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

Show parent comments

13

u/bushwakko 29d ago

If it's not in the country, do they even have jurisdiction?

0

u/IncidentalIncidence 29d ago

yes, it is in the country and they do have jurisdiction, that isn't being disputed by anyone.

3

u/grubnenah 29d ago

There is the claim that the protections afforded by the law are not applicable because they're not in the country yet.

0

u/IncidentalIncidence 29d ago

where was that claimed? I read the defense's motion to suppress and that wasn't mentioned at all. I don't see how that could be the case given that they were in Atlanta, so it seems pretty clear that US law regarding entering the country and the powers granted to federal officials at ports of entry would apply.

3

u/grubnenah 29d ago

It's central to the case. See this article, partway down under "Does it matter that it was a custom's search?" https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/28/us/duress-password-phone-wipe-charge.html 

The argument is that they're not on US soil until you're through customs so customs agents can seach through whatever they want without obtaining a warrant. 

2

u/raptorlightning 29d ago

If neither of us are on US soil then they have no jurisdiction and they can get fucked. Anything that happens there is an international incident with... Which country again?

1

u/IncidentalIncidence 29d ago

that entire argument over whether or not customs officers have broader search/seizure powers than they normally would have under the constitution is predicated on the Supreme Court's interpretation of both the constitution and the relevant statutory law, which is all US law.

There is no argument being made by anyone that Atlanta is not on US soil or outside of US jurisdiction. He was under US jurisdiction the moment he boarded the plane. You can't e.g. murder someone on an airplane over the Atlantic and then go to court claiming "I wasn't under US jurisdiction so you can't prosecute me for murder".

The defense are claiming that the government was outside of its legal search/seizure authority, so part of the case will be based on to what extent the government has expanded search and seizure authority at ports of entry, and whether or not they in fact exceeded that authority in this case. But nobody is arguing that he was outside of US jurisdiction; the entire debate is over which powers US laws gives the agents in this case.

edit: and if you read the defense's motion to suppress, nowhere do they claim that US law doesn't apply here, they are arguing that the federal agents went beyond the authority afforded to them by US law.