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

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

#321

Post by bb88 » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 6:03 AM UTC

red369 wrote: post #232

bb88 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is always been the dumbest thing about "hidden volumes": It relies upon your adversary not knowing about veracrypt's hidden volume. Which BTW, is plainly ADVERTISED on the web site. The second he knows you have veracode, he will ask for the other encrypted volume. See also relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/538/

But Veracrypt can be used for encryption of a volume, without creating a hidden volume. I assume it would often be used this way. The $5 wrench decryption technique would be even more unpleasant if you hadn’t created a hidden volume, as there would be no way to prove you hadn’t. Should people be sure to never use Veracrypt volume encryption unless they create a hidden volume? I have trouble even thinking this way!

The $5 wrench isn't about breaking encryption. It's about breaking will power. If they achieve their goals great for them. If not they proved the second volume either didn't actually exist or your will power was stronger than the $5 wrench. Either way they're probably way more happy with the outcome than you would be.

As long as the border your crossing doesn't respect the 4th Amendment, the best approach is to not carry anything incriminating across it, nor anything that may make you suspicious.

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

#322

Post by ytoawwhra92 » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 6:03 AM UTC

itake wrote: post #301

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CBP are empowered to seize devices if the owner refuses a search.

Just being silly. Owner gave permission (and the pin code) that will give them access to an empty phone. No search refused.

IMO people are better off knowing their actual rights in a US airport than trying to outsmart the US government.

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

#323

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 6:04 AM UTC

Gotta wonder how it would've gone if the citizen hadn't mentioned GrapheneOS at all and instead tried to sue them for wiping his phone without his permission.

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

#324

Post by raverbashing » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 6:05 AM UTC

cameldrv wrote: post #74

I’ve seen a lot of people on the internet over the years say things like “the government can’t make x illegal, it’s just y.” For example, the government can’t make wiping your phone at the border illegal, it’s just punching four numbers into your phone, just like a pin, only a different four numbers, which could just have well been your pin. U.S. law though is highly non-autistic and what you were trying to do is jus…

> U.S. law though is highly non-autistic

This is the thing that people should be reminded over and over here - and to be fair it tends to be more autistic than elsewhere

(Regardless if you are on the defendant or the prosecution side - or might potentially be)

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

#325

Post by itake » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 6:08 AM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #309

itake wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just being silly. Owner gave permission (and the pin code) that will give them access to an empty phone. No search refused.

I don't know, that sounds like the kind of "I'm not touching you" defense that I don't think will convince anyone with common sense. It's obvious the wipe turned a search that could potentially find something into a useless search, so I don't see why the two should be treated as equivalent.

Imagine a safe containing sealed envelopes written in a code that only the owner understands.

The police ask for the combination.

The owner provides a combination that opens the safe, but the safe’s security mechanism first destroys its contents. The police can now inspect the safe but there are no documents left.

Even if the documents had remained, they would still have been written in an indecipherable code unless the police also had the codebook.

This person was complicit with the search: he gave the police access to search the safe.

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

#326

Post by 8note » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 6:08 AM UTC

xdennis wrote: post #126

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.

> 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. Why do people go sovereign citizen when reality doesn't work their way? Stop imagining that the way you want things to be is the way things really are. Cops do not need a judge to authorize the seizing of evidence. Cops do not need judges to decide…

uhh, are you a lawyer with knowledge about how evidence works?

its not just a word, its a specific legal term

cops definitely do need judges to say what evidence is admissible, and they really dont have thr ability to just declare anything they want as evidence and just steal it

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

#327

Post by LadyCailin » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 6:09 AM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #309

itake wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just being silly. Owner gave permission (and the pin code) that will give them access to an empty phone. No search refused.

I don't know, that sounds like the kind of "I'm not touching you" defense that I don't think will convince anyone with common sense. It's obvious the wipe turned a search that could potentially find something into a useless search, so I don't see why the two should be treated as equivalent.

I would have thought the fourth amendment not having specific geographical boundaries, but rather applying generally would have been common sense too, but here we are with border patrol being able to force you to reveal your PIN code just because you transited a border.

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

#328

Post by microtonal » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 6:09 AM UTC

qurren wrote: post #261

cameldrv wrote: post #74

I’ve seen a lot of people on the internet over the years say things like “the government can’t make x illegal, it’s just y.” For example, the government can’t make wiping your phone at the border illegal, it’s just punching four numbers into your phone, just like a pin, only a different four numbers, which could just have well been your pin. U.S. law though is highly non-autistic and what you were trying to do is jus…

Would it have been wiser if that person had, as a US citizen, just refused to provide a PIN? At the most they'd just confiscate the phone, and it'd be encrypted anyway. No actual destruction of anything. On another note, maybe GrapheneOS should add some kind of feature where the phone involuntarily destructs if a correct PIN isn't entered for 48 hours (or whatever the user sets at installation time, and changing the…

Would it have been wiser if that person had, as a US citizen, just refused to provide a PIN?

Purely technically it would also depend on the state of the phone. Phones can be read out/exploited more easily after first unlock (AFU) than before first unlock (BFU). So, a middle path would be putting the phone in BFU. Much harder to use exploits against the phone and biometric authentication doesn't work. One way of fairly reliably doing this is setting the reboot timer to 10 minutes or turning off the phone in critical situations.

It's also relevant to take into account that he wasn't protecting himself by wiping the phone, but fellow activists. So, he may have taken the risk of potential legal issues by wiping the phone to project others.

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

#329

Post by stnikolauswagne » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 6:10 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #285

a34729t wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. People complain police dont prevent crime, but dont realize that is not their purpose. The police exist to protect the government, not the people.

The police are there to enforce laws, but enforce it by punishment, rather than prevention. The potential deterrence effect still applies, as people do get discouraged from crimes by the mere presence of the police. However, there is zero legal duty for the police to protect someone who is currently under attack from a criminal.

> However, there is zero legal duty for the police to protect someone who is currently under attack from a criminal.

That has to be incorrect, by the time someone is under actual attack from a criminal that criminal will have allready comitted crimes that the police can and have to punish for, i.e. Threat of Force with a Lethal weapon or sth like that.

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

#330

Post by 8note » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 6:11 AM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #309

itake wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just being silly. Owner gave permission (and the pin code) that will give them access to an empty phone. No search refused.

I don't know, that sounds like the kind of "I'm not touching you" defense that I don't think will convince anyone with common sense. It's obvious the wipe turned a search that could potentially find something into a useless search, so I don't see why the two should be treated as equivalent.

common sense is that CBP should not be searching citizens phones in order to pick a kill list for ICE to go killing first amendment protected protestors.

it's ridiculous on the face of it that that guys phone should be searched at all