GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search (pcmag.com) 182
GrapheneOS is defending its duress-password feature after an environmental activist used it to wipe his Pixel phone during a U.S. Customs search and was later indicted for allegedly destroying property under government control. The nonprofit says the operating system is "completely legal," cannot recover the erased data, and should not be weakened with encryption backdoors. Meanwhile, the activist faces up to five years in prison if found guilty. PCMag reports: In a post on Saturday, the Canadian nonprofit behind the operating system, the GrapheneOS Foundation, explained that the software offers a range of features to prevent data extraction. For example, one safeguard is the "auto-reboot timer" that'll reboot a locked device after a set period of time to put the data at rest, leaving all files inside encrypted.
The group's post subtly suggests that GrapheneOS phones can withstand law enforcement searches without requiring users to resort to a duress password. "People should carefully consider how to use it in an actual duress situation where there can be physical or legal consequences for wiping the device," the nonprofit wrote. "GrapheneOS doesn't require it to protect data from being extracted from the device, but it takes recovering it completely off the table even with the PIN/password for each profile on the device."
On X, the nonprofit has also said it can do nothing to help US law enforcement recover data from Tunick's phone. "Data cannot be recovered after the key derivation material is reliably wiped. It's not possible and there's nothing we can do to assist with it," the group wrote. "Similarly, it's not possible to assist with bypassing encryption because the hardware and software has been designed to prevent it."
The group's post subtly suggests that GrapheneOS phones can withstand law enforcement searches without requiring users to resort to a duress password. "People should carefully consider how to use it in an actual duress situation where there can be physical or legal consequences for wiping the device," the nonprofit wrote. "GrapheneOS doesn't require it to protect data from being extracted from the device, but it takes recovering it completely off the table even with the PIN/password for each profile on the device."
On X, the nonprofit has also said it can do nothing to help US law enforcement recover data from Tunick's phone. "Data cannot be recovered after the key derivation material is reliably wiped. It's not possible and there's nothing we can do to assist with it," the group wrote. "Similarly, it's not possible to assist with bypassing encryption because the hardware and software has been designed to prevent it."
If he is found guilty (Score:4, Insightful)
They're going to make an example out of him and give him the maximum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If he is found guilty (Score:2)
Re: If he is found guilty (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There are some basic issues at play here, such as there needing to be reasonable suspicion that any sort of crime has been committed before any sort of search or seizure of property. Since ICE is not known for getting a warrant, just going over the border does not mean there is a REASONABLE suspicion that anything wrong has been done. Since the government does not have a right to just take personal property then, they have no realistic case to charge someone for destruction of ANYTHING the person actual
Re: (Score:3)
There are some basic issues at play here, such as there needing to be reasonable suspicion that any sort of crime has been committed before any sort of search or seizure of property.
This isn't (necessarily) true at a U.S. border and there are currently different rules, from different federal courts, depending on where you are entering the U.S. There is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause requirement in many states - for example if you fly from Europe into New York or Virginia . This article lays them out.
No Warrants and Half a Dozen Different Rules: The Convoluted and Dangerous Status of the Border Search Exception [cdt.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I thought all this had been common knowledge for decades. You never take your phone through customs without at least wiping it well in advance, and then restore it when you have arrived and are secure. Or even better, you take a burner with nothing of interest on it, because if you take your main phone it might get stolen or "damaged" at the border.
Same with laptops. Mine gets factory reset and restored from an image at the hotel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If he is found guilty (Score:5, Interesting)
However, in this case...I don't think the govt has a case against him.
If they never got into the phone, how do they know there was evidence on there? How could they proved he wiped evidence if they had no clue what might be on there?
It also sounds like at the time, he wasn't under arrest? He had asked for a lawyer and had been refused?
He's not under any compulsion to give a password is he? They had the phone, nothing forced the authorities to trust anything he said....they could have tried forensics like they'd do if they had a safe and tried a safecracker to get in if the suspect didn't want to give the combination.
I just don't see the case they have....or if they do it has implications far wider for common citizens and their privacy.
