US Accuses American of Allegedly Wiping His Phone Using a 'Duress' Password During Border Search (techcrunch.com)
- Reference: 0184662906
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/07/24/215251/us-accuses-american-of-allegedly-wiping-his-phone-using-a-duress-password-during-border-search
- Source link: https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/24/us-accuses-american-of-allegedly-wiping-his-phone-using-a-duress-password-during-border-search/
> The U.S. Justice Department is prosecuting an American for [1]allegedly providing U.S. border authorities with a passcode that wiped the contents of his phone , according to an indictment and media reports. This is thought to be the first known case in the United States where federal prosecutors have charged someone for the alleged destruction of data using a so-called "duress" password built into a phone's software. According to [2]The Guardian , which covered the story earlier this week following the court's first hearing on Monday, Atlanta resident Samuel Tunick is fighting the charges. Tunick's attorneys said that it was unlawful for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to seize his phone as he arrived back in the U.S. last year, and that any evidence -- including the alleged wiping of his phone -- should be thrown out.
>
> The case centers on a feature included in GrapheneOS, a custom Android operating system that runs in place of the software on most modern Google Pixel devices. Tunick's attorneys confirmed GrapheneOS was running on his phone. The software feature allows the device owner to set a passcode that deliberately wipes the contents of that device if entered instead of the user's unlock passcode. Tunick's case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter.
Bill Budington, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Runa Sandvik, a digital security expert who works to protect at-risk people as the founder of security consultancy firm Granitt, told TechCrunch that they had not seen similar cases involving the use of duress passwords.
"I have not seen this before, though I've discussed the potential scenario with activists and journalists over the years," said Sandvik. "I think this case serves as a reminder that authorities may argue you knowingly destroyed data, so it's better to not have that data on you when you cross certain borders."
"With a little planning ahead of time, you can always download the data you need once you get to where you're going," said Sandvik.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/24/us-accuses-american-of-allegedly-wiping-his-phone-using-a-duress-password-during-border-search/
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone
Here we go (Score:1)
The scenario always talked about here gets the legal test. Wonder if the usual bootlickers will have anything to say?
Re: (Score:3)
What's there to say, trumpistain has caught up on putin in 2 years. It took putin 26.
The brave and the free turned out to be neither.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that all rational people agree that it's currently illegal, regardless of if they think it should be.
"Bootlickers" is not a relevant word here. Even people who normally are bootlickers, on this issue they have no reason to.
There is no "test" because "on a phone" isn't the novel fact that you think it is. All the legal issues involved have been tested many times.
Good for him! (Score:4, Insightful)
If he actually did what he is accused of, then good for him! I hope the ACLU steps in to provide for his defense.
I would wish that the court would find "Fuck you, he has the right to privacy" (wishful thinking, I know...)
Even if he wins in the end, they are going to make his life hell.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, on reading the links, it looks like his lawyers already have a lot of that covered.
The law they are using is [1]18 U.S. Code 2232 [cornell.edu], and it's on pretty shaky ground. If you're reading it at non-lawyer eyes, sure the law uses words that seem to fit.
For the current administration, that's all they need to make the accusations.
For the defense lawyers there's going to be a long list of reasons that law doesn't apply, and it's got all kinds of reasons the judge is going to dismiss it. The "Terrorism Respons
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232
Re: (Score:3)
> For the current administration, that's all they need to make the accusations.
That's one of the reasons they keep losing in court - they don't really have any competent lawyers in this administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. There are multiple SCOTUS rulings that basically declare border checkpoints to be a 4th amendment-free zone. If that means that the agents are "authorized to make such search or seizure", then 18USC2232(a) looks like a problem for him to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it's not just that, they claim 100 miles from any border now.
Since I'm in New Hampshire and there's no part of the state further than 100 miles from a border, I've had to inform my friends that we've been kicked out of the United States.
Our ratification of the Constitution by the Legislature is what makes New Hampshire part of the United States. If the Constitution doesn't apply, well then the ratification has been nullified by DC. Unfortunate, but not our choosing.
This would apply to any of the Thirte
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, his lawyer raising the warrant issue in this context is like shouting, "I got nothing!" They're required to make some sort of defense.
There's about a Planck's_Constant% chance that the current SCOTUS overrules precedent to require warrants for border inspections. With a Hail Mary, you expect they're some chance of it being caught and affecting the outcome. Here, it's like a runner who is a lap behind diving forwards when they see another runner about to cross the finish line. All they did was fall
Re: (Score:2)
'...agents are "authorized to make such search or seizure"...'
