Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

techspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 1001 posts

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#61

Post by crooked-v »

drweevil wrote: post #29

While I like the idea behind GrapheneOS, I'd rather not place myself in jeopardy of some ridiculous charge like this one. I prefer to travel with a travel device, some inexpensive phone and/or laptop that contains nothing interesting. If they then wish to take it from me because I won't unlock it, then have at it! That said, the situation with respect to our Bill of Rights at the border has gotten ridiculous.

The "duress PIN that nigh guarantees destruction of evidence charges" functionality is extremely stupid, but otherwise GrapheneOS on a flagship phone is your best bet for an Android phone that can't be cracked by low-effort attempts, government or otherwise.

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#62

Post by nazgul17 »

treetalker wrote: post #40
bubblethink wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>destroy evidence Who said it was evidence? Did a judge authorize or issue a warrant to collect said evidence? Absent that, it's just your property, and you can do with it as you please.

To me it’s all quite analogous to walking up to, but not crossing, a border with, say, a fruit that’s legal to possess on the side you’re on, but not on the other side, and either eating or throwing away that fruit before crossing. “Hey! I saw you holding that Mexican pepper in Mexico, and then you threw it in that Mexican trash can before crossing into Texas!” “Yeah, so?”

But that's not what happened here. Here, you were trying to bring the pepper over, got inspected and somehow got rid of it because you were able to be found out.

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#63

Post by [deleted] »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #56
sfRattan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit for the confused and misinformed: 18 USC 1001. Also, is ≠ ought. Lying to a federal officer is a crime, IIRC, and if the lie results in destruction of evidence, the person who told the lie is probably accountable for both crimes. This isn't a lie with plausible deniability: you have to set a duress PIN, understanding what it does, and then communicate that PIN instead of the unlock PIN. A duress PIN to wipe the…

I’m quite unfamiliar with this notion. What law says it’s illegal to lie when you’re not under oath during a court proceeding?

[deleted]

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#64

Post by octoberfranklin »

crooked-v wrote: post #54
octoberfranklin wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your legal system depends on the benevolence of prosecutors, you've already lost before it began. Attorneys are supposed to be adversarial . The system's soundness shouldn't depend on anything more than them trying to win and not doing anything illegal. Before "prosecutor" became an elected/appointed office, prosecutors were independent contractors, hired for a single case only and serving at the pleasure of the G…

The comment you're replying to was focused on prosecutorial incompetence, not benevolence.

Whether to prosecute or not is not an objective question of competence.

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#65

Post by DanHulton »

If your threat model means you can’t afford for border security to view your device, wipe the damn thing yourself before crossing the border and restore it from an encrypted online backup on the other side.

You’re just carrying a blank phone that you intend to set up and use later, and they can’t force you to install your backup onto a phone.

Now, this is sus as hell, and you’ll probably draw all kinds of extra attention, but if border security wants access to your phone in the first place, you’re already in a weird place.

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#66

Post by sfRattan »

digitalPhonix wrote: post #59
sfRattan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit for the confused and misinformed: 18 USC 1001. Also, is ≠ ought. Lying to a federal officer is a crime, IIRC, and if the lie results in destruction of evidence, the person who told the lie is probably accountable for both crimes. This isn't a lie with plausible deniability: you have to set a duress PIN, understanding what it does, and then communicate that PIN instead of the unlock PIN. A duress PIN to wipe the…

> Lying to a federal officer is a crime That doesn’t pass the sniff test

Double check your nose.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 [1]

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#67

Post by object-a »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #56
sfRattan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit for the confused and misinformed: 18 USC 1001. Also, is ≠ ought. Lying to a federal officer is a crime, IIRC, and if the lie results in destruction of evidence, the person who told the lie is probably accountable for both crimes. This isn't a lie with plausible deniability: you have to set a duress PIN, understanding what it does, and then communicate that PIN instead of the unlock PIN. A duress PIN to wipe the…

I’m quite unfamiliar with this notion. What law says it’s illegal to lie when you’re not under oath during a court proceeding?

Famously, 18 USC 1001

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#68

Post by GolfPopper »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #38
bubblethink wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>destroy evidence Who said it was evidence? Did a judge authorize or issue a warrant to collect said evidence? Absent that, it's just your property, and you can do with it as you please.

You’re way off about when it’s illegal to start destroying your property that the police want to seize during an investigation.

"Investigation" is a pretty generous way to label "some thugs working for an authoritarian state want to look for incriminating stuff - including criticism or mockery of them or their leader - on your communications device".

Whatever the American legal system may say, a couple of thugs with no warrant conducting searches and seizures of data is a blatant violation of the Constitution's intent. This is the sort of behavior Americans used to rightfully condemn.

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#69

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

The article seems to be muddying the water bringing up grapheneOS itself. Or maybe it's the EFF.

>Experts said the legal approach is unusual and may be the first time the law has been aimed at an operating system. "It's concerning – and sends the message that [GrapheneOS] is criminal by default," said Christophe Boutry, a cybersecurity and surveillance expert. Boutry and Bill Buddington, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, both said they had not seen a similar case.

Is the actual case about banning the OS? Because it seems pretty clear the case is about the result (the phone being wiped with a special passcode).

The better defense imo would be one of those 'wipe the phone if you get the password wrong x times' and try and claim you forgot under pressure. At least if you wanted to wipe the phone without being accused of destroying evidence during a search.

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#70

Post by Rohansi »

sfRattan wrote: post #31
dathinab wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the funny part is he didn't enter the pin he gave it to them and they entered it..., not sure if it makes any difference but there is a certain irony to it that it was the non warrant based search actions (which might be legal at the border) which lead to the erasure of data

Edit for the confused and misinformed: 18 USC 1001. Also, is ≠ ought. Lying to a federal officer is a crime, IIRC, and if the lie results in destruction of evidence, the person who told the lie is probably accountable for both crimes. This isn't a lie with plausible deniability: you have to set a duress PIN, understanding what it does, and then communicate that PIN instead of the unlock PIN. A duress PIN to wipe the…

> It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.

Or it's preferable to get caught lying to a federal officer than it is for them to have the evidence on your phone.

Post reply on HN