Re:If he is found guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
There is some established case law that says that one cannot be compelled to give up a Password, Pin or Pattern Unlock, as a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment.
Those Amendments are key to a person's rights to be SECURE. Which is the key word here. He SECURED his rights, under duress, by refusing to comply.
THIS is separate from the police chasing him as a possible criminal for crimes I may or may not like.
Rights work by being the STARTING POINT, not an afterthought or worse, something the state can simply ignore in an attempt to prosecute people for potential criminal activity.
The state has legal remedies they ought to seek if they want access to secured personal property. We all know what that is. GET A WARRANT, which is almost always a rubber stamp (very easy bar to jump over). They couldn't even be bothered with that.
Everyone ought to understand, if we do not defend our rights, the state certainly won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the Constitution say that?
If you accept whatever the executive branch says, you don't have any rights at all.
Re:If he is found guilty (Score:4, Insightful)
Eh, kinda, established case law, even citizens have limited rights near the border (with "near the border" being interpreted quite loosely). US citizens can refuse to give a password, but the govt can refuse to return the device and can make your life very difficult. This case, where data was destroyed, doesn't fall under existing case law, but if it gets to SCOTUS as long as a Republican is in the white House I expect SCOTUS to give all power, all the time, to the executive branch and none to us lowly peons, err, citizens.
Of course, ICE is known for laughing at laws and judicial rulings, so YMMV, IANAL, good luck and stay safe.
Re:If he is found guilty (Score:5, Informative)
Close.
Foreigners do not have constitutional rights, especially in border regions. US citizens certainly do.
The US Constitution protects US citizens from the government. It does not protect foreigners. This is why ICE can do what they do.
Everyone in the U.S., with a few exceptions like diplomats, is subject to and protected by the Constitution, even foreigners, to the extent specified in the Constitution, as interpreted by SCOTUS, ss well as those outside the U.S. and subject to U.S. jurisdiction. From ArtI.S8.C18.8.7.2 Aliens in the United States [congress.gov]
In 1903, the Court in the Japanese Immigrant Case reviewed the legality of deporting an alien who had lawfully entered the United States, clarifying that "an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population" could not be deported without an "opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States." In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court maintained the notion that "once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders."
Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that "aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law." The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.4 Thus, the Court determined, "[e]ven one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection."
ICE (a) does some things because Immigration law allows it and (b) currently does other more sketchy things because this Administration (mainly Stephen Miller) is directing it, and Republicans in Congress are allowing it, to run basically unchecked while the Courts are trying to hold it to account.
Re: (Score:3)
I think what you say is not as strong as you think it is. It only applies to limited things like due process, not necessarily all constitutional rights such as those restricting search and seizure. There is something called the "entry fiction" where people who have entered can be treated as if they are requesting entry and therefore only have the rights they would have at the border. See this podcast episode [npr.org]. Rights they have do include a few things like habeas corpus and due process, but, as I understa
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to have missed the past couple decades of Supreme Court bullshit. If you're within 100 miles of a physical border, the fourth amendment doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The Supreme Court abolished the Constitution as it applies to the President entirely. We have a corrupt court that has ruled that laws don't apply to the President at all. It's not just the fourth amendment that doesn't exist, none do.
Once upon a time, court precedent mattered and rule of law mattered. Neither does today.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If he is found guilty (Score:5, Interesting)
"He's not under any compulsion to give a password is he? They had the phone, nothing forced the authorities to trust anything he said....they could have tried forensics like they'd do if they had a safe and tried a safecracker to get in if the suspect didn't want to give the combination."
This is the interesting part to me. He definitely could not be compelled to give them his password (legally). So the fact he offered them a password could be covered under freedom of speech. Depending on what was said, lying to the police can be a crime, especially when it could be considered obstruction of justice. Did they just ask for a PIN and he provided a PIN? Did he say the PIN would unlock the device when it would actually wipe it? It could also show he intended to destroy anything on the device, and while they can't prove there was anything incriminating on the device, it could still be considered evidence as it was data for an investigation. There are a lot of different paths I can see this going down.
