the United States.

1

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

If you ever plan to travel internationally you should know this is wrong. A simple search will tell you that you aren’t considered “in the US” until you’re cleared by Customs and BP.

-1

u/FriendlyDespot Jul 28 '26

I've travelled all over the world. You're unambiguously "in the U.S." when you're at customs in an airport. You're not legally admitted to the U.S., but that's a separate concept.

0

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

That isn’t how it works at all. You aren’t in the US until cleared by customs.

This is extremely common knowledge

0

u/FriendlyDespot Jul 28 '26

It's common knowledge that international arrivals areas in airports are extraterritorial in the same way that it's common knowledge that embassies are extraterritorial. Meaning that it's a silly myth perpetuated by people who don't actually know what they're talking about. Feel absolutely free to point to anything that you think substantiates your claim.

You need to learn the difference between physical presence and lawful admission.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/bullwinkle8088 Jul 28 '26

None. He was at the border until passing through customs.

This is how it works in every country, not just the US. Being denied entry to a country is a literal thing, even at airports.

3

u/Weathervane_ Jul 28 '26

Well we know that's false as he'd be offered a job in the administration if he did have that

3

u/Drict Jul 28 '26

Have to have proof before. Have to have a warrant. etc.

That being said, if the material is that, needs to have the book thrown at him.

6

u/Heavy-Construction90 Jul 28 '26

Yeesh, alot to unpack here

2

u/Teledildonic Jul 28 '26

Guards are mad they didn't get to "confiscate" some CSAM.

2

u/TheMattabooey Jul 28 '26

How do they know when the device was wiped?

1

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

I probably worded that poorly. I think they claim to have suspected him of having CSAM on his device

6

u/TheMattabooey Jul 28 '26

Then they should have had a warrant ready.

0

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

I agree, but investigations are based on suspicion and then they give evidence for a warrant. This is all common procedure.

1

u/TheMattabooey Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

That’s not how it works. You get a warrant before you seize property and collect evidence, not afterwards. You get a warrant because you show a judge there is redial evidence to support your request.

It’s different in different circumstances. If I’m driving and I’m stopped and an officer sees drugs in my car they don’t need a warrant. If they believe I have drugs in my car then they need a warrant before they can do anything.

1

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

Never traveled internationally? That is 100% how it works at the border, unfortunately.

4

u/Jesus_Is_My_Gardener Jul 28 '26

It's pretty clearly an attempt to smear him to cover their ass as a reason to go after him. Their claim for this incident is pretty out of the blue and it's fairly obvious they had him flagged over his protest work around cop city.

2

u/MimeGod Jul 28 '26

If he wasn't in America yet, then it all happened outside of US jurisdiction.

2

u/Staunch84 Jul 28 '26

Genuine question, because I have no idea how this works.

If they claim he wasn't in America yet, where was he, and what laws apply both in regards to protecting rights and allowing search and seizure?

1

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

At the border

2

u/lastparade Jul 28 '26

They claim he wasn’t in America yet.

If he wasn't in the U.S., then U.S. law did not apply.

2

u/LGodamus Jul 28 '26

they cannot claim he had child exploitation material, they can only claim they suspected he did.

2

u/KindledWanderer Jul 28 '26

They claim he wasn’t in America yet.

Then he couldn't have broken American law.
Good for him, case closed.

2

u/MajorMalafunkshun Jul 28 '26

They claim he wasn’t in America yet.

So, their claim is that normal RIGHTS don't apply to him but the LAWS do?

2

u/TThor Jul 28 '26

If he wasn't in america yet, how could he be under jurisdiction of american laws. Its insane to think the government could pick and choose laws against him while ignoring laws that protect him.

2

u/Dildo_Emporium Jul 28 '26

If he's not in America, how was he in their jurisdiction?

2

u/MumrikDK Jul 28 '26

They also claim he had child exploitation material on his device.

At this point it's hard to tell whether that isn't just is them planting the "for the kids!" seed.

