- cross-posted to:
- privacy@programming.dev
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@programming.dev
- privacy@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
The headline is wrong.
Fascist regime fucks over people’s constitutional rights and could send a man to prison for protecting his own privacy.
There, fixed.
Land of the “free”…
Free to get fucked over
Bend over, bend over
Land of the free™
I’ve come to believe that was actually a typo. The correct title is “land of the fee”.
This is fucking stupid. If I delete something on my phone while I’m on vacation am I going to prison because the border patrol might have wanted to look at it?
Should have been born a child fucking billionaire if you don’t want to be sentenced to prison for 30 years.
I always forget that “choose better parents” one weird trick. ;-)
It’s like pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. So obvious. Just because it is impossible to do is no excuse.
What color are you and how far left are your politics?
It’s bullshit but with the current laws. Back up your phone before you head home wipe it before going through border control, and restore your backup when you get home.
That’s what I do but evidently that pisses them off
Their mood isn’t your responsibility. Carrying a blank phone is perfectly legal.
isn’tshouldn’t be*Their mood is a major determining factor in their target’s ability to stay out of prison.
Due process is dead.
“It’s SOP for my business. The risk of phones getting lost or stolen at or near airports is high.”
This is great advice thank you
We don’t need hyperbole here …. If authorities have a legal reason to search and you interfere with that, destruction of evidence is a crime. Delete all you want …. Right up until authorities claim the legal reason to search. Usually that takes a warrant: investigators must convince a judge there is a good reason
This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.
The slippery slope here is “or within 100 miles”, but that wasn’t a factor here either
This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.
Have to disagree with that one. Simply entering a country is not justification for searching someones phone. I don’t care what the law says. People have a right to privacy.
Not since 2001 they don’t.
They do, just because the government says otherwise doesn’t make it true.
Yes, it does. Thats what governance means.
I’m not saying I agree with it, just that it’s always been so
There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.
You literally said they are not violating rights by doing this.
He’s saying that right was taken away by George W Bush.
Governments cannot take rights away. They can only infringe upon them. They are rights. Not privileges.
Then clearly you’re talking about deontological rights and they’re talking about legal rights and both wasting your breath
That’s how it should be. But that’s not what the law says.
I don’t care what the law says. People have a right to privacy.
as far as I understand, they were not there to serve a warrant. he was crossing a border and the feds are claiming that the 4th amendment doesn’t apply because he hadn’t yet crossed into America.
border patrol was essentially using a loophole to preemptively collect potential evidence (they’ll figure out what to charge him with after they see his phone contents). he’s a political activist against a cop city, they were obviously trying to do him dirty.
they were not serving a search warrant. they were abusing what should be an illegal search at the border in order to silence those who speak out against govt overreach.
If he wasnt in the US how can the US claim he violated a US law?
The US claims jurisdiction over its citizens wherever they are.
Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because it means you can be prosecuted in the US for stuff like going to Thailand and sexually abusing children there.
So the law applies, but protection under the law does not.
Isn’t all law essentially derived from powers granted by the constitution?
If the powers granted by it to enforce a law are applicable when not within the US then then it very reasonably ought to apply to any and all amendments.
But, reason is on the extinction list with the magafascists. (And all LEO)
Are we reading the same article?
The incident took place at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport in January 2025
So the important takeaway is to delete your phone before customs. Presumably you have an encrypted backup you can restore without too much effort
In addition, the law that he’s charged with relates to knowingly destroying property that the police have a warrant to sieze.
There is no precedent of it being applied to border searches where they may not even have reasonable suspicion of a crime and can stop people for questioning on a whim.
The State has absolutely no claim over your personal property at that point and destroying property that the police hope and dream of siezing isn’t the same as destroying property where they’ve demonstrated probable cause to a judge.
This argument from the border patrol that you can be arrested for destroying data that is in your possession without ever been given due process and 4th amendment protections isn’t supported by precedence.
These fucking conservatives crawl out of the woodwork like cockroaches anytime the government does something heinous and use their piss poor understanding of EVERYTHING to try to justify the heinous actions. It happens every time, and I wish just once to see one of them use real and relevant facts, just so I can pretend that these people live in reality for just one second.
Hasn’t happened yet though.
Everything is a conspiracy theory when you don’t understand how anything works.
Finally a sensible reply. Quite a few NAZI bootlickers here. They’re the first the sign up it seems.
