US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

Post by euroderf » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:52 PM UTC

Teever wrote: post #733

jvanderbot wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A phone with a backup account, unlocked with duress pin makes sense to me. How hard would it be to admin-allow some apps to work across barriers. E.g., wallet apps work, airline tickets work, but email/socials do not. the issue is that when a phone is unlocked, they can just plug in a USB device and scrape everything off it. The TSA agent may not be eyeballing a facebook account so much as plugging in an exfiltration…

Why does the USB port need to even work anyways? It could just be designed to look like a USB port but fry whatever expensive and proprietary phone hacking device they bought from some scuzzy Israeli ‘security’ company when it’s plugged in.

Post by everfrustrated » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:54 PM UTC

rustyhancock wrote: post #427

realusername wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big picture problem is that the agents performing the searches have an enormous amount of power in terms of potentially seizing devices and potentially denying entry for non-citizens. I think they should not have this power, but the agents and courts probably don't care that I think that. That's the reason I never traveled to the US and never will, just having IT security in your CV is enough to make the border…

It's also quite surprising that all socials need to be declared. And presumably them AI vetted in time for you to get to the border.

Post by iamnothere » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 2:58 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #439

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…

In general a government can do whatever they can get away with. The rest (believing they can't do this or that, because it's in some constitutional document, or violates a basic right) is sovereign citizen kind of self-delusion.

Post by runjake » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 3:00 PM UTC

surgical_fire wrote: post #586

runjake wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm waiting to see whether he is convicted before I form a strong opinion around this. I'm leaning toward thinking this case will be dropped or at least severely reduced charges.

It doesn't matter. Mamy will read this and think that crossing a border with a GrapheneOS device is a bad idea, or just drop using what is a nice security feature entirely. Just being charged is already a massive pain in the ass (both in terms of stress and costs) to an individual.

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 3:08 PM UTC

deltoidmaximus wrote: post #664

lentil_soup wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you may have to think both about protecting your data by technical means, and about not angering the agents more than you plan to That's the same problem with technical solutions to crime. I come from a very dangerous city and I used to have a car that needed a PIN to work. You could turn then engine on and drive but after a minute if you didn't input the PIN it would turn off without warning and start blasting the…

And there's the problem that if the PIN or worse a biometric version of this becomes remotely well known you've now created an incentive for a car thief to kidnap people even if they only want the car.