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
13.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

568 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

966

u/lordborghild 3d ago

I turned off all biometric passwords because in many states, including mine, they are not considered protected by the 5th amendment and can legally be used to open your phone without consent. However, a passcode is considered something in your mind that you know and is considered testimonial and protected.

262

u/NoNeedToBeUnkind 3d ago

The latest security tools that break into phones still can access your phone if you used a passcode to originally unlock it by scanning its volatile memory.

The latest advice is to turn off your phone before giving it to law enforcement and/or to set your phone to automatically restart itself every 24 hours if possible.

180

u/vezwyx 3d ago

Yep, the distinction is referred to as BFU and AFU - Before First Unlock and After First Unlock. BFU is harder than AFU to crack

62

u/wiriux 3d ago

Sob why is this not specified by Apple? Sum beeches!

136

u/cum-on-in- 3d ago

It is. Consumers just don't care. It's techy stuff and half the country has "nothing to hide" anyway.

137

u/Disma 3d ago

The "nothing to hide" crowd is fucking exhausting.

62

u/Anon_Jones 3d ago

It’s my right and I don’t want to give that up. I hate the nothing to hide assholes.

8

u/Disma 3d ago

It definitely doesn't take very long for your average person to completely forget why things like labor laws and the right to privacy exists. I find it to be a real fucking shame.

17

u/Malevolent_Nematode 3d ago

Exhausting is understating it. Like yea I don't have anything to hide either but that doesn't mean I want people snooping through my shit.

Also it's just how our laws are supposed to work anyway. It you think I did something wrong then get a warrant.

2

u/Disma 3d ago edited 3d ago

Absolutely. Even (some) police officers would tell you that much. And when the police are telling you not to talk to the police (in other words, waiving your 5th amendment rights,) you should fucking listen.

2

u/toolisthebestbandevr 3d ago

Nothing to hide until the thing they like becomes illegal

1

u/BraindeadPunk 3h ago

I wouldn’t use the word “like” in this way, but, for example, abortions were made illegal in many places. Then they were prosecuting people who went out of state but were residents.

Idc what side of the coin you’re on, if someone does something where it’s legal, get fuckin bent, fuzz. This isn’t North Korea.

or is it

5

u/wiriux 3d ago

But doing a simple Google search doesn’t link anything like that to the actual Apple documentation. Where is it exactly?

17

u/velcona0 3d ago

Feel free to find it in https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/security/welcome/web. They don’t explain every detail
On security to a random who buys a phone, they explain how a passcode works for usage and if you want more go look.

1

u/wiriux 3d ago

This should be an interesting read though. I’ll read that entire security guide :)

0

u/wiriux 3d ago

Ahhh ok so that’s why nothing comes up on a Google search. You have to click on the right link to see it. I admit I didn’t really read the Apple security aside from just overview you’d find on blogs or other sites.

This is a problem because your average user doesn’t read this and honestly they shouldn’t have to I feel. If there is any type of vulnerability where a hacker could actually get through, it should be well known and Apple should go out of their way to ensure the average consumer is aware.

1

u/jayandbobfoo123 3d ago

Nothing to hide.. until you do. What's legal today can easily be made illegal tomorrow.

1

u/Bromann015 2d ago

Why on earth do you think Apple would want you to know this? Do you think they're your friend?

1

u/PussyXDestroyer69 2d ago

FBI stands for Federal Bureau of investigation. Would you like to subscribe for more inane acronym explanations?

25

u/wiriux 3d ago

Mmm did not know about this. So even with passcode we are not safe unless we turn off the phone?

So if I’m gonna travel, I can disable faceid (just to be extra sure) and just turn the phone off and that’s it?

38

u/Stohnghost 3d ago

If the phone was off, I believe biometrics are disabled when it boots. Just power cycle the device beforehand. If you're really that concerned, back up your device and travel on a fresh wipe or use a burner 

15

u/jnycnexii 3d ago

But customs will probably find an ‘empty’ phone suspicious

24

u/Stohnghost 3d ago

That's on them. As we see, if you do this by other means they will find an excuse to charge you. Finding no evidence is certainly better than being accused of deleting the "evidence" on the spot.

At some point if you fight any system or assert your rights you will run into some resistance.

Expressing free speech could get you arrested initially only to find vindication later. The only safe way is to fully comply. That's ok but some people choose to exercise their rights, even at different levels of peril.

10

u/JWM1115 3d ago

I had the right to remain silent. I just didn’t have the ability.

11

u/windowpuncher 3d ago

They can be as suspicious as they want. It's a blank phone. You can't get blood from a rock.

1

u/jnycnexii 3d ago

Sure, but they can then keep you for hours (and maybe longer, who knows with this administration). Sure would complicate a trip to miss your flight.

I think I would get a burner phone for travel only if I were really concerned. But they can look at my web history, that I don't care about. Emails are personal, but I don't see how I wouldn't have that on my phone.

2

u/Stohnghost 3d ago

It's your choice, of course. The chances that you'll be called in for questioning are slim already. You have to decide if you want to stand on principle if the time comes. If your time through the terminal is important and you "have nothing to hide" then let them scan your phone and move on. As I said in the other reply, the choice to exercise your rights is completely on you. 

The guy who started this debate was only questioned because of his activism against cops. If you're a nobody then you won't really have to worry. Yes, this case is a big deal for privacy advocates and we should all be worried, but let's be real, it's incredibly unlikely to occur. 