Good to know thanks
That’s not really how the law works. You’re not making a comparable analogy. You sitting at home or in a hotel room is legally not remotely the same as when you’re being actively searched by a federal agent.
This is more like if the a police officer is about to do a pat-down search of someone, and they reach into their pocket, grab something, and rapidly swallow it.
You can destroy your property in normal circumstances whenever you please. If you delete a file in the privacy of your own home, odds are you’re not doing so for the purposes of evading law enforcement. However, if you do it literally seconds before law enforcement is about to get a hold of it, it’s pretty unambiguous that you’re trying to destroy evidence.
That’s the crucial difference here legally. Plausible deniability does not exist when you’re destroying something because a police search is imminent.
Or maybe you just don’t want some cop to see your dick pics. If they had anything on this dude they wouldn’t have needed to go through his phone.
I am explaining how the law works and the assumptions behind it. The law assumes that if you were embarrassed about your dick pics, that you would delete those before the officer is right about to search you.
The laws assumptions are bullshit.
This guy has no fucking idea how the law works. Destruction of evidence requires a primary crime, the one you’re destroying the evidence for. There is no crime, therefore no destruction of evidence. Only an incompetent or corrupt judge would let this even go to trial.
Only an incompetent or corrupt judge would let this even go to trial.
Like just about every judge appointed by Trump.
Yep. Backup and wipe before you get to the airport.
deleted by creator
Nah, they just lube up the rubber gloves and fist you, checking in case there’s a micro SD stashed up there. You should still make your flight if you relax.
And thats why you dont travel to countries with ropey regimes
The indictment alleges that Tunick knowingly deleted the phone’s digital contents
My hot take: the officer wiped the phone. With their own hands. They’re just stupid.
Hotter take: The phone was empty when he handed it over. There was nothing to delete.
It doesn’t look like anything to me.
“If you can’t tell, does it matter?”
If they succeed I guess in the future an officer could delete your phone to save face then blame it on you.
Those of us who have asked to avoid the cancer box and been subjected to a subjectively punitive pat-down and fashion show experience are already anticipating just that. Yay!
(And for added fun, call it a cancer box. Wow, when you get that one TSA who only has bad days will you get a great speech as well)
Why do you call it a cancer box? I’ve been through plenty of them and never seen anything to indicate they’re unsafe. Then again, we also used to let people x-ray their feet in shoe stores, soo…
Fun fact: Logan TSA asked the FAA for paperwork showing those things are safe. Anything.
FAA said fuck you.
That’s kinda all I need.
I know the anecdotes say it’s good. But with anything introduced hurriedly and without clear need - we know the TSA doesn’t have good track record anyway - the hype-to-utility ratio is too high.
Yeah, they are masters of parallel construction. ( Aka lying)
Parallel construction is a way to present evidence illegally obtained by coming up with a plausible-seeming other way it was found.
So, rather than saying “we illegally stopped and searched the defendant” they’ll get an “informant” (sometimes paid, sometimes coerced) to swear that they tipped them off beforehand.
Yeah… lying
It’s a form of lying, but with a specific meaning.
Like how the 9th (or 8th, depending on how you’re counting) Commandment says to not bear false witness. That doesn’t mean that people following an Abrahamic faith cannot lie… just that they can’t lie in that one specific way.
that was the issue I was going to bring up. If the officer wants to try varuous pin numbers how is it the owners responsibility as to what the phone does.
My phone is set to automatically wipe after X number of incorrect pin attempts. If I just kept telling law enforcement the wrong pin number because I cant remember it exactly, what is the difference if the phone wipes. Once the phone is out of my hands how can I be responsible for what the phone does? (Assuming I dont issue a remote wiping command)
The law isn’t that stupid.
Without a warrant, it’s literally his phone to do with it what he pleases. Baffled that that’s not the end of the conversation.
Assuming we lived in a rational world with a fair and impartial justice system, and not one that exists to funnel money from the working class into the Epstein class and kill or imprison everyone that makes that less easy.
Oh, because they are outside US borders they claim not to need a warrant, but that doesn’t stop them using US law to prosecute him though.
I think the supreme court has said they can search phones without warrants at the border and points of entry, so airports.
You can’t be compelled to give them your password, but you can be compelled to use your biometric ID. Clear as mud.
With GrapheneOS you can enable the setting that requires you to use biometric identification to get to the passcode screen, which means you’re always protected by both.
What’s a warrant?
A judge issues a warrant when there is an active criminal investigation. If there’s no investigation, no warrant.
Oh, that’s not how it works in the united States. Is this some commonwealth legal thing?
It is how it works inside the united states. It’s just they claim that because he was on the flight side of the airport, he wasn’t inside the US.
it is how it works
Thanks but I live here and it’s not basically ever.
Cops either use a pretense tools like a drug dog to establish probable cause for the search they want or do parallel construction after they’ve already built the general structure of a case, usually tracing things to a valid cause for search, usually via coached informant.
Or its ice and they can just do whatever they want.
You’re living in a fantasy world and your delusional ignorance is real danger is worrying. Please never approach or speak to me in person.
Did you stop reading at that point?
That’s not how it works. I’m not sure that’s how it’s ever worked. You’re living in a fantasy. Warrants are not a meaningfully real thing.
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp-search-authority/border-search-electronic-devices
You’ll be surprised by what you don’t know.
well they have the “border search exception” so at the border, no, they generally do not need a warrant for “routine searches” of electronic devices. Fucked up, but that is the law on the books and US courts have virtually always upheld it when it comes up.
Another day closer to Chiron.
Assuming we lived in a rational world with a fair and impartial justice system
That’s like assuming unicorns will protect all that is good and sugar is effective weight loss
Well yeah. Hence the second half of that sentence.
Write the duress PIN on a piece of paper in your wallet. Someone searching your phone is probably also searching your wallet and may try the PIN.
Genius. Flips the script. In the process of conducting an illegal search, you deleted my phone causing considerable financial and emotional damage. Lawsuit time.
It probably won’t work, at least (US)domestically. The requirement for obtaining a warrant before searching a phone is part of training because there is a clear Supreme Court ruling to that effect.
That being said, what the law says and what some random asshole does during a stop are not always the same thing.
This was a point of entry. No search warrant required.
Their way around it is they say that the border crossing technically isn’t 100% normal US territory and therefore some constitutional rights are suspended under the concept of “sovereign self-protection”. You could then say any law in the US could be used to justify this concept, in fact it was used to forcibly intern thousands of Japanese and Japanese-Americans during ww2.
He was targeted for purely political reasons, the cop-city environmental protest in Atlanta GA, and I’m wondering why the border officials were even aware of them. Is there some sort of “we don’t like what you think” list run by the gov?
His device was threatened with seizure even though he posed no threat, no visible threat or spoken one, no suspicion of a crime, and they had no idea what the contents were. His 5th Amendment rights were violated by the threat to seize it. They want to establish a precedent, that the very existence of a possibility of criminal contents, regardless of any reason to suspect any, is sufficient for search and seizure. Based on this a little kid deleting the contents of their ipad would be a crime.
Is there some sort of “we don’t like what you think” list run by the gov?
You think all these data centers are just for making bad code and creepy videos?
They’re massive AI-powered false-positive factories.
Is there some sort of “we don’t like what you think” list run by the gov?
i’ve been on it, yes.
In addition, how can you show intent to destroy evidence when you have no expectation of being detained or charged on any specific occasion, and have no idea what evidence they might be seeking?
They will 100% tell you they don’t need a warrant if it’s during any kind of traffic stop or border crossing.
Feds following the law? Did you miss the last decade?
That being said, what the law says and what some random asshole does during a stop are not always the same thing.
Legally this might be the same as intentionally deleting evidence. Rigging up evidence to be destroyed could be considered as intent of evidence misconduct, and some judges might not consider there to be a semantic difference given the intended end result to be the same (IANAL but the US judges are crazy)
The charge treats the alleged wipe as destruction of property intended to prevent a government seizure.
He is being charged with destroying “evidence” but he was never charged with anything in the first place. That is like saying deleting any files at home is a crime. I’d think forcing you to present evidence necessary to charge you with something would fall under the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Like resisting arrest when there’s no legal reason you were being detained or arrested?
Unfortunately according to the federal government you automatically consent to limited 4th amendment protections when you choose to fly. Domestic flights have more legal protections, but international flights basically wave your right to privacy.
They are allowed to ask for your phone’s password and do a “non-forensic” search of your phone for just about any reason. A more extensive “forensic” search where they plug your phone into another device can be made if they present reasonable suspicion. If you refuse a search they can hold onto your phone for several weeks.
The smarter move would have been to just refuse to give the password and trust that they wont want to go through the hassle of cracking your phone once it’s in custody.
Basically the only real way to protect yourself is to not keep any incriminating information on your phone. The courts have ruled that these searches only extend to data that can be physically accessed on your device and things like social media and cloud storage are not subject to the search. So it’s just best to save everything on the cloud and then restore it once you are done traveling.
What a shithole
GrapheneOS should update the duress passcode to load a dummy profile like Only Key’s Plausible Deniability Feature.
Loading any profile allows the operating system access to root privileges, and opens potential for user privilege escalation.
The profiles are independently encrypted with a key derived from the user’s profile PIN. If the other profiles are not logged in then their keys are not in RAM (and they get zeroed beforehand so they can’t be read out of unallocated memory).
Even if the bad guys get root via a LPE in a dummy account there are no keys to find and the profiles’ storage are not mounted.
You couldn’t trust the device after that however, who knows what kind of persistent spyware they could have installed.
Then it should delete the data while loading a dummy profile
That would be an interesting proposition… under duress load profile x and delete all other profiles, apps, settings and keys.
I like this option, save a snapshot and restore that snapshot deleting everything else. So it looks like a regular profile but won’t contain anything you want to remain private.
Or maybe a lighter version of the duress pin that just loads the fake profile (or alternate profile) but leaves the other(s) intact.
If you’re just handing your phone over for a border pig to swipe through before waving you through that might be adequate.
It depends on whether you believe forensics can recover the data when handed over. So make it a setting
Yeah I was thinking of this as a half measure. But less secure than just wiping
Border pigs have cellebrite, assume they can access anything left intact.
If it botherw you, wipe it, if it doesnt, you dont really need a duress pin. But login to one profile and cellebrite can get the rest.
I think I’m just going to start traveling with a burner.
Idr if this was a feature that made it into a real OS or just a concept that never came to be, but…
I recall reading about a duress pin that instead of deleting stuff, just booted up normally… but to basically a separate user profile. From the non-duress profile you could choose features that would be shared between the two, like texts or call history of specific people, browser history, photo albums, etc.
So “sure officer, it’s 5224” would open up a phone profile that looks convincingly used, with nice long trails of cat memes and chatter with your gaming buddies about your favorite franchise enshittifying, and so on.
Punch in your real pin to unlock it though, and it’s got full access to everything, including data you want to keep private.
…and, uh, if any of you are designing a mobile OS right now, here’s your feature suggestion!
So basically veracrypt hidden volumes
Was there ever a revelation about truecrypt and why it suddenly shutdown?
Guys don’t travel to fascist countries.
So only girls go to fascist countries?
I believe the proper coordinate term is “gals”. Ie. “Only gals travel to fascist countries”. You’ll get a B-
Yes only gals
To be fair, a duress pin is definitely a good thing to have if you’re being mugged, but using it to deliberately destroy data when it’s been seized by a lawful authority is guaranteed to land you in serious trouble pretty much anywhere. Whether the border agents were, in fact, a lawful authority, and whether they had a lawful reason to seize his phone are very different questions.
The much more sensible approach is to either have a separate phobe for travelling, that has nothing you care about on it, or wipe your phone before you travel, and spend a little time building up an innocuous history on it, without putting anything you care about on it. Anything you absolutely must have access to while you’re away can be stored, encrypted, online, and you can remember the details to retrieve it.
I’m not sure any law force agency in the US is lawful anymore.
Third option: Refuse to give your phone credentials unless these fascist pigs have a warrant or provide you with a lawyer.
Then they will just deny you entry into the country
The guy from the article was referred to as “a US man,” so I’m assuming he has US citizenship.
The border cannot legally deny US citizens from entering the US. But they can do all sorts of other things, like detain or delay or prosecute people for not complying.
Unless they’re going to see real repercussions for doing so, get definitely can do whatever they want. Rules and laws only matter if people care enough to follow them and enforce them. All they have to do is pretend the person didn’t comply, and now they’ve got all the authority in the world to anything they want, regardless of what it says in the law books. Just look at what ICE is doing to US citizens; border patrol knows they can do all of that, too.
He’s a US Citizen. Legally they cannot deny him entry into the country.
Central to these protections is the absolute right of a U.S. citizen to return to their country. This right is unequivocal. No matter where an individual has traveled, the duration of their absence, or their personal or legal background, a U.S. citizen cannot be denied entry into the United States. This principle is supported by both statutory and constitutional law. A landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), established that citizenship includes the right to reenter the nation. Unlike lawful permanent residents or visa holders, U.S. citizens are exempt from admissibility criteria. Consequently, even if a U.S. citizen lacks proper documentation or is subject to further questioning, the government is obligated to permit their entry once their citizenship is verified.
Trump Administration: “No”
What about give them the wrong pin, they initiate the device wipe, then you say they did it intentionally?
That’s what happened
That is what happened. The accused told the boarder agent the duress pin when asked. The agent entered the pin that initiated the wipe.
Could make a difference at trial, didn’t stop the case prior to the arrest.
Then a lot of it could come down to the wording the officer used. If they just asked ‘what’s the passcode’ then the person DID give them a passcode.
As far as I understand, from their point of view they have the lawful right to seize and inspect your phone. You could certainly refuse to hand it over, but that would certainly lead to incarceration or worse, with no positive outcome for you or society. It’s one of those things that you’re bot going to beat at the point of application, vut needs to be cut off at the root.
they have the lawful right to seize and inspect your phone
Sure. They can look at the outside of the hardware all they like. But if they can’t access the data on it, that’s (Constitutionally-speaking) purely their problem, not ours.
My understanding is that, for the purposes of inspections during border crossings, that is not the case. Also, remember that the border agent can decide, for pretty nuch any reason, that you’re not getting on the flight, and, I’m sure, can add a note to your record to suggest to agents on other flights that they stop you too.
US citizens have an unequivocal right to re-enter the county regardless of where they have been, how they returned, how long they were gone, or what they were doing. This was already determined by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
US citizens have an unequivocal right to enter the country, eventually, just not necessarily on a flight they booked (or any flight in the next few weeks, until the goons are done with them…)
I admit, I didn’t check, but if he was stopped on returning, then yes, he must be allowed in. He’d then be arrested.
The other two issues are that he was allegedly repeatedly denied access to a lawyer when asked and not read his Miranda rights. Given how border patrol has acted lately, this is incredibly plausible and will hopefully lead to the motion to throw out the case being granted.
The fifth amendment applies to this because he was a US citizen. He had every right to not give them his pin and it would only be destroying evidence if charges had been pressed. In this case some butt hurt border guard just really wanted to look at his vacation pictures or some shit.
The charge wasn’t destruction of evidence, but destruction of property, probably for exactly the reason you mention. He could certainly have arguwd with the agent, but he certainly wouldn’t be getting on the flight if he did, and I suspect he’d be lucky to walk out of the airport without being arrested. As I said in another comment, this isn’t something you can beat at the point of application, it needs to be cut off at the root.
Ooo so wiping data is destruction of property now? That means data is property.
Let’s apply that to Microsoft for the times their updates wiped user data, to apple when you take the phone in for a screen repair and they “had” to wipe your data, to Sony for deleting movie collections, and all the data collectors for stealing property…
The crux of those scenarios you outlined doesn’t hinge on weather or not data is property. Their arguments are that it isn’t YOUR property.
The 4th applies, too.
Maybe instead of wiping the phone and restarting the duress pin should show a pre-selected number of apps and wipe everything else.
Reboot into Hannah Montana OS
Brb, just submitting a merge request on the Graphene git.
Sounds like the best of both worlds.
That wouldn’t avoid the destruction of property charge, just (possibly) make it harder to notice. It sounds like it was the screen flashing and the phone restarting, which is probably necessary for a full wipe, that tipped them off.
The man was in duress and being forced to hand over his PIN while being denied access to legal counsel, that is the very reason for a duress PIN. I don’t think the charge is even going to make it to real court, his defense has a great case for it to be thrown out.
The fact that he’s in the news is a VERY good sign. In a real 3rd world shithole he would just disappear because he pissed off an unaccountable field goon.
(That’s why arrest data is required to be public, despite the damage it does to the arrestee’s reremovedtion, BTW.)
It’s a tough balance, it puts cops in a position to destroy someone’s life with zero proof of any law being broken - like Paul Reubens…
We’ve got a lot of really shitty judges here
Whilst, yes, he probably did feel under duress, he had a choice to make; hand over the phone, or wipe it and face the repercussions from doing so. Bear in mind, that from the agent’s point of view, they had the lawful right to search his phone, so arguing duress will be tricky at best. In his position, I’d like to think I was comfortable handing over the phone because I’d wiped it before travelling.
Having said all that, yes, I agree that his defense has some strong arguments. However, if they decide to make an exame of him, those arguments wont do him much good.
While I am not entirely disagreeing, I have to a bit for anyone that can’t bring themselves to say it (all sides should be heard).
I may have misread but I don’t think he typed the PIN, as far as I understood they had already taken the phone and were insisting he give them the PIN without any access to a lawyer. Not only did he not wipe it, he only gave them the ‘I’m in duress’ PIN because he felt he was, if I’m on the jury it’s innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t think the difference between him physically triggering the wipe and him giving them the code that triggered the wipe would have much effect from a legal point of view. In both cases he deliberately took an action he knew would lead to the destruction of the data. I think his defense’s approach of challenging the legality of the stop is probably much safer.
I suspect that the prosecution would like to set precedent that you can’t claim to be under duress when a lawful authority is performing a search, so the defence staying away from that area is probably a good idea.
its an intimidation tactic, and also useful soundbites for faux news.
The much more sensible approach is to either have a separate phobe for travelling, that has nothing you care about on it
and people have gotten in trouble for that, too, for having a travel phone, a phone that was too clean, etc etc.
Because its not about the phone. Its about stealing data. pictures for facial recognition, contacts so they can map groups, communications so they can search for whatever bullshit excuse they want to string people up.
This isnt about law. its not about protection people/the country.
Its about being fascist dicks to undesirable groups of people. Aint seen one motherfucker on the epstein list, one motherfucking CEO, or any trump cockface have their phone seized by border patrol to steal any data.
The much more sensible approach is …
The fact that we’re discussing ways to sneak past the fascist border guards, by getting very lawyerly with a bunch of fiddly rules they don’t actually give a hoot about, is kind of a big hint that we’ve already lost our liberties to a degree we are reluctant to acknowledge.
This guy was singled out for his political opinions. Border patrol held him as a political prisoner, and when we read the story about him, we all see only too clearly that this could be any one of us.
As far as anyone knows, the CP thing was an excuse, a lie. The authoritarians aren’t following the rules, the rules exist to serve as excuses to hurt us. There isn’t going to be some magic combination of smartphone hygiene and “I know my rights” phrases that will let us escape targeting by the most corrupt cops in the country.
That first paragraph is really powerful. Cool i parrot it around? I think that needs to become common sentiment.
I don’t mind!
nice 🤘
Not a lawful authority.
He was flight side at the airport. So either:
- …they’re not subject to US law, and it’s fair to search his possessions without a warrant. In which case he’s also not subject to US law so destruction of evidence is fair game.
- …everyone is subject to US law and it’s an illegal search.
US border patrol are considered a lawful authority as they are granted their powers by the federal government and are federal law enforcement officers. They are charged with enforcing US laws, including immigration laws, at the border and in any US state or territory.
From their point of view, they are well within their rights to seize and search his phone, and he interfered with their duties by destroying the data on the phone. Whether that should be the case is a different matter.
Curious, why the innocuous history? Just to reduce friction?
“Where’s your REAL phone?!? We’ll strip search you for your real phone!”
Pretty much. A compketely blank phone is a clear sign that it’s wiped, and why would you do that, unless you have sonething to hide, hmm? A phone with a couple of weeks of boring use, maybe a few photos of nice sunsets, a few messages, a take-out ordering app, some boring history in the web browser, and maybe a login to a social media account that follows some celebs and an old school friends or two who don’t seem to post any more, just says you got a new phone a while back and you’re fairly boring.
Obviously, if they actually have something on you, or they want to pin something on you, those precautions won’t actually help much.
why even have some shit on your phone.
just have private stuff on some remote serverEven memes or slightly (to them) offensive comments or messages can land you in detention.
You would have to have zero messages, social profiles or anything like it on that phone.
And no references or logins to that private server.
Even unlocking your phone lets them install spyware.
Have to be careful, though. You need a curated social media presence…
Not having social media is considered suspicious in the US https://papersplease.org/wp/2025/05/30/us-state-dept-says-silence-or-anonymity-on-social-media-is-suspicious/
This is the correct take. Its common across various business contexts: destroying evidence after you learn you are being investigated is big time illegal. If you destroy data, you better be able to demonstrate you did so beforehand (I.e. an expiration policy), or you don’t have it in the first place (because sensitive data doesn’t touch a given mobile device and all.). Dedicated device for travelling is the best idea.
You could also take a video of yourself wiping the device before travelling for security in case it gets stolen. (Not a lawyer disclaimer).
