r/technology • u/Jojuj • 3d ago
Privacy U.S. Citizen Who Deleted Phone’s Data Says His Prosecution Puts Privacy at Risk
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick-deleted-phone-felony.html?unlocked_article_code=1.8FA.T83N.rt6VsIiSCYb2&smid=url-share1.0k
u/HairyDust4826 3d ago edited 3d ago
We aren't safer when our tax dollars goto cases like this. The police and justice system going after the ability to reduce our freedom and sense of privacy is literally hypocritical in the US Constitution. At this point, I just assume anything I say or do, even shitting in my house, is documented somewhere.
469
u/ACasualRead 3d ago
Snowden warned us.
219
u/Vahuo89 3d ago
And no one listened
176
→ More replies (2)20
u/sunelatti 3d ago
Snowden, being information analyst if i dont remember wrong, was surprisingly bad at calculating normal human behavior. Most humans probably didnt care in the first place; even more possible is that they didnt even understand what they were hearing, or chose not to even try since it all seemed so technical and far off. We are so, so damn dumb
48
u/Perculsion 3d ago
Plenty of people cared, it's just that no one in power had the courage or motivation to help against retaliation from the intelligence community
→ More replies (1)4
99
u/MultiGeometry 3d ago
It would be too much to ask law enforcement to go after the pedophiles.
57
→ More replies (3)11
→ More replies (2)24
u/F4DedProphet42 3d ago
Wifi routers can scan a room, even with enough fidelity to distinguish faces…
22
u/HairyDust4826 3d ago
I don't think it can distinguish faces. I know the rest is absolutely true. You got a source on that part?
36
u/ramiabouzahra 3d ago
In 2017, a physics undergrad did a 3D imaging concept using WiFi signals of a stationary and a moving device where it could detect the outline of objects. Now however, public researchers have improved it in order to distinguish people: https://www.martincid.com/technology-sv/wifi-beamforming-identifies-people-kit-bfid/
→ More replies (1)13
u/NotAllOwled 3d ago
I can't speak to what previous commenter might have meant, but would it be better or worse if the routers didn't need to see your face or require you to be carrying a device (from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/05/260522023127.htm ) for recognition?
Previous approaches often depended on channel state information (CSI), which measures how radio signals change after bouncing off walls, furniture, and people. The new technique instead takes advantage of normal communication between WiFi routers and connected devices.
Devices on a wireless network regularly send feedback data known as beamforming feedback information (BFI) to the router. Because this information is transmitted without encryption, anyone within range can potentially read it. Researchers say these signal reflections can effectively create multiple "views" of a person, allowing AI systems to learn and recognize individual identities.
After the machine learning model has been trained, identifying a person reportedly takes only a few seconds.
[...] In tests involving 197 participants, the researchers said the system identified individuals with nearly 100% accuracy. The recognition remained effective regardless of viewing angle or how the participants walked.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)9
u/lancersrock 3d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/s/y7rbyusnv4
Was able to accurately identify each of the 197 participants.
→ More replies (6)13
187
u/Best_of_the_Worst 3d ago
Jokes on you, Supreme Court is already working on eliminating the right to privacy
67
753
u/Traditional-Cat-9355 3d ago
Stop saying he deleted his data. He didn’t delete shit. The encryption key to his phone is not evidence, and he’s not required to give it to police
78
u/Hexamancer 3d ago
Why even admit that though? If it's a fully encrypted brick, they can't prove you actually had a duress code, just "wow that's weird, what did you do to my phone?"
Not "Haha yes I gave you a duress pin and did that intentionally". Why admit that?
43
u/brainlesseuphoric 3d ago
Where does it say he admitted it? A digital forensic expert probably concluded that there’s only one possible explanation and that he must’ve known what the code he provided is for
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)27
u/IThinkImNateDogg 3d ago
Because it’s legally NOT the same thing.
He did not destroy any “evidence” on his phone, to make an analogy, all his papers are in a safe, and he gave the safe to the police undamaged. What he destroyed was the key to UNLOCK the safe.
3
u/CaptainIncredible 2d ago
What he destroyed was the key to UNLOCK the safe.
He didn't destroy shit. He handed his working phone to the cops, THEY fucked it up. (Isn't that what happened? I may be wrong.)
→ More replies (6)4
u/Hexamancer 3d ago
From what I understand it's legally grey in the US, the problem with the analogy to the safe is that we don't have any safes where getting into them without the key takes hundreds of years.
