GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search (pcmag.com)
- Reference: 0184736638
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/07/28/1652243/grapheneos-defends-data-wiping-function-that-blocked-us-border-search
- Source link: https://www.pcmag.com/news/grapheneos-defends-data-wiping-function-that-blocked-us-border-search
> In a post on Saturday, the Canadian nonprofit behind the operating system, the GrapheneOS Foundation, explained that the software offers a range of features to prevent data extraction. For example, one safeguard is the " [4]auto-reboot timer " that'll reboot a locked device after a set period of time to put the data at rest, leaving all files inside encrypted.
>
> The group's post subtly suggests that GrapheneOS phones can withstand law enforcement searches without requiring users to resort to a duress password. "People should carefully consider how to use it in an actual duress situation where there can be physical or legal consequences for wiping the device," the nonprofit wrote. "GrapheneOS doesn't require it to protect data from being extracted from the device, but it takes recovering it completely off the table even with the PIN/password for each profile on the device."
>
> On X, the nonprofit has also said it can do nothing to help US law enforcement recover data from Tunick's phone. "Data cannot be recovered after the key derivation material is reliably wiped. It's not possible and there's nothing we can do to assist with it," the group [5]wrote . "Similarly, it's not possible to assist with bypassing encryption because the hardware and software has been designed to prevent it."
[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/grapheneos-defends-data-wiping-function-that-blocked-us-border-search
[2] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/07/24/215251/us-accuses-american-of-allegedly-wiping-his-phone-using-a-duress-password-during-border-search
[3] https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2081770030992118183
[4] https://grapheneos.org/features#auto-reboot
[5] https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2081764238398239163
One does not enter the US with a computing device (Score:3, Insightful)
...or at least not one that has valuable data on it. Didn't people learn from the DMCA?
Re: (Score:2)
That is my policy. No going to or transiting through the USA for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:1)
And that changes your plans how?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it makes traveling from where I live to certain places a bit more expensive and less convenient. But that's OK. It's worth it to avoid the USA.
it is destroying evidence like it or not (Score:2)
The standard is literally that you think a court might ask for it, or it might be relevant to a case.
This is exactly why you don't do this, as we just discussed.
Re: (Score:3)
What case? He wasn't being investigated for committing any crime.
Re: (Score:2)
The laws at border crossings get murky. If you're stopped for further questioning that's considered an official investigation.
Re: (Score:3)
And it still comes down to, "Why was he stopped?" in the first place. ICE isn't known for actually following the law, in the same way that Donald Trump himself isn't known for following the law, or even the rules of basic human decency.
Re: (Score:2)
> And it still comes down to, "Why was he stopped?" in the first place.
And it still comes down to security measures in place which are described in the bipartisan USA PATRIOT buttfucking-your-freedoms act.
> ICE isn't known for actually following the law, in the same way that Donald Trump himself isn't known for following the law, or even the rules of basic human decency.
Guess what? Neither is any other part of the US Government. You name it, our government has done it, including coups, assassinations, coups, genocides, false flags, drug trafficking, human trafficking, willfully selling munitions to international criminals... and most of it within our lifetimes. Yes, Trump is a gigantic piece of orange shit, but this country was doing plenty
Re: (Score:1)
> What case? He wasn't being investigated for committing any crime.
I didn't specify an existing case because that's not relevant, as it can be a hypothetical case. I don't know why everyone is so vehement about not looking this up and reading about it, but y'all (not just you, but yes, you) could just do that so you're not so confused about this, so you don't get yourself into trouble later.
Re: (Score:2)
The CBP in this case are claiming that he was being investigated for CSAM and that there was individualized reasonable suspicion for a federal crime.
Re: (Score:2)
> The standard is literally that you think a court might ask for it, or it might be relevant to a case.
This does not matter. Personal digital data, typical of what you might find on a phone, is not personal property. CBP has no case.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's on your phone, it's personal property. If you don't think it is, kindly explain who owns it.
Re: (Score:2)
> kindly explain who owns it.
AT&T, Verizon, Google.
Re: (Score:2)
> If it's on your phone, it's personal property.
