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

161–170 of 206 posts

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

#161

Post by 627467 »

Imo it is not controversial that intent to destroy evidence is ilegal is most reasonable jurisdictions.

Now, is this what's at stake here? Evidence of what? Surely at some point, clear allegations need to me made for which the content of the phone is evidence for.

There's alot of speculation of what the indicted person was involved in, or motives of the border agents. Or the insinuation that the tooling that allowed the alleged destruction of evidence is (or should be) ilegal or indications of nefarious intent by those who use such tools. This is all BS.

Am I missing something?

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

#162

Post by BizarroLand »

amazingamazing wrote: post #159
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.

Who cares what the slave owners thought. What you should care about are Americans who support this stuff now.

It's dumb to overlook the "founding fathers" based on what we now perceive as their personal failings. Once the dead are gone, they're gone. It's ok to rifle through their spiritual corpses for the few nuggets of useful material in them and leave the rest to the trash pile of history.

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

#163

Post by convolvatron »

tsimionescu wrote: post #131
convolvatron wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in autistic-land, doesn't it seem like the power to perform searches by border police should be directed related and limited to their function - that is the inspection of material goods to insure that (a) illegal smuggling isn't taking place and (b) the proper import taxes have been paid. unless the phone itself is a suspicious good, there should never be any justification for a border officer to demand visibility of…

I think one of their main justifications for claiming a right to inspect your phone is the possibility that you could be carrying illegal data on it, such as CSAM (which they apparently invoked in this particular case). Since they generally can inspect your luggage to check if you're crossing the border with illegal goods, this seems somewhat plausible as a legal interpretation. Personally, I believe that there shoul…

general enforcement of federal law as a special exception of the 4th amendment doesn't seem to be in the charter passed by congress in https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/211

no judge thought there was sufficient evidence to grant a warrant in this case, so what you're saying is that any CBP agent can go fishing for anything they want. anyone can be detained for any reason that an individual CBP agent considers necessary.

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

#164

Post by abduhl »

milesvp wrote: post #147
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…

Whoever explained this to you has done you a terrible disservice. The border is the border - on one side you are in the USA and on the other side you are outside it.

If there was a strip of land where you are not in a country then how can CBP assert any authority? No, you must be in America. There is no "no man's land," and there is no such thing as "international land" at America's borders where no law exists.

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

#165

Post by deepfriedchokes »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #14
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…

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.

If police can lie to the public because free speech then the reverse should also hold true.

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

#166

Post by sixothree »

danudey wrote: post #134
antonvs wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

At the same time, it's necessary for societies to grow and evolve. Looking back 250 years and saying "This isn't how THEY would have done it" is not always the correct perspective. Anyway, you don't have to look back to the founding fathers. Go back to 1930's Germany and you can see all the parallels you want, much closer to today's situation and in a much more modern and relevant context.

> saying "This isn't how THEY would have done it" is not always the correct perspective

Even though I might agree, it's the primary legal perspective used by the highest court.

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

#167

Post by duttish »

abduhl wrote: post #164
milesvp wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Whoever explained this to you has done you a terrible disservice. The border is the border - on one side you are in the USA and on the other side you are outside it. If there was a strip of land where you are not in a country then how can CBP assert any authority? No, you must be in America. There is no "no man's land," and there is no such thing as "international land" at America's borders where no law exists.

Related anecdote, there is a strip of international land between Egypt and Sudan, neither country wants it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil

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

#168

Post by t0mpr1c3 »

iamnothere wrote: post #156
TFNA wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The great thing is, they were thoughtful enough to include a process for amending the documents that serve as the country’s operating system. We should consider using that process! Surely things have changed enough in the last half a century to justify a new amendment or three.

The amendment process is broken. The constitution has become a fossil law.

The problem has become acute now that the SCOTUS majority has arrogated power to itself in shameless and corrupt fashion.

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

#169

Post by jamwil »

milesvp wrote: post #147
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…

[dead]

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

#170

Post by deepsun »

niam wrote: post #99
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.

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 n…

My point is: why don't anyone makes a fuss over water searches the same way as airports? It's been like that forever. There are reddit discussions about water searches, but never on HN or any news. To. Me it seems interesting discrepancy.
Post reply on HN