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

141–150 of 206 posts

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

#141

Post by fluoridation »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #138
theandrewbailey wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Bonus points if they ask if it unlocks the device and you say, "No it erases the data," with a straight face.

Hell, you could truthfully answer yes to that question. The device will be unlocked at the end of the procedure.

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

#142

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

Terr_ wrote: post #129
theandrewbailey wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> they might be a good idea

I know everyone's situation is different, but it is regardless good to keep in mind one is writing a code on their device which will wipe said device, while also intentionally looking similar to a code that would unlock it instead.

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

#143

Post by mpdpsycho »

gruez wrote: post #78
mpdpsycho wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easily illustrated with the comparison to burning a piece of paper with evidence in front of an officer trying to obtain it. Though even though the “guilt” there is the burner’s, that there is any guilt to assign at all depends on whether the law had jurisdiction to that paper in that situation.

Knowingly obstructing investigations is illegal even if there isn't an active search warrant >During the fall of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Enron's accounting firm, instructed its employees to destroy documents relating to Enron after Andersen officials learned they would soon be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._United_... The conviction was ove…

Mmm, having an example here is good. I was thinking about how in larger cases like this it would be almost certainly always agreeable that the party disposing of evidence is at least somewhat aware of their guilt and that the act is obstruction regardless of warrant.

But, let’s say somebody unknowingly has evidence to a case, then in the time it takes for law enforcement to retrieve it, accidentally or otherwise destroys it, but necessarily not knowing that it was any sort of evidence. Would a case hold up in that situation if law decides to pin it on the person in question? Personally, I think situationally, it should not, but I don’t know how much faith I have that that would be the case.

Anyways, pertaining to the topic - in the same spirit of case-by-case, I’m not surprised by the outcome even if I’m glad the functionality worked here.

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

#144

Post by ramgine »

Unfortunately, these days with how governments want to spy on everything your phone is your biggest vulnerability. Better to travel with a dumb phone than something that will send you to jail. Regardless whether it’s wiped or not, depending on the mood of the officer.

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

#145

Post by GVIrish »

gruez wrote: post #46
GVIrish wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would depend on precisely what the ask was. Did the officer ask, "Give me the pin to unlock the phone."? In that case the command was complied with.

Even if the prompt was vague like "what's the pin for the phone", you'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that a duress pin (to wipe the phone) is a reasonable person[1] interpretation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

The claim was that giving the delete PIN constitutes lying or making a false statement. If someone complied with what was asked, they would not be guilty of lying, even if a reasonable person would judge that the action did not meet the intent of the ask. And it doesn't appear that they are charging him with making a false statement.

The fact that the feds are using an obscure law to argue that he destroyed property to prevent it from being seized shows that they're reaching here.

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

#147

Post by milesvp »

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…

Having lived near the US border most my life, the way it was explained to me years ago, is that there is a strip of land at the border crossing, where you are in neither country. In this space, you are not privy to any of the protections you would be allowed were you in either the US or Canada. This is where you are taken when you are forced to leave your car. Part of the current controversy is that the US government is trying to treat this literal no man’s land as both international land as as federal land with the disparate charges they are applying.

Fun fact. Lack of parking is not a legitimate reason to attempt to drive past this region. I was once flagged crossing into canada on a day they were interviewing a lot of travelers. I spotted parking in what looked to me like an overflow lot on the other side of a fence, and when I slowly drove that direction sirens blasted and guns were drawn. Nothing gives you clarity like a gun pointed at you.

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

#148

Post by scoofy »

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.

Many if not most of the founding fathers owned human beings, and the vast majority of people (94% of the population) weren't allowed to vote because they didn't own property or they happened to be female.

What are you even talking about?

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

#149

Post by Zak »

danudey wrote: post #137
RegW wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would seem that the officer was searching for evidence of a crime, not to prevent importation. However, did that evidence really exist? And if it did, was it for something else? Perhaps, the guy just worried about something far more mundane being discovered? We shall never know. Think Schrodinger's password.

This is the issue with these sorts of laws. How do you make it illegal to destroy evidence of criminal misconduct when the destruction of evidence can make it impossible to prove it ever existed? That seems to be along the lines of what they're arguing here - they wanted to perform an ostensibly legal search, and he destroyed everything that might have been evidence either way. It would be like a corporation getting…

A "bad look" is legally irrelevant. A US citizen has an almost unlimited right to enter the USA carrying anything that's legal to import. Blank phones are legal to import.

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

#150

Post by illithid0 »

pelotron wrote: post #77
illithid0 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand, I love GrapheneOS and see it as a cornerstone of digital privacy software. I have supported the project financially for years. On the other hand, I'm worried that the publicity will only make explicit targets out of GrapheneOS users, and that you would only be using it "if you have something to hide".

I have plenty of things to hide from Google which is the primary reason I use it.

I, too, would prefer Google not have their hands in a lot of my stuff. That doesn't mean the federal government won't take it personally that I won't let them look at all of it and take action.
Post reply on HN