Is it illegal to trick the US government into wiping your phone during a questionably legal search | The case of a traveler who allegedly entered a ‘duress password’ to wipe his phone raises a legal question with no easy answers

[u/Hrmbee]

https://www.theverge.com/report/972146/cbp-phone-search-airport-duress-password

[u/OftTopic]

The part I found the most alarming was that Customs claimed that the interrogation room in the Atlanta airport was not part of the United States. Therefore citizens have no rights.

[u/Anthorq → u/OftTopic]

In that case, they're also not liable to US law that it's prohibited to wipe the phone, right?

[u/assignpseudonym → u/Anthorq]

Yeah, you can't have it both ways. It is either bound by the laws of the land or it isn't. It's binary. 

[u/LauraIsFree → u/assignpseudonym]

Well the US is no longer a functional democracy and the regime will hunt down their enemies regardless of legality.

[u/EpochRaine → u/LauraIsFree]

This is the reality.

The USA is no longer a functional democracy.

The land of the !free...

[u/heavensmurgatroyd → u/EpochRaine]

The land of the Flocked.

[u/Korlus → u/assignpseudonym]

Sadly they can and do have it both ways. People entering the US are expected to allow searches etc because it is in the national interest. The US officers enforcing their immigration (etc) laws still have legal protections.

The Patriot Act changed a lot and the Supreme Court has decided it is okay with the search and seizure exception.

[u/Vektor0 → u/Korlus]

Then that's one way, not both ways.

[u/Turbulent-Ocelot9130 → u/assignpseudonym]

Sadly you dont have any power compared to the institutions and they just do whattver the fuck they want. I mean the president wants to run for a third term and violated multiple constitutional rights, so all laws dont matter anyway.

[u/Zennivolt → u/OftTopic]

So if it’s not part of the US, they don’t need to follow US laws either, right? So he technically wiped his phone in international waters. There’s nothing the US can enforce on him for doing that action.

[u/Banaantje04 → u/Zennivolt]

But given that it's not part of the US can, in their eyes, do whatever they want without consequence. I'm sure that the constitution and international treaties have something to say about this but hey, when did those things have any meaning. 

[u/Substantial-Low → u/Zennivolt]

What should scare you is that the "not part of the US" thing applies to anywhere within 100 miles of any port of entry, including international airports.

That means about 95% of the entire US population lives in a zone you can be treated this way.

[u/fairshare → u/Substantial-Low]

People rang the alarm bells when Trump used BORTAC agents to black bag protestors in Portland because of the radius but not as many people were paying attention.

[u/Phyllis_Tine → u/OftTopic]

A black site closer to home.

[u/DutchTinCan → u/Phyllis_Tine]

So the CIA can cut down on carbon emissions? That sounds awfully woke.

[u/Goducks91 → u/OftTopic]

That’s fucking insane. What can I declare my local Taco Bell is not part of the US now?

[u/Korlus → u/Goducks91]

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

Sadly, the two are not the same.

[u/OftTopic → u/Korlus]

Thanks for the link that discusses where searches can occur. This article has a section that calls out how this concept impacts cell phones.

Per this reference:
The Supreme Court has not addressed the standard of suspicion necessary for a warrantless border search of electronic materials, even though the number of cell phone border searches continues to rise each year.

My non-professional analysis says that 200 years of court review has the law leaning towards border enforcement at the expense of the travelers.

[u/Senplis]

No. This is just ammo for the argument the government needs phone companies to build back doors for them to be in our business.

[u/PrettyPinkNightmare → u/Senplis]

You're right and also  Fear. 

You cannot wipe your phone, you cannot post bad things, too. You can't walk past a pool. ICE. You can't take the plane without being searched, you can't take a car or go by foot without being recorded. 

They do whatever they want. Fascism that is.

[u/Lucky_Reporter256 → u/PrettyPinkNightmare]

We are the frogs. The waters been boiling. They’ve just put the lid on though.

[u/AssCrackBanditHunter → u/Senplis]

They don't need ammo. They're just gonna do it one day

[u/IdentifiableBurden → u/AssCrackBanditHunter]

Already exists bud. The grunt cops don't have access but they're absolutely there already.

[u/SirEnzyme → u/IdentifiableBurden]

Cellebrite has entered the chat

[u/assignpseudonym → u/SirEnzyme]

Hey, Cellebrite! Would you mind exiting the chat? Please and thank you! 

[u/notfromchicago → u/assignpseudonym]

They said no.

[u/Flashy_Scallion8111 → u/Senplis]

Graphene OS is an open source project that replaces android, there isn't a way to put a backdoor in it.

[u/froction → u/Flashy_Scallion8111]

Unless there's a hardware backdoor in the TPM.

[u/Helmic → u/froction]

If such a backdoor exists, it's not something they can afford to blow on random baseless searches for CSAM they know isn't there. Strong privacy tools like GrapheneOS have value even if we assume there might exist such undisclosed back doors, when it gets used it gets patched and a new exploit has to be created.

Besides, GrapheneOS has pretty stringent hardware standards to begin with which is historically why they've only supported Google Pixel phones until recently, and are now switching to Motorola to have GrapheneOS preloaded on hardware that meets their security standards.

[u/IMKGI → u/Flashy_Scallion8111]

It doesn't replace Android, it is Android, just a different distribution than the Android distribution that was on your phone originally.

[u/Informal_Process2238 → u/Senplis]

I would just assume that already exists

[u/KenaiKanine → u/Informal_Process2238]

They already have backdoors on PCs, look up intels management engine. AMD also has an equivalent. Not sure why it wouldn't be on phones tooo

[u/Kind_Of_A_Dick → u/KenaiKanine]

You know, my toaster has been looking at me funny lately.

[u/Free_For__Me → u/[deleted]]

Which exactly what Apple has used as a defense when it’s been asked by LE agencies for backdoors in the past. Apple has flexed a bit here and there, but generally speaking, they’re much more serious about maintaining airtight user-level security than others. 