How can they be authorized when they are not on US soil? Who authorizes them?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you think that link supports the defense, it seems like a slam-dunk for the prosecution.
A long list of reasons why federal law doesn't apply? Name one reason why this law doesn't apply in this case. Even just one.
You're implying you're a lawyer with your phrasing, but your words are so stupid I suspect you're just a word-lawyer out of his depth.
Why would this be any different than running to the bathroom and flushing something down the toilet while there's a cop at your door shouting, "Search w
Re: (Score:2)
>> better to not have that data on you when you cross certain borders
> How about any border? Even more generally, at any situation, when the ordinary rights do not obtain...
You can choose not to cross other countries borders if you are worried they are sketchy. I suppose you can choose to not cross your own borders for the same reason, but it is vastly more limiting.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my solution - never enter the US. Works great.
Re: (Score:2)
when the ordinary rights do not obtain...
So any interaction with the Brownshirts of Fatherland Security?
Yes, such a GREAT idea! (Score:2, Insightful)
I and many others have argued here and in other places against this stupidity time and again. But people do not listen and think they have it all figured out...
The real solution is to not have any problematic data on your devices. You may want to do a secure wipe after they got their hands on on them though, or discard them entirely. No telling what kinds of malware they will put on there.
Keep doing it (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck the US Justice Dept and fuck the border authorities. It's not their device. And the information contained within it, whatever it may be, isn't theirs either. Either you already have some sort of proof of a crime, which makes them stupid for asking for the passcode; or, they're seizing the phone to go on a fishing expedition to find something worth arresting over.
I setup my phone to do the same thing. Doesn't matter that I don't have anything illegal on it, they have no right to see or access any data stored on it. If I ever might need to deal with these types of shitty rent-a-cops, I'd probably go a step further and set it up so that if I don't type in the normal password at regular intervals, it automatically wipes itself. If it spends to much time powered down, wipes itself on boot. Etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Border inspections are fundamentally fishing expeditions. By design.
Just because you don't know who the smugglers are, you don't check anything? Probable cause makes sense in daily life, but when crossing from one country to another it makes sense for them to be allowed to do inspections. Those are legal searches.
The fact that cops are assholes and being searched creates a danger even to those obeying the law is a problem, and it would be great if society could find some way to address it. However, looking
If it's not US soil (Score:2)
Then you have fuck all right to complain about what people do on it.
I know consistency is out of fashion in the US, but people really should demand that their constitutional rights actually be inviolable, and not magically irrelevant because a power-tripping fascist says they don't apply under certain circumstances.
Re:If it's not US soil (Score:4, Interesting)
I was thinking something similar. If it's not US soil, then US officials have no jurisdiction there and no basis for complaining about what anyone does there.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe not, but Presidiots since Shrub have decided they have the right to KILL you for your activities in other countries, US citizen or not, and will send a drone to fire a million dollar missile to take out you and everyone in your vicinity. No trial or even any evidence necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about militants operating outside who are classified under the Geneva conventions as "unlawful combatants" with no rights. Why would being a US citizen give them special protections?
You don't have to agree with the policy of shooting missiles at them to understand that it is legal, and a normal action that a government takes to deal with a military threat. The histrionics just make you out to be an idiot.
In WWII, American citizens captured in Germany fighting for the Germans were lined up and
Re: If it's not US soil (Score:2)
Venezuela?
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution has been rendered moot by the Supreme Court. The President, and by extension the executive branch, is immune from law. You have no constitutional rights, only constitutional suggestions that federal law enforcement can ignore (and are instructed to do so). Citizens are now shot in the streets.
Re: (Score:2)
And the “border” has been expanded in definition to bootstrap our lack of rights to everything within 100 miles of the actual border, never mind the millions and millions of citizens within that boundary, including our coasts. 2/3 of the US population is subject to these reduced rights, including entire states, well over 90% of the California population.
You can be warrantlessly detained in this region, allowing a border patrol agent to hold you, question you, and attempt to find (or fabricate)
Can't prove when it was cleared (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is there isn't any difference between a phone you cleared before you travelled or just before landing compared to one that is cleared with a duress pin. They can't prove a duress pin was used only that the phone is now indeed empty and there is no reasonable law requiring people to have their entire lives documented in their phone. Given the state of the USA right now I would fly with an empty phone too, not that I fly to countries run by dangerous dictators.
Re: (Score:3)
They are not after a conviction. They can however make your life hell for years.