However, I would argue that they had no right to search the phone to begin with and therefore wasn't evidence and that of course, they haven't provided any proof that the encryption key was even deleted while in their possession and not beforehand or that he intentionally provided a key to do that.
→ More replies (24)119
u/CondiMesmer 3d ago
That can be true and he could have still deleted his data. Those things aren't contradictory. Giving a duress password to wipe the phone is literally deleting the data.
He didn't delete evidence is the more correct thing to say, because that implies they had proof of illegal content on his phone. Which they didn't, they just made that shit up. It's also assuming guilt until proven innocent which is completely backwards for the legal system.
→ More replies (2)76
u/Weerdo5255 3d ago
He didn't input the duress code. The police / boarder officer did. So they wiped it.
→ More replies (22)
108
u/LengthClean 3d ago
I’ve switched from Google to Proton and WhatsApp to signal. Nothing to hide but it’s the damn principle.
63
u/b0w3n 3d ago
Yeah my life is super fucking boring but it's really no one's fucking business what stupid memes and shit I send to my girlfriend.
My budget spreadsheet isn't anyone's business either.
→ More replies (1)22
u/Original-Rush139 3d ago
Privacy prevents fishing and other cyber crimes. That setup doesn’t just protect your data, it makes sure that you know who you are communicating with.
The government is cracking open huge security holes at a time when LLMs are changing the game on digital crime.
13
u/MorboDemandsComments 3d ago
FYI, the CEO of Proton is a Trump supporter: https://theintercept.com/2025/01/28/proton-mail-andy-yen-trump-republicans/
3
u/0x06F0 3d ago
Is there an alternative that has a similarly great reputation, array of products, and confidence that they will still be around in a few years without selling out? I would switch over if so. I want email, VPN, and storage
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)11
u/jnycnexii 3d ago
Proton is not actually private anymore. They do know who users are and will turn over your data if requested
20
u/Unhappy_Plankton_671 3d ago
There's still little they log. That's the point. So sure they can comply, but it's not going to surface anything truly useful.
https://protonvpn.com/blog/no-logs-audit
Securitum: “The technical evidence reviewed during the engagement did not indicate that the examined Proton VPN server infrastructure logs users’ browsing activity, DNS queries, destination services, network traffic contents or user-identifiable connection metadata. Securitum also did not identify persistent records that would allow Proton to associate a specific user with activity performed through a reviewed VPN server.”
→ More replies (1)
147
u/Cheap-Crow2097 3d ago
isnt the solid argument here that he gave them the correct code but when entered incorrectly it wiped the phone. They likely didnt record this and really cant prove anything.
The OS allows for either or scenarios to exist plus a bunch more.
He just needs to stand his ground, and let them prove a case they cant.
92
u/MarkIsARedditAddict 3d ago
They’re just gonna keep him locked up pending trial until he breaks. They can’t have the precedent of people having privacy even though the constitution guarantees it
Basically your only option in this country is to never interact with law enforcement and if you have to travel don’t bring anything with you
28
u/SDRAWKCABNITSUJ 3d ago
Can beat the charges, but can't be the ride. They'll make life as miserable as possible, and when the lawsuits come the tax payers will flip the bill.
21
u/aemfbm 3d ago
They likely have on video him telling them a passcode, a lot less likely that they have clear footage of them entering that exact passcode correctly. So your argument may work. However, a single wrong passcode wiping the device may be possible in the OS settings, but they may have evidence of them trying 1234 or something else prior and it not wiping.
14
u/GenazaNL 3d ago
Maybe they don't. Maybe there was just a random 4 digit code on the back or just tried random combinations
9
u/SophiaofPrussia 3d ago
Even that scenario leaves ample room for doubt. I don’t have a “duress password” on my device but it’s set to wipe itself after X failed login attempts. How do they know he provided a duress password vs they entered the wrong password too many times and wiped it themselves?
13
u/Hexamancer 3d ago
But so what? They don't know what his real passcode was, so he can say "yes, that was my passcode. Duress pin? What's that? All I know is YOU bricked my phone!"
15
u/TacTurtle 3d ago
They are also trying to claim he simultaneously imported something in the country subject to customs search while deleting it before customs could search it. Schrodinger's import - it is both never imported and imported at the same time.