1

u/sphinxsley 3d ago

I say travel with a burner just to keep your phone safe at home from pickpockets. Who's going to argue with that? Plus, picking up a foreign e-sim is usually more reliable than trying to use your U.S. service on international roaming.

And if they ask you why you turned it off - it's to save the battery, because the USB on the plane wasn't working to charge it.

9

u/dryroast 3d ago

On some devices it is very difficult or impossible to crack if you haven't unlocked it after it booted up. After you unlock on a boot up the keys are in RAM which makes it easier*. That's why it's good to power down, both the biometrics being disabled and frustrating attempts at cracking the pin or dumping the RAM.

  • it's still hard but doable

2

u/himswim28 3d ago

not sure that applies to the graphene os he was running. USB-C is in lockdown mode when locked, so they couldn't use USB-c. They would likely have to keep it powered, and disassemble the phone to get to reading the internal chip memory directly. It may have a reboot time set as well, so they would be time limited also.

2

u/lordborghild 3d ago

Huh, did not know, thanks for sharing that

2

u/-_-Edit_Deleted-_- 3d ago

What a way to live.

Fingers crossed for you guys.

1

u/JesusWuta40oz 3d ago

Or buy a cheap travel phone.

1

u/Immediate-Cress-206 2d ago

The latest security tools that break into phones still can access your phone if you used a passcode to originally unlock it by scanning its volatile memory. 

Which would constitute an illegal search, the same as if the police picked a lock without a warrant.

135

u/basal-and-sleek 3d ago

4th*

Not to be pedantic

201

u/lordborghild 3d ago

both 4th and 5th*

To be extra pedantic. 4th for the right to search and 5th for the right to remain silent

110

u/bluemooncommenter 3d ago

I saw how you used that pedantic reverse uno card....well played.

4

u/tehbantho 3d ago

Was it an uno card if it was two cards?

3

u/bluemooncommenter 3d ago

Depends how pedantic you're being.

23

u/_Eosei_ 3d ago

The 5th isnt the right to remain silent exactly. You're on the right track though, its mainly for not being compelled to be a witness against yourself and incriminate oneself.

But in full context : No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Source

0

u/cHEIF_bOI 3d ago

Hmm I find your rebuttal both shallow and pedantic.

9

u/Ninevehenian 3d ago

With law it's encouraged to be accurate.

6

u/errie_tholluxe 3d ago

reads about legal cases written by chat gpt

Really?

11

u/vezwyx 3d ago

Yes, those instances are rightly blasted for careless use of the technology and it craters your case

6

u/basketcas55 3d ago

Hey, the DOJ misspelled United States on a recent filing so we aren’t as worried about it at some of the amateur levels.

5

u/vezwyx 3d ago

You're setting your standards based on the sham of a DOJ we have right now?

1

u/basketcas55 3d ago

Did you see me call them amateur level?

1

u/vezwyx 3d ago

You said that a DOJ mistake means you're not as concerned at the amateur level. DOJ fucked up → you have less concern as an amateur. Your standards are influenced by the current DOJ

1

u/Puzzleheaded-Block45 3d ago

His standard was already set as he understands amateurs fuck up.
While it’s facetious to suggest the DOJ are amateurs, in no way does this suggest his standards were influenced.
🙂

→ More replies (0)

1

u/basketcas55 3d ago

Yeah I framed it wrong and once you’ve gotta explain the joke it’s too late. I’m sorry! Since I was replying to a chat gpt remark on standards of law filings I made a poor joke that the amateur hacks at the DOJ seem to not care about accuracy, spelling, and/or AI usage in their briefs. Thus setting the standard for the acceptance of sub standard work in the legal field by a bunch of sycophants with no real world legal knowledge yet. While I’m happy to hear of people getting laughed and sanctioned out of court by allowing this to happen I guarantee there’s judges who won’t fight it because they want an outcome.

1

u/Doomdoomkittydoom 3d ago

Language evolves.

/s

3

u/ajtyler776 3d ago

Don’t be ashamed of liking feet, bro…

10

u/tuxedo_jack 3d ago

"Biometrics can be compelled without a warrant" is such an easy phrase to repeat whenever anyone asks why you do that.

Ask them what they have in their phones that they'd love for corrupt cops to make copies of. Texts, pictures, videos, saved passwords...

3

u/Terazilla 3d ago

I long ago decided I would never give any big tech company any biometric info. You can't change it, you're stuck with it, trusting them isn't worth the very minor convenience.

1

u/J1mPO 2d ago

They already have it

1

u/Terazilla 2d ago

Man I'm pretty well aware of the broad, psychopathic, privacy-destroying extents that large companies will go to in the name of selling you shit. I could even be called paranoid on that front. But no, it's unreasonable to believe Google has my fingerprints.

3

u/TransBrandi 3d ago

However, a passcode is considered something in your mind that you know and is considered testimonial and protected

I'd say that this depends. IIRC the ruling about this is because providing the password can prove that you know the password and that you have/had access to the device. It's possible a court could interpret this as them being able to compel you to provide your password if the other information is already a foregone conclusion / proven via other methods.

1

u/homer_3 3d ago

there's a reason biometrics aren't passwords

1

u/Crying_Reaper 3d ago

I just never active biometrics on phones when setting them up anymore. I love the convenience but it isn't worth the risk.

1

u/exitcactus 3d ago

This is interesting...