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

71–80 of 1001 posts

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

#71

Post by raincole »

octoberfranklin wrote: post #50
dannyw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The career prosecutors at the DoJ are not the same as a couple years ago. I hope this case ends the same way as the sub sandwich assault.

If your legal system depends on the benevolence of prosecutors, you've already lost before it began. Attorneys are supposed to be adversarial . The system's soundness shouldn't depend on anything more than them trying to win and not doing anything illegal. Before "prosecutor" became an elected/appointed office, prosecutors were independent contractors, hired for a single case only and serving at the pleasure of the G…

Any system ultimately depends on the benevolence (or at least the decency) of the people in it. The idea that a society can design a perfect system and it will run itself is very dangerous.

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

#72

Post by c22 »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #56
sfRattan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit for the confused and misinformed: 18 USC 1001. Also, is ≠ ought. Lying to a federal officer is a crime, IIRC, and if the lie results in destruction of evidence, the person who told the lie is probably accountable for both crimes. This isn't a lie with plausible deniability: you have to set a duress PIN, understanding what it does, and then communicate that PIN instead of the unlock PIN. A duress PIN to wipe the…

I’m quite unfamiliar with this notion. What law says it’s illegal to lie when you’re not under oath during a court proceeding?

Here's one: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-37-08/

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

#73

Post by deejaaymac »

sfRattan wrote: post #31
dathinab wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the funny part is he didn't enter the pin he gave it to them and they entered it..., not sure if it makes any difference but there is a certain irony to it that it was the non warrant based search actions (which might be legal at the border) which lead to the erasure of data

Edit for the confused and misinformed: 18 USC 1001. Also, is ≠ ought. Lying to a federal officer is a crime, IIRC, and if the lie results in destruction of evidence, the person who told the lie is probably accountable for both crimes. This isn't a lie with plausible deniability: you have to set a duress PIN, understanding what it does, and then communicate that PIN instead of the unlock PIN. A duress PIN to wipe the…

>Lying to a fed

They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin"

>Destroying evidence

How did they know there was any evidence on there?

>it exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.

No, the duress pin is there for when I'm under duress and being forced to unlock my device against my will

>It is an extreme solution for extreme scenarios

Wiping a device I own is extreme?

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

#74

Post by cameldrv »

I’ve seen a lot of people on the internet over the years say things like “the government can’t make x illegal, it’s just y.” For example, the government can’t make wiping your phone at the border illegal, it’s just punching four numbers into your phone, just like a pin, only a different four numbers, which could just have well been your pin.

U.S. law though is highly non-autistic and what you were trying to do is just as important as what you superficially did. Hell there could have been a third set of four numbers that were the nuclear launch codes. It’s not the fact that it was four numbers, it’s what you were trying to make happen when you typed them. Now of course whether they can prove what your intent was when you typed them is another matter, but generally a duress pin should be for when robbers are breaking into your house, and the government will be on your side, and not when the government will be against you.

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

#75

Post by [deleted] »

bubblethink wrote: post #28
sfRattan wrote: post #25

Ultimately, when you choose to enter a duress PIN that will wipe your device, you have to recognize that choice may have legal consequences. I don't like the amount of power our government has at the national border when it comes to detaining and pressuring citizens, but our Constitution explicitly grants it at least some of the power it now exercises in that context. If your threat model includes US state actors at…

>destroy evidence Who said it was evidence? Did a judge authorize or issue a warrant to collect said evidence? Absent that, it's just your property, and you can do with it as you please.

[deleted]

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

#76

Post by manwe150 »

MikeNotThePope wrote: post #35

There needs to be a simple feature to wipe your phone and then restore to a point and time. That’d be really convenient.

Seems like a good court argument too—no destruction of data was even attempted because I know I have my iCloud or Google backup. Personally, my phone has access credentials to information, but not the information itself. So you need a serious warrant before you can get those access, but the data is there.

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

#77

Post by tripleee »

AngryData wrote: post #39
bigfatkitten wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in places where you can’t be compelled to hand over a password, attempting to deceive the cops will get you thrown in prison just as reliably as destroying evidence.

Meanwhile cops can and do regularly deceive and lie to citizen and not only don't face any consequences but actively benefit from it.

I don't really see a problem with this assuming the deception is used to uncover crimes.

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

#78

Post by sfRattan »

deejaaymac wrote: post #73
sfRattan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit for the confused and misinformed: 18 USC 1001. Also, is ≠ ought. Lying to a federal officer is a crime, IIRC, and if the lie results in destruction of evidence, the person who told the lie is probably accountable for both crimes. This isn't a lie with plausible deniability: you have to set a duress PIN, understanding what it does, and then communicate that PIN instead of the unlock PIN. A duress PIN to wipe the…

>Lying to a fed They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin" >Destroying evidence How did they know there was any evidence on there? >it exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome. No, the duress pin is there for when I'm under duress and being…

> They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin"

This is a Mickey Mouse distinction no court will take seriously.

> Wiping a device I own is extreme?

When the consequences are potential years in prison for lying to the US government or, in another country, torture or death in prison for obstructing an authoritarian government, then yes... Extreme.

All I'm saying is to decide to use a duress PIN at any national border or in any foreign country soberly, with knowledge of the potential or likely consequences.

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

#79

Post by halestock »

cameldrv wrote: post #74

I’ve seen a lot of people on the internet over the years say things like “the government can’t make x illegal, it’s just y.” For example, the government can’t make wiping your phone at the border illegal, it’s just punching four numbers into your phone, just like a pin, only a different four numbers, which could just have well been your pin. U.S. law though is highly non-autistic and what you were trying to do is jus…

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.

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

#80

Post by koolba »

reenorap wrote: post #47
sfRattan wrote: post #25

Ultimately, when you choose to enter a duress PIN that will wipe your device, you have to recognize that choice may have legal consequences. I don't like the amount of power our government has at the national border when it comes to detaining and pressuring citizens, but our Constitution explicitly grants it at least some of the power it now exercises in that context. If your threat model includes US state actors at…

Have the duress PIN on sticker on your phone. Maybe put it backwards and don’t say anything to border patrol. Have them try it out and erase the phone and then you can legitimately say you didn’t do anything and they did it themselves.

Be funnier if you even write “do not enter 123456”.
Post reply on HN