Re: (Score:2)
"...not that I fly to countries run by dangerous dictators."
Do you fly to the US?
Is this supposed to be a crime? (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought they needed a warrant or other court order to make destruction of evidence a crime. Having a cop merely ask to see your phone does not establish a right to see it.
Would it have been a crime to do it before they asked for it?
Would it matter if they did it 5 seconds before they asked, or 5 days before they asked?
I am not a lawyer, but I do know that corporations routinely destroy evidence. For it to be a crime, they need to have been served with a warrant BEFORE they destroy the evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't wipe it, he was in custody. He was handcuffed and prevented from accessing it. Any data provided *could* and *was* used to defend him, including providing orders to his digital attorney.
Re: (Score:2)
So, I'm totally not a lawyer, but I find the vagaries and nuances of law fascinating. Perhaps I can help clarify some details.
First, he was at an airport and had not yet been permitted entry to the USA - in a sense, they were still in "international waters." The government maintains that anyone entering the country at a border may be subject to warrantless search by 19 USC 482 which was originally to allow searching of boats to seize any contraband. CBP doesn't need to have probable cause for the search. Fu
Oh Hell No! (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't serve my country for six years, in a war to boot, to have this kind of fuckery going on. Searching an American citizen, wanting to enter their home country, without a warrant is bull shit. Authorities can argue all day long about what pretext they believe this falls under, but in the end our rights win above all. This had better get thrown out and a precedent set.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the border, you have no rights until Border Patrol/Customs/La Migra let you have them. My brother's friend had his car completely taken apart in the parking lot of one of the Detroit border crossings under the absurd claim that he might be bringing drugs from Canada(?) into the country. Once they gave up trying to find what wasn't there he was told to put his car back together or they'd ticket him for littering.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you do. The Supreme Court completely made that shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
Your damn right it has. I had no idea this is the level of BS happening to Americans at their own border. I'm preparing a letter right now to send to my representatives. It's time we speak up as citizens, especially those of us that have served.
Re: (Score:2)
[1]Then consider this opportunity to donate to the EFF [eff.org]. Or just complain online, that will do something.
[1] https://www.eff.org/issues/border-searches
Re: (Score:2)
Well, If a president can order people to be arrested anywhere in the country for the sake of the border just because their skin and hair is too dark.... If another president's very discussion of the topic because his/her skin and hair is too dark causes the individuals carrying out the orders in the first case to cry "unconstitutional!" in the second case.... We already lost the argument over "who's data" a long time ago.
Re: (Score:1)
> I didn't serve my country for six years, in a war to boot, to have this kind of fuckery going on.
Yes, you did. You just didn't know what you were doing somehow, probably because you ignored people because they were too "woke". My father joined the Marines for the same reason, but he figured out what the result of his actions was. Then again, he was in Korea and they got him hooked on meth. They gave ALL the drugs to ATCs.
Nice! (Score:2, Insightful)
Fuck yeah buddy, that was badass! The fascists who see any problem with this can suck it!
Download? (Score:2, Interesting)
> "With a little planning ahead of time, you can always download the data you need once you get to where you're going," said Sandvik.
From where? Remember; the cloud is nothing more than someone else's computer.
Re: (Score:2)
From an encrypted container file that was uploaded from your device to anywhere convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Then after wiping his phone and placing him in detention, CBP can grab a copy of that upload and he can try again. But this time, with the correct password. Wiped it again? Another copy, rinse and repeat.
> Tunick's case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter.
So he's not even back on US soil yet? Habeas corpus does not yet apply.
Re: (Score:2)
How does CBP know where the upload is? Is the uploaded file publicly accessible or would they need another password to even get their hands on it?
> So he's not even back on US soil yet? Habeas corpus does not yet apply.
Defending the concept of a constitution-free tyranny zone for foreigners (where US border patrol somehow still has legal authority?) is fashy enough, but it's really freaking bad when you use it to strip an American citizen of the rights their own country affords them.
Re: (Score:2)
> How does CBP know where the upload is? Is the uploaded file publicly accessible or would they need another password to even get their hands on it?
Because he tells them through the jail cell bars as they enter the address and passwords into the phone. Give them a code that wipes the backup and he's going to be there for a loooong time.
Re: (Score:2)
It really doesn't matter. The point is that border agents can't .
Re: (Score:1)
A technical issue. There are legal opinions on data rights casualties going back to the beginning of the public telephone networks. You backtrack through all that and the core of it is; whoever archives and serves the data owns it. I know, "it's your data..." and there are laws to prove it. Bullshit, they don't care and you cant monetize "your data" to support GDP. I'm convinced that the only acceptable solution was from the beginning, for individuals to seriously maintain private databases and data links t
Re: (Score:2)
Another option is to use software like VeraCrypt to encrypt sensitive data into a file on your PC. Make it look like an innocuous system file and put it in the system folder somewhere. Don't leave VeraCrypt installed - it will run installer-free, download it at your destination and remove it before traveling again.
There's a double level of security if you use the option where it has a second dummy decryption container in the same file that you can give away.
But yea, if you can securely download what you
Re: (Score:1)
"the cloud is nothing more than someone else's computer."
The cloud can also be your own computer at home, while you're on the road.
Thought experiment (Score:2)
If the Border Patrol can claim you aren't (yet) on US soil, I'd think they also have no jurisdiction over you yet because you're not on US soil.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo.
5th? (Score:2)
So claiming 5th is no longer legal or applicable in this case? Does it note extend to supplying whit self-incriminating evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
CBP may have no interest in bringing a court case. They might be happy with the intel alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, after some research: the 5th protects your brain - that is pins/passwords etc. you'd rendered and these would lead to self incrimination. These necessarily you'd have to 'retrieved' from your brain. Apparently, they can unlock the phone legally with your face and perhaps with fingertip. So the advice was to power off the phone so the pin is necessary. However, not unlocking the phone would make them to impound it for some time, weeks likely. They still have to make a 'reasonable cause' to do so, and
"But I was frightened ..." (Score:2)
"This big, ugly Boarder Officer was in my face and frightened me. My brain/memory did not work properly, the stress of it all made me remember the wrong password which wiped my 'phone."
This may be true. However if they have it in for you they will get you.
He is in their custody! How could he? (Score:2)
What? Knowingly destroying data? He is in their custody. How could he do anything?
Do you mean he setup a device to honor him against illegal searches and it functioned as intended? He set that up before he knew about the illegal search so he hasn't done anything since except provide some speech which *can* and *will* be used to defend him.
Where does this end? Not being allowed to have a password? Not being allowed to say "$AGENT lock my phone" when you see police walking up? Not being allowed to store data
Plausible deniability is better (Score:4, Interesting)
There should be an option for a password which unlocks the phone in a separate sandbox which is benign.
Of course, if the government has a warrant, even this will get you into trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, ideally it wouldn't just wipe - which makes it obvious to everyone what has happened - but instead replaced with something perfectly normal and innocuous.
Regardless, this whole thing of making people hand over their passwords is what should be illegal.
Re:Plausible deniability is better (Score:5, Informative)
Not legal advice, but lying to police generally is not illegal. You are only subject to criminal charges if you lie about your identity and a handful of other specific circumstances. Giving an "incorrect" password likely would not fall under that, and if it does do to court he can simply claim he misspoke, or that the police entered it incorrectly, or any other number of excuses to create plausible deniability.
He was not under oath, so it's not perjury. He was not under investigation - the phone was seized without a warrant - so it's not obstruction. He did not make false allegations of criminal activity. He did not try to falsify his identity.
His lawyer should have an easy time getting any charges dropped, *especially* with how incompetent the current US DoJ is these days.
=Smidge=
Re:Plausible deniability is better (Score:4, Insightful)
> His lawyer should have an easy time getting any charges dropped, *especially* with how incompetent the current US DoJ is these days.
Since this is most likely about harassment, they already won.
Re: (Score:3)
You believe wrongly. Fear, control, uncertainty, making people bow to them, harassing people because they can are all tried-and-true approaches of authoritarian regimes.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how they claim the event occurs "not on US soil" until they say it is, yet they somehow have jurisdiction. How does US law enforcement have power outside US soil?
Re: (Score:2)
They're supposed to randomly select people for scrutiny at the border. It doesn't matter if you like the policy or not, it's the system we have and they don't need warrants and it's been upheld again and again and again. And in the current environment the courts are more likely to give border agents more powers, not rein them in.
It would pretty hard to make a "harassment" argument about a border inspection... you'd need to prove the cop was actually stalking you or something before the incident!
Re: (Score:2)
"Supposed to" says who? Are they "supposed to" murder people too? Does it matter if we like the immigration system "we have"? When does crime committed by the government matter to you? Never?
Re:Plausible deniability is better (Score:5, Informative)
This is complete bollocks. This is how it *should* be, not how it is.