Re: If he is found guilty (Score:5, Interesting)
What if he had just written 1209766 on a post-it note inside of his phone case, completely without context? What if he then refused to provide the pin, the agent saw that note and decided to try it and it nuked the device? I have a feeling that now that the door is open we're going to see all sorts of interesting cases testing the limits of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If he is found guilty (Score:4, Insightful)
The Fifth Amendment [cornell.edu] starts with "No person ..." not "No citizen ..."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they never got into the phone, how do they know there was evidence on there? How could they proved he wiped evidence if they had no clue what might be on there?
Step 1 is to have a suspicion there is evidence there. Since there are countless cases of smartphones having incriminating communications, this suspicion is valid.
Step 2 is to perform a confiscation. In legal terms it is now called "evidence"
This is different from how you use the word. In legal terms you are referring to "evidence of guilt", yet evidence serves to show innocents as well as to show it is unrelated.
A blank piece of paper is evidence once confiscated. It almost certainly can't serve as evi
Re: (Score:2)
"Since there are countless cases of smartphones having incriminating communications, this suspicion is valid."
WHAT? No suspicion has even been justified, much less determined valid. Imagine this in a court of law, someone committed a crime once, so my suspicion that you committed a crime is valid.
"In legal terms it is now called "evidence""
No it's not. There's no suspicion that a crime has even been committed. It's just property being held.
"A blank piece of paper is evidence once confiscated. It almost c
Re: (Score:2)
Yet the phone became evidence the moment it was confiscated. It was in the possession of the authorities.
It absolutely is a crime to intentionally destroy evidence. Been that way for hundreds of years.
It's a crime to destroy evidence of guilt and evidence of innocents too.
Until that evidence is deemed not relevant and returned to the owner, it is a crime to destroy it.
But the individual didn't destroy it. The agent did the physical act of destroying it.
Suppose you were at the border with your phone, and the agent confiscated it.
Then the agent had said, how do i get into this phone?
You said, "put it in a blender".
If the agent puts it in the blender, the agent destroyed it, not you.
Now clearly, one would expect the agent to know that putting it in a blender would destroy it.
And equally clearly the inference here is that the agent did not know that the password he was given
Re: (Score:2)
The AC is right that due to the border exception that probable cause and a warrant aren't required and not even reasonable suspicion is required for "routine searches". There's some legal disagreement between circuits on whether cell phone searches are routine and manual vs forensic searches, but regardless CBP policy current requires individualized reasonable suspicion.
They are, however, very incorrect that in general "smartphones having incriminating communications" is individualized reasonable suspicion.
Re: (Score:2)
A whole lotta words for a subject that is entirely irrelevant. We aren't talking about anything "outside of all countries borders".
This is what you get when trolls decide they are intellectuals.
Re: (Score:2)
If they never got into the phone, how do they know there was evidence on there? How could they proved he wiped evidence if they had no clue what might be on there?
Exactly. Maybe he just bought the phone? Used?
Lack of evidence is a lack of a case.
Re: (Score:2)
They demanded the phone, and he caused the contents on it to be unrecoverable. At that point it does not matter whether the phone did or did not contain anything incriminating, according to the article 18 U.S.C. 2232 [cornell.edu] he was charged with.
It also sounds like at the time, he wasn't under arrest? He had asked for a lawyer and had been refused?
This was at a border checkpoint, and the rules are a little different. Customs off
Re: (Score:2)
"They demanded the phone..."
You assume.
"...and he caused the contents on it to be unrecoverable."
Allegedly. That would have to be proven.
"This was at a border checkpoint, and the rules are a little different."
So say the cops about the "rules". ICE has things to say about "the rules" too, including how they can murder citizens.
"But once he gave the duress password, he effectively caused the phone's decryption keys to be wiped, and the aforementioned article kicks in."
You do not know this, it is simply alle
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, the phone behaves in a certain way when you enter the duress password. So it seems established that that is the password he provided. And at that point, it doesn’t matter if he wiped the phone earlier or not, that fact can no longer be established, and that alone would count under the (expanded interpretation of) that law.