Can thy prove it though
If the duress pin makes obvious it’s the duress pin then it’s not really doing its job. It should instead open a profile with not much in it while erasing the other profile and files in the background.
They asked to unlock his phone, he entered the wipe instead personal pin, and the wipe starts, with no possible reversal.
I mean yeah they discover it when he hands them the phone and it shows something other than an unlocked screen… But he is still in detention? Making a fake homescreen will fool them for like 30 secs tops until they open literally any app and sees it’s either completely empty or that it doesn’t work.
What would that solve? It just drags out the procedure
Empty apps or no apps aren’t necessarily a sign of guilt, but they will look at you like you are because its not normal.
Companies often have travel laptops which are a clean install and no private corporate info exposed.
The purpose of a duress code is plausible deniability.
There is an encryption product for Windows called VeraCrypt (aka TrueCrypt). You can create a hidden decoy volume inside an outer encrypted volume which has all your stuff in it. When mounted an observer cannot tell the difference between the hidden volume and the real volume since they are mounted the same way with different passcodes. You can put files in the decoy for plausibility but not the things you actually want to hide.
The same should be true of a duress code in a phone. It should be possible to put files, apps and stuff in the decoy that show activity e.g. email, pictures etc. Providing the other profile is wiped while this screen is showing then there is no immediate way of proving it was a duress code.
It would have to at least convince the border guard, but it should withstand forensic analysis too. So it might be necessary to do what VeraCrypt does.
"The duress PIN doesn’t give you a second chance and will trigger anywhere you enter it: on the lockscreen, while enabling Developer options, or even while unlocking an app that requests authentication. And unlike a regular factory reset, a duress PIN will erase all encryption keys and your phone’s eSIM partition as well. This makes it impossible for an attacker to access my data just by having physical possession of your device and knowledge of the PIN.
I think the real strength of GrapheneOS’ duress PIN lies in its subtlety. There are no confirmation prompts, no announcements, and no obvious signs that the wipe was intentional on your part. Of course, GrapheneOS is no longer a fringe operating system these days — it has even attracted the ire of law enforcement in some jurisdictions. In other words, a professional attacker might be aware of the existence of a duress PIN. But if you can enter it quickly enough, it achieves its intended effect: no data can be lifted from your phone."
Pretty plainly stated:
Main purpose - delete all data
A nice bonus - the process is semi hidden, no way to confirm mistakes or not
Purpose is NOT - Fool any attacker to think they have your phone even though it’s wiped
So it’s most definitely doing it’s job. You think that job is not enough, fair, but it’s living up to it’s own stated purposes.
On the Linux box I travel with, my main account is not shown on the list of user accounts when you login. There is a dummy account on the list. When I log into that, it has a full complement of apps and data, and the online email account it connects to is a secondary account I use for travel bookings, random notifications and other throwaway purposes. Financial data, important passwords, personal correspondence, etc, are not on that account. Just the usual stuff a non-computer-savvy guy my age would have: browsing, email and Facebook. If they ever comment on it being Linux, I’ll just say “my son set it up for me, I kept having problems with Windows.” But so far, the most they’ve ever done is ask me to show that the laptop can boot up. There’s also full-disk encryption so scans won’t tell them anything worth knowing.
The passwords I use are high-entropy. There’s no duress PIN, though I could set one up if so inclined. So far, I haven’t felt the need to.
I do this, too.
Definitely worth it.
Damn dog that’s a super smart setup, imma do the same thing to my travel laptop. Thanks for the suggestion ✊
Lol that’s just str8 false in this case, the stated purpose of the duress pin in the article is a system wipe, not plausible deniability.
So whoever has you under duress cannot steal your data
It’s not a ‘get out of duress free’-card
I’m half-expecting for it to turn out that he was being wholly compliant, and he’s being accused of destruction of evidence because they were looking for something that never existed to begin with.
What law did he break? Vs the warrantless search that is breaking the law. If only the supreme court didn’t give them a pass.
Search without a warrant is valid at the border.
Or within 100 miles of it. Including all international airports. That just soh appens to be like 80% of the population or something.
It does not include airports. People need to stop repeating that
https://www.aclumaine.org/know-your-rights/100-mile-border-zone/
Huh, you seem to be correct. I’m finding plenty of pages that claim that “international ports of entry” includes airports, but none of them source it or seem like very trustworthy sites.
So I’ve learned :(
Not without probable cause or your consent it’s not.
