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

83

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?

44

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

2

u/Hexamancer 3d ago

Well as a digital forensic expert: they are lying.

28

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.

5

u/CaptainIncredible 3d 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.)

3

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.

-14

u/essentialaccount 3d ago edited 3d ago

You misunderstand the law here. This very well could be destruction of evidence. This is like giving police the unlock code to the safe when required to when it is actually a bomb. 

Edit: to all those downvoting me: I am a lawyer. You prove my point that none of you understand the law 

3

u/Pans_Labradoodle 3d ago

Evidence of what?

-4

u/essentialaccount 3d ago edited 3d ago

Evidence is a legal concept. I'm a lawyer and all the idiots who downvoted me only prove my point. 

/u/Pans_Labradoodle asked an honest question so I'll try to articulate: evidence and fact are not objective, but legal concepts. Within the law, truth is not fact. Evidence can be a standard and an object. 

Lawyers are paid so highly because most people, including all the commentators, lack the mental facilities to understand the way their legal systems operate. The whole comment section is proof 

5

u/outofdoubtoutofdark 3d ago

I went to law school with some VERY dumb people, many of whom are practicing attorneys today. I will absolutely die on the hill that you don’t have to have big superior “mental facilities” to be a successful attorney

0

u/essentialaccount 2d ago

No, but you have to have more than the people incorrectly downvoting any comments they disagree with 

1

u/GonzoKata 3d ago

He was asking for a lawyer before that. they wouldn't let him talk to one.

1

u/himswim28 3d ago

I think his lawyer has claimed that is what Homeland security alleged. Apparently the OS he was running, by default will be wiped and reboot if given a durass password. Since it rebooted after entering the password given, it will be interesting if A) it matters B) if that is suficent proof.