Wrong. The phone is my property. My data, that I own, contained within the phone is *not* property because personal data is not property . UNLESS, that data is copyrightable, licensable, or has some sort of inherent monetary value (i.e cryptocurrency).
Re: (Score:2)
If data that you own is not personal property, then what is it?
This is like saying the words on a page are not personal property, but the paper is. No court would agree to that.
Personal property is anything you own or have possesion of, including intangibles such as stock or copyrights, that is not attached to land or fixed to real estate. Data on a phone falls within that definition. The phone is a physical item you own. It's your personal property. The data within the phone is also personal property,
Re: (Score:2)
> including intangibles such as stock or copyrights,
THESE types of data are property, as I already said.
My contacts' information is not property. My shopping list is not property. My call history is not property. My texts are not property. Apps I have installed are not my property, unless I wrote it (copyrightable/licensable). My search history is not property.
> The phone is a physical item you own. It's your personal property.
Yep, and if you want access to *any* of that shit, you better show me a warrant FIRST. If you ask for a password that ends up wiping the device BEFORE obtaining and showing me a warrant, that's not my
Re: (Score:2)
> If the cops want to see what's in there, they have to seize it with a warrant and cut it open. Phones work the same.
Sure. There is also this. But at the same time, if I were to travel with some form of safe, I'd want to make sure anyone who gets a hold of the safe cannot get the contents, including a separate combination that vaporizes everything contained to such a point that you cannot prove anything was even in there to begin with. Such a safe, of course, does not exist and probably never will.
> we'd be dealing with the more important question of whether Americans have the same rights at both sides of the border.
Yes, they do, when dealing with any American government agency.
Re: (Score:1)
I guess telling the wipe PIN can indeed be destroying evidence. But what about not telling a PIN, but having a paper slip in the phone case that says "PIN: 1-2-3-4-5" (with 12345 being the wipe pin)? Then you're not the one destroying evidence and the border agents need to change the combination on their luggage.
Re: (Score:2)
Courts are historically not amused by deliberate attempts to circumvent the law, and if you're doing a basically equivalent thing then they are going to treat it as such. It only moves the point at which you took the action to destroy the evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
It will go over just as well as "I didn't shoot the person, I just made a booby trap."
Re: (Score:3)
IF that is the case, seize the phone, get a Search Warrant.
The problem is, the state couldn't be bothered following ESTABLISHED law and procedures.
Simply accusing someone of some unspecified crime isn't a right the state has to just bypass Constitutional protections, namely the 4th and 5th Amendments.
Americans have rights, secured in our founding Constitution. I don't care what feelings one might have to the rest of the case. Rights exist, enshrined and we ought to defend them tirelessly forever.
Re: (Score:1)
> The problem is, the state couldn't be bothered following ESTABLISHED law and procedures.
This is the law.
> Americans have rights, secured in our founding Constitution.
The Supreme Court decides what's constitutional. They haven't prevented these searches. They are therefore de facto constitutional at this time. If you don't like it, you're going to want to change the constitution so that the supreme court has meaningful oversight. It doesn't matter what your feelings say. What matters is what the supreme court says.
Rights are a human invention. They're a good one, but they're still just an idea and nothing more. If we don't fight sufficiently to protect th
Re: (Score:2)
> Rights are a human invention.
I reject that notion. As was written 250 years ago:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ..."
Unalienable rights belong to you by nature and cannot be sold, traded, or removed by any government.
That doesn't change the result here, but I think it's important to start from that position so we can, as you noted, "fight sufficiently to protec
Re: it is destroying evidence like it or not (Score:2)
I'm not interested in your appeal to religion, so I didn't read the rest of your screed either. Man invented God, so any God-given rights were also invented by man.
Re: (Score:2)
> IF that is the case, seize the phone, get a Search Warrant.
> The problem is, the state couldn't be bothered following ESTABLISHED law and procedures.
