US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by wand3r » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:07 AM UTC

pennomi wrote: post #93

zug_zug wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people are aware that the government can physically do a lot of stuff, e.g. shoot you in the face for no reason. And vice-versa for that matter. However there are arguments morally, and constitutionally, and logically, about what can be done.

And all of those arguments are entirely academic, and subject to change depending on economic status, skin color, or nationality. Law is effectively a weak gentleman’s agreement we tolerate because the alternative is violence. (Well, law is enforced with violence too, I suppose.)

Yes, this is something more people really need to take to heart. As Americans are seeing, a lot of rules are unenforceable and really came down to norms and pressure. I have been thinking about this a lot over the last few years and it is roughly encapsulated in this tweet I saw a while back.

When I was a kid I wanted to be a police officer because I wouldn't have to follow any laws or rules. Then I got a little bit older and realized that wasn't how being a police officer actually worked in practice. Then, I got a little bit older than that, and realized that it actually does work like that.

This has always been true and there has never really been perfect justice. Ultimately, power and violence have always superseded the law. High trust societies with less corruption and a strong justice system try to limit these circumstances.

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

#112

Post by mullingitover » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:09 AM UTC

Seems like they’re going to have a struggle proving intent. “I was stressed out and afraid and I got the passwords mixed up” would be the magic words I’d hear as a juror and I wouldn’t be able to vote to convict.

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

#113

Post by samtheprogram » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:09 AM UTC

GolfPopper wrote: post #68

bitmasher9 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beh…

Calling border patrol "thugs" doesn't really bolster your argument to anyone except people who already agree with you.

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

#114

Post by Frost1x » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:10 AM UTC

dathinab wrote: post #26

sfRattan wrote: post #25

Ultimately, when you choose to enter a duress PIN that will wipe your device, you have to recognize that choice may have legal consequences. I don't like the amount of power our government has at the national border when it comes to detaining and pressuring citizens, but our Constitution explicitly grants it at least some of the power it now exercises in that context. If your threat model includes US state actors at…

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

I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour and there’s a whole lot of linking intent to action where you can be liable if a court can prove it. Not that an LLM is legal gold but it’s the best thing I have to pass ideas around with.

The entire situation is sort of nonsensical and boils down to lots of minutia in law that no normal person would know about.

For example having normal widely known security features like wiping the device after N failed PIN attempts is fine. Even having long standing security practices that can’t be related are fine, like having a timed touch point where if you don’t enter the PIN every… 15 days or whatever the device wipes, perfectly fine if it can’t be connected towards the crime and you’re not compelled to tell officers you have such a security mechanism.

Even if you were to set a trap where you use the same PIN for your bank, your laptop, and some other security devices in repetition then decide to set your duress PIN to that by assuming it would be discovered as a probable option they’d use, you’d be ok but it could be questionable if that was by design…

It’s so obscure really as to how and how you’re not allowed to protect your data, even if you’re not the one performing the action to clear destroy the potential evidence yourself. The entire thing seems pretty absurd a frankly arbitrary to me, and I don’t know how people could know which cases are and aren’t legal. I know not to destroy evidence myself but I wouldn’t know to tell someone to not use the duress pin or that even giving them my duress pin could somehow be my liability. It’s madness if you ask me.

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

#115

Post by sumeno » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:13 AM UTC

Frost1x wrote: post #114

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

I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour and there’s a whole lot of linking intent to action where you can be liable if a court can prove it. Not that an LLM is legal gold but it’s the best thing I have to pass ideas around with. The entire situation is sort of nonsensical and boils down to lots of minutia in law that no normal person would know about. For example having normal widely know…

> I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour

One of the most depressing things I've read on here

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

#116

Post by sda2 » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:13 AM UTC

apparent wrote: post #103

reenorap wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have the duress PIN on sticker on your phone. Maybe put it backwards and don’t say anything to border patrol. Have them try it out and erase the phone and then you can legitimately say you didn’t do anything and they did it themselves.

Why would agents think that a number written on your phone is the PIN? That would only make sense if it was a communally-used device, not a personal one. Also, no one would put sensitive info on a devices that has the PIN affixed to it. I suppose it's possible someone might enter it without thinking, but the odds seem low. Also seems risky to put a self-destruct PIN on your device, lest a friend (or enemy) enter it b…

with this sort of configuration, you either trust your backups or you don’t ;)

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

#117

Post by fwipsy » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:15 AM UTC

jameson wrote: post #109

> During the questioning, agents repeatedly asked Tunick to unlock his phone and warned they would seize it if he refused. When he finally provided a passcode, the phone appeared to restart. I'm confused to understand if Tunick did anything illegal here. If the authorities want the phone, they should have the warrant and seize it without Tunick's permission. It appears authorities did not have the warrant which give…

It appears to be illegal to destroy property to prevent seizure. I don't know the details; if you search that phrase you can find more info yourself.

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

#118

Post by Frost1x » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:15 AM UTC

sumeno wrote: post #115

Frost1x wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour and there’s a whole lot of linking intent to action where you can be liable if a court can prove it. Not that an LLM is legal gold but it’s the best thing I have to pass ideas around with. The entire situation is sort of nonsensical and boils down to lots of minutia in law that no normal person would know about. For example having normal widely know…

> I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour One of the most depressing things I've read on here

Well I don’t have any legal need to hire a lawyer or anything I would need a lawyer for. It’s a rather fast way to surface legal information and precedent. I don’t see how it’s any more depressing than Google diving on a topic you’re interested in for an hour..

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

#119

Post by free652 » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:17 AM UTC

jameson wrote: post #109

> During the questioning, agents repeatedly asked Tunick to unlock his phone and warned they would seize it if he refused. When he finally provided a passcode, the phone appeared to restart. I'm confused to understand if Tunick did anything illegal here. If the authorities want the phone, they should have the warrant and seize it without Tunick's permission. It appears authorities did not have the warrant which give…

They don't need a warrant to seize the phone at the border. They were after the pin code, he should have just refused to give the pin. That's the 5th.

What they got him on, is that supposedly he destroyed evidence.

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

#120

Post by intrasight » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:17 AM UTC

manwe150 wrote: post #76

MikeNotThePope wrote: post #35

There needs to be a simple feature to wipe your phone and then restore to a point and time. That’d be really convenient.

Seems like a good court argument too—no destruction of data was even attempted because I know I have my iCloud or Google backup. Personally, my phone has access credentials to information, but not the information itself. So you need a serious warrant before you can get those access, but the data is there.

I agree that it seems a simple argument for any competent lawyer to make that the phone isn't the "gold copy". The phone is just an ephemeral copy of the real data which is safely stored away in the cloud, and the authorities can request access to with the proper warrants.

Of course this argument will only work if the phone is indeed and a ephemeral copy of your real data.