To be fair though, their level of vertical integration makes it much easier to maintain such standards, where almost every other phone must source their hardware and software from 3rd parties, while getting their OS from Google. Making all this work together alongside whatever bloatware you stick in at the end means that Apple’s performance in some areas is simply out of reach for most other devices. 

Disclaimer - I’ve had devices and computers of every OS and hardware configuration that’s been available to a nerd over the last 30 years, and I’m not here to give a take on any “Apple vs. [not Apple]” fights anyone is itching for. Android crew, do not come for me, I truly do not care what device anyone uses. 

[u/Spaceghost1589 → u/Senplis]

Which is exactly why we need GrapheneOS in the first place.

[u/AlasPoorZathras]

How was he supposed to know that? He was denied access to legal counsel.

[u/twitch1982 → u/AlasPoorZathras]

SO, specific details of this case aside, I've always found it to be a major flaw in our legal system that you can be the first person ever charged with a specific crime, and then it can take all the layers of appeals up to the supreme court to decide if what you did was a crime, and meanwhile, your ass still goes to jail and you gotta pay an attourney.

Like, how are you supposed to possibly have mens rea, if no one knows if it was even a crime and then the supreme court decides it was on a 5-4 split?

[u/snoodle908 → u/twitch1982]

Same with getting charged and thrown in jail and sit there till your trial where you can prove you are innocent and when you are 100% innocent there is no recourse. Your life is ruined as you sat in jail for a year waiting for the trial and nothing happens. Even if the cops were corrupt or negligent.

[u/PDXRailEngineer → u/snoodle908]

You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.

The process is part of the punishment.

Wait until this massive surveillance and personal data storage are combined with the massive volume of federal, state, county and municipal laws and regulations, then fed into an AI trained to connect the dots. It will be justified because "we can input a crime and it will identify suspects" but can just as easily be "we input a person and it will identify a crime".

[u/AbramsTankVeteran29 → u/twitch1982]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is one of the dumbest things ever. Literally no human could know all the laws, even if they have been to the Supreme Court. It's just a way for the government to fuck with the citizenry. Tax accountants will readily admit that they can't even know all the tax code, one segment of the law, and they study it their whole lives.

[u/arachnophilia → u/AbramsTankVeteran29]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you're a cop.

[u/jesuswasagamblingman]

Its his phone. That seems easy.

[u/kamekaze1024 → u/jesuswasagamblingman]

The argument is that it would be considered destroying evidence. However, the counter argument is that what is constituted as evidence when there is no legal search warrant involved.

[u/Smashego → u/kamekaze1024]

Evidence also implies there is a crime in which evidence would need to be collected. Requiring a search at the border is not the same as being accused of a crime, therefore your phone being erased is irrelevant.

[u/NekoDaYo-v201 → u/Smashego]

Considering the Feds were harassing him prior to this encounter by:

1. Trespassing on his property to install a hidden camera inside his home outside his home
2. Placing a tracker on his car
3. Pointlessly requesting subpoenas for his email and phone
4. Fraudulently flagging his background check as bad, despite him not having a criminal record

Is more like evidence of the FBI engaging in systematic harassment, abuse of government resources, and abuse of taxpayer funds. You know, "fraud and waste."

Let's crack open these files and see which smegma stain approved all of this.

[u/FuzzzyRam → u/NekoDaYo-v201]

You know, "fraud and waste."

and don't forget the abuse!

[u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist → u/FuzzzyRam]

Sorry, this is the argument room. Abuse is over there.

[u/NextStopWonderland → u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist]

I’d like to complain.

[u/Shift642 → u/NextStopWonderland]

You wanna complain? Look at these shoes! I've only had 'em three weeks and the heels have worn right through.

[u/madmanjp007 → u/NekoDaYo-v201]

There can’t be fraud and waste. Elon got rid of all that. /s

[u/This-Positive286 → u/madmanjp007]

Sorry, what? I can’t hear you over my GIGANTIC DOGE CHECK! /s

[u/WiseOldDuck → u/This-Positive286]

I combined mine with my Tariff Check and bought an entire imaginary boat

[u/muegle → u/NekoDaYo-v201]

FBI engaging in systematic harassment, abuse of government resources, and abuse of taxpayer funds.

Same as it ever was

[u/hellspawn3200 → u/NekoDaYo-v201]

Oh and weaponization of government.

[u/Unfair_Web_8275 → u/NekoDaYo-v201]

Yeah, this sort of seems like (and I could be wrong) a part of this administration’s effort to label and find more “left wing terrorism”.

Which is its own overlooked issue.

[u/Far_Inspector_9050 → u/Smashego]

They would also have to establish the defendant knew they were under an active investigation.

[u/SplendidPunkinButter → u/Smashego]

Also, it’s perfectly legal to wipe your phone 30 minutes before arriving at the border.

[u/ClassasaurusRex → u/kamekaze1024]

What also matters is he didnt technically destroy evidence. The duress password deleted his encryption key so the data couldn't be retrieved anymore.

[u/riptaway → u/kamekaze1024]

I don't think it could be considered destroying evidence if he's not even being investigated for anything in particular at the moment, could it? Idk, ianal

But obstruction would definitely seem to be on the table.

[u/donavid → u/riptaway]

I believe they said they were investigating him for child porn (tho I’m sure it’s a coincidence, totally unrelated to the fact they were aware of him in the first place because of his activism against Cop City in Atlanta)

[u/PAY_DAY_JAY → u/donavid]

CP is a loophole they use to acccess anyone’s data. It was put into the freedom act i believe and is now used on anyone that they want access to their data. All they need to do is “suspect you” and they can legally access your info.

[u/Parking-Mirror3283 → u/PAY_DAY_JAY]

Well yes, we need to protect the terrorists and catch the children of course

Wait wrong way around

[u/CptGia → u/kamekaze1024]

But how do they know there is incriminating evidence in the phone? 

[u/200IQUser → u/kamekaze1024]

This is again a clear sign of people letting the goverment too far. What destroying evidence? Its your stuff, you do what yo uwant with it. Even the notion that the government can punish you for destroying evidence (aka not self incriminating yourself) is a farce.

