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

361–370 of 1001 posts

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

#361

Post by icantevenhold »

helterskelter wrote: post #340
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us report for jury duty just itching to nullify something. Don't you? Checks and balances...

I got selected as juror once just hoping to laugh at anything the cops said on the witness stand and let some poor soul go free but it turns out the defendant was just a violent scumbag who stabbed random people in public, and there was a video of it. After we decided he was guilty, they listed other things he had been convicted of and asked if he was a repeat offender... Let's see, shot somebody in the back, robbed…

That is horrible but robbing a liquor store dressed as a clown is pretty funny (in my head probably not irl)

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

#362

Post by whats_a_quasar »

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #292
whats_a_quasar wrote: post #282

Here is the indictment: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28513012-samuel-tuni... Here is the statute Tunick is indicted under: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232 There is an immediate problem: the device was being searched, and this statute criminalizes destruction of property to prevent seizure, not searches. I don't think this statute applies this situation. Regardless of whether the border agen…

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

Hmm. It looks like the government asserts that they can seize a device if the owner does not provide a password. This is a good point and answers my search v. seizure objection above.

You say CBP is "empowered" to seize a device if the owner refuses to provide a password but I can't find a statute that authorizes it or precedent squarely saying the 4th Amendment allows this. The scope of the border search exception isn't settled. So the next argument available is that the executive is wrong and CBP does not have the constitutional authority to seize a device merely because the owner refuses to provide a password. That's obviously a much bigger argument and who knows if it would work, though this case sorta feels like it could become a marquee 4A case.

"The ACLU argues that the Fourth Amendment does apply in these situations, at least to electronic devices, because they contain so much private information. But the law is very unsettled, and the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue."

https://www.aclumaine.org/know-your-rights/electronic-device...

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

#363

Post by whats_a_quasar »

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.

The language in the statute of what constitutes "destruction" is very broad and clearly covers IMO giving a self-destruct password to someone who you know will try to enter it.

"Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

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

#364

Post by Barbing »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #316
godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"U.S. law though is highly non-autistic" hilarious but also another point to emphasize is how truly depressing American courts often are. Take the right to a jury. It sounds noble in theory. But when they say judged by your peers they don't mean your actual peers. It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty. Prosecutors have high success rates. Federal prosecutor success rate is over > 90%. Studies of jury psycholo…

Some of us report for jury duty just itching to nullify something. Don't you? Checks and balances...

Nullify if necessary, more likely duty to justice as best as I can come to understand it.

We should all know it though!:

  It has been commonly used to oppose what jurors perceive as unjust laws, such as those that once penalized runaway slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibited alcohol during Prohibition, or criminalized draft evasion during the Vietnam War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

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

#365

Post by ktallett »

iamleppert wrote: post #91

Instead of a PIN that wipes the device, it would be much better to setup a special PIN that logs the user into a sanitized, completely separate profile with generated content of no practical value. This would create plausible deniability, and be sufficient to allow low-level border agents to look through a phone and pass any checks without raising these kinds of alarms. The wipe PIN should still be an option, but sho…

This. Aka a Qubes style isolated image.

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

#366

Post by jeroenhd »

refurb wrote: post #222
incompatible wrote: post #32

One of the GrapheneOS people (I think) suggested keeping a bit of paper in your wallet with the duress pin, perhaps thinly disguised. Then the cops could try it on their own initiative. I suppose they'd become aware of that trick eventually, but then they wouldn't be able to use all those other genuine pins they find.

A far better approach is for the US citizen to simply say "I chose not to provide my PIN". The officer will say something like "That's your choice, but I will need to seize the device to conduct an analysis. It will be returned once the analysis is complete". Then you shrug, and they will let you enter the US. The cops will try to get into the phone, fail, and return it to you. Just bring a phone you don't mind losin…

This person was under "investigation" for protesting against cop city. The authorities were waiting for him to turn up at a place where the law would give them more power.

They were never going to let him just walk in. Eventually, they'd have to, possibly after lawyers and news would get involved, but it's not like saying "no" was going to end the ordeal right away.

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

#367

Post by CJefferson »

abofh wrote: post #223
TheDong wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was really well written in "What color are your bits": https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 Programmers have trouble seeing color (two identical numbers are the same bits, how can typing '1234' to unlock one phone be legal, and '1234' to unlock another phone be illegal?) Courts care about color (intent, provenance, permission), even though that color cannot be digitally represented.

Indeed, but should he say his real code was one digit swap off, could you prove intent? Color matters, but you can't paint with only one

This is where 'reasonable doubt' comes in from a jury. Would I believe that someone set up a 'wipe my phone' code, something that would be catastrophic, it was one digit different, and they accidentally typed it, or would I think they were trying to wipe their phone.

Honestly, given what I know here (a full case might be different), I would believe they did it on purpose.

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

#368

Post by blitzar »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #316
godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"U.S. law though is highly non-autistic" hilarious but also another point to emphasize is how truly depressing American courts often are. Take the right to a jury. It sounds noble in theory. But when they say judged by your peers they don't mean your actual peers. It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty. Prosecutors have high success rates. Federal prosecutor success rate is over > 90%. Studies of jury psycholo…

Some of us report for jury duty just itching to nullify something. Don't you? Checks and balances...

I went itching to nullify injustices - I left wanting to reintroduce the death penalty for petty crimes.

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

#369

Post by itake »

whats_a_quasar wrote: post #363
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.

The language in the statute of what constitutes "destruction" is very broad and clearly covers IMO giving a self-destruct password to someone who you know will try to enter it. "Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts…

I know intent is a thing in law.

But I'm curious what the officer specifically requested. If the officer just asked for "the pin code", without explaining what they were trying to do or which pin code, then it seems he did comply: he gave them a pin code that gives them access to the [cleaned] phone.

Then the officer destroyed the property...

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

#370

Post by jeroenhd »

itake wrote: post #213
andrewflnr wrote: post #190

Why the hell doesn't the "duress PIN" just open up a sanitary profile? Bonus points for letting you set it up with plausible data before designating it as the duress profile that, when opened, wipes your real profile in the background . > "the screen went blank, flashed several times, and the phone appeared to restart," How about flash some red lights and play an airhorn sound effect, too.

Just a guess… but they would just go back and ask him for the real pin if they saw the profile was empty. My understanding is phone’s security model aren’t designed for multiple user accounts

Android has had multiple users for many years, though it's a feature most smart phone brands turn off for some reason.

You can switch users just fine, you just cannot hide the primary user from the secondary user. Opening up the device also makes it a lot more vulnerable to attacks to dump the keys and storage.

Having multiple users is quite handy but it's not going to do anything at a border checkpoint that'll save you.

Post reply on HN