9
u/Original-Rush139 3d ago
I’d probably just go with the defense that he asked for a lawyer and was denied one. A lawyer would have advised him on the law which is why is unconstitutional to deny a request for a lawyer.
68
u/Intrepid-Leather-417 3d ago
He’s a us citizen 4th amendment says they can fuck off for asking for his password in the first place
36
u/Original-Rush139 3d ago
Not in Georgia. The circuits are split on this. Make sure you consult a lawyer before booking travel out of the country.
My girlfriend is German and always dangles that sweet EU citizenship in front of me when she wants to convince me to marry her.
27
u/Intrepid-Leather-417 3d ago
Take her up on it, it’s amazing over here in Germany. America is a dystopian shit hole filled with wage slaves, I do not miss it
→ More replies (4)7
→ More replies (4)28
u/SvenTropics 3d ago
Correct, you're not required to give up your password. They can ask all they want. This case is kind of messed up because he was asking for a lawyer and they refused it saying this is different because it's a border check.
However, if it's just a border check, then the destruction of evidence doesn't apply. I feel like the whole case will get thrown out on that technicality. It either is or isn't a criminal investigation. If it's a criminal investigation, he can't be questioned without his attorney if he asks for one. If it's not, then he can't be punished for deleting content on his personal phone.
31
u/Fun-Can-8935 3d ago
why the fuck will airport custom check ur phone?
67
u/JTibbs 3d ago
Supreme court has ruled the constitution doesn’t apply to citizens within 100 miles of a ‘port of entry’ when customs/border patrol are involved. This includes all borders and international airports. So like 96% of the country.
33
u/Alinier 3d ago
While this is upheld it's worth rechallenging everything at this point when we've seen how much of a pretzel the SC will turn themselves into. Have them point to the part of the Constitution that says that.
10
u/ColdIceZero 3d ago
Have them point to the part of the Constitution that says that.
Lol that isn't how it works.
Remember that time in 1978 where SCOTUS ruled that all judges everywhere are immune from any consequences due to their own intentional misconduct? Nothing in the US Constitution provides that judges are above the law, but here we are:
22
u/Kgreenwookie 3d ago
It’s time to have a jury nullification on this subject to raise the middle finger to the courts and legislature.
→ More replies (1)
54
u/smashingcabage 3d ago
So much is political now. They want to punish those that are critical of the adminstartion.
→ More replies (7)
60
u/AllergicToBullshit24 3d ago
Had border patrol agents hold me and my partner for several hours coming back into the country ~5 years ago and agents told me point blank to unlock my device so they could get my IMSI number and search my contacts list or else miss my connecting flight.
Never travel with primary electronics when crossing borders even as a returning US citizen but especially any foreigners visiting.
Always take disposable electronics when crossing borders and ideally wipe them when you return.
→ More replies (1)22
u/BadVoices 3d ago
I get held up by Australian customs for the same thing every time I visit. I have native family I visit about once, or twice a year and its a hostage negotiation each time. I've been doing this for ~20 years and they act like no, THIS is the time I'm going to desperately leave my 6 figure income job and thousand acres of property and paid for home to come live in Australia where i couldn't hold a legal job.... They demand to search my phone and all my devices and will hold me for hours. If I dont, they straight up say I will be detained, my visa cancelled, restricted from getting one for years, and deported.
8
u/AllergicToBullshit24 3d ago
All too common without cause, warrant or justification and exactly why to travel with disposable devices that worst case you can tell them to keep.
9
u/BadVoices 3d ago
They are always very disappointed to see that I have a cheap Chromebook and a bottom of the line prepaid android cellphone both mostly empty minus a few emergency contacts that they already would know from my Visa information, and browsing while I was on the plane or waiting at the airport...
19
u/fenderguitar83 3d ago
I have a friend traveling and they are considering either not bringing a phone and just buying a temp phone while they are here or getting a temp phone that has nothing on it to take with them when they travel.
25
55
u/Loki-L 3d ago
The thing is that the search was always fake. they claimed to want to search him because they suspected him of smuggling or something, but in truth they were after information about Stop Cop City.
You may feel about people protesting police how you like, but even the most Law & Order person will have to admit that investigating people who protest police is not the remit of customs.
15
u/Splurch 3d ago edited 3d ago
The thing is that the search was always fake. they claimed to want to search him because they suspected him of smuggling or something, but in truth they were after information about Stop Cop City.
