"defends" is doing quite a bit of flashy work for this headline. "Feature works as advertised, nobody upset" would be a much more practical headline.
The government appears to be quite upset. You wouldn't want to upset ingsoc would you?
GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search
21–30 of 206 posts
Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search
#22As a GrapheneOS user and a U.S. citizen that cares about the constitution, I fully support the actions taken by the individual
Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search
#23Someone who is a lawyer knows any details about the US justice systems precedents with regards to the fifth amendmend (regards to self incrimination) vs obstruction of justice (by destroying evidence) as would be applicable to a duress wipe? Also would the distinction of being (or not) read their miranda rights and placed under arrest in this case make a difference as to the status of any possible obstruction?
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that refusal to give the PIN (“remaining silent”) would be a valid application of the 5th, but not giving a false PIN. 5th does not imply the right to mislead or lie to someone investigating a crime. Not clear on anything else regarding the duress PIN but I don’t think a 5th defense would apply. Note that you apparently have to explicitly invoke your right to remain silent or you…
I'm mixed... if they really thought there was evidence on the phone, they should have seized the phone and acquired a warrant IMO to compel the valid, non-destructive PIN be given over.
As I mentioned earlier, this is part of why my own plans for international travel are to only go with a notebook/sheet with contact numbers and buy throwaway devices on the other side. I don't think I'd travel internationally with a phone or laptop at this point, and that's kind of been my thoughts for a while. Especially given the direction that many countries, not just the US have taken. For that matter, I don't think I'd ever even risk travelling to the UK or China at this point. Not that I like the surveillance state here in the US, at least I still have some rights preserved.
Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search
#24The "agent entered password themselves, therefore they're to blame" seems as good of a logic as "I'm going to start swinging my arms and start walking forward, so if you don't move, it's YOU hitting YOURSELF".
That's egregiously disingenuous. Having a password that protects the infiltration/extraction of your intellectual artifacts is in no way akin to assault on someone else.
A duress password isn't a booby trap. Nothing was damaged except for the fragile egos of the man-children who weren't able to bully someone into giving up their wrong-think.
Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search
#25And this is why part of my plans for any international travel are to simply have a physical notebook with phone numbers to trusted friends/family and to buy throwaway devices on the other side (phone and chromebook or similar). TBF, similar mindset if I ever attend defcon, etc. as well.
The crazy part is that you might be denied entering the country you don't travel with a device...
Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search
#26The "agent entered password themselves, therefore they're to blame" seems as good of a logic as "I'm going to start swinging my arms and start walking forward, so if you don't move, it's YOU hitting YOURSELF".
Maybe digital forensics shouldn't be handled by barely highschool graduates at a busy border crossing
Should we take the same approach for physical searches? If the cops are executing a search warrant on a house, and there's a safe, should they send in a safe cracker on the off chance the safe is wired with a "duress pin" (eg. thermite that burns the contents)?
Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search
#27Earlier 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.
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…
To my knowledge, no citizen has ever been prevented from reentry due to a blank or absent device. In fact they cannot block a citizen’s legal reentry for any reason, they can only detain you while they investigate.
Beyond this, “I dropped my phone in the ocean” is always a perfectly valid reason.
If you’re a foreigner and they already suspect you of something, they can deny you entry for any reason. It may be better to be denied than arrested!
Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search
#28Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search
#29This is possibly the best advertising. GrapheneOS was kind of niche before. But if the US Government hates you then you're on the right track.
Re: GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search
#30The "agent entered password themselves, therefore they're to blame" seems as good of a logic as "I'm going to start swinging my arms and start walking forward, so if you don't move, it's YOU hitting YOURSELF".
That's egregiously disingenuous. Having a password that protects the infiltration/extraction of your intellectual artifacts is in no way akin to assault on someone else. A duress password isn't a booby trap. Nothing was damaged except for the fragile egos of the man-children who weren't able to bully someone into giving up their wrong-think.
The point isn't that giving a duress pin is the same as physical assault, or that the duress pin feature is a "booby trap". It's that for the purposes of ascertaining guilt, you don't get a pass just because you're not the person that physically initiated the action.