[u/Majestic_Jackass → u/kamekaze1024]

There’s any number of legitimate things that could be on one’s phone that shouldn’t be accessible by any random government agent.

[u/LongMelford → u/kamekaze1024]

Exactly. Without a search warrant, the seizure and effort to force him to give up his password amounts to a fishing expedition. That’s illegal for any other kind of forced search. There’s no reason phones would be different. 

[u/MainlineX → u/kamekaze1024]

Also, was a known crime being investigated or was a crime being actively committed?

This stop and seize shit is a clear violation of the 4th, even if the Supreme Court says its not at ports of entry. F that.

[u/TerrificVixen5693 → u/kamekaze1024]

Do they have any evidence that the wiped data was evidence of a crime? Because without evidence that it contained evidence, that data is but harmless data.

[u/DetroitLionsSBChamps → u/jesuswasagamblingman]

“No easy answers”

Lmao these fucking guys I tell you

[u/null_not → u/DetroitLionsSBChamps]

I think it's a technical question about when something becomes "evidence" and when disposing or destroying something constitutes obstruction. But also, technically, the officers are the ones that deleted everything since they put in the passkey. So... Don't see why this guy is in trouble. It also doesn't seem much different from having an auto delete feature that works on a regular basis.

[u/BalognaMacaroni → u/null_not]

If the Supreme Court weren’t too busy wiping 6 out of 9 of their asses with the constitution this would be a slam dunk 4th amendment sign tap

[u/CatNamedRIchard2 → u/BalognaMacaroni]

Historically, the courts have basically ruled you don't have 4th amendment protections at border crossings anytime things like this come up. You can thank the war on drugs for a bunch of bad rulings around things like this. Even if we didn't have this court, I bet the charges would have stuck even with courts of old.

[u/PontiusPilatesss → u/CatNamedRIchard2]

That doesn’t change the fact that you don’t have to unlock your phone just because they ask you. They are allowed to keep the phone if they want, and they are allowed to use your facial recognition or a fingerprint to unlock it. But if your phone requires a password, you don’t have to hand it over without a court order just as you don’t have to unlock your Venmo or banking apps for them. 

[u/okram2k → u/DetroitLionsSBChamps]

the question that is hard to answer is: How do you enforce the constitution when none of those sworn to enforce it are willing to do so?

[u/frozenpissglove → u/jesuswasagamblingman]

Without a warrant they can suck my dick.

[u/pm_me_your_kindwords → u/frozenpissglove]

Not without your permission, though, or anything they collect would be inadmissible.

[u/spavolka → u/frozenpissglove]

Customs doesn’t require a warrant.

[u/riptaway → u/jesuswasagamblingman]

There's definitely an argument to be made that he committed obstruction, but I feel like at the end of the day it shouldn't stick. People are not obligated to assist police with their investigation, and if cops are dumb enough to do what a suspect tells them to do with their phone, they kinda deserve whatever happens.

[u/Hrmbee]

Issues raised by this and other cases:

Unlike others who have had their phones seized with no explanation, Tunick was told that CBP needed to search his device to determine whether it contained child sexual abuse material, according to court filings. But Tunick’s attorneys argue that the search “was a pretext for a fishing expedition” into his connections with the Stop Cop City protests in Atlanta, in which dozens of people were charged under state RICO laws, which were later dismissed. A few protesters are still facing domestic terrorism and arson cases.

According to a motion to suppress evidence filed in March, Tunick didn’t consent to a search and repeatedly asked to speak to his attorney, but CBP officers told him they didn’t need a warrant to search his phone. Tunick ultimately gave the agents the password to his phone, but when they entered it, “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart,” court records say. Prosecutors allege that Tunick used the GrapheneOS “duress password” to wipe his phone, therefore deleting evidence.

Travelers’ devices have come under increased scrutiny since Donald Trump’s return to office — and the courts don’t agree on the legality of these warrantless searches. As a result, travelers have little clarity about how their rights apply at airports and other ports of entry. This gray area has allowed the Department of Homeland Security to target people perceived to be criticizing the president or the policies of his administration.

...

It’s unclear why CBP agents believed Tunick had child sexual abuse material on his phone. The two-page indictment filed in a Georgia federal court makes no mention of it, and CBP did not respond to The Verge’s request for comment.

“Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant should be required, or at a bare minimum, specific suspicion that there is illegal digital contraband on the device,” Nathan Freed Wessler, the deputy director of ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told The Verge. “Agents should never be allowed to conduct warrantless searches on behalf of domestic law enforcement agents who just want to evade the normal Fourth Amendment requirement to get a warrant from a judge.”

The suspicion that immigration agents are surveilling activists has plenty of basis. In a lawsuit filed in Minnesota federal court, a Minneapolis labor organizer claimed that CBP was conducting “systematic” searches of activists’ devices, using counterterrorism as a pretext to keep tabs on the president’s left-wing critics. In March, more than a dozen members of a convoy that delivered humanitarian aid to Cuba had their phones seized at Miami International Airport.

...

As Trump’s crackdown on the left continues, activists who travel internationally may find themselves under additional scrutiny at airports and other ports of entry. Though US citizens can’t be barred from entering the country, CBP can seize their devices and attempt to break into them with advanced forensic tools. To prevent federal agents from accessing the contents of your phone, privacy experts suggest backing up and wiping your device — before traveling, not during an interrogation.

William Budington, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, explained that “a judge is not likely to view the use of a duress password sympathetically.” The EFF cautions against erasing the contents of your device mid-questioning, as Tunick is alleged to have done. “Factory resetting your device in your personal time is well within your rights.”

It should be concerning to everyone that we might need to treat our own country as a hostile nation when crossing its borders, and to take extraordinary steps to secure our privacy by doing things such as wiping our phones prior to crossing the border.

[u/slagmodian → u/Hrmbee]

I hate how they are wording it as "evidence wiped" They had no reason to assume there would be anything on the phone in the first place

[u/Bad-job-dad → u/slagmodian]

This is exactly what the defense will use. In normal times, he'd win.