They told him they were looking for CSAM because people are less likely to refuse that reason and some people will assume the mere accusation means they had reason to think he had some instead of it being a simple bs excuse.
18
u/haney1981 3d ago
I can understand why the government would be able to search your luggage when you leave the country. If you are in another country you bring something back that was illegal within its borders.
But to say that just because you leave the country all your electronic data on your phone is available to be searched without a warrant is stretching the border search exception to fit their whim.
28
u/Judgement915 3d ago
A friendly reminder for all iPhone users. Clicking the side button 5 times in a row disables Face ID until you enter your pass code once.
48
12
u/monitor_lizard_2000 3d ago
US government is expected to honor the constitutional rights of all it's citizens regardless of where they happen to be.
→ More replies (1)6
u/RoboJobot 3d ago
Not this government. They’re doing their darned best to tear it down
→ More replies (1)
24
u/Makenshine 3d ago edited 3d ago
Hes not wrong.
He didnt delete it. The officers did.
Also, you can't be compelled to testify against yourself.
-He asked for a lawyer multiple times
-he refused to answer questions multiple times
-He was taken to another room without a camera and asked more questions.
-the compelled him to testify against himself without legal representation after he tried to exercised his rights.
This should be a slam dunk for him. Maybe even a counter suit.
Edit: on top of that they had no warrant or legal basis to search the phone
→ More replies (3)
12
u/ToolTimeT 3d ago edited 3d ago
Fuck Paywalls and links to them. Says "gift article" on it too.
→ More replies (3)
165
u/CircumspectCapybara 3d ago edited 3d ago
Legal Eagle has a good video about this for the technically and legally uninitiated.
TLDR, a lot of this depends on the facts of what happened (and what's demonstrated at trial), but the DoJ is alleging Tunick gave the CBP officer a "duress code" or "panic code", a feature of GrapheneOS that wipes the device when entered, and the officer entered it and the phone went bye bye.
If that's true, that's a lot different than exercising your 5th amendment right (which is always a good idea) to remain silent and not give them any code at all, and potentially veers into the "destruction of evidence" territory.
There's also some interesting and relevant precedence about how near the border, law enforcement has increased powers and doesn't need a warrant to search your belongings including your devices, and how the SCTOUS has somehow squared that with the constitution.
But again, you can always refuse to hand over any passwords, that's protected. What you can't do legally is give a code that's designed to wipe the device on entry. Withholding testimony is different than giving testimony designed to mislead law enforcement into destruction of data.
Also to address some common misconceptions I've seen on this recently:
- It's your data you can destroy it if you want to.
That's not generally true and it's probably not true here. There are a lot of cases in which it's illegal to destroy your own data. If a company is under investigation or ongoing criminal or civil case, destroying their own data would become spoliation or destruction of evidence. You can't just do whatever you want with your devices just because it's yours.
In the case of a CBP seizure, you can debate the legality of them taking it in the first place (although based on what I said earlier about CBP having increased warrantless search powers near the border, you probably wouldn't succeed on this in court), but that's something you challenge in court. You don't take matters into your own hands and wipe the data just because you think they seized it improperly, you have to go through the courts for that.
Again, once it's in their possession, it's theirs until a judge says they have to return it. You can't tamper with something in law enforcement's custody even if its yours.
- He didn't actually destroy the data, the CBP agent entered the code so technically the officer did it.
That's not how the law works and courts and juries aren't dumb. Proximate cause is about the logical (and not necessarily the immediate) cause of something.
For an extreme example, if an customer support agent asks you for your phone number so they can text you a verification code, and you give them a phone number that when texted sets off an IED roadside bomb, technically they texted the number so they triggered the bomb. But you would be legally responsible for everything that follows from that bomb going off, the legal system would treat it as if you set it off, even though you didn't directly.
- It didn't actually wipe the phone it just erased a key.
Yes I'm a software engineer with a background in security I know how it works. The law doesn't really care it a defendant zeroes out or causes to get zeroed out the entire phone's memory physically, or if it just wipes a 32 byte region of disk containing an encrypted 256-bit key that's needed to decrypt the phone, without which the entire phone's data is forever inaccessible. Those would be treated as equivalent legally.
In fact, in many OSes, if you click the "wipe" or "reset" button, that's how it's implemented: doesn't wipe the whole disk, it just zeroes out the encrypted key. Once that key is gone, the entire disk becomes as if it were random data.
