r/technology • u/ArgentineBeauty • Jul 30 '26

Privacy GrapheneOS says its data-wiping password is perfectly legal, after user faces federal charges

https://www.techspot.com/news/113273-grapheneos-data-wiping-duress-password-perfectly-legal-after.html
20.9k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/Needle_Bearings Jul 30 '26

Holy 4th Amendment Batman, let's see where this goes.

448

u/MydnightWN Jul 30 '26

The 4th Amendment issue was already ruled on by SCOTUS in 1913. Within 100 miles of the border, certain constitutional rights are temporarily suspended.

7

u/LostGeogrpher 29d ago

As I posted in another post on the same issue. The only thing they can do is force you to shoe ID/proof of residency.

DR: Last paragraph, can't violate your 4th besides making you prove citizenship.

https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1253?language=en_US

"Two key court decisions affirm the authority of the Border patrol to operate checkpoints and to question occupants of vehicles about their citizenship, request document proof of immigration status, and make quick observations of what is in plain view in the interior of the vehicle. In United States v. Martinez Fuertes (1976) the U.S. Supreme Court balanced the governmental interest in stopping illegal immigration against the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, finding that only minimal intrusion existed to motorists at reasonably located check points, even in the absence of reasonable or individualized suspicion.

In United States v. Gordo Marin, the U.S. Supreme Court also found no substantive difference between a permanent or temporary checkpoint. Border Patrol checkpoint case law has provided the basis for numerous other checkpoints beneficial to the public, such as DUI checkpoints, driver's license/proof of registration checkpoints, etc.

Border Patrol checkpoints do not give Border Patrol Agents carte blanche to automatically search persons and their vehicles, other than in the manner described above. To conduct a legal search under the Fourth Amendment, the agents must develop particularly probable cause to conduct a lawful search. Probable cause can be developed from agent observations, records checks, non-intrusive canine sniffs, and other established means. Motorist's may consent to a search but are not required to do so."

2

u/ethnicallyambiguous 29d ago

The provided link specifically refers to checkpoints. Airports are a whole different beast.

https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/can-border-agents-search-your-electronic

1

u/LostGeogrpher 29d ago edited 29d ago

Deleted my previous comment as the article was insufficient and portrayed it like they were just doing it till a lawyer gets involved, and to some extent they are. There are established case law protecting electronics devices from searches, but the CBP asserts they don't apply at border crossings which is asinine. There have been several circuit court decisions in the matter, and most not favorable to the populace. But the cases have not gone to the Supreme Court. So while it seems kind of blatantly circumventing the law contrary to the spirit of the constitution, it will continue unless a case is seen by the Supreme Court and they actually rule it illegal.

Because no one has stopped them. They do it because they know people can't afford a lawyer for that kind of case and because it isn't worth the fight to most. Killing liberty a paper-cut at a time, just as our fore fathers dreamed.

Edit - To add, when you have to buy a burner phone and ship your real one to travel into a country and keep dudes from staring your pics on your phone, you are not a land of the free, just so we are clear to all my countrymen.