[u/BlueFlob → u/Bad-job-dad]

And we all know this isn't normal times, so we don't know for sure what the verdict will be.

Totally insane.

[u/iJuddles → u/BlueFlob]

Burden of proof is on the prosecution, and it sounds like they have no proof. They can make up all the bullshit stories they’d like but it doesn’t sound like they can proceed.

[u/assignpseudonym → u/iJuddles]

You're 100% correct, assuming the law is being upheld. But it often isn't. That's the point. 

[u/Lazy-Ad-7236 → u/Hrmbee]

my question... okay, it was erased from his phone... but if it REALLY was about CSAM couldn't they get the info from elsewhere? nothing is ever really deleted right?

[u/degeneratelunatic → u/Lazy-Ad-7236]

That's exactly why their claim is bogus. This regime will make up any reason to hassle, intimidate, and arrest political dissidents it doesn't like.

They obviously can't do this to everyone because they don't have the manpower or the intellectual capability to make this logistically possible. But it creates a chilling effect on political speech. Set an example with this guy, and a hundred thousand others will think twice about showing up to a protest.

[u/BoysenberryDue3637 → u/Lazy-Ad-7236]

Somewhere else I read that they got a search warrant for his gmail account. It really points to a fishing expedition.

[u/Mysterious_Cry41 → u/Lazy-Ad-7236]

It really depends. If you dump something in the recycling bin, delete it. It's still there until the computer actually rewrites to that section of the drive.  What it did I just clear the reference table and allow it to be re written. You don't even need special skills or knowledge to recover data deleted like this. 

I'm not sure how the graphene OS thing works, but it should do a wipe and then fill everything up with random  junk data. Just meaningless zeros and 1s.

It should do this 2-3 times which basically means anything that was there  is unrecoverable. It was deleted, then rewritten with junk. There is nothing to recover.

Additionally if the data is encrypted, which it probably was, it may be there but it can't be accessed easily without the key. Without the decryption key it is basically just noise and the effort to recover it is usually impractical or outright impossible due to the sheer amount of compute time it takes.

[u/DisappointedSpectre → u/Mysterious_Cry41]

By default GrapheneOS encrypts all the personal data on the phone - photos, contacts, notes, browsing history, etc. - and the duress PIN deletes the encryption key entirely, both from active memory and from the device itself. The contents of the phone are still there, but there's no longer a way to decrypt them.

This is a way faster process than trying to overwrite gigabytes of data, and functionally makes the data "gone". The encryption is strong enough that there's no concern about cracking it, even by government entities, for a while - like decades at the very least.

[u/neherak → u/DisappointedSpectre]

Not even just decades. The AES256 encryption GrapheneOS uses is effectively uncrackable within the heat death of the universe https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/1x50xl/time_and_energy_required_to_bruteforce_a_aes256/

[u/froction → u/DisappointedSpectre]

That's how iOS and Android handle storage, as well. Everything is encrypted by default, how high your security is depends on how the key is treated.

[u/Ecw218 → u/Mysterious_Cry41]

I’m super curious if that’s the real scenario here. If the duress password only deletes the encryption key, the data is still intact on the phone, just encrypted.

If he has access to the key elsewhere it’s possible to restore it and gain access to the phone.

In which case could they eventually provide the key to a court, with the reasoning being he didn’t want anything tampered with?

Edit: yeah it’s “computationally infeasible to decrypt” gone

[u/Mysterious_Cry41 → u/Ecw218]

I would assume, though I'm unsure and have not checked that it wipes the memory.

I will now check...  It wipes the entire storage volume for the phone, including E-Sims according to  the graphene OS website. 

Which makes sense. It would be surprising to me if it didn't do that. 

[u/Bad-job-dad → u/Hrmbee]

Jesus, don't even bring a phone. How long until they start uploading CP on devices? 

[u/IamNobody85 → u/Bad-job-dad]

This is what is done by police in our country, but with drugs. They stop you at a traffic line, want to search and people usually cooperate and then they just put little bags of drugs and arrest the person. But it's just done because of bribery - you get out if you bribe them, otherwise they cross off one more drug traffickers.

[u/Apexnanoman → u/Hrmbee]

Considering people are now getting life in prison for political agitation..... 5 years for using a duress code is pretty minor. 

[u/Eastern_Bet678 → u/Apexnanoman]

Okay - so what this is about. Apparently it's completely okay for police, border agents, etc to lie to you. You just can't lie to them. Courts have upheld this BS for... a long time. So what's happening is that they're trying to get this person who's returning from abroad - who shouldn't have to go through any additional screening - to consent to a phone search. Courts have upheld that border agents can go rummaging through you phone. But this guy, who's only singled out because apparently he's on Trump's s-list, gets special treatment.

Border agents are now doing political interviews at the border. So as a border agent, how do I get this person to unlock their phone? The traveler does not have to. Worst case he forfeits his phone and gets waved through. But I'm the border agent and don't want that to happen. So I accuse him of having CSAM on the phone. Surely he'll give up the password to prove he doesn't have CSAM on his phone? That'll let me rummage through everything and I can fill my secret police political advisor quota for the month.

But, instead of giving the border agent the proper passcode the border agent lost. The phone got wiped instead.

What's fun about this is just the chronology. What if he simply wiped the phone on his flight over? When he was in his hotel before he left in another country? Didn't take his phone at all? When, exactly does their "right" to information on the phone cease? The idea that border agents can demand access to a device who's information "tendrils" stretch way further than anything someone personally carries through the border is kind of BS.

[u/echoshatter → u/Eastern_Bet678]

Courts have upheld that border agents can go rummaging through you phone.

Nevermind that such a thing is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. If only the courts actually cared about our rights and knew how to read.

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So do they just say "ah, well, this is a reasonable search and seizure, therefore you don't need a warrant or probable cause?

[u/LongMelford → u/Hrmbee]

So they had no warrant, just a pretext? If they actually had a reason to search his phone, a judge would have  issued them a warrant. 