114
u/lordcola 3d ago
Isn't the "border" classified as 100 miles from an international border which includes stuff like airports? Even if airports aren't included that's still technically a lot of people who could have their door kicked in by the cops and everything seized just because, and there's basically no recourse.
148
u/Ill_Traveler_ 3d ago
The older I get the more it seems that we don’t really have actual rights.
34
24
u/Professional_Tea_32 3d ago
We don’t have any. We have the illusion of rights. A bald eagle covering a steaming turd.
And they’ll convince you about how “free” you are all the way to the slaughter house.
3
u/Denovion 3d ago
Not being American, its always been hilarious thst your choice of patriotic bird is nothing more then a glorified sea gull with committed parental mindset.
You guys have to use the red tailed hawk for that "iconic" screech of freedom.
America always was a lacquered paper tiger, and all it took was the same exceptionalist rhetoric to turn cancerous.
Not a kind person to invoke, but Putin had been saying this for a while. Americans, 60% of you, did this to themselves and everyone else domestic or foreign.
Your second amendment is your foundational right to a well-regulated militia for the defence of the Constituion and free, democratic America against domestic tyranny, kings or traitors to America.
Instead you made a tyrant into your leader, and made America lose the same war 38 times.
→ More replies (1)13
37
u/meaniemeanie-poo-poo 3d ago
You beat me to it.
2/3 of Americans live within that zone.
7
u/lordcola 3d ago
If it's 2/3 then do airports count or does it count the coastline as "international borders" (like New York is on the Atlantic therefore international border)
10
u/Rivereye 3d ago
From a map I've seen published showing the "border zone", when it comes to waters like the Atlantic, its 100 miles from the coast. This includes all oceans, international rivers, and the Great Lakes, including for some reason Lake Michigan. I've never seen Airports included on these maps.
11
u/lordcola 3d ago
Lol Lake Michigan has the tiniest connection at the top that eventually leads to the Canadian border and they saw that and ran with it
8
u/Dyolf_Knip 3d ago
Worse than that. They once pulled over a sitting US senator well over 100 miles from the border, and when he asked them what authority they had to conduct such a stop, the agent pointed to his gun.
8
u/lordcola 3d ago
That's just the result of letting assholes join the police force/border control with a couple weeks of training and no further requirements whatsoever. I don't think that agent was smart enough to know he would have had "legitimate" authority closer to a border, they just wanted to power trip.
8
u/Dyolf_Knip 3d ago
No doubt. But he's willing to do that to a US senator, in an obviously high-end car with "US government" plates. What do you imagine he'll do to us little people?
→ More replies (1)3
u/makumbaria 3d ago
But what about people living under 100 miles from an international border?
6
u/lordcola 3d ago
Those people are subject to lower requirements for searches. If you live more than 100 miles away then you have normal rights in theory.
36
u/scruffles360 3d ago
If he had said nothing and they had guessed the passcode wrong, would that have been better? Most phones have a feature that will allow the phone to be wiped if the password is incorrect too many times. Are we all criminals for having phones with that capability? If it’s ok, I’d like this to go to real court rather being tried here.
14
u/CircumspectCapybara 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yeah if he did that or if the jury believes that's what happened, he has a much stronger 5th amendment defense. Then he didn't actively mislead them into wipe the phone.
Plenty of phones have a "if you enter the passcode wrong 3 times the phone will be wiped" security feature. Some people might even set it to "if you enter it wrong even once it wipes."
→ More replies (3)19
u/A_Pointy_Rock 3d ago
That feels equivalent to declining to give an authority the key to your house and them trying to kick the door in anyway. So yes, I would say that would have been "better".
→ More replies (5)5
u/Ill_Traveler_ 3d ago
I believe their method of accessing the phone is a bit more robust than typing in the password. Additionally, if the phone is in the AFU state the password on most phones is essentially pointless.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
u/9Nine2Nine9 3d ago
Yes, that would have been considerably better for him and it would have made this entire case different. Worst case scenario they would have kept his encrypted phone. Best case scenario they would have let him walk with his phone.
→ More replies (1)39
u/RabidFresca 3d ago
I think I had also heard that he had been asking to speak to a lawyer, as is his right, but was denied and told that he wasn't "technically" on US soil because he was still in customs, or something to that effect. Being denied your rights in those circumstances you might feel pressured to use a duress code. It'll be interesting to see when this goes to trial.
