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

181–190 of 206 posts

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

#181

Post by brnt »

mindslight wrote: post #128
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 lib…

> Anybody standing on a narrow view of "but this is just the law"

It's a pity Americans must learn empirically rather than from history books how fascism operates.

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

#182

Post by holgerschurig »

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.

> amending the documents

That is actually not so good. First, all constitutions that I know of have a process of change, e.g. 2/3 majority in parliament, or in 2 houses or something. And note that I wrote "change", not "amend". The idea that one can only add things to a constitution is weird one --- but then again, I'm european and don't know the US constitution correctly, maybe the amendments delete outdated paragraphs?

But still, a process of change junk you wrote earlier is hardly "thoughtful", it's just natural.

However, in reality the US constitution sucked, and continues to suck. US people claim they are the epitome of freedom, but yet they were for hundreds of years the epitome of slavery. Or of genocide to native tribe (look up "Trail of Tears").

They claim they are the epitome of democracy, and yet they basically have only a 2-party system cemented in stone, with no fresh air ever. But even worse: there are so many cases of gerrymandering in the US --- a clear anti-democratic way of organizing elections --- and yet the oh-so-democratic constitution hasn't an answer to this. No way to give back real election power to the people.

The the US, elected people with stamina can hinder a democratic process by filibustering, nothing that we know of sane countries.

Apropos sane: have you heard about "government shutdown" of e.g. France, Sweden or Poland? That doesn't exist there. It's a laughing stock to some of us. Seems like a hefty wart in the US system, I personally wouldn't like to be some government employed person with the insecurity of "Do I get my money next month?". Not 100% sure, but perhaps this shutdown is a function of the US constitution?

The rest of the US justice system isn't particular good either. That's not exactly constitution, but usually the constitution sets the basis on how and where the laws work. The US congress these days creates massive 2000 pages long laws no can read or understand. The US has the highest incarceration rate of the western world and STILL one of the highest crime rates. The US police forces alone kills more people each year than the total number of people killed by guns in Germany by police and criminals combined. Before court, not all people are equal, the people with deep pockets are equaller. Or look how a drug company and medical doctors made lots of US citizens drug addicts. And it took many, many years to reduce the issue ... and the law system had no answer for this. Which CEO or CFO went to jail, for example? Which GP went to jail for addicting his patients, lost his license?

These days, even the balance of power is in jeopardy, and the US constitution again has no answer to this.

To me, I'd say the situation in the US justifies a rewrite of the constitution to something modern, and than a general election on this new constitution. Get rid of the old rubbish, it showed that it has many, very many, grave problems.

But again, I'm from europe and am therefore not so deep into your things ...

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

#183

Post by gadders »

triceratops wrote: post #146
gadders wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably all bankers.

So why did you say it was to "facilitate tax evasion"?

RTFA. That is exactly what it was for - to hide account information from nation-level investigations.

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

#184

Post by il-b »

mannanj wrote: post #121
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.

“Your phone smells like weed”

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

#185

Post by tsimionescu »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #160
tsimionescu wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's nonsense because it's trivial to move data internationally without ever crossing a physical border. There is no reason for anyone to ever try to smuggle digital data through a border crossing and so zero justification for ever conducting a digital search at the border.

Be that as it may, it is very much established law. CBP can search your phone when you are crossing the border without needing any specific justification other than the fact that you're crossing the border. Anything they find can then be used against you in other cases.

See for example https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/your-phone-can-be-searched...

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

#186

Post by tsimionescu »

convolvatron wrote: post #163
tsimionescu wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is established precedent on the fact that CBP can search the phone or other devices of anyone crossing the border for no reason whatsoever. I couldn't tell you the exact justification, but I guess it could have been found to follow from the act you cited: (2) ensure the interdiction of persons and goods illegally entering or exiting the United States;

See this article quoting a 7th circuit case on this matter: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/your-phone-can-be-searched...

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

#187

Post by pbgcp2026 »

mannanj wrote: post #123

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 ag…

This feature exists today – it's called "leave your gadgets at home". S3 bucket and / or laptop with Tails on USB stick is all you need.

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

#188

Post by victorbjorklund »

Zigurd wrote: post #44
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.

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.

yea, maybe that can be a case but then I assume (I'm not a US lawyer) it would be that yes they destroyed the evidence by providing the wipe pin claiming it was the normal pin BUT under the circumstances it was OK to destroy the evidence because they acted under duress and could not be expected to act correctly.

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

#189

Post by victorbjorklund »

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:

yes, and it would be up to the jury/court to judge if you made a mistake or if you intended to give the wipe pin. Not different from you shooting someone saying you thought the gun was a fake gun. They will evaluate and decide if they believe you are lying or telling the truth.

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

#190

Post by iamnothere »

holgerschurig wrote: post #182
iamnothere wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> amending the documents That is actually not so good. First, all constitutions that I know of have a process of change, e.g. 2/3 majority in parliament, or in 2 houses or something. And note that I wrote "change", not "amend". The idea that one can only add things to a constitution is weird one --- but then again, I'm european and don't know the US constitution correctly, maybe the amendments delete outdated paragra…

Amendments allow you to add language that invalidates prior language. The old language isn’t “deleted” but it is superseded so it is no longer relevant. For display purposes, the invalidated text is often shown with a strikethrough.

You can’t “delete” language because the original is a physical document, but this works the same in practice.

A rewrite is possible but it requires a constitutional convention (similar process to an amendment) or a revolution. IMHO a rewrite is a bad idea because corporate, and military, and intelligence influences are too strong right now compared to the people. They would dominate the process.

We certainly have our problems, but so does everybody. Nearly all democracies are falling to corruption, institutional capture, and domestic repression. We’re not alone in this.

Post reply on HN