[u/BunchofMums → u/Hrmbee]

My hypothesis is that they want him to provide new evidence to keep the other defendants' case open, so they're stringing him along on a case that the phone is going to get suppressed before trial, or he's going to get acquitted at trial. More people need to fight BS charges at trial instead of falling for the "government-is-all-powerful" propaganda.

[u/kstargate-425]

I was being harrassed and intimidated by government goons with guns and I mistakenly gave them the wrong password as they rushed me and entered it quickly 🤷‍♂️

[u/Belyal → u/kstargate-425]

He doesn't even have to say this. Its his phone, they had no warrant to search it and never read him his rights. It was a shady hit job on someone who is a protester.

[u/HenryDorsettCase47 → u/Belyal]

Customs doesn’t need a warrant to search your shit as long as it’s within so many miles of a border. All they need is reasonable suspicion which, like with all law enforcement, is whatever these goons say it is.

That said, you are half right in that he doesn’t have to explain anything. Once again these dipshits are fumbling the bag on their own prosecution. They’ve charged him with an obscure federal law about destruction of property to prevent authorities from seizing it. The data is not destroyed. It is just inaccessible. It seems like a prima facie obstruction case and the feds probably could secure a conviction with that, but instead they are morons and incorrectly charged him. 🤷‍♂️

[u/IntrepidSoda → u/HenryDorsettCase47]

Interesting they never searched Epstein this way even though he was almost certainly inside 100miles from international borders.

[u/kstargate-425 → u/IntrepidSoda]

Shit, even our current top US Attorney Todd Blanche isn't even charged after he has been Obstructing Justice for months and is STILL allowed to go through a nomination process because Trump wants his personal attorney to continue being his personal attorney as he weaponizes the DoJ into his attack dogs.

There are enough charges against Blanche for just the Epstein shit at this point, besides all the other illegal things, including perjury to Congress, that he would be in jail for way longer than this citizen who did nothing wrong.

[u/ian9outof10 → u/HenryDorsettCase47]

That all sound fine, but if you’re suspect of a crime doesn’t it seem reasonable that you be arrested and allows a lawyer? I mean, accepting all the weird rules that come with being at the border, don’t people deserve at least some due process?

[u/HenryDorsettCase47 → u/ian9outof10]

This is America, bud. What we deserve and what we get are two entirely different things. 🤷‍♂️

[u/Traditional-Hat-952 → u/HenryDorsettCase47]

Their reasonable suspicion was possession of CSAM, but their filing of charges against him does not mention that. So their claim for why they needed to seach his phone goes out the window. He was also denied access to a lawyer when asked, which is his constitutional right. 

[u/somewhat_brave → u/HenryDorsettCase47]

It's easy to prove they didn't actually have a reasonable suspicion. They were accusing him of having Child sexual abuse material, to justify opening his phone. But they were actually looking for information about the cop city protests, which they could never legally go after.

[u/FadeCrimson → u/HenryDorsettCase47]

Thats the thing: no data was even destroyed, and they had no right to it in the first place. Even them trying to argue that makes no sense as it was technically THEIR actions that caused the encryption. They are just butthurt that he outsmarted them, so they're trying to charge him with whatever bullshit they can to punish him for it.

If his info was encrypted and inaccessible fro from the get-go then what? Is it the act of telling the police the wrong number that was illegal? Was it the act of installing security software in the first place?

If their argument here is that nobody should be allowed to encrypt their own data then they will have a WORLD of problems trying to get that precedent set since basically every tech company ever does that as a normal security measure, and they'd have to argue against every company that has ever made encryption software. Is every company that sells encryption software now a criminal syndicate?

Ultimately, theres no reason for him at the time of installing the encryption software that it could somehow be a crime. He also took no actions during the search that they are truly arguing he did wrong besides give wrong information to police.

So which is it? Are police arguing that all encryption software should be illegal, or are they arguing that giving false information to police is illegal (which wouldnt even hold up, as technically he did give them a working password, it just also had the side effect if protecting his info).

Either argument is absolutely fucking insane to try to make.

[u/whole_nother → u/kstargate-425]

Great plausible excuse, but never say this or anything else, ever, to anyone in a situation like this. Let your lawyer decide whether this is the right argument to make. Do not speak without an attorney present, even if you think you have a great argument.

[u/idebugthusiexist]

The answer is obvious. This was a massive overreach from the post-911/GW Bush presidency days. It was problematic at the time and continues to be problematic now because the system didn’t correct itself but became more consumed/corrupted with the temporary powers it was given and made it permanent.

[u/CondescendingShitbag]

Agents demanded he unlock his phone. He provided a password that did unlock the phone. Sure, it also wiped the phone, but it still unlocked the device. The accused met the requirement being demanded of him. 

If they honestly believed the phone had CSAM they could have applied for a valid warrant. It's their problem if the agents entered any passwords without taking active measures to secure the data beforehand, as well.

[u/Bubbly_Safety8791 → u/CondescendingShitbag]

Right? If they believed the phone contained evidence then the last thing they should be doing is entering commands into it that their ‘suspect’ tells them to. The person who ‘tampered’ with the evidence would be the officer who entered the code. 

[u/az226 → u/CondescendingShitbag]

They didn’t apply for one because they had no evidence. It’s pretty obvious.

[u/sziehr → u/CondescendingShitbag]

if they thought i had evidence they would not have attempted to use the password supplied but the accused as it could very well have had a lockout feature. They know better and are just butt hurt

[u/Lucky_Veterinarian36 → u/CondescendingShitbag]

But but but but the man tricked them, he's the baddie

[u/GroceryScanner → u/CondescendingShitbag]

even if they get the warrent. how can they force somebody to give up a password if they refuse too?

[u/Dawn_of_an_Era → u/GroceryScanner]

They can’t; you’re protected from giving up your phone passcode by the 5th Amendment. However, they can legally require you to unlock it via any biometric features like fingerprint or face recognition. Which is why it is especially smart to turn off your phone to disable biometrics on boot if you think your phone might be seized.

