this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
3 points (100.0% liked)
Legal News
729 readers
17 users here now
International and local legal news.
Basic rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag
Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules apply
All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
yes... and you do understand that if you are a federal agent who is questioning someone, you probably shouldn't be trusting anything they say right? You do understand that these are 'special agents' who should (and do!) have training on different operating systems and how to get into them right? The FBI is known for buying tools to get them into iOS even, the CBP breaks into phones daily!
Right back at you. Let's do a different analogy. If I give someone a gun and they murder someone with that, I'm not culpable. Unless they tell me they are going to murder someone with it before I give it to them. And then you're an accomplice to murder, but not a murderer. If the CBP told him they were going to unlock the phone with the code then sure, he's an accomplice to the actual crime which is "Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure". Which would require trying the CBP agent for that same crime. Do you think the CBP agent is going to be tried for it?
In any case, my analogy isn't off at all, either of them. An CBP agent knows better, and if they don't they're incompetent and should be fired.