31–40 of 206 posts
And 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...
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…
If you have a safe in your home and you knowingly wire up a bomb that goes off when a certain lever is pulled then you lie to the police and tell them the way to open the safe is to pull that lever you'd pretty clearly be responsible for the damage done when the bomb goes off. I don't see why this would be any different.
Someone 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…
As such in a case like the Salinas one, being silent or "pleading the fifth" would be moot as both would just indicate "deafening silence" to the judges since the defendant had been cooperative up until that point.
(the Swedish judicial system has no juries, instead there's a professionally learned judge and 2 "laymen judges" appointed from political parties acting as the peoples representatives, if that triumvirate fucks up, higher courts can and often will kick rulings back down for retrials).
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.
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…
Someone 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?
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…
> Either way, the user complied, and did not take action to wipe their device. The user claimed to offer a password to access the contents of the device, and instead offered a password that deleted the device. That is false testimony / lying to an investigation, and is almost certainly punishable in itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What about the abolitionists among the signers of the Declaration?
So some comment about the founding fathers rolling over in their graves about what America has become is complete nonsense.
This 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.
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".