This isn't (necessarily) true at a U.S. border and there are currently different rules, from different federal courts, depending on where you are entering the U.S. There is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause requirement in many states - for example if you fly from Europe into New York or Virginia - or Georgia. In this case, the guy flew into Atlanta and no suspicion is required on entry tot he U.S. for a forensic search in Georgia. This article lays out the various situations by state.
[1]No Warran [cdt.org]
[1] https://cdt.org/insights/no-warrants-and-half-a-dozen-different-rules-the-convoluted-and-dangerous-status-of-the-border-search-exception/
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically the [1]border search exception [wikipedia.org] doesn't change an individual having an reasonable expectation to privacy under the 4th, but that what's considered reasonable is different when crossing the border.
It has to be reconciled with other searches like making cure someone isn't bringing in diseased produce, like looking for a smuggled kiwi in a carry on versus looking for a banana under the seat during a traffic stop.
The big problem is that searching phones doesn't pass the [2]Katz test to a reasonable expec [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy
Re: (Score:2)
But does a border search of a US Citizen have such standing as a court order or warrant? What was the basis of the request to inspect the device-- was there information that he could be a child pornographer, or was he just on a watch list because of his occupation?
Can a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was wiped with a duress password with the intent of hiding criminal activity, or maybe it was wiped in advance? Can the prosecution get a court warrant to search the individual's home based
Re: (Score:1)
On the other hand, the last I checked they were not allowed to demand your PIN under the 5th Amendment. They could make you unlock a phone with your face or fingerprint, because they can take those anyhow, but your PIN is something you know that protects your private information, and that even at the border the most they could do was ask for it.
I don't know the details here, but it may be that he gave them the self-destruct code instead of just saying, "no, I won't tell you that". That may count as dest
Re: (Score:1)
>> The standard is literally that you think a court might ask for it, or it might be relevant to a case.
> what case?
You don't read so well, do you?
> am i supposed to assume everything i ever do is relevant to some "case" they may or may not be building on me?
> you are so stupid sometimes.
You shouldn't say that immediately after you prove you're an idiot in addition to being a coward.
Re: (Score:2)
The duress password wouldn't help with that, because once it's used, the gov has a nice clean phone on which it can plant whatever it wants.
Who is Samuel Tunick? (Score:2)
If you use Google or other mainstream search engines you can't find out who Samuel Tunick is or what his activism is centered around. The cop city protests are way more important than most Americans realize as they constitute what is essentially a domestic military occupation. Unlike military bases, these are meant to suppress the general population in mass.
The Guardian reported in February that surveillance cameras hidden in utility boxes mounted on light poles had begun appearing outside the homes of
Seen and Unseen (Score:2)
Notice how the "free press" keeps talking about this as a "law enforcement problem" but hasn't once talked about any time somebody was threatened by a mugger to unlock and this safety feature saved their bacon?
#include
Most common criminals will run when there is nothing further to be gained.
Big organized crime gangs, such as people at the border threatening travelers under color of law, are the exception rather than the rule. They got embarrassed that their dominance play didn't wor
Re: (Score:1)
Real journalism in this country is dead. Not one single fucking reporter is standing outside of the hospital where brain dead Mitch McConnell is supposedly recovering. The guy has been missing in action for a month and we only get two still photos of him wearing the same shirt. If you're 80 years old and the wee woo wagon is doing CPR you aren't coming back in any cognitive state. His wife ran off to China for a few weeks and nobody questions that.
The language of the people who claimed to "spoke to him" is
"Destroying property under government control" (Score:2)
So if the government unlawfully confiscates your property without your consent, it is then their legal property, and they can punish you for doing anything to it? Even if a program to erase the data on it at a specific time was set up before they illegally confiscated it? I have some serious doubts about that legal theory holding up in court. Sounds like it would go really quick: Defendant: "I had no idea the phone would do that, and they wouldn't let me stop it from doing that!" Judge: "Case dismissed!"
Re: (Score:2)
It will probably come down to how good a lawyer the guy can afford.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, genius: prove beyond a reasonable doubt he didn't simply FORGET the PIN.
Re: (Score:2)
So, when the Trump administration removed parts of the reflecting pool liner that was evidence in the case they were prosecuting against an Olympic Kayaker... they actually committed a CRIME?!?
Superman II (Score:4, Funny)
In January 2025, US Customs agents demanded the device's password during a search at the airport...When Tunick provided a password for his phone, it was actually a "duress password" that irreversibly wipes a device when entered.
Reminds me of when Superman was forced into the crystal chamber that his captors thought would render him powerless but it was his captors who were made powerless.
Famous last words (Score:2)
"Similarly, it's not possible to assist with bypassing encryption because the hardware and software has been designed to prevent it."
I have no idea whether it's true in this case, but it seems like we've heard things in the past that sounded similar that turned out not to be true.
Re: (Score:2)
If you securely delete the encryption key, the data is irretrievable. This is how many (all?) modern SSDs work, for example, so they can be wiped without having to overwrite or erase all the data... just send it a command to generate a new encryption key and suddenly the disk is full of garbage.
Yes it could be done incompetently but it would take a very high degree of incompetence to screw that up.
Re: (Score:2)
> "Similarly, it's not possible to assist with bypassing encryption because the hardware and software has been designed to prevent it."
There's an aphorism in encryption development: "anyone can design an encryption system strong enough they personally can't figure out how to break it."
Problem is, of course, that someone else might figure out how to break it. I think we can expect that to eventually happen to any encryption system. It's a matter of when it will happen, not whether. Of course, if "when" is 50 years from now, that's effectively forever.
This is why "I'll write a new encryption system" is almost always the wrong answer. Not alw
Re: (Score:2)
> "No human can invent a lock, meant to be opened, that another human cannot figure out how to unlock."
> — Me
Our history is replete with instances of this and it always holds true. Given enough time and resources a lock meant to be opened can and will be opened by someone without the key. When you add computers to the mix, things get real interesting, really fast ...
Re: (Score:2)
If the key is randomly-generated and securely destroyed and they use some common believed-secure algorithm like AES then there's not enough time or atoms in the universe to brute-force it.
Re: (Score:2)
> If the key is randomly-generated and securely destroyed and they use some common believed-secure algorithm like AES
- IF it is randomly generated;
- IF it is securely destroyed;
- IF they use a common algorithm;
- IF they use a correct implementation of that algorithm...
The underlying mathematics is not what you usually attack, but rather one of those IFs.
Re: (Score:2)
> Given enough time and resources a lock meant to be opened can and will be opened by someone without the key. When you add computers to the mix, things get real interesting, really fast...
The encryption used would take current super-computers billions of years to crack. And that is assuming the key is still present and available to crack.
In the case of duress, Graphene securely deletes the key itself. There is not enough energy in the entire known universe that would allow any kind of computer(s) to essentially guess/reverse engineer what the key was.
By the time any computers are good enough to break, or reverse, this level of encryption, a newer, better encryption will have already been imp
Re: (Score:2)
> Of course, if "when" is 50 years from now, that's effectively forever.
Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon :
> The longer the key you are trying to generate, the longer this takes. Randy is trying to generate one that is ridiculously long. He has pointed out to Avi, in an encrypted e-mail message, that if every particle of matter in the universe could be used to construct one single cosmic supercomputer, and this computer was put to work trying to break a 4096-bit encryption key, it would take longer than the lifespan of the universe.
>
> “Using today’s technology,” Av
Wont be suprised if the US goverment (Score:2)
attempts to outlaw security features such as those in Graphene OS.
But that' probably won't get that far:
The U.S. government cannot easily or successfully outlaw the security features found in GrapheneOS due to insurmountable First and Fourth Amendment constitutional hurdles, alongside the practical realities of open-source software. (source EFF)
While lawmakers frequently attempt to target encryption and anti-forensic features under the guise of national security, any blanket ban would face immediate defeat
Re: (Score:3)
"The only solution" is in fact, not the "only" solution.
The correct and LEGAL means for the police to gain access to the phone is to take it and seal it in a tamperproof container (aka electronic Faraday Evidence Bag), go to a court and ask for a warrant to search the contents.
We have established LAW and procedures for the state to gain access to the device. It is inconvenient ON PURPOSE. and serves as a checks and balance in legal proceedings.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with this is that Customs and Border Patrol doesn't get search warrants, they operate under the "Border Search Exception"
No search warrants are required unless congress acts, or the Supreme Court changes its mind. See below for a the Fourth Circuit court case.
The border search exception lets U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers search travelers and property at national borders and international airports without a warrant, probable cause, or suspicion, based on the nation's right to prote
Not illegal (Score:2)
He owns the phone. He owns the data. They can fuck off. That's my interpretation of US law. See also 4th amendment rulings on if someone has to turn over a password or unlock code or decryption key or not.
Not under government control (Score:2)
Obviously not under government control, because they had no access to it, and it wasn't theirs anyway.
Under Government Control (Score:2)
Isn't this similar to what someone did to Jeffrey Epstein?
"...should carefully consider how to use it..." (Score:2)
Yeah, right. People that actually know how to be careful do not need this feature, because they do not trust their phone or at least wipe it carefully before crossing any dangerous border like the US one. The people that use this feature are already careless idiots by that fact alone. Better to not have the feature at all. It is like an explicitly designed in "shoot yourself in the foot" function on a gun.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Governments and border enforcement can lick my nutsack. I'll make them wipe my phone for me every single time. And while it's wiping I'll have it play Fuck Tha Police by N.W.A while displaying animated middle fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
Have fun in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
I would. But it's never going to happen. At least, not for anything like this. And they don't have access to a lawyer good enough to get me in court. And I don't go to countries were court isn't an option.
If I'm gunna go to jail, it'll be for violence with at least one arresting officer permanently injured, or disfigured, for the rest of their life. I'll give them a fair warning though.
Tricky (Score:2)
The exact wording in The Guardian is as follows (my emphasis):
> Agent Findley and several others repeatedly asked Tunick to open his phone during the interrogation, telling him they would seize it if he did not .
In my opinion, this means that at the moment he provided the PIN, the phone had not yet been seized and was therefore not yet under the control of the government. Again, in my opinion, this means he did nothing illegal because it's the same as if he'd wiped his phone as soon as the plane took off. In
The OS is doing it wrong (Score:2)
The only thing it didn't do is post an image of a middle finger on screen after it was done.
The folks who create the OS needs to rethink their approach of how they wipe user data from
the device vs going nuclear and wiping everything.
Why not put all user data into their own home directory ( see most other Operating Systems )
and securely wipe ONLY that directory upon entry of a duress code or bad pin entry X number
of times. Perhaps give the user the option to select / flag which sub-directories to purge and
wh
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I bet you could leverage corporate MDM functionality for more or less the same thing, now that I think about it.
He didn't do anything wrong, the government did! (Score:2)
Regardless if he did anything legally wrong, there is a better way to handle this situation. Before you travel, backup your phone to a hidden encrypted volume, then wipe the phone. Set a dummy passcode that you can give out at the border, and be assured you're safe. That being said, he wasn't presented with a warrant to force handing over or retaining evidence, so what is he guilty of?
All he has to argue is that he was never presented with a warrant, and therefore the requirement to retain evidence didn'
Is it really under government control? (Score:2)
Is a device really under government control if the government doesn't know the PIN? Or if the government is so naive as to enter a PIN that wipes the device?
Re: (Score:2)
Legal definitions are different than layman definitions. And even then that's starting to get into the sovereign citizen level of philosophical chicanery.
Was he NOT in custody? How could he have done this (Score:2)
Was he NOT in custody? How could he have done this? Like if he was in custody then using his voice can't be illegal. If he told the officer to go shred the incriminating evidence and they did would he be liable then?
This is on some borders that have not been well defined. For one suspects are seized and forced to supposedly compel speech. It is literally a compelled speech under duress which means anything setup on his device to detect that which was done prior to the encounter simply falls under the guise
obviously problematic (Score:2)
The duress deletion function was always obviously and transparently going to get treated as obstruction of justice issue the minute it got used in a high profile case. Here we are.
