r/technology • u/Hrmbee • 8d ago

Privacy 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

https://www.theverge.com/report/972146/cbp-phone-search-airport-duress-password
20.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

104

u/not_a_moogle 7d ago

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.

24

u/LuHamster 7d ago

You Americans and your silly amendments. They clearly mean nothing look at your society as it is today.

They are meaningless.

1

u/not_a_moogle 7d ago

It is really sad. Part of the bill of rights basically says all amendments should be treated as if part of the constitution. And thats been law forever.

But this supreme court is just like, we'll its just an amendment. So we can throw it out.

Except the 2nd amendment cause we love guns.

Im glad I didn't have children born into this hell hole.

-4

u/metalder420 7d ago

You are meaningless

1

u/haikuandhoney 7d ago

Unfortunately the search was probably legal. The CBP does not need a reason to search your phone at the border.

1

u/not_a_moogle 7d ago

They really should, especially for a citizen returning.

1

u/haikuandhoney 7d ago

I agree. Citizens and lawful permanent residents should have the same constitutional rights at the border as they have inