this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2026
283 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

5934 readers
61 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
283
GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search (www.pcmag.com)
submitted 5 days ago by ExtremeDullard@piefed.social to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
115 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The foundation behind the ultra-secure Android-based OS is speaking out after an activist was indicted for using a 'duress password' to prevent federal agents from searching his phone.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Tunick’s lawyers claim the agents “never read him his Miranda rights,”

irrelevant unless his statements are going to be used against him

I don't really see why this is an enormous civil liberties story. Destruction of evidence can, I think, legitimately be a crime even in a free and democratic society. It's not like they're trying to make the feature itself illegal... the main civil liberties complaint to have here is that searches of phones on borders are a thing at all.

Compared to https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history/ (from 2015 - 11 years ago, under the Obama administration!) where the person apparently didn't even know the government might be considering the deleted stuff "evidence", I find this story harmless.

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Except that, IIRC, it was not he, but an agent, who entered the duress PIN. He would have had to make a statement giving that PIN, and that statement would not be admissible if he weren't read his rights. If the only evidence of destruction of evidence was a statement he supposedly made, then how will they prove that he made it if it is inadmissable? This is, of course, pretending we live in the world of Faerie, where laws, the constitution, and silly things like "legal precedent" still have meaning.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 hours ago

Ah, I see. Yes, that makes it more interesting, I agree.