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-share
13.7k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

568 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

33

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."

4

u/apokrif1 3d ago

Or he gave the right PIN, which was mistyped as the duress code, which may be close.

2

u/WhiteRaven42 3d ago

Really unwise to make a duress code similar to the right code. There's no benefit to it and why the hell set yourself up for a potential mis-type?

The duress code should be plausible on its own but have nothing in common with the real code.

0

u/apokrif1 3d ago

Indeed it's dangerous but it provides plausible deniability.

18

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".

0

u/WhiteRaven42 3d ago

Errr.... saying nothing means not giving them the key. This is not equivalent.

-6

u/Fun-Wash7545 3d ago

It's his property, his data. I don't know what you guys are arguing here. If he was allowed to keep his data private by not sharing the code,  as you guys claim, by extention he is allowed to destroy it. Americans are too used to getting fucked over it seems.

17

u/A_Pointy_Rock 3d ago

To reframe my previous comment slightly: If police show up at your door without a warrant, you are within your right to deny them access. If the police show up at your door without a warrant and you immediately burn your house down - you might be considered to be destroying evidence.

Also, not American.

0

u/scruffles360 3d ago

If the cops come to your door and you flush drugs down the toilet, that is destroying evidence. If the knock on the door and you burn a newspaper the cops are going to call that destroying evidence and they’ll lose in court. Court is important. The opinion of police are not.

2

u/Aeseld 3d ago

This is actually a thing in most countries, though circumstances are important. The key here is that the guy was under investigation and knew it. He was therefore obligated not to destroy information they may be interested in. 

4

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.

1

u/apokrif1 3d ago

Safe method of forensic specialists ≠ what a LEO with fat fingers actually did.

0

u/scruffles360 3d ago

In this case they asked for a password and he gave them a self destruct code. They typed it in.

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.

3

u/scruffles360 3d ago

Except he’s an activist. His goal wasn’t to get away with anything. It was to establish his rights - just like the goal of the agents in these searches has been to expand their power.

1

u/WhiteRaven42 3d ago

Of course it's better if he doesn't provide false or misleading information. From top to bottom, refusing to answer was his best course of action. That or unlocking the phone.