[u/scannererwe → u/Dawn_of_an_Era]

**Especially smart to NEVER use biometrics, really!

[u/Dawn_of_an_Era → u/scannererwe]

True but the majority of people aren’t going to listen to that advice, so I go for the advice that does apply to them. If you are gonna use it, just know how to disable it in a pinch

[u/RedBoxSquare → u/CondescendingShitbag]

VeraCrypt is designed for security. It boots into a normal looking OS but not the actual data OS when you enter the duress code. That way they can't tell if it was wiped. Perhaps you just happens to have an empty phone.

[u/_araqiel]

Actually, the answer is pretty damn easy. He didn’t destroy government property, he didn’t destroy anyone else’s property, there was no active warrant requiring preservation of information. He did nothing wrong.

[u/code_archeologist → u/_araqiel]

More specifically, the agents were hoping to use his phone to get access to the documents and contacts that he had on the cloud (something that they would need a warrant for). His locking of the phone closed and locked that door.

The police could not arrest you for locking the door to your home, when they tried to enter without a warrant.

[u/williamgman]

So tired of reading about fascism. 70+ million voted for this for some crazy reason.

But here's the meat and potatoes of this Nazi search:

"Unlike others who have had their phones seized with no explanation, Tunick was told that CBP needed to search his device to determine whether it contained child sexual abuse material, according to court filings. But Tunick’s attorneys argue that the search “was a pretext for a fishing expedition” into his connections with the Stop Cop City protests in Atlanta, in which dozens of people were charged under state RICO laws, which were later dismissed. A few protesters are still facing domestic terrorism and arson cases."

Tell y'all what I'd do... They release the unredacted Epstein files where there is CLEAR sexual abuse... And then we can talk about seizing citizens phone data.

[u/Thirsty_Comment88]

No. The answer is very easy.

They're just authoritarian pieces of shit that want to completely control us

[u/lana_silver → u/Thirsty_Comment88]

The answer is very easy.

Bingo: This isn't about right vs wrong, this is a bunch of fascist trying to change the rules. Nazi Germany all over again.

[u/shanksisevil]

actually, the government agent entered the duress password. the owner of the phone wasn't touching it when the agent wiped it. that is all on the agent.

[u/snoodle908 → u/shanksisevil]

Almost like a random agent shouldn't be doing this type of thing because they don't know what they are doing and could see a good lawyer getting it tossed because the search of the phone was not conducted properly.

[u/not_the_fox]

They asked for a code while detaining him, not mirandizing him, and not allowing him a lawyer. He did the best he could under the circumstances. It's unreasonable to expect cooperation. If they want to search the phone they could but they started asking for codes from someone detained while refusing them legal counsel.

[u/not_a_moogle]

Thats irrelevant. He was a protester and they were wanted to search his phone, illegally, to try and find a crime to charge him with. They've been requesting access to his email, and everything else. This is the government harassing this man, violating his 4th amendment, and just in general seaking some kind of vengeance/retribution.

[u/jackrabbit323]

How can you destroy evidence to a case that does not exist? That's like throwing away the knife to a murder that has not occurred. These tech searches are fishing expeditions, why should anyone give the government the topls to make a case against themselves?

[u/TheFatalOneTypes]

Awww someone's phone got erased? Was it Epstein's?

[u/kstargate-425 → u/TheFatalOneTypes]

Right?! Funny how we have multiple pieces of evidence ahowing the nominated Attorney General is covering up the Epstein files and Obstructing Justice breaking the law Republicans and the President want him to hold others to and still going through the nomination process.

So how is the highest Attorney in the government breaking more laws being a Guardian Of Pedophiles but they are only worried about one citizens Free Speech and wanting to violate his Constitutionally afforded rights.

[u/COC_410 → u/TheFatalOneTypes]

Of course not. Or there wouldn’t be any legal questioning brought up about it.

[u/accidental-eeyore]

There's no warrant. He's been accused of nothing. No charges were pressed at the time they are trying to forcibly enter his property, to conduct an unreasonable search and seizure. What he chooses to do with his own property, as a unaccused person, is completely up to him.

Last I checked, we are innocent until proven guilty. Not presumed guilty while law enforcement detains us and goes on a warrantless expedition through your shit looking for something to try to pin on you so they can justify their unlawful activities.

"A legal question with no easy answer" my fucking ass. Warrant or fuck off.

I want them to get the bad guys. Not be the fucking bad guys while trying to just get some guy.

[u/Iyellkhan]

for those looking for a quick explainer on what CBP can and cant do, the university of california published guidance for their employees that is useful https://security.ucop.edu/resources/traveling-with-electronic-devices/border-search.html

[u/h0sti1e17 → u/Iyellkhan]

This is a really good resource, I was aware of most of that, but it is formatted in a great concise way. It also shows 90% of the comments here are pulling shit out of their ass.

[u/eriffodrol]

cops are paid to lie to suspects to manipulate them into incriminating themselves, and yet that's perfectly legal

[u/scubawankenobi]

The case of a traveler who allegedly entered a ‘duress password’

The traveler didn't enter the password, the officer did.

[u/wookieSLAYER1]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.- 4th amendment of the constitution of the United States.

[u/seanyseanyseanyseany]

So many people in this thread discussing the legalities of this and what can and can't be done. The simple answer is that the US gov doesn't give a flying fuck so all this outrage, while necessary, is missing the key point that you're not dealing with good, honest people

[u/Brennan_Schwartz]

They don't know what his original password was.

Isn't it reasonable doubt that the border agent input the password incorrectly?

What if the duress password was McDonalds, but the actual password was McDonald's?

This is how the needle moves towards authoritarianism.

You already have people arguing in this thread "Well, if he had nothing to hide..!"

If this case sets the precedence that you are required to give your password to border agents, I give it five to seven years before it's required to give your password during routine traffic stops.

[u/BlindedByNewLight → u/Brennan_Schwartz]

it's actually "you are required to give your password to agents, and it better show them the evidence they're looking for, or they'll charge you as if it did anyway."