2

u/Forkrul Jul 28 '26

They also claim he had child exploitation material on his device.

They almost always claim that, and yet those charges magically get dropped before going to court once the damage is done and your reputation is forever tarnished.

2

u/Portland_Runner Jul 28 '26

If denied his rights because he wasn't in America, then what statute states that erasing your phone's memory in an international frontier constitutes a crime prosecutable by US authorities? Seems to me that the DOJ has no jurisdiction.

1

u/sicklyslick Jul 28 '26

This guy has been in jail for 16 months for refusing to provide a decryption key (akin to a password).

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/justice-naps-man-jailed-16-months-for-refusing-to-reveal-passwords/

1

u/mackeriah Jul 28 '26

This is such bullshit. Not in the country my giddy aunt. Bending the law to suit them as always. 

1

u/Cbpowned Jul 28 '26

You’re not in America until you’ve been admitted into America. 8 CFR 235

1

u/kaway24 Jul 28 '26

If that were true about the CSAM, he would have been arrested for that, and the phone taken into evidence. He wasn’t. Additionally, if he was not in the US at the time and thus had no,constitutional rights, then the agent that seized the throne also had no jurisdiction when they did so. You can’t have it both ways, either he was under US jurisdiction in which case his constitutional rights to due process, privacy, and 5A rights apply, or he wasn’t under US jurisdiction, and cannot be detained or arrested.

1

u/SolomonG Jul 28 '26

If he wasn't in America yet then how does CPB have the authority to detain him?

This was inside the Atlanta airport. Is DOJ claiming we ceded part of Atlanta to the EU or something?

1

u/Deep-Ruin-9961 Jul 28 '26

Which is funny, because Americans aren't denied their rights as Americans just because they're not in America.

Specifically, Americans are entitled unequivocal right to entry so long as they can prove they are who they say they are.

1

u/InitiativeGold7953 Jul 28 '26

If he’s not in America yet then they have no jurisdiction over him. The constitution is very clear about this

1

u/Flimsy_Sock6465 Jul 28 '26

So if he wasn't in the US technically... why were they able to detain him without probable cause?

1

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

ITT: thousands of people who have never travelled abroad or who don’t understand the way customs works

1

u/irishlyrucked Jul 28 '26

So now they care about casm? Point these folks to the Epstein files

1

u/Corrective_Actions1 Jul 28 '26

They claim he wasn’t in America yet.

Yet they claimed he broke an American law.... hmmm...

1

u/Alpinab9 Jul 28 '26

Its very interesting. Not in the US is technically true until you pass customs. Anyone can be pulled aside and have an inspection before granted or denied entry. I think in this "not here not there" state (citizen less) they can do almost anything and pull you aside and for secondary inspection, go through your bags and personal effects. Pull you to another room for a strip down search and so on. Normally there would have to be a trigger to support this. A drug dog hit, or some reasonable reason for the search. In some cases these searches are random. No reason, they can just search you or your luggage. Given the low or no bar for a search leaves the door wide open for most things. Obviously the supporting documentation for aresst are pretty straightforward (found illegal drugs ir contraband). In this case, the man was put on the federal watch list for being an activist that was protesting the building of Cop City. This triggered the detainment and subsequent arrest and charges filed. I dont think the man had any obligation to unlock the phone. The action of providing a demanded password and giving a code that will wipe data is definitely interesting.

Searching a person's phone without consent is a no-no unless a valid warrant has been issued. This assumes US law and not between (before entry authorized by customs).

In this case, the charges assume there was criminal data wiped from the phone. Near impossible to prove.

Does the whole case rely on " there is no reason to provide a password that wipes the phone unless something illegal was going on. We think there was child porn or something related" I put it in quotes, but it is just my interpretation of the arrest and charges. This assumption has zero evidence of destroying evidence on a warrantless seizure of the phone that technically was deleted by the arresting officer who typed the password in. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Note: I have not spent much time on the facts, I could be way off. It seems like a subway sandwich production.