Yes, we make assumptions. We’re not in court, we’re on the inte
Re: (Score:2)
Right, to make a case that using such a password is a crime, you have to prove that a password that destroys "evidence" was actually used. Without seeing the BEFORE and the AFTER, they have to rely on something else.
The alleged criminal may have said something incriminating, seems unlikely.
Re: If he is found guilty (Score:2)
If they never got into the phone, how do they know there was evidence on there? How could they proved he wiped evidence if they had no clue what might be on there?
It's still evidence because it was on his person, even if it doesn't have anything useful to the investigation. That's why a warrant is required. Besides, all he had to do was invoke his right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer. They wouldn't have ever extracted anything from it -- all of the vendors the police use have stated (in leaked documents) that they can't do anything with grapheneos no matter what state it's in. And if they can't, it's unlikely anybody else can, which is exactly why I use it.
Unl
Re:If he is found guilty (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that they have a good case against him on two counts:
1. making a false statement to federal agents when they asked for his passcode.
2. intentionally causing the destruction of any evidence which might have been on the phone.
His defense would be that he was acting under duress, and that his rights were being violated as they had no reasonable justification to search his phone.
The circuits have previously issued conflicting rulings on the application of the "border exception" to 4th amendment right to privacy with regard to the contents of cell-phones. It would wind up at the Supreme Court (many years from now), and there is a chance that the case could go against the government -setting a national precedent that the government does not want.
Prosecutors are risk averse. I expect they will make a deal or drop it altogether -eventually. Expect him to be dragged thru a couple years of court appearances. There is no reason for the government to make it easy on someone who defied them.
Re: If he is found guilty (Score:2)
The law is 18 U.S. Code  2232. whether he is gulty turns on what property is, and whether deleting it from a phone is destruction.
Fun fact, that law also criminalizes telling someone they are under surveillance.
One does not enter the US with a computing device (Score:5, Insightful)
...or at least not one that has valuable data on it. Didn't people learn from the DMCA?
Re: (Score:2)
That is my policy. No going to or transiting through the USA for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it makes traveling from where I live to certain places a bit more expensive and less convenient. But that's OK. It's worth it to avoid the USA.
it is destroying evidence like it or not (Score:2, Insightful)
The standard is literally that you think a court might ask for it, or it might be relevant to a case.
This is exactly why you don't do this, as we just discussed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The laws at border crossings get murky. If you're stopped for further questioning that's considered an official investigation.
Re: (Score:3)
And it still comes down to, "Why was he stopped?" in the first place. ICE isn't known for actually following the law, in the same way that Donald Trump himself isn't known for following the law, or even the rules of basic human decency.
Re: (Score:2)
And it still comes down to, "Why was he stopped?" in the first place.
And it still comes down to security measures in place which are described in the bipartisan USA PATRIOT buttfucking-your-freedoms act.
ICE isn't known for actually following the law, in the same way that Donald Trump himself isn't known for following the law, or even the rules of basic human decency.
Guess what? Neither is any other part of the US Government. You name it, our government has done it, including coups, assassinations, coups, genocides, false flags, drug trafficking, human trafficking, willfully selling munitions to international criminals... and most of it within our lifetimes. Yes, Trump is a gigantic piece of orange shit, but this country was doing plenty
Re: (Score:2)
Re:it is destroying evidence like it or not (Score:4, Informative)
IF that is the case, seize the phone, get a Search Warrant.
The problem is, the state couldn't be bothered following ESTABLISHED law and procedures.
Simply accusing someone of some unspecified crime isn't a right the state has to just bypass Constitutional protections, namely the 4th and 5th Amendments.
Americans have rights, secured in our founding Constitution. I don't care what feelings one might have to the rest of the case. Rights exist, enshrined and we ought to defend them tirelessly forever.
Re: (Score:2)
IF that is the case, seize the phone, get a Search Warrant.
