this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
223 points (99.1% liked)

Privacy

50103 readers
497 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 109 points 1 week ago (3 children)

That's precisely what a duress password is for. Feature working as intended, get a warrant.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

it needs to be reworked so that it's difficult to discern to strangers if the phone has been wiped.

it'll probably have to include fake phone logs, fake text messages, fake pics, etc. to make the wiped phone look like it wasn't wiped to everyone except its owner.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] StumblingWasabi@lemmy.today 97 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Pick a lane. Either it counts as US soil so you need a warrant or it doesn't so theres no reason for US law to apply until the person is approved.

[–] EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No one tell them about international airports...

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They have a point though. Technically from what I've read just living near an airport would give ICE the authority to search your phone and anything else you might be carrying if it's within a certain mile radius. Even if you aren't using the port of entry (airport for instance). Regardless of whether or not they have any other form of probable cause.

I don't understand how others don't understand that. Because it's a hell of a conclusion to come to.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

It's 100 miles. They claim 100 miles from the boarder and now "the board" is including international airports.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Eternal192@anarchist.nexus 59 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So? My data, my choice and right to delete it, so fuck off!

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 15 points 1 week ago (7 children)

He didn't delete it. The officer did.

I wonder if he'll sue them for damages

[–] Dultas@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

Just put a note in your wallet that says cell password with the distress pin. You didn't give them the pin their illegal search uncovered it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MasterBlaster@lemmy.world 55 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Citizen enforces his own right to the Fourth Amendment and is prosecuted by the government for not letting them try to find incriminating evidence on him. For something. Maybe. Because he looks suspicious.

I hope that lawyer gets it thrown out. I'm not holding my breath. We've gone so far into fascism I'm not sure it'll take anything less than violence to end it.

[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, the 4th is pretty well destroyed at the border. And within 100 miles of the border.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 16 points 1 week ago

they've expanded the 100 miles to 250, and include cities with international airports now. we're at a point now where USBP jurisdiction is wherever a USBP agent happens to be

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@piefed.world 40 points 1 week ago (6 children)

A reason to try grapheneos if you are technically inclined.

[–] yestalgia@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (7 children)

It's easy enough for anyone willing try. Grab any Pixel from the last few years, plug it in to a computer, and click buttons in your web browser on the GOS website and watch GOS get installed on your phone. The instructions hold your hand the whole way through.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Sounds like the police officer tried to gain unauthorized access to a device. And, while they were trying to crack it, they wiped all of its data.

I wonder if the police officer that did this will face criminal charges of unauthorized access and destruction of evidence.

And also there's a civil suit in there. The officer may have deleted valuable data on the victim's device, causing them harm. I wonder what the monetary value will be.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago

They charged people with terrorism for using Signal chat.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 week ago (2 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence

Tunick’s attorneys accused the government of demanding access to his phone under the pretext of searching for child exploitation imagery, but without providing evidence to justify its suspicion.

Even if I had more information, I still wouldn’t have the law chops to predict where this may lead.

[–] FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't have those chops either. Also NAL. The wiki page says Tampering charges require there to be an ongoing investigation, which wasn't the case here, so I'm thinking it wouldn't apply. But! I wonder about spoliation. Spoliation before a case is brought, while not illegal per se, can result in negative inference,

spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a trier of fact can draw from a party's destruction of evidence that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding

Negative inference, to my NAL understanding, means the tampered evidence may be taken in the worst light for the defense. Here, it's all resting on flimsy and politically motivated pretext with no evidence. Still.

Needs an immigration lawyer to give an answer to this, but I'm thinking it may be legally safer to have strong encryption and refuse to unlock, rather than to wipe. Not unlocking isn't tampering, so no spoliation, but wiping might be. Well, safest of all is to use a burner. But next best, strong encryption + don't unlock. CBP can confescate the device, but they cannot compel you to produce a pw or unlock code.

[–] pemptago@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago (4 children)

From what I've gathered, I think you're right to assume it's legally safer to refuse to unlock rather than wipe. Also, worth noting that you can be compelled to unlock with biometrics, but not a password. On grapheneOS this means simply shutting off/restarting your device as it requires a pw after a fresh boot, even if biometrics is enable.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

no he didn't. They asked for a password that the phone would accept. They weren't even supposed to ask, but he gave them one. They're the ones who entered it on the phone. And by extension they're the ones who erased the phone.

[–] MML@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago

Plus he provided a passcode that unlocked the device I don't see the issue.

[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

FYI if you are using GrapheneOS with the duress password, you can natively backup your phone. Its in settings.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

For people that don't want to be dragging into a civil rights case, can you set up a dummy interface that looks used, but doesn't have any too important available? Like you only owned the phone for a week?

[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

You can setup different users on GrapheneOS and switch between them.

There is also a "private area" in the bottom of the app list where you can move sensitive apps and password protect them.

Either way, allowing a malicious actor into that profile exposes more attack surface for them to exploit.

Idk. Security is a journey, not a destination.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 27 points 1 week ago

When Tunick provided his passcode and the authorities entered it, “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart.” The authorities seized his phone anyway, before telling him that he was free to go and could enter the United States.

Very glad to hear that he's a free man while the courts try to figure out what to do.

Also it's hilarious that he didn't wipe it. The officers did it. I think it's going to be very hard to get a conviction of this activist when it was the officer that wiped the data.

[–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 week ago

this is literally what they accuse china of

[–] Fancy_Gecko@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] pierre_delecto@hexbear.net 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sounds like the cops entered the passcode... Therefore the cops erased the evidence.

who knows what would've happened if they bothered to get a warrant first.

[–] nfreak@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 week ago (4 children)

To step it up even further, if using a duress pin, stick it on a note inside your phone case. Don't say a goddamn word aside from asking for a lawyer, and when they inevitably find the written code and try it out, that's entirely on them.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] segfault11@hexbear.net 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

they’re gonna use this case as pretext to ban graphene os

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

"Sorry, my fat American fingers accidentally entered the wrong code, you understand."

[–] humble_boatsman@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

From what I read, upon demand he gave the code to the Investigator, whomst had to watch the phone start to load and then erase it self. What a joy it must have been to watch them gifauh at that

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

The authorities conducting the illegal search entered the code, so the phone owner could assert that he gave them the right password and they were the ones that screwed it up. It's a bit late for that argument, but someone could use that in the future and there'd be no way to prove it wrong.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

for research purposes, how would one go about setting this up?

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

GrapheneOS also has options to turn off USB port so that authorities plugging in devices to try to bypass phone lock can't be exploited. And user needs to supply password to change the USB options.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

Hmm this sounds like government overreach 🤔

[–] 99zz99@hexbear.net 9 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Regardless of how it happened, entering a fascist state means that you must be prepared to wipe all your devices before crossing the border. They’ll naturally fabricate justifications to employ totalitarian measures as it’s their directive to do so. If they seize your items and violate your privacy, which they will do, at least there’s nothing but a blank slate. These days I feel it’s more important than ever to have two devices, with one being a basic phone for communication only and the other a smartphone that’s backed up and ready to be wiped at a moments notice, then stuffed into your luggage.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›