Felony charges for citizen deleting phone data at US Border

Post by iririririr » Sat, Aug 22, 2026, 6:07 AM UTC

seanhunter wrote: post #678

Animats wrote: post #660

Legal question: if you had whole-disk encryption, and the duress password just zeroized the decryption key, would that be "destroying evidence?" Especially if there was a recovery possible but not instantly available, such as a Yubikey in a safe deposit box in a bank. That would take a subpoena to get, and there is an opportunity to challenge the subpoena in court first. Not instantly at the border. Something like th…

If you want actual legal advice pay for an actual lawyer. You aren’t going to get it asking a bunch of randoms on a tech forum. Since we’re techies we tend to think about technological nuances and have a certain literal frame of mind (eg “They can’t make it illegal for me to just type the wrong pin” is the type of thinking I’m talking about here) whereas in law weird precedents and your intent really matter so you re…

Post by sph » Sat, Aug 22, 2026, 6:19 AM UTC

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #111

All Archive pages, when accessed from Italy, now are blocked by the Government: "PAGINA INTERDETTA DAL CENTRO NAZIONALE PER IL CONTRASTO DELLA PEDOPORNOGRAFIA ONLINE (C.N.C.P.O.)" “PAGE BLOCKED BY THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR COMBATING ONLINE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (C.N.C.P.O.)” Oh, we live in an interesting age.

Post by mrkeen » Sat, Aug 22, 2026, 6:23 AM UTC

gpt5 wrote: post #658

gslepak wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It turns out there already is a legal precedent for this. It's called the 4th Amendment: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seiz…

I'm sorry, but the Fourth Amendment does not protect against the intentional destruction of evidence. He could have refused search without a warrant, intentionally destroying evidence is a different legal matter.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 22, 2026, 6:28 AM UTC

shimman wrote: post #624

az226 wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably, but it will be more valuable for society for him to be tried and found not guilty, setting a legal precedent.

That's not going to stop authoritarians from harassing. Want an example of how this played out? United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) was the SCOTUS case that declared if you were born in the US you were a citizen. You think Mr. Ark was okay from harassment after this case was ruled in his favor? Less than 3 years later he would be held in Texas while local authorities tried to deport him under the Chinese Exclusion A…

Post by Jolter » Sat, Aug 22, 2026, 6:34 AM UTC

krautsauer wrote: post #582

Cider9986 wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not physically possible[1] to be deniable and a bad[2] idea. [1] https://veracrypt.io/en/Wear-Leveling.html https://veracrypt.io/en/Trim%20Operation.html [2] https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2082153517234676150#m

Question on a detail: It's not necessary to have deniability on the fact that you did wipe your device, just on the fact that you did it after you entered the border? Or said differently, if he'd wiped the device before entering the border, it'd be all fine? (That of course only takes down the "physically impossible" part.)