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

121–130 of 206 posts

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

#121

Post by mannanj »

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…

I'd heard in another article around this, that in this particular situation they had said it was a routine border search. Not even something criminal, just routine procedure. Then that under neath all that they did in fact suspect something criminal and were using the standard stop as a pretext for criminal investigation is the constitutional violation.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

dotancohen wrote: post #67
Zigurd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The level of duress also matters. US citizens have been shipped to foreign prisons and there's an active case of high-level officials at DOJ violating court orders about that.

> US citizens have been shipped to foreign prisons From US soil?

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by mannanj »

If only these phones could have a feature where you can enter a mode to encrypt segments of data with different encryption keys, all able to be unlocked still by one single master encryption key that you could also enter at any time.

Then when in travel, and about to pass a border, you enter that selective mode. You can enter a different password as the proxy to unlock the phone in this bare minimal data mode. The agents can access it, etc but wont have all the data. That data shouldn't even be visible in the OS, and if they try to copy the hard drive they will get encrypted data in the other blocks.

You still legally comply with orders and unlock the phone but the other partitions don't unlock/decrypt unless you specifically unlock them.

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

#124

Post by theandrewbailey »

mingus88 wrote: post #9

This should be an interesting case in today’s legal climate Obviously grafeneOS has no liability. But the owner of the device didn’t take the action to remove the data, the CBP officer entered it. We already have some precedent around being forced to give up your password. How does that change if you are forced to give up a password that is destructive? What if the password works fine at home and the same password do…

You put a sticky note with the duress PIN on your phone. When detained, the officer notices a PIN in plain sight on the phone, enters it, and the phone wipes itself. You were never asked for a PIN.

Could you be charged with destruction of evidence?

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

#125

Post by 1970-01-01 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #105
1970-01-01 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also, 5th amendment. They can't just declare on the spot that your data is now their data.

The 4th ammendemnt is the one that protects your data and other possessions in general, not the 5th. The 5th protects you from being compelled to give testimony that might incriminate you, which then protects you from being compelled to offer a password to access data that could be used to incriminate you. Since 4th ammendemnt protections are significantly curtailed at border crossings, they can actually declare on t…

It's like this: The 5th protects your password, which protects your data, which is already protected by the 4th, but things happen, which is why we have the 5th after the 4th and the password. Agents shouldn't be able to just take your info on the spot, but if they try, you have the 5th amendment right to try and stop them. I'm not a lawyer, but I play one online.

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

#126

Post by antonvs »

lorreyfum wrote: post #56
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…

[flagged]

Which law is that? It's true that border agents need to follow the law, unlike these ones.

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

#127

Post by antonvs »

TFNA wrote: post #86
mmastrac wrote: post #7

The founding fathers would be aghast at what America became. Hard to imagine modern America passing some of those constitutional amendments that older America passed wayyy back.

On the other hand, why care what the American founding fathers thought? There have been two centuries since then of developments in democratic countries that some Americans could choose as a model they like more. And now it's the Chinese century anyway.

> On the other hand, why care what the American founding fathers thought?

Because they had direct experience with tyranny and exploitation, and documented their response to that in the US founding documents. We care because if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it. Which is pretty much what's happening right now.

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

#128

Post by mindslight »

Magicrafter13 wrote: post #22

As a GrapheneOS user and a U.S. citizen that cares about the constitution, I fully support the actions taken by the individual

Seriously. All of these comments talking about the legality are completely missing the point. At most this indicts the current laws, rather than the person who was illegally and immorally surveilled, searched, detained, coerced, and now harassed through the legal system. Anybody standing on a narrow view of "but this is just the law" while we have an outright hostile government that actively hates our individual liberties has wholly lost the plot.

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

#129

Post by Terr_ »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #124
mingus88 wrote: post #9

This should be an interesting case in today’s legal climate Obviously grafeneOS has no liability. But the owner of the device didn’t take the action to remove the data, the CBP officer entered it. We already have some precedent around being forced to give up your password. How does that change if you are forced to give up a password that is destructive? What if the password works fine at home and the same password do…

You put a sticky note with the duress PIN on your phone. When detained, the officer notices a PIN in plain sight on the phone, enters it, and the phone wipes itself. You were never asked for a PIN. Could you be charged with destruction of evidence?

> Could you be charged with destruction of evidence?

IANAL but I expect it depends on whether someone thinks they can prove your intent was specifically to disrupt a (legitimate) search.

To recycle a comment from 2 days ago, regarding why one might reasonably have the duress code written on the phone:

> "Your honor, I have the real pin memorized because I use it all the time, but since I can never use the duress code, I had to keep it somewhere handy."

> Or

> "Pickpocketing and phone-snatching is a real problem overseas, I put it there so that criminal would wipe the phone trying to get in, denying them access to things like my bank account."

> Heck, those aren't just plausible, they might be a good idea.

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

#130

Post by nemomarx »

Groxx wrote: post #110
nemomarx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

similar to structuring laws, right? trying to not provide evidence is occasionally similar to destroying it.

yes, this is what I'm leaning towards. if intent (without accusation!) is the issue, then not providing access seems the same as removing or denying access. they're trying to do this kind of thing for foreigners (no social media account -> no entry: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/10/us-to-inspect-tourists-socia... ), this feels like a grab at applying it to citizens too. if someone is accused of something (possibly ret…

realistically it'll just be arbitrarily enforced based on the individual cop / agent / whoever's judgement. so try not to look any particular way, I guess?
Post reply on HN