[1]https://uscode.house.gov/view.... [house.gov] bans false statements to federal agents, period.
"1001. Statements or entries generally
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
And good luck under the current SCOTUS getting things like "But mah freedoms!" through. Civil rights are a ridiculous liberal myth, as far as the current group are concerned.
Also: [2]https://legalshouts.com/is-it-... [legalshouts.com] goes into detail and is, actually, written by lawyers.
[1] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=49&f=treesort&num=1262
[2] https://legalshouts.com/is-it-illegal-to-lie-to-the-police/
Re: Plausible deniability is better (Score:3)
You're supposed to invoke your right to remain silent, not give false information. Unless it's under duress or something. Either way, if the police suspect you committed a crime, it's always best to do that regardless. Nothing good comes from talking to them without legal representation, even if you didn't do anything wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
"I do not consent to any search or seizure. I want my attorney and will not answer any questions without my attorney present. I am invoking my right to reman silent." Then SHUT UP and wait.
Oh... and don't forget to ask: "Am I free to go?" The answer may be "yes."
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately if you invoke your right to remain silent during a border inspection you will likely be denied entry.
Though if they decide you're a citizen and they can't detain you, you can probably try the line again after shift change... eventually somebody is going to let you through. Probably.
They also might just detain you for a couple days to punish you for being difficult. Because ACAB.
Lying to a fed is inherently a crime (Score:2)
Not a lawyer - but I believe that is untrue. It is inherently illegal to lie to a federal officer. Even in a simple non-custodial interview out in public.
Re: (Score:2)
> Not legal advice, but lying to police generally is not illegal.
Customs officers are federal agents, so lying to them is punishable by 10 years in prison.
Lying to "cops" is very different than lying to "the feds." Also, lying is usually also Obstruction of Justice. If the lie wasn't obstructing something, why would you even lie? That's the whole point of lying, to get a different result than you'd get from the truth. When you're being asked questions as part of an investigation, that's going to obstruct their investigation.
It can absolutely be obstruction without a warr
Re: (Score:2)
There is an assumption here that the subject lied to federal agents. How is that established? Because some people assumed it on /.?
And why allow your wife to travel at all then? Those "border morons" don't have to let her in.
"It can absolutely be obstruction without a warrant..."
"Can" and "is" are very different and depend on details we have no access to.
"We don't know all the details of the case..."
Including alleged facts you take for granted.
Re: (Score:2)
While what you say may be true for state and local law enforcement, it is not true for federal law enforcement.
[1]https://www.mololamken.com/kno... [mololamken.com]
"Under Section 1001 of title 18 of the United States Code, it is a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States."
Actual text of the code:
[2]https://uscode.house.gov/view.... [house.gov]
"Â1001. Statements or entri
[1] https://www.mololamken.com/knowledge-Is-It-a-Crime-To-Lie-to-the-Government-Even-If-You-Are-Not-Under-Oath
[2] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1001&num=0&edition=prelim
Re: (Score:2)
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
How would they show that the device held a material fact if it was wiped?
And I don't know whether they asked him for the password and he gave it or if they had him enter it on the phone, but I wouldn't think the latter case involved lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but surely you'd only lie to police if you "needed it", so you must be a criminal right?
Re: (Score:3)
> at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter
Keep in mind that the (in)Justice Department claims that any international port of entry or any navigable waterway which connects to international waters is a "Constitution-free zone" up to 100 miles away when dealing with forces charged with border protection. So 99 miles from Denver airport or the Mississippi River or the Great Lakes you have effectively no rights if you're dealing with Customs, Border Patrol or La Migra, according to the government. This has been policy since Shrub was in office.
So it
Re: (Score:2)
For practical purposes this is accurate. Ostensibly, however, the US government is supposed to exist only for the purposes of securing our rights. If logical or moral consistency were relevant, as soon as they claim to be "outside the bounds" of the constitution, there is no longer any justification for them to exercise power at all.
Which leads to the real life outcome that if they can get away with it, then they can get away with it.
Can confiscate phone at border (Score:2)
> That would be a fifth amendment violation if they required it.
No a lawyer - but I've been told that crossing the US border is a special case and they can inspect your belongings. If you will not unlock the phone they are allowed to confiscate it.
Similar with laptops. When traveling to the EU for academic purposes our university told is not to bring out computers. That all sorts of things can trip you up at the border. For example a US version of software that has "military grade" encryption.
> I'm not sure if it'll qualify as destroying evidence.
Not a lawyer- but I've been told that if you destroy data a judge may instr
Re: (Score:2)
Couple things:
1. I carry a Chromebook for international travel, because I can wipe it to bare metal BEFORE I cross a border.
2. If this guy is not in the US for the purpose of applying the constitution, why is he in the US for the purpose of charging him with a crime for wiping his phone?
Re: (Score:2)
Or Fat Fingers McSpellsbad typoed the correct password and landed on the duress password instead. We'll never know since in the process he destroyed any evidence of what the passwords might have been.
Fortunately for the defendant, it's up to the prosecutor to PROVE that that isn't how the data came to be wiped.
Re: (Score:2)
> That would mean a false statement to police which I'm fairly sure is illegal. I'm not sure if it'll qualify as destroying evidence.
lmao
Re: (Score:2)
"Always thought it was a little funny because he didn't strike me as the kind to need it but who knows."
Hysterical. You'd make a great judge.
Re: (Score:2)
> they can't just lock you up in prison until you give them the password.
Yes they can. A court orders you to provide the password, you refuse, you're now in contempt of court and can be detained indefinitely under arbitrarily bad prison conditions until you decide to not be in contempt of court any more.
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder if or how they could prove there was any data on his phone before they entered that password.
Maybe he reset everything himself before arriving at the border.
Ok, I'll admit that isn't likely what happened but isn't that a reasonable doubt?
Re: (Score:2)
Not doable with any reliability. This is a fantasy many have and that completely fails in reality. Do not have any data on there you do not when them to see when crossing the border. Nothing else will do it.
Re:Plausible deniability is better (Score:5, Informative)
Not a lawyer and this is not legal advice:
I researched this some more after my initial post. You are correct about plausible deniability. You want to access that data in the cloud and then clear all session keys and access tokens, along with browser history when you cross the border. The border search doesn't extend beyond your phone, and they actually put your phone in airplane mode when they do the search. They can however, inter your phone for however long they wish, and you up to 5 days before you can file a writ of habeus corpus.
Re:Plausible deniability is better (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks. Always good that at least some people look at actual facts.
Also remember that this is not really about getting your data. Only idiots have problematic data on their phone when they cross the US border. Sure, they may catch the occasional child molester or the like, but they will not catch any terrorist or spies that way. Primarily this is about harassment and making people fear them. Better be prepared for potentially needing a new phone after crossing that border.
Re: Plausible deniability is better (Score:2)
Surely it couldn't be too hard to generate plausible looking data on a second sandbox(finally a use for LLMs). Ideally a second password would wipe the main sandbox and show the second one as if it were the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically all actual security experts agree that a) this has a far too high probability of failing, landing you in hot water and b) there _really_ is no need. Just put the data encrypted on some cloud account and download after crossing the border.
Re: Plausible deniability is better (Score:2)
B makes a lot more sense I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
It does. It bypasses the problem and it is conceptually simple. Solutions to security problems rarely get better than that.
Re: (Score:2)
> Not doable with any reliability. This is a fantasy many have and that completely fails in reality.
There's nothing like saying "it can't be done" to make a nerd's imagination fire...
I'd start with a filesystem that stores all data encrypted, so that without the proper decryption key, there's no way to tell whether a given block of storage contains encrypted data or random noise. We'd overwrite the entire drive with random noise on install, of course.
Then on top of that, add a layer that determines which subset of the physical blocks to use based on a hash of the decryption key; so if you log in with pas
Re: (Score:2)
If they plugged it into a forensics terminal they'd likely see right away that the device OS isn't reporting the correct blocks.
You'd need a custom hardware security chip that switched in different sets of memory.
Re: (Score:2)
> There should be an option for a password which unlocks the phone in a separate sandbox which is benign.
Or, alternatively, the password could simply wipe all your files (including any password databases) before it unlocks the phone - leaving the OS intact.
Maybe it could also add a couple photos of Donald J. Trump to your photo library at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
> There should be an option for a password which unlocks the phone in a separate sandbox which is benign.
> Of course, if the government has a warrant, even this will get you into trouble.
I think the most plausibly-deniable strategy is to put the phone into a state where it shows the OS setup wizard when powered on, making it look like you wiped it and powered it down just before going through the border checkpoint. Then to reactivate it you have to go through the "setup" process and when you get to the password configuration if you enter the correct password it unlocks and returns to normal. If not, it boots to an apparently freshly-setup state. I think this would be much easier to corre