Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

techspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#391

Post by manarth »

icantevenhold wrote: post #361
helterskelter wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got selected as juror once just hoping to laugh at anything the cops said on the witness stand and let some poor soul go free but it turns out the defendant was just a violent scumbag who stabbed random people in public, and there was a video of it. After we decided he was guilty, they listed other things he had been convicted of and asked if he was a repeat offender... Let's see, shot somebody in the back, robbed…

That is horrible but robbing a liquor store dressed as a clown is pretty funny (in my head probably not irl)

Imagine picking the suspect out of the line-up, or drawing up a photo-fit.

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#392

Post by sReinwald »

CJefferson wrote: post #367
abofh wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, but should he say his real code was one digit swap off, could you prove intent? Color matters, but you can't paint with only one

This is where 'reasonable doubt' comes in from a jury. Would I believe that someone set up a 'wipe my phone' code, something that would be catastrophic, it was one digit different, and they accidentally typed it, or would I think they were trying to wipe their phone. Honestly, given what I know here (a full case might be different), I would believe they did it on purpose.

Framing this as whether he can convince you the mistype was accidental gets it backwards, and "would I believe X or would I think Y" is preponderance, not reasonable doubt - entirely different standard. Reasonable doubt doesn't ask which account you find more likely. It asks whether the innocent one is unreasonable.

Take the hypothetical as posed: duress code one digit off, entered while detained after being interrogated for hours, and repeatedly pressured to unlock. The government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly triggered the wipe and did it for the purpose of impairing the seizure. Nothing about that scenario makes mistyping an unreasonable explanation unless there is more circumstantial evidence that indicates him intentionally providing the wrong PIN.

Proving that to a jury looks very hard.

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#393

Post by whats_a_quasar »

3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #239
SubiculumCode wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer, but destruction of evidence would only be valid if there was first some reasonable suspicion of a crime? Is that right?

This is my core question as well. At what point do you have to maintain property so the government can use it to testify against yourself? If I have a dash-cam, and I wipe the SD card, can the government imply that because I erased the card, it must prove that I was speeding? The dash-cam automatically over-writes old footage - perpetually destroying evidence. Given nebulous cases such as "hacking" a site by looking…

"At what point do you have to maintain property so the government can use it to testify against yourself?"

For the duration of the border search. This guy is at risk because he caused the data to be deleted during a border search, when CBP asserts they can legally look. He would have been fine if he deleted data on the plane or after leaving the airport.

(This is my understanding of the government's position; personally I don't think this prosecution is constitutional)

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#394

Post by tremon »

wesleywt wrote: post #360
DanHulton wrote: post #65

If your threat model means you can’t afford for border security to view your device, wipe the damn thing yourself before crossing the border and restore it from an encrypted online backup on the other side. You’re just carrying a blank phone that you intend to set up and use later, and they can’t force you to install your backup onto a phone. Now, this is sus as hell, and you’ll probably draw all kinds of extra atten…

What is sus as hell is the US government. It is incredible how people here are accepting things that was outrageous a few years back.

They've been boiling that frog for 25 years now. Its flesh has long detached from the bones, it's the bones themselves that are now dissolving.

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#395

Post by LtWorf »

refurb wrote: post #371
jeroenhd wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This person was under "investigation" for protesting against cop city. The authorities were waiting for him to turn up at a place where the law would give them more power. They were never going to let him just walk in. Eventually, they'd have to, possibly after lawyers and news would get involved, but it's not like saying "no" was going to end the ordeal right away.

Maybe, but being detained for a couple hours is better than committing a felony, no?

A couple of hours sounds like you don't have any knowledge of how these things go.

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#396

Post by whats_a_quasar »

itake wrote: post #369
whats_a_quasar wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The language in the statute of what constitutes "destruction" is very broad and clearly covers IMO giving a self-destruct password to someone who you know will try to enter it. "Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts…

I know intent is a thing in law. But I'm curious what the officer specifically requested. If the officer just asked for "the pin code", without explaining what they were trying to do or which pin code, then it seems he did comply: he gave them a pin code that gives them access to the [cleaned] phone. Then the officer destroyed the property...

It doesn't matter. Providing a PIN that will cause an officer to inadvertently delete data clearly is covered by the statute:

"Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure .. takes any action ... for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property ..."

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#397

Post by iepathos »

> The motion also states that Tunick asked four times to speak with a lawyer and was denied each time.

This is the kind of thing that loses cases, even if they were legitimate at first. Seems like the prosecutor is desperate charging for the phone wipe cause they didn't have any evidence of terrorism, child-pornography, etc. The problem they have now is given he was in custody and agents pressured him to provide the passcode that they then incompetently put into the phone, the fact that they denied him a lawyer multiple times means there is a very strong argument that his rights were violated. Typically, courts suppress any evidence when there is a violation like this with someone in custody. So the compelled passcode, the phone's reaction when that passcode was entered, and the agents' testimony describing the supposed wipe would be thrown out by most judges. What's left for the prosecution after this is jack and shit, but jack left town.

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#398

Post by LtWorf »

kdheiwns wrote: post #286
thecrash wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are incorrect, US border patrol can not arrest you for refusing to decrypt your phone (if you are a citizen). It is not considered obstructing a search to refuse to provide a password. This is not "autistic" speculation about legal technicalities, there are many many examples which support this. The worst they can do is seize the device.

You're free to test them. See what they do when you say "it's not deleted. It's just inaccessible until I cooperate." Because it's identical in their eyes. People who confidently say "the government can't do that" rarely have a good day. They end up sharing a cell with the person in the article this discussion is about. And we're living in an era where immigration enforcement can shoot Americans without penalty. It j…

That's precisely what happens in totalitarian states, which the USA has been for a while now, but the propaganda keeps telling how much freedom there is so people didn't even notice.

Re: US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

#399

Post by Barbing »

lokar wrote: post #200
halestock wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of engineer types forget that the law is not code, and reductionist arguments almost never actually work in practice because it's a human interpreting the law.

There is a strong bias by the courts to interpret the law in such a way that it makes sense, and achieves the goals the legislature had when enacting it.

Just read this point in a case revolving around the Oxford comma, stated in simple enough legalese I could understand:

“laws must be construed liberally in order to accomplish their remedial purpose" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma#Maine_labor_dispu...

Post reply on HN