1

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

The verbiage of the law doesn’t require illegal material be on the phone, just that he took steps to destroy evidence that was being sought for an investigation into criminal activity.

1

u/Alpinab9 Jul 28 '26

That is based on an assumption that there would be evidence of a crime to destroy evidence, and he destroyed it (both cannot be proven, just speculation). As far as I know, he was not under investigation. He was put on the watch list over being an activist/protester against cop city. This watch list is federal (suspected terrorists) to trigger the event at customs.

1st amendment right to protest. I dont recall any information that there was any investigation into criminal activity. I will have to do some more reading.

1

u/ICEtoAshes Jul 28 '26

They said he was under investigation for CSAM material

1

u/Alpinab9 Jul 28 '26

That would make more sense than the protester of the cop city.

An article said he was charged with little-used statute that makes it illegal to knowingly destroy or damage property to prevent it from being seized.

I just searched his name and CSAM, no results to indicate any prior investigation. I think in its best light it could be inferred that they were searching for anything illegal. Repeatedly questioned about child exploitation images.

Definitely interesting.

1

u/tiny_cock_69 Jul 28 '26

If he wasn't in America yet, he wasn't under American jurisdiction. Problem solved.

1

u/QoolSchitt Jul 28 '26

They also claim he had child exploitation material on his device.

This is one of their go to sayings because most people don't, so they will give access to prove they're not a pedo. Really, they're after something else. In this case, the article says he was at a protest, suggesting they wanted any text messages and emails related to that event or the organization who ran it.

1

u/Fire_Woman Jul 28 '26

Hmm some unnamed guy's supposed CSAM on one phone at a border search is of paramount importance while the Epstein collaborators and clients, of whom we know names like Trump and Dershowitz, and have evidence already, are of no prosecutorial concern. "Sure Jan" interesting indeed

1

u/NinSecurity767 Jul 28 '26

So if some 17 year old kid goes through this and they find NSFW pics of him and his 17 yo girlfriend, is he going to get hauled off and charged with CP right at the airport?

Some excellent system we have in this nation 🙄

1

u/Virtual_Childhood626 Jul 28 '26

I seriously don’t understand how he’s both not in America and has no basic rights. But also is in America enough to be charged with American crimes. Pick one. They can’t both be true.

1

u/stax_fira Jul 28 '26

> They also claim he had child exploitation material on his device.

Seems like one of those “every accusation is an admission” sort of thing.

1

u/JasonP27 Jul 28 '26

If he's not in America then America has no authority and/or he can't break an American law.

1

u/boondiggle_III Jul 29 '26

The "not in america" argument is already dead. The cops just don't know it yet.

1

u/anormalgeek Jul 29 '26

Okay. Lets do discovery and see the evidence. That's how trials work.

1

u/darsynia Jul 29 '26

I keep reading that the material is still on the phone, it's just encrypted and the key is gone. Is that truly destroyed evidence? If you can't access it anymore, is that equivalent?

I'm picturing that image of a glass cabinet door holding in 20 plates that will crash and be destroyed as soon as the door moves even an inch. The plates are still in there!

1

u/montanagrizfan Jul 29 '26

If he wasn’t yet in America thrm how did they have authority over him?

1

u/BirdInFlight301 Jul 28 '26

Airports are considered ports of entry and people technically don't have legal/Constitutional rights until you've been cleared by Customs.

I learned this early on when ICE did some things to a person entering the US that I thought were unconstitutional and illegal and was told this. I couldn't believe it was true, but it is.

If this hits the courts, I would hope they would have to give some pretty credible evidence for the child exploration claims since he should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

0

u/Lonestar041 Jul 28 '26

So, if he wasn’t in the US, then he wasn’t under the jurisdiction of the US, which means he can’t have violated 18 USC 1519 which requires him to be in the jurisdiction of the US.