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

71–80 of 206 posts

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

#71

Post by illithid0 »

mpdpsycho wrote: post #64
illithid0 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand, I love GrapheneOS and see it as a cornerstone of digital privacy software. I have supported the project financially for years. 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".

Say that as they may, it’s a whole different slope to fall down if they want to do anything about that beyond pointing and whining. If we cross that bridge, we probably have bigger things to worry about. So I think it should be fine for now.

The DOJ is attempting to prosecute, so I suppose the success or failure of that will tell us what we need to know about bridges and slopes.

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

#72

Post by phoghed »

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.

Then construct a better analogy, or better yet don’t rely on one at all

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

#73

Post by iamnothere »

tsimionescu wrote: post #36
whizzter wrote: post #8

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?

The moment you start talking, you're no longer using your 5th amendment rights. And anything that you tell an officer that is not truthful, such as providing the wrong password, can be considered a crime in itself. Even claiming you are innocent can be considered a separate crime if you are not proven innocent later on.

You can decide to apply your 5th amendment right at any time, you just have to be explicit that you’re doing so (Salinas v. Texas). And then you have to stand strong in the face of attempts to get you to continue talking.

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

#74

Post by dotancohen »

Groxx wrote: post #17
victorbjorklund wrote: post #14

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…

  > wiping the device before carrying it across the border seems essentially identical to me.
This seems more in line with many companies' email retention policies to delete all mail after some time period. This is to protect the company from anything compromising that might have been said, should an investigation ever occur. Better to just not have any record of anything.

And this policy is already accepted in practice.

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

#75

Post by tomtomtom777 »

phoghed wrote: post #66
CSMastermind wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because booby traps are illegal and wiping your phone doesn’t kill or maim the officer

I fully agree but that is a different argument than the one mingus88 presented. They suggested that the owner did not wipe the device because they did not actively enter the pin, which seems to be a flawed idea because legally intent matters.

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

#77

Post by pelotron »

illithid0 wrote: post #39
yardie wrote: post #29

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 one hand, I love GrapheneOS and see it as a cornerstone of digital privacy software. I have supported the project financially for years. 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".

I have plenty of things to hide from Google which is the primary reason I use it.

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

#78

Post by gruez »

mpdpsycho wrote: post #58
gruez wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Knowingly obstructing investigations is illegal even if there isn't an active search warrant

>During the fall of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Enron's accounting firm, instructed its employees to destroy documents relating to Enron after Andersen officials learned they would soon be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._United_...

The conviction was overturned, but only on procedural grounds

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

#79

Post by petilon »

shreddit wrote: post #47

Couldn’t GrapheneOS provide a special pin which boots into an “empty”session? Where the user can install some default stuff to not look suspicious?

Right, they should restore the phone to a user-picked previous state, as opposed to wiping it clean.

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

#80

Post by logifail »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #14
mingus88 wrote: post #9

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…

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.

> Intentions matter

Fed: "give us your PIN or else"

me: "528491"

Fed:

me: "no! 528419, I meant 528419!!"

Fed:

Post reply on HN