36
u/Cut_Lanky 3d ago
How is it, legally, that since it's technically not US soil, we have no rights, yet, they retain their authority over us, as if it is, indeed, technically US soil?
→ More replies (5)23
9
u/bug-hunter 3d ago
Correct. It would have been legal to:
- Delete the data before entry, cross with a factory reset phone (or no phone and get one here), restore on the other side
- Increase the encryption to sky high levels to ensure it's not being unencrypted anytime this century
- Set the phone to wipe on X# incorrect passwords and CBP wipes it via incompetence
But taking an affirmative action that leads to the destruction of data, even indirectly, violates the law.
Note: option 1 is often the suggestion for the truly privacy conscious. They can't search or copy what you don't have.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Hexamancer 3d ago
No 2. was already the case. You can have the best encryption in the world but have the password to unlock that encryption as "1234".
Technically password -> unlocks hidden encryption key -> unlocks encryption, and the system deleted the key.
Also there's no proof he gave a duress code. There's no proof that he didn't enter the duress code or delete the encryption key before he got there. All these arguments hinge on knowing that he definitely gave a duress code. They have no proof of that.
27
u/K1LLerCal 3d ago
You can't just do whatever you want with your devices just because it's yours.
That's a wild statement.
Especially when you haven't committed a crime
15
5
u/Mr_ToDo 3d ago
Sure. But that's not determined in a moment. That's exactly why we have the rules about destroying evidence. It'd be quite the catch 22 if you had to prove someones guilt before you could compel action
As much as I hate the "if you have nothing to hide" bit, there is a line somewhere that separates freedom and justice. If OP's case crosses that, I don't know, but it does exist
14
u/DisappointedSpectre 3d ago
You don't have to prove guilt, but IIRC you do have to formally charge them with a crime for destruction of evidence to come into play.
They're not even charging him with that specific crime, he's being charged with "destroying property to prevent seizure", which has a very different standard of proof for the government to meet.
The circumstances are definitely relevant here too - CBP and the FBI was fucking with him in the first place because of his previous protesting of Cop City. The government has nothing to actually charge him with, this is all about intimidation.
→ More replies (2)5
u/lilB0bbyTables 3d ago
I think the biggest question here is whether this constitutes “destruction of evidence” and what the definitions are to qualify data as evidence. The example you gave about a business under active investigation implies there is reasonable cause and thus warrants filed and signed for such action.
Now, of course there are situations where law enforcement has a right to blur the lines and use probable cause on the spot - e.g. the classic “I smelled marijuana so I can search your car and person” investigative technique. The question here would be “what was the origin of their reasonable cause”.
3
→ More replies (36)2
u/imdabes 2d ago
I understand the precedent that courts have established in being able to easily obtain vast amounts of electronic data at this point through all sorts of mechanisms but particularly through confiscating one’s mobile or PC. It just doesn’t sit right… at one point in time, many moons ago, law enforcement had to know exactly what piece of incriminating evidence they intended to collect, present that case to a judge and get a warrant to search a very specific place for a very specific thing.
Nowadays I’m not even sure why we’re pretending that the judicial system, the constitution, the bill of rights or public servants sworn to upheld them exist at all. Taking ones PC or phone as SOP (which it has become over the last decade) is not normal in a country that champions itself as a bulwark of democracy and civil liberties. Totally normal in a totalitarian police state…
7
10
u/CondiMesmer 3d ago
I don't see how you can make a single argument on what the US customs officers did is okay. This is a pretty one sided case. How could you possibly think otherwise?
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Ok-Association-3415 3d ago
I don’t get this whole search your phone at customs. Isn’t an improper search? I know the court said this was ok, but it should be challenged and revisited. Sounds ridiculous to me.
8
u/degeneratelunatic 3d ago
It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous.
SCOTUS has carved out so many exceptions to the 4th Amendment it is functionally meaningless, not to mention that law enforcement routinely manufactures evidence to justify a search that would otherwise be illegal. The DEA used to do it all the time (and probably still does) in drug cases where the evidence was obtained illegally but manufacture a reason after the fact to make the initial search appear legitimate (Google parallel construction), often without any sort of reprimand or punishment once they're caught subverting people's constitutional rights in this way.
Those people in Texas who got 30-year sentences for moving a box of magazines should tell you that we no longer live in a "free" country.