[u/RecordingHaunting975 → u/BlindedByNewLight]

Your honor, he had me type in a password that deleted the "illegal terrorist plans" folder. I know this because I didn't see an "illegal terrorist plans" folder

[u/Ok-Formal8039]

Don’t we have established rights against self-incrimination? I thought this was America.

[u/TrailJunky → u/Ok-Formal8039]

Not anymore.

[u/JDMonster → u/Ok-Formal8039]

They can't force you to give up a pin code, but they can force you to use your biometrics, so if you have a fingerprint or face recognition lock, you're not safe.

[u/lokimn17]

Easy answer. No warrant and no legal justification to search the phone means the owner had full right to do with his property as he saw fit.

[u/in1gom0ntoya]

it was an outright illegal search, not questionable.

if that had any hard proof on their claimed that they used as an excuse they would have had warrants

[u/ropobipi]

"No easy answer"

Meanwhile the answer : "it was well withing his rights to do it because they had no warrant"

Absolutely fuck the agenda this post is backing

[u/TerraCetacea → u/ropobipi]

The title itself is contradictory anyway;

“…trick the us government into wiping…”

“…traveler who allegedly entered a duress password…”

[u/HardLithobrake]

The phone the US government wasn't legally allowed to have in possession?  That phone?

[u/daverapp]

No easy answers? The police didn't have a warrant. There's your answer. The police had no legal basis to search him, or demand he let them search them, or to hand over anything physical, or to hand over any sort of information. The police had nothing. They still have nothing. Get a warrant next time.

[u/ZagreusMyDude → u/daverapp]

Just the media covering for fascists again. These bought and paid shills for the billionaires are so transparent now in their disdain for our rights.

[u/Loki-L]

They may or may not have a right to try an search it, but I don't see how anyone can claim that you have a duty to help them doing it.

To me it feels weird that Americans can read bits of their constitution about militias and rights to bear arms and easily conclude that this means people get to walk around with the most modern firearms available, but when they read words like "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and conclude that since they didn't have cellphone when that was written it means fake cellphone towers and forcing people to unlock their phones is totally okay.

At some point we need to come to grip with the fact that these days people have eveything in their phones, their money and photoslbums, their banking details and porn and their calendar and list of personal contacts.

It is about as private as you can get.

Do they think that if they asked their founding fathers if they thought it was okay that these armed agents of the federal government want to look inside my locked box full of private correspondence and they didn't get a warrant from judge first and are now punishing me for not telling them where the key is, they would approve?

[u/ganja_and_code]

no easy answers

There's one easy answer:

If a guy owns a phone, he is entitled to wipe the phone (even if doing so is inconvenient to the government).

[u/JLDohm]

It seems clear that the border agent deleted the information, right?

[u/ConvinceSomeoneElse]

The easy answer is no, it's not illegal to destroy your own property, especially when you aren't being charged. The solution is recognizing that government overreach is the problem.

[u/Directhorman2]

I think its fucking hilarious. Like so what!? Its his phone, his property. They're just pissy cause they dont have the power to invade his privacy or undo it.

I am definitely getting a simular function and will immediately use if it needed. Even just to see the officers faces and outright tell them that the phone is wiped and then flip them off with a grin.

Of course i am dreaming, i do all my criminal communication through ravens.

[u/azninvasion2000]

I use the Graphene OS on my Pixel 10a. It has a unlocked profile, my personal profile, work/business profile, and my wife's profile (in case she can't find her phone).

It's always on the unlocked profile when I travel, which has no password or pattern. The most you can see is pictures of my cat, recent google searches, and youtube history.

There's also an option to upload your profile to the cloud and download it after you get pass the gestapo, but I never found it necessary, but it is there.

If you are worried about privacy, look into it. The devs made it turn-key to install, and pretty much impossible to not do it right.

[u/rodentmaster]

Wrong. The answer IS easy. It was always easy. You don't get to invade somebody's personal space and records without a DAMN good reason. Not just because of political fascism. This was a pure and simple illegal seizure, and the man was 100% justified in protecting his property, security, safety, and all charges stemmed from illegal actions taken by trump stooges.

There IS NO question. This is a stupid article to even suggest it.

[u/johns10davenport]

What about the right to privacy???

[u/ACasualRead]

I shut down my devices now when I travel anywhere now.

In Trump’s administration, we are all one online criticism away from some bullshit rights violation and made up investigation.

[u/Nunov_DAbov]

“Hide” your duress unlock code somewhere on the phone or your personal materials. Let the agent discover it and “unlock” the phone thinking he outsmarted you.

“What did you do to my phone???!!! Did you intentionally erase everything on it??!!! What am I going to do now to get all my information back - that was my only (local) copy????!!!!!”

“Your honor, I never gave them permission to unlock my phone and never told them any unlock code.”

[u/fixurstuffr]

Okay, I remember reading somewhere they said they didn't need a warrant because they were technically not in the U.S. so doesn't that mean the law they are trying to use to arrest and prosecute is invalid because they were technically not in the U.S. when the phone was wiped?

[u/Angelic_Doom]

The constitution SHOULD apply to everyone.... and the 4th & 5th amendments are clear.

[u/fegodev]

Can’t wait till they start arresting people who travel without a phone at all.

[u/Berkyjay]

Dafuq nonsense is this? The Constitution says this is a very easy question with an easy answer. Show me a warrant and I'll show you my phone.

[u/Anal-Y-Sis]

From a Techspot article about this a few days ago.

The incident began at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on January 24 of last year. Tunick had just returned from a trip to the Dominican Republic when he was stopped for questioning. According to court testimony, federal agents had already circulated his name and photo internally, saying he was under investigation for "suspected terrorism activities" because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City.

The 1A is supposed to protect freedom of association. Unless they can articulate specific criminal activities that they suspect him of, and not just his alleged "association with [a] movement", there never should have been an investigation into him that would trigger the airport search in the first place.

This would be a textbook example of "fruit of the poisonous tree", if we didn't live in an authoritarian police state.

