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

51–60 of 206 posts

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

#51

Post by tsimionescu »

GVIrish wrote: post #37
tsimionescu wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It would depend on precisely what the ask was. Did the officer ask, "Give me the pin to unlock the phone."? In that case the command was complied with.

Not really, no. I think it would be extremely hard to convince any jury that you really believed that a PIN that wipes the phone was what the officer was asking for.

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

#52

Post by intrikate »

gruez wrote: post #26
skullone wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

I mean, if it's possible to configure and there is at all a reason for someone to configure it as such, then it makes the most sense to treat it as a very valid possibility, right?

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

#53

Post by Neywiny »

gruez wrote: post #26
skullone wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

Isn't this already done? Don't they send narcotics back to a lab? And do sobriety tests back at the station if you refuse a field test?

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

#54

Post by gruez »

gadders wrote: post #35

UBS had a similar capability on their laptops so they facilitate tax evasion for US clients: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/30/why-did-the-us-pay-this-form...

That's probably safer because you can plausibly argue you're protecting your workstation, not unlike corporate security policies that require you to lock your workstation when you get up. Where they get into trouble is when they specifically say "use this when the IRS comes knocking". It's like offering an encrypted chat app (eg. signal) vs offering an encrypted chat app and marketing it to criminals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Secure#Law_enforcement...

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

#55

Post by deepsun »

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…

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.

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

#56

Post by lorreyfum »

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…

[flagged]

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

#57

Post by colordrops »

petcat wrote: post #38
Zigurd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the abolitionists among the signers of the Declaration?

I don't want to get into a whole thing about the founding fathers and American mythology. Yes, they had some pretty good ideas that have withstood the test of time. They also had some pretty f'ing bad ideas that we had to change. So some comment about the founding fathers rolling over in their graves about what America has become is complete nonsense.

What is your point? The original comment was really just a wry statement about the extreme level of corruption and ineffectiveness of the US government. Sounds like you find the current situation to be A-OK?

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

#58

Post by mpdpsycho »

gruez wrote: post #30
rc5150 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Easily illustrated with the comparison to burning a piece of paper with evidence in front of an officer trying to obtain it. Though even though the “guilt” there is the burner’s, that there is any guilt to assign at all depends on whether the law had jurisdiction to that paper in that situation.

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

#59

Post by Zigurd »

gruez wrote: post #48
Zigurd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

That's a bit of a strawman. No defense attorney would omit the other circumstances of the search, some of which very likely overstepped legitimate authority.
Post reply on HN