The problem is, the state couldn't be bothered following ESTABLISHED law and procedures.
This isn't (necessarily) true at a U.S. border and there are currently different rules, from different federal courts, depending on where you are entering the U.S. There is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause requirement in many states - for example if you fly from Europe into New York or Virginia - or Georgia. In this case, the guy flew into Atlanta and no suspicion is required on entry tot he U.S. for a forensic search in Georgia. This article lays out the various situations by state.
No Warran [cdt.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically the border search exception [wikipedia.org] doesn't change an individual having an reasonable expectation to privacy under the 4th, but that what's considered reasonable is different when crossing the border.
It has to be reconciled with other searches like making cure someone isn't bringing in diseased produce, like looking for a smuggled kiwi in a carry on versus looking for a banana under the seat during a traffic stop.
The big problem is that searching phones doesn't pass the Katz test to a reasonable expec [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Rights are a human invention.
I reject that notion. As was written 250 years ago:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ..."
Unalienable rights belong to you by nature and cannot be sold, traded, or removed by any government.
That doesn't change the result here, but I think it's important to start from that position so we can, as you noted, "fight sufficiently to protec
Re: it is destroying evidence like it or not (Score:2)
I'm not interested in your appeal to religion, so I didn't read the rest of your screed either. Man invented God, so any God-given rights were also invented by man.
Re: (Score:2)
But does a border search of a US Citizen have such standing as a court order or warrant? What was the basis of the request to inspect the device-- was there information that he could be a child pornographer, or was he just on a watch list because of his occupation?
Can a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was wiped with a duress password with the intent of hiding criminal activity, or maybe it was wiped in advance? Can the prosecution get a court warrant to search the individual's home based
Re: (Score:2)
If it's on your phone, it's personal property. If you don't think it is, kindly explain who owns it.
Re: (Score:2)
kindly explain who owns it.
AT&T, Verizon, Google.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's on your phone, it's personal property.
Wrong. The phone is my property. My data, that I own, contained within the phone is *not* property because personal data is not property. UNLESS, that data is copyrightable, licensable, or has some sort of inherent monetary value (i.e cryptocurrency).
Re: (Score:3)
If data that you own is not personal property, then what is it?
This is like saying the words on a page are not personal property, but the paper is. No court would agree to that.
Personal property is anything you own or have possesion of, including intangibles such as stock or copyrights, that is not attached to land or fixed to real estate. Data on a phone falls within that definition. The phone is a physical item you own. It's your personal property. The data within the phone is also personal property,
Re: (Score:2)
If the cops want to see what's in there, they have to seize it with a warrant and cut it open. Phones work the same.
Sure. There is also this. But at the same time, if I were to travel with some form of safe, I'd want to make sure anyone who gets a hold of the safe cannot get the contents, including a separate combination that vaporizes everything contained to such a point that you cannot prove anything was even in there to begin with. Such a safe, of course, does not exist and probably never will.
we'd be dealing with the more important question of whether Americans have the same rights at both sides of the border.
Yes, they do, when dealing with any American government agency.
Re: (Score:2)
Courts are historically not amused by deliberate attempts to circumvent the law, and if you're doing a basically equivalent thing then they are going to treat it as such. It only moves the point at which you took the action to destroy the evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The duress password wouldn't help with that, because once it's used, the gov has a nice clean phone on which it can plant whatever it wants.
Who is Samuel Tunick? (Score:2)
The Guardian reported in February that surveillance cameras hidden in utility boxes mounted on light poles had begun appearing outside the homes of
Seen and Unseen (Score:2)
Notice how the "free press" keeps talking about this as a "law enforcement problem" but hasn't once talked about any time somebody was threatened by a mugger to unlock and this safety feature saved their bacon?
#include <obligatory.xkcd>
Most common criminals will run when there is nothing further to be gained.
Big organized crime gangs, such as people at the border threatening travelers under color of law, are the exception rather than the rule. They got embarrassed that their dominance play didn't wor
"Destroying property under government control" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will probably come down to how good a lawyer the guy can afford.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Superman II (Score:4, Funny)
Reminds me of when Superman was forced into the crystal chamber that his captors thought would render him powerless but it was his captors who were made powerless.