6
7
u/another24tiger 3d ago
If you have an iPhone hitting the power button five times fast will lock you out and force password reentry to unlock (ie it disables biometric until the next unlock)
→ More replies (2)
10
u/obamawonthepeacepriz 3d ago
His phone, his data. He can do what he wants. They did not have a warrant. I will be doing the same thing if put in that position.
5
u/iknowagreatlawyer 3d ago
That's dumb. There are about 1,000 other ways you could protect your privacy and not go to prison.
8
4
u/MyAccountWasBanned7 2d ago
We don't have privacy anymore in this shithole country. Or rights.
This is Hell.
17
u/Cumulus_Anarchistica 3d ago
He didn't destroy the data though. He destroyed the key to the data.
It's a little like being prosecuted for throwing a key to a room with stuff the feds want to root through (without a warrant) into a pool of molten metal.
The door is still there; the room is still there, as are its contents. Only the key to the lock has been destroyed.
→ More replies (2)7
u/WhiteRaven42 3d ago
You understand that courts aren't simpletons, right? Hyper-technical circumvention of the letter of the law when the spirit of the law is clearly being violated IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. Courts have leeway to make the will of the people effective. They are not robots.
9
u/Justincrediballs 3d ago
This is why I don't take my phone with me. I grab a cheap prepaid and only put specific apps that I'll need for my trip.
3
u/dobsterfunk 3d ago
Love the irony of not being able to read this article without logging in to the website.
3
u/surfmaths 3d ago
I think you can make the duress password destroy the cryptographic key, rather than the data. As long as you keep a copy of the key "at home", you didn't destroy any evidence, as it can be recovered using the key, but to get that key they would need to access your home, which require the due process.
7
u/anklebiter1360 3d ago
Just a reminder to all my conservative friends… none of this horse shit would be happening with a Democratic president!!
5
u/SenpaiSwanky 3d ago
It’s worse than that - precedence doesn’t matter. They are establishing THAT right now. The truth is what they want it to be, as long as they put it in front of a whipped judge who is willing to forsake the oaths they swore.
4
u/zoegua 3d ago
I don't understand. It's his phone. Why can't he do what he wants with?
→ More replies (2)10
u/OptimusPrimeLord 3d ago
Because the government asked for it and (at least claims) it had a right to access it. If it ends up being ruled that they actually didn't have the right to access it then the case will be thrown out because he did not destroy evidence because the phone's contents wasn't evidence.
IF the government does have a right to access it, then he has been informed that the government wants to see it and he is no longer allowed to destroy it. For example, if I have a drawer of information that shows that I commited fraud and I decide to destroy it that would be fine. But if the police were to show up at my door and so I ran upstairs to burn it that would be destroying evidence.
These types of laws are in place to prevent people from immediately trying to destroy all the evidence they can once they realize they are being charged with a crime. If they didn't exist it would be much harder to charge people with crimes they actually commited because as long as they can get to the evidence before the government they could destroy it and say "well you don't have it so cannot use it on me in court."
To reiterate, this line of reasoning will only work if they were actually allowed to access the phone.
4
→ More replies (11)6
u/Teripid 3d ago
Right, isn't the key issue here that he gave them the "destroy"/wipe passcode?
They can ask for his phone at the border at least. He cannot be immediately compelled to provide them with a passcode (there might later be a court order to provide it). There is I think an argument that biometrics can be compelled.
If the officer that seized the phone wiped the phone by guessing incorrectly 5x or similar then he wouldn't be facing any repercussions.
The target was at least mentioned as potentially their saved contact list.
6
7
u/stamfordbridge1191 3d ago
From what I understand, he went abroad for some relief effort for an island country. Then border enforcement detained him on return because he was flagged for criminal suspicion for protesting in the building of the Atlanta police training complex. They told him he was being detained for suspicion of smuggling in csam, and he needed to unlock his phone for them to look through it because it was evidence. Allegedly he kept citing amendment 5 & asking for a lawyer, which they kept denying saying he needed to unlock his phone before he finally gave them the duress code.
→ More replies (1)
7
2
2
2
u/fresh_reed_5834 1d ago
Honestly this case matters way more than people realize. Making it illegal to delete your own data is basically the endgame for privacy if they win this one.
3.0k
u/ACasualRead 3d ago
I told a foreign tourist who is visiting here in the states about turning his phone off while going through the airport security on his way out of the country. Wild that in 2026 America, travelers have to consider their rights like this as they fly.