If you don't want to have trouble at the border, wipe your devices before you get anywhere near, and restore them once you are across. The precursors to this event have been in the news for years - the border is a legal gray zone, act accordingly.
I have mixed feeling here - sad for this kid, whomever he may be. Once again annoyed
U.S.C. 2232 (Score:2)
> (a) Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure.--Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government's lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or
Two entirely separate issues (Score:2)
1. GrapheneOS is completely in the clear here - one can certainly have a data wipe feature in a device. Indeed there are entirely different scenarios from the current one where it would be of value, such as theft or kidnapping.
2. USING that feature, the way this individual did, is illegal. This is similar to a basic gun issue. It can be perfectly legal to own a gun and use it in certain ways, yet it remains illegal to use the gun to shoot an immigration/customs official. This is NOT something the current ad
If he is found guilty (Score:3, Insightful)
They're going to make an example out of him and give him the maximum.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I'm sure that's their intent... but, with the current administration, it's not a given they have the legal competence to actually pull it off.
Re:If he is found guilty (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I understand of the guy I'm not a fan and likely would like to see him nailed.
However, in this case...I don't think the govt has a case against him.
If they never got into the phone, how do they know there was evidence on there? How could they proved he wiped evidence if they had no clue what might be on there?
It also sounds like at the time, he wasn't under arrest? He had asked for a lawyer and had been refused?
He's not under any compulsion to give a password is he? They had the phone, nothing forced the authorities to trust anything he said....they could have tried forensics like they'd do if they had a safe and tried a safecracker to get in if the suspect didn't want to give the combination.
I just don't see the case they have....or if they do it has implications far wider for common citizens and their privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
There is some established case law that says that one cannot be compelled to give up a Password, Pin or Pattern Unlock, as a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment.
Those Amendments are key to a person's rights to be SECURE. Which is the key word here. He SECURED his rights, under duress, by refusing to comply.
THIS is separate from the police chasing him as a possible criminal for crimes I may or may not like.
Rights work by being the STARTING POINT, not an afterthought or worse, something the state can simpl
Re: (Score:1)
It's CBP, you don't have any rights within 100mi of a "border".
Re: (Score:2)
Close.
Foreigners do not have constitutional rights, especially in border regions. US citizens certainly do.
The US Constitution protects US citizens from the government. It does not protect foreigners. This is why ICE can do what they do.
Re: (Score:3)
Eh, kinda, established case law, even citizens have limited rights near the border (with "near the border" being interpreted quite loosely). US citizens can refuse to give a password, but the govt can refuse to return the device and can make your life very difficult. This case, where data was destroyed, doesn't fall under existing case law, but if it gets to SCOTUS as long as a Republican is in the white House I expect SCOTUS to give all power, all the time, to the executive branch and none to us lowly pe
Re: (Score:2)
> Close.
> Foreigners do not have constitutional rights, especially in border regions. US citizens certainly do.
> The US Constitution protects US citizens from the government. It does not protect foreigners. This is why ICE can do what they do.
Everyone in the U.S., with a few exceptions like diplomats, is subject to and protected by the Constitution, even foreigners, to the extent specified in the Constitution, as interpreted by SCOTUS, ss well as those outside the U.S. and subject to U.S. jurisdiction. From [1]ArtI.S8.C18.8.7.2 Aliens in the United States [congress.gov]
> In 1903, the Court in the Japanese Immigrant Case reviewed the legality of deporting an alien who had lawfully entered the United States, clarifying that "an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population" could not be deported without an "opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States." In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court maintained the notion that "once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders."
> Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that "aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law." The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.4 Thus, the Court determined, "[e]ven one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection."
ICE (a) does some things because Immigration law allows it and (b) currently does other more sketchy things because this Administration (mainly Stephen Miller) is directing it, and Republicans
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to have missed the past couple decades of Supreme Court bullshit. If you're within 100 miles of a physical border, the fourth amendment doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court abolished the Constitution as it applies to the President entirely. We have a corrupt court that has ruled that laws don't apply to the President at all. It's not just the fourth amendment that doesn't exist, none do.
Once upon a time, court precedent mattered and rule of law mattered. Neither does today.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the Constitution say that?
If you accept whatever the executive branch says, you don't have any rights at all.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's CBP, you don't have any rights within 100mi of a "border".
Yes, this is unfortunately the trump dictatorship's position on the matter. Also note that 60% of the citizens of the US live inside that zone of "no rights", and a majority of those voted against herr shitler .
Re: (Score:3)
"He's not under any compulsion to give a password is he? They had the phone, nothing forced the authorities to trust anything he said....they could have tried forensics like they'd do if they had a safe and tried a safecracker to get in if the suspect didn't want to give the combination."
This is the interesting part to me. He definitely could not be compelled to give them his password (legally). So the fact he offered them a password could be covered under freedom of speech. Depending on what was said, lyin
Re: If he is found guilty (Score:2)
What if he had just written 1209766 on a post-it note inside of his phone case, completely without context? What if he then refused to provide the pin, the agent saw that note and decided to try it and it nuked the device? I have a feeling that now that the door is open we're going to see all sorts of interesting cases testing the limits of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Re: (Score:2)
> "He's not under any compulsion to give a password is he? They had the phone, nothing forced the authorities to trust anything he said....they could have tried forensics like they'd do if they had a safe and tried a safecracker to get in if the suspect didn't want to give the combination."
> This is the interesting part to me. He definitely could not be compelled to give them his password (legally). So the fact he offered them a password could be covered under freedom of speech. Depending on what was said, lyin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> If they never got into the phone, how do they know there was evidence on there? How could they proved he wiped evidence if they had no clue what might be on there?
Step 1 is to have a suspicion there is evidence there. Since there are countless cases of smartphones having incriminating communications, this suspicion is valid.
Step 2 is to perform a confiscation. In legal terms it is now called "evidence"
This is different from how you use the word. In legal terms you are referring to "evidence of guilt", yet evidence serves to show innocents as well as to show it is unrelated.
A blank piece of paper is evidence once confiscated. It almost certainly can't serve as evi
Re: (Score:1)
The entire thrust of your argument is complete and utter horseshit. Do you enjoy the taste of boot leather recreationally or are you a paid brownshirt?
Re: (Score:1)
Tell us you have no idea how criminal law works, without telling us you have no idea how criminal law works.
"People all over the place keep evidence of crime on their phones" is not sufficient PC to get a warrant to look at that specific person's phone. You know how I know that? Change "on their phones" to "in their houses" and see how it reads for law enforcement doing an illegal search without a warrant.
I didn't read a single word of that screed you wrote after seeing just how bafflingly wrong you were
Re: (Score:2)
The AC is right that due to the border exception that probable cause and a warrant aren't required and not even reasonable suspicion is required for "routine searches". There's some legal disagreement between circuits on whether cell phone searches are routine and manual vs forensic searches, but regardless CBP policy current requires individualized reasonable suspicion.
They are, however, very incorrect that in general "smartphones having incriminating communications" is individualized reasonable suspicion.
Re: (Score:2)
A whole lotta words for a subject that is entirely irrelevant. We aren't talking about anything "outside of all countries borders".
This is what you get when trolls decide they are intellectuals.
Re: (Score:2)
"Since there are countless cases of smartphones having incriminating communications, this suspicion is valid."
WHAT? No suspicion has even been justified, much less determined valid. Imagine this in a court of law, someone committed a crime once, so my suspicion that you committed a crime is valid.
"In legal terms it is now called "evidence""
No it's not. There's no suspicion that a crime has even been committed. It's just property being held.
"A blank piece of paper is evidence once confiscated. It almost c
Re: (Score:2)
> Yet the phone became evidence the moment it was confiscated. It was in the possession of the authorities.
> It absolutely is a crime to intentionally destroy evidence. Been that way for hundreds of years.
> It's a crime to destroy evidence of guilt and evidence of innocents too.
> Until that evidence is deemed not relevant and returned to the owner, it is a crime to destroy it.
But the individual didn't destroy it. The agent did the physical act of destroying it.
Suppose you were at the border with your phone, and the agent confiscated it.