Famous last words (Score:2)
"Similarly, it's not possible to assist with bypassing encryption because the hardware and software has been designed to prevent it."
I have no idea whether it's true in this case, but it seems like we've heard things in the past that sounded similar that turned out not to be true.
Re: (Score:2)
If you securely delete the encryption key, the data is irretrievable. This is how many (all?) modern SSDs work, for example, so they can be wiped without having to overwrite or erase all the data... just send it a command to generate a new encryption key and suddenly the disk is full of garbage.
Yes it could be done incompetently but it would take a very high degree of incompetence to screw that up.
Re: (Score:2)
"Similarly, it's not possible to assist with bypassing encryption because the hardware and software has been designed to prevent it."
There's an aphorism in encryption development: "anyone can design an encryption system strong enough they personally can't figure out how to break it."
Problem is, of course, that someone else might figure out how to break it. I think we can expect that to eventually happen to any encryption system. It's a matter of when it will happen, not whether. Of course, if "when" is 50 years from now, that's effectively forever.
This is why "I'll write a new encryption system" is almost always the wrong answer. Not alw
Re: (Score:2)
Our history is replete with instances of this and it always holds true. Given enough time and resources a lock meant to be opened can and will be opened by someone without the key. When you add computers to the mix, things get real interesting, really fast...
Re: (Score:2)
If the key is randomly-generated and securely destroyed and they use some common believed-secure algorithm like AES then there's not enough time or atoms in the universe to brute-force it.
Re: (Score:2)
> If the key is randomly-generated and securely destroyed and they use some common believed-secure algorithm like AES
- IF it is randomly generated;
- IF it is securely destroyed;
- IF they use a common algorithm;
- IF they use a correct implementation of that algorithm...
The underlying mathematics is not what you usually attack, but rather one of those IFs.
Re: (Score:2)
Given enough time and resources a lock meant to be opened can and will be opened by someone without the key. When you add computers to the mix, things get real interesting, really fast...
The encryption used would take current super-computers billions of years to crack. And that is assuming the key is still present and available to crack.
In the case of duress, Graphene securely deletes the key itself. There is not enough energy in the entire known universe that would allow any kind of computer(s) to essentially guess/reverse engineer what the key was.
By the time any computers are good enough to break, or reverse, this level of encryption, a newer, better encryption will have already been imp
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if "when" is 50 years from now, that's effectively forever.
Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon:
Wont be suprised if the US goverment (Score:2)
attempts to outlaw security features such as those in Graphene OS.
But that' probably won't get that far:
The U.S. government cannot easily or successfully outlaw the security features found in GrapheneOS due to insurmountable First and Fourth Amendment constitutional hurdles, alongside the practical realities of open-source software. (source EFF)
While lawmakers frequently attempt to target encryption and anti-forensic features under the guise of national security, any blanket ban would face immediate defeat
Re: (Score:3)
"The only solution" is in fact, not the "only" solution.
The correct and LEGAL means for the police to gain access to the phone is to take it and seal it in a tamperproof container (aka electronic Faraday Evidence Bag), go to a court and ask for a warrant to search the contents.
We have established LAW and procedures for the state to gain access to the device. It is inconvenient ON PURPOSE. and serves as a checks and balance in legal proceedings.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with this is that Customs and Border Patrol doesn't get search warrants, they operate under the "Border Search Exception"
No search warrants are required unless congress acts, or the Supreme Court changes its mind. See below for a the Fourth Circuit court case.
The border search exception lets U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers search travelers and property at national borders and international airports without a warrant, probable cause, or suspicion, based on the nation's right to prote
Not illegal (Score:2)
Not under government control (Score:2)
Under Government Control (Score:2)
Isn't this similar to what someone did to Jeffrey Epstein?