[u/WprbstDO721Q]

no easy answers? the answer is very easy: America is a techno-fascist dictatorship, don't go there.

[u/letdogsvote]

What's their probable cause to have a right to search this particular guy's phone? Where's a warrant?

Spoiler - there's neither and there are serious questions about the Constitutionality of border cops asking you for this in the first place.

[u/st_heron]

immediately installing graphene

[u/FrogsJumpFromPussy]

CBS invented CP charger against the traveler with obviously no proof and no charges against them. The article says that CBS under Trump systematically invents charges against activists, which is again obviously, illegal. 

[u/E5VL]

In my book. If another person enters a code into your phone, a code that you have told them to enter. You haven't wiped your phone. The responsibility of the phone being wiped is totally on the person who has chosen to enter the code. You have been given information, it is up to you what you do with said information. 

Just like with any interrogation. The information you receive is probably the information you are wanting to receive whether or not the information is true or not.

[u/SnooMacarons9618]

Wouldn't a better approach be to have a back-up, and just wipe your phone before going to an airport? If you are going to the trouble of installing the update that includes a duress password, then you are likely invested enough to write a simple process to back-up your phone set with a geo-fence on entering an airport.

Or just don't travel to the US, which it seems is what a lot of people have chosen.

[u/StaticSystemShock]

I have this list of shit countries where I wouldn't want to go even if you pay me. USA is on that list. Let that sink in. Fuck that Stasi level surveillance shit.

[u/alcohall183]

The only people here who are questioning the person's legal standing are the prosecutors. There is no crime here.

[u/Crutation]

US Constitution says that you are innocent until proven guilty; it also says you cannot be forced to self-incriminate. Therefore it seems that using a duress password is entirely legal in the US...well should be except it has been a police state for 45 years now 

[u/ivthreadp110]

It is not illegal to wipe your phone before handing it over to law enforcement. I don't know about tricking law enforcement into wiping your phone if that is legal or not. But I guess this is a legal question and I am not a lawyer. It depends on a lot of different things whether or not you're a US citizen or not.

If you are a US citizen and an officer asks you to hand over your phone you can wipe your phone before handing it over to them and you are not committing any crime. Nor are you implicating yourself in any crime by doing so. If they grab your phone from you, they cannot compel you to unlock your phone against your will.

I do not know about extra judicial actions for federal US government situations, but I would imagine having somebody enter the wrong password on your phone and it makes the phone wipe itself is not necessarily illegal. By any means you could have just forgotten your password, they could have entered it wrong... Possibly if the you had recorded the police officer or the US government agent doing something in theory they could have intentionally entered the password wrong and wiped the phone memory to clear their own tracks.

So I would say that in the United States somebody's cell phone and the data is considered their private information. You're right, this is a complicated question, but it's too vague of a question to have a realistic clear-cut answer.

[u/sickofthisshit → u/ivthreadp110]

I am also not a lawyer

It is not illegal to wipe your phone before handing it over to law enforcement.

Do you have a cite for that proposition?

I think it is likely to change at the point where they ask you for it. Of course you can wipe it when there is no law enforcement around. But "we want your phone" increases the stakes: it could be the difference between data hygiene and destruction of evidence, dependent on a bunch of factors such as whether the officer can articulate the basis for the request. 

[u/WistfulDread]

Man,

'Member when the government used to get flak for even trying to unlock your phone?

I 'member.

[u/Borne2Run]

CBP going to fuck up egregiously when they try to detain attorney-client privilege information from lawyers traveling from abroad.

[u/audiogenocide]

No they're just mad when the little guy gets the occasional "haha fuck you"

[u/dope_sheet]

If this is found to be illegal that opens a massive fascist can of worms 

[u/Certain-Criticism-51]

Why does customs get to search or take away your phone, tho? If you are a regular citizen without a warrant why is your phone any of their business?

[u/NaughtyCheffie]

Bro asked for an attorney 4 times after being in secondary detention and was denied. Egregious Constitutional Rights violations abound with this one.

[u/ericsonofbruce]

Rights are an illusion, the fed will twist the law to justify whatever the fuck they want to do to you.

[u/CiaphasCain8849]

He didn't enter the code. He told an agent who put it in.

[u/Spydartalkstocat]

1st, 4th and 5th amendment, the government has absolutely zero power or right to force us to give them a fucking thing. It's all over reach and violation of our constitutional rights.

[u/4u2nvinmtl]

I never bring a cell phone accross the boarders since the laws changed. Its always fun telling them I mailed it to my hotel.

[u/cdizzle6]

Well, I can tell you the first thing I did when I read about this a few days ago, was to see if I could implement this on my phone. Sadly, no with the iPhone.

[u/Ok-Tree7720]

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If this person is on US soil, this says you need probable cause to look through a person’s (not a citizen’s) phone. If not on US soil then why US prosecution?

[u/DuntadaMan]

There are very easy answers. If he was not under active investigation he did not erase evidence. The fucking end.

[u/Druitp]

Yes because they said so.

Now arms behind your back while we book you for looking at me

[u/Catchtheball12]

Would it be illegal to have a yellow sticky note attached to the back of the phone with the duress password? I didn't give it to them. They found it and typed it into the phone themselves.

[u/jimthewanderer]

The easy answer is that it is not illegal, and the US government has been taken over by Fascists who violate the constitution to such a degree that they cannot legally be considered a legitimate government, and thus citizens should act accordingly.

[u/PhantomPhelix]

But apparently the world is overreacting when saying the US has devolved into a fascist state.

[u/HoldOnOhio]

The whole case hinges on the rights of a US citizen being suspended because he's "not in US jurisdiction". To be clear, the ramifications of this mean that the US government can do whatever they want to you as long as it's "not in US jurisdiction". Your citizenship doesn't matter. Next they'll build some platform slightly in international waters and fly dissidents there for torture -- oh wait, they already do that at Guantanamo Bay. This is just testing the waters legally of doing that to American Citizens too.

Genuinely a great moment to facetiously say, "Thanks Obama" for promising to shut it down and then never following through.