Then the agent had said, how do i get into this phone?
You said, "put it in a blender".
If the agent puts it in the blender, the agent destroyed it, not you.
Now clearly, one would expect the agent to know that putting it in a blender would destroy it.
And equally clearly the inference here is that the agent did not know that the password he was given
Re: (Score:2)
> If they never got into the phone, how do they know there was evidence on there? How could they proved he wiped evidence if they had no clue what might be on there?
Exactly. Maybe he just bought the phone? Used?
Lack of evidence is a lack of a case.
Re: (Score:2)
If they never got into the phone, how do they know there was evidence on there?
They demanded the phone, and he caused the contents on it to be unrecoverable. At that point it does not matter whether the phone did or did not contain anything incriminating, according to the article [1]18 U.S.C. 2232 [cornell.edu] he was charged with.
It also sounds like at the time, he wasn't under arrest? He had asked for a lawyer and had been refused?
This was at a border checkpoint, and the rules are a little different. Customs off
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232
Re: (Score:2)
"They demanded the phone..."
You assume.
"...and he caused the contents on it to be unrecoverable."
Allegedly. That would have to be proven.
"This was at a border checkpoint, and the rules are a little different."
So say the cops about the "rules". ICE has things to say about "the rules" too, including how they can murder citizens.
"But once he gave the duress password, he effectively caused the phone's decryption keys to be wiped, and the aforementioned article kicks in."
You do not know this, it is simply alle
Re: (Score:2)
Would he have handed over the phone unasked and volunteered the password? Unlikely.
As far as I know, the phone behaves in a certain way when you enter the duress password. So it seems established that that is the password he provided. And at that point, it doesn’t matter if he wiped the phone earlier or not, that fact can no longer be established, and that alone would count under the (expanded interpretation of) that law.
Yes, we make assumptions. We’re not in court, we’re on the inte
Re: (Score:2)
Right, to make a case that using such a password is a crime, you have to prove that a password that destroys "evidence" was actually used. Without seeing the BEFORE and the AFTER, they have to rely on something else.
The alleged criminal may have said something incriminating, seems unlikely.
Re: If he is found guilty (Score:2)
> If they never got into the phone, how do they know there was evidence on there? How could they proved he wiped evidence if they had no clue what might be on there?
It's still evidence because it was on his person, even if it doesn't have anything useful to the investigation. That's why a warrant is required. Besides, all he had to do was invoke his right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer. They wouldn't have ever extracted anything from it -- all of the vendors the police use have stated (in leaked documents) that they can't do anything with grapheneos no matter what state it's in. And if they can't, it's unlikely anybody else can, which is exactly why I use it.
Unl
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there a PC OS that can do nesting dolls of instances so your duress password just unlocks a boring OS with some dumb stuff in it that doesn't appear interesting? Might be something to make here, not like modern phones don't have enough storage for it.
Re: If he is found guilty (Score:2)
Veracrypt can do that...
Re: If he is found guilty (Score:2)
On PC that is, not phones (that I know of).
Re: (Score:3)
There are some basic issues at play here, such as there needing to be reasonable suspicion that any sort of crime has been committed before any sort of search or seizure of property. Since ICE is not known for getting a warrant, just going over the border does not mean there is a REASONABLE suspicion that anything wrong has been done. Since the government does not have a right to just take personal property then, they have no realistic case to charge someone for destruction of ANYTHING the person actual
Re: (Score:2)
> There are some basic issues at play here, such as there needing to be reasonable suspicion that any sort of crime has been committed before any sort of search or seizure of property.
This isn't (necessarily) true at a U.S. border and there are currently different rules, from different federal courts, depending on where you are entering the U.S. There is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause requirement in many states - for example if you fly from Europe into New York or Virginia . This article lays them out.
[1]No Warrants and Half a Dozen Different Rules: The Convoluted and Dangerous Status of the Border Search Exception [cdt.org]
[1] https://cdt.org/insights/no-warrants-and-half-a-dozen-different-rules-the-convoluted-and-dangerous-status-of-the-border-search-exception/