"...should carefully consider how to use it..." (Score:2)
Yeah, right. People that actually know how to be careful do not need this feature, because they do not trust their phone or at least wipe it carefully before crossing any dangerous border like the US one. The people that use this feature are already careless idiots by that fact alone. Better to not have the feature at all. It is like an explicitly designed in "shoot yourself in the foot" function on a gun.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Governments and border enforcement can lick my nutsack. I'll make them wipe my phone for me every single time. And while it's wiping I'll have it play Fuck Tha Police by N.W.A while displaying animated middle fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
Have fun in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
I would. But it's never going to happen. At least, not for anything like this. And they don't have access to a lawyer good enough to get me in court. And I don't go to countries were court isn't an option.
If I'm gunna go to jail, it'll be for violence with at least one arresting officer permanently injured, or disfigured, for the rest of their life. I'll give them a fair warning though.
Re: (Score:2)
Primitive "I am so tough" posturing. Either a lie and you will be too much of a coward to ever actually risk it or at some point you go away for life as a violent criminal. In any case, just a sure sign of deep insecurity.
Re: (Score:2)
Either a lie and you will be too much of a coward to ever actually risk it
I will be risking nothing. Nothing that matters to me anyway.
at some point you go away for life as a violent criminal,
Prison isn't a punishment to me, so doesn't matter. Also, violent criminals rarely get sentenced to life in prison unless they kill someone (in the US).
In any case, just a sure sign of deep insecurity.
Nope. Just a refusal to be pushed around and bullied by a shitty system (or shitty people). Stand up for yourself. Have a fucking backbone. And if they're going to take you down on BS no matter what, then make them pay heavily for it and make the time your going to spend worth it.
Tricky (Score:2)
The exact wording in The Guardian is as follows (my emphasis):
In my opinion, this means that at the moment he provided the PIN, the phone had not yet been seized and was therefore not yet under the control of the government. Again, in my opinion, this means he did nothing illegal because it's the same as if he'd wiped his phone as soon as the plane took off. In
The OS is doing it wrong (Score:2)
The only thing it didn't do is post an image of a middle finger on screen after it was done.
The folks who create the OS needs to rethink their approach of how they wipe user data from
the device vs going nuclear and wiping everything.
Why not put all user data into their own home directory ( see most other Operating Systems )
and securely wipe ONLY that directory upon entry of a duress code or bad pin entry X number
of times. Perhaps give the user the option to select / flag which sub-directories to purge and
wh
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't do anything wrong, the government did! (Score:2)
All he has to argue is that he was never presented with a warrant, and therefore the requirement to retain evidence didn'
It wasn't under the government's control (Score:2)
The charge is deleting data on a device while under the government's control which I believe could be argued that if the government needed a password to access it, it was not under the governments' control.
Is it really under government control? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Was he NOT in custody? How could he have done this (Score:2)
Was he NOT in custody? How could he have done this? Like if he was in custody then using his voice can't be illegal. If he told the officer to go shred the incriminating evidence and they did would he be liable then?
This is on some borders that have not been well defined. For one suspects are seized and forced to supposedly compel speech. It is literally a compelled speech under duress which means anything setup on his device to detect that which was done prior to the encounter simply falls under the guise
Re: (Score:2)
obviously problematic (Score:2)
The duress deletion function was always obviously and transparently going to get treated as obstruction of justice issue the minute it got used in a high profile case. Here we are.
If you don't want to have trouble at the border, wipe your devices before you get anywhere near, and restore them once you are across. The precursors to this event have been in the news for years - the border is a legal gray zone, act accordingly.
I have mixed feeling here - sad for this kid, whomever he may be. Once again annoyed
U.S.C. 2232 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two entirely separate issues (Score:2)
1. GrapheneOS is completely in the clear here - one can certainly have a data wipe feature in a device. Indeed there are entirely different scenarios from the current one where it would be of value, such as theft or kidnapping.
2. USING that feature, the way this individual did, is illegal. This is similar to a basic gun issue. It can be perfectly legal to own a gun and use it in certain ways, yet it remains illegal to use the gun to shoot an immigration/customs official. This is NOT something the current ad