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

GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search

pcmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 206 posts

Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search

#91

Post by gruez »

logifail wrote: post #80
victorbjorklund wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intentions matter. If the intent is to trick the officer to enter a PIN code that will destroy potential evidence then it does not matter that you didn't type the PIN code. Your speech is the thing that triggers a series of events that you know will lead to a wipe. Just like you can be charged with destruction of evidence even if you trick someone else to take the action.

> Intentions matter Fed: "give us your PIN or else" me: "528491" Fed: me: "no! 528419, I meant 528419!!" Fed:

>"write the pin on a piece of paper"

>"ok are you sure that's your pin?"

>they exit the room and come back 5 min later

>"that pin didn't work, can you write it again?"

You're going to have a hard time convincing the judge that you "accidentally" gave the wrong pin in this case.

Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search

#93

Post by Zak »

cdrnsf wrote: post #40

The border agents didn't act in good faith, regardless of what they're empowered to do. They wanted the data for one reason and fabricated another to prompt the device search. The data they were interested in pertained to protest activity protected under the constitution but the lie they told was about something criminal. That anything within 100 miles of the border is constitution free tosses that out, I guess, but…

> That anything within 100 miles of the border is constitution free tosses that out

That's a misconception. Border/immigration agents can operate inside this zone, including making stops with reasonable suspicion or running checkpoints where everyone is stopped with no suspicion. The checkpoints are limited in scope, and do not provide authority for searching electronic devices. Some people, including a couple dissenting supreme court justices do feel the checkpoint part violates the constitution.

That's distinct from the border search exemption, which allows inspection of everyone and everything crossing the border. It only exists when someone is actually crossing the border and does not allow CBP to stop or search people who are not crossing the border.

Edit: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search

#94

Post by john_strinlai »

tsimionescu wrote: post #85
deepsun wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that all that rules don't apply to water. The moment you stepped on a boat, coastal guard can (and do regularly) board it and conduct a search without any reasoning. They don't need any probable causes, warrants, nothing. Seems like so far it didn't create any problems, so public is ok with that.

The same is true at any border crossing - you have to submit to searches by CBP agents, who don't need any probable cause. I believe device searches are still a somewhat greyer area, at least if password protected (as providing a password would be compelled speech, unlike a luggage search which can be conducted without any action from your part).

>as providing a password would be compelled speech

which is a good reminder for anyone with reason to be concerned about this sort of thing to turn off biometric/face id/etc. access to their devices.

Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search

#96

Post by tsimionescu »

logifail wrote: post #80
victorbjorklund wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intentions matter. If the intent is to trick the officer to enter a PIN code that will destroy potential evidence then it does not matter that you didn't type the PIN code. Your speech is the thing that triggers a series of events that you know will lead to a wipe. Just like you can be charged with destruction of evidence even if you trick someone else to take the action.

> Intentions matter Fed: "give us your PIN or else" me: "528491" Fed: me: "no! 528419, I meant 528419!!" Fed:

You could still be brought before a jury to determine if you knowingly provided the wrong PIN (and thus knowingly gave false testimony) or not. Records of you intentionally setting two very similar PINs and discussing any such plan could be used to convince a jury that it was malicious.

Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search

#97

Post by seethishat »

It is illegal to lie to a police officer in the US. It's better to remain silent than to tell a lie. Giving a false PIN is a lie. And that by itself is a crime.

I'm not taking sides here, I just wanted to make that clear.

And you should understand that they can lie to you. That's OK and legal, but you cannot lie to them.

Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search

#99

Post by niam »

deepsun wrote: post #55
cdrnsf wrote: post #40

The border agents didn't act in good faith, regardless of what they're empowered to do. They wanted the data for one reason and fabricated another to prompt the device search. The data they were interested in pertained to protest activity protected under the constitution but the lie they told was about something criminal. That anything within 100 miles of the border is constitution free tosses that out, I guess, but…

Interesting that all that rules don't apply to water. The moment you stepped on a boat, coastal guard can (and do regularly) board it and conduct a search without any reasoning. They don't need any probable causes, warrants, nothing. Seems like so far it didn't create any problems, so public is ok with that.

Interesting that the distinction between phones and boats was not enough to dissuade whatever point it is that you're trying to make.

From Chief Justice Roberts in Riley v. California: "One of the most notable distinguishing features of modern cell phones is their immense storage capacity. Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and tended as a general matter to constitute only a narrow intrusion on privacy."

Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search

#100

Post by pc86 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #50
Groxx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while attempting to avoid armchair-law-interpreting because I really do not intend that, and I agree that this is going to be an interesting/deeply-worrying legal case: wiping the device before carrying it across the border seems essentially identical to me. like, saying "you can't wipe it when searched" would also imply "you can't have an empty device when crossing because it may have been wiped before the search to…

> wiping the device before carrying it across the border seems essentially identical to me. On the contrary, there is a huge gulf between these. Providing a fake password that wipes a device while under active questioning is a clear case of providing false testimony. Lying to the police while under investigation is simply illegal, regardless of the thing you're lying about. By contrast, entering the country with a cl…

> Providing a fake password that wipes a device while under active questioning is a clear case of providing false testimony.

False testimony of what? Can you be compelled to provide testimony that allows a police officer access to your private data? Can a police officer demand I log into my online medical chart so they can complete their investigation?

> Lying to the police while under investigation is simply illegal, regardless of the thing you're lying about.

Perhaps for certain definitions of police, investigation, illegal, and lie. But as a blanket statement, not even remotely. Otherwise every person found guilty of any crime they said they didn't commit would also be found guilty of lying to the police officers who interrogated them.

Post reply on HN