41–50 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just don't wipe your phone and let the reboot timer do its work and bring your phone to BFU state, effectively uncrackable.
The issue here is CBP was (illegally) demanding he give them his passcode (5th amendment violation). Doesn't really matter if the reboot timer is triggered if the thugs have beaten your code out of you.
However, it makes an erroneous equivocation that, I believe, has profound technical and legal implications. In the article's first paragraph, it claims that GrapheneOS "enables users to enter a passcode and wipe a phone clean". What the author of the article is referring to is GrapheneOS's duress password/PIN feature[1], which does not (contrary to what it may seem on first glance) delete or modify the data on the persistent flash storage phone in any way. What it does is zero the key slots in the phone's Secure Element, which stores the disk encryption keys necessary to decrypt the data on persistent storage (technically, these disk encryption keys are not themselves stored in the secure element, but are first encrypted with a key encryption key/KEK derived from a user-entered passcode/PIN and then stored in the secure element[2]. If an adversary were able to break the secure element and extract the contents of the key slots, they would still need to brute-force the KEK in order to obtain the actual disk encryption keys).
To my knowledge, US law does not explicitly say whether deleting the key necessary to decrypt a given ciphertext is equivalent to deleting the ciphertext itself. Technically speaking, they are not equivalent, even if it would take an exorbitant amount of time to recover a deleted key using a brute-force search or some forensic method. If the federal government wants to claim, using this case to set a legal precedent, that it is equivalent, then I would argue that this in effect makes encryption as a concept illegal (as encryption is nothing without the ability of the person using encryption to control access to the encryption key(s)). Reading about the recent Prairieland trial, in which (among other blatant injustices) an activist was convicted by a kangaroo court of "destroying evidence" because they merely removed someone from a Signal group[3], it's clear to me that Prairieland along with Sam's case is part of a coordinated strategy under the NSPM-7 "Antifa Memorandum"[4]: the federal government is using lawfare to establish that it has a right to arbitrarily access the data of its citizens in order to crush political dissent.
[1] https://grapheneos.org/features#duress
[2] https://grapheneos.org/faq#encryption
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jun/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence If he was under arrest, sure. The cops claiming this was a routine airport inspection would seem to muddy the waters, at least.
I don't think the crime of destroying evidence / tampering with evidence depends on what your status in custody is. If the police knock on your front door and you start shredding documents, that's still a crime. Now, could that get tossed about because they denied him access to a lawyer? Maybe, I don't know about that part.
This is a good article, and it brings much-needed attention to this case, which so far has not received the level of public awareness that is consummate with seriousness with which the federal government intends to weaken or undermine the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights of every American in prosecuting these bogus charges against Sam. However, it makes an erroneous equivocation that, I believe, has profound…
I’m sure this case will be dropped because it will open bigger can of worms and may jeopardize the current practice of warrantless invasive searches at the entry points. Secretly I hope this goes to Supreme Court and once and for all they clarify on “constitution doesn’t apply at the border” piece of thinking
This whole thing highlights how insane US border law is. Sam was physically in the US, but because he was on an international flight, he was arrested in a manner that would be unconstitutional anywhere else in the US. He was denied a lawyer, questioned for I presume hours, had his phone stolen without a warrant, and then was released because there was no crime CBP could figure out how to charge him with then and ther…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better to die on ones feet than live on ones knees.
Some of us are on visa and have our online presence routinely scanned these days. Asymmetric vuln. If that's not you, why are you upset when it is acknowledged?
Most of the EU is lovely.
This is a technical problem. Instead of wiping and rebooting, it should wipe while showing a lame spreadsheet application, or possibly a grocery list.
Or just don't wipe your phone and let the reboot timer do its work and bring your phone to BFU state, effectively uncrackable.
It shouldn't be this way, but oh well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under Georgia law (16-10-94) you do not have to be under arrest. > A person commits the offense of tampering with evidence when, with the intent to prevent the apprehension or cause the wrongful apprehension of any person or to obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or disguises physical evidence or makes, devises, prepares, or plants false evidence
This would be under federal law, not Georgia law I believe. But even assuming it was under Georgia law: it hasn’t been entered into public evidence that the person in question knowingly destroyed anything. It’s entirely possible the phone had nothing of value on it; the prosecution is required to demonstrate that evidence was in fact destroyed or falsified.
> Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the federal law might be more damning since the law clearly doesn't state that there has to actually be anything of value on the device as long as there was "intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation". Wiping a phone that they want to look at will impede the investigation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deadmans-switch, nice. I always had a weird fascination for that kind of mechanism, because it inverts the whole situation. Where before you have to actively wipe a phone, now them taking your phone may be the mechanism that triggers the wipe.
Is it legally better ? Absolutely. But all they have to do is say "they did this as a legal workaround for that" and you're no better off, at least not without spending the same amount on lawyers. You can't out-tech your way around a corrupt system, they will find a way to get you.
id expect that youd be ordered to retain the data though, if an investigation is being done
"federal authorities had put him on a terrorism watchlist because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City" Talk about burying the lede