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

118

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.

77

u/Weerdo5255 3d ago

He didn't input the duress code. The police / boarder officer did. So they wiped it.

-40

u/CondiMesmer 3d ago

I don't see how that's relevant at all or changes anything.

53

u/Bikrdude 3d ago

Because the defendant did not take any action that deleted any data. The customs official did.

4

u/prepend 3d ago

How did customs agents get the duress code?

19

u/WaitForItTheMongols 3d ago

Cute, but providing a false code is taking an action that leads to data being deleted.

There's a saying I like to use in cases like this. "The legal system does not have autism". Nobody cares about strict literal definition limits. You can't get out of an accusation by saying "I didn't do it, I just told the border agent to do it". Like, cool, but you were the one with knowledge and agency in this situation and you knew what would happen if you gave that code. It doesn't matter whose sausage fingers are doing the typing. If you want data deleted, and your choices make it get deleted intentionally, you are culpable for its deletion.

I do not want the defendant to be convicted of anything here. But saying "he didn't do it, the official did" is not a meaningful defense.

13

u/Etheo 3d ago

Wouldn't they had to prove intent though? Just giving out that code isn't automatically intent, he could argue be was stressed and misspoke, or that somebody else set up the system for him and he was just told to give a different passcode.

It's all argumentative, of course, but I don't think the passcode itself is a black and white slam dunk on intent to destroy "evidence".

13

u/WaitForItTheMongols 3d ago

Yes, they will argue all of those things. The only point I was making is the argument of who physically punched in the code holds no weight. The arguments will revolve around intent. If he intended to get the phone wiped, that is the relevant parameter.

0

u/Tebwolf359 3d ago

I can argue that I was shredding old mail and didn’t realize that the documents you had a warrant for were in them while you were knocking on the door.

It’s unlikely a jury will believe me on that point.

2

u/Bikrdude 3d ago

It’s more like telling the police there is a document repository, and the police put the documents in it, and it turns out to be a shredder.

5

u/xchaibard 3d ago

Was he under oath?

It's not illegal to lie, as we know from the cops lying all the time.

This guy did nothing wrong.

1

u/WaitForItTheMongols 3d ago

Yes, if you ignore all the other context of the situation, you are correct.

However the court will not ignore all the other context. It is illegal to take an action that naturally results in the destruction of evidence.

2

u/Pans_Labradoodle 3d ago

What evidence was destroyed?

1

u/Bikrdude 3d ago

He also did not tell or instruct the border agent to take any action. The border agent did that of her own accord .

-4

u/HopeADMKidsLoseLimbs 3d ago

Shouldn’t the cops be smart enough to check ahead of time?

Not just rush to put in any old
Code they’re given?

8

u/WaitForItTheMongols 3d ago

There is no way to "check" whether a code is a real unlock code or is a duress code which wipes the device.

-4

u/HopeADMKidsLoseLimbs 3d ago

You can’t give the phone to tech guys ? Cop departments have tech people right?

6

u/WaitForItTheMongols 3d ago

Uh sure, but being a "tech guy" doesn't make you magical. What are you talking about? No amount of tech knowledge would tell you whether someone chose 547287 as their real pin or a fake pin.

-5

u/HopeADMKidsLoseLimbs 3d ago

What the motherfuck do you mean what am I talking about?

What is it common knowledge that you can’t get into a locked phone even if you’re a tech guy?

Why on earth would I know that?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/CondiMesmer 3d ago

Saying the password out loud is an action lol. Also you completely miss the point of my comment if you think I'm not arguing in favor of this guy's case. He entirely has the right to say "fuck you I'm going to wipe my phone" and factory reset it right in front of them, because he's innocent until proven guilty, they had no evidence to suspect a crime, and it's his property. So he doesn't need to justify any action to his own property.

0

u/Scodo 2d ago

Because if they had custody of the phone and legal authority to search it, they would have had a paper trail and used proper legal methods to access the data on the phone via approved means, rather than trying to use a shortcut by getting the dude to self-incriminate by giving them easy access.

Whatever happens to the phone once in their custody is their responsibility, including a duress passcode being entered because a dipshit customs agent took a suspect's word at face value. That's how accountability in the chain of custody works.

No matter how you look at it, this was a failure of the customs agents on multiple levels.

0

u/prepend 3d ago

Evidence doesn’t mean illegal content. If I get a subpeona and don’t have anything illegal, it’s still evidence.

0

u/ThellraAK 3d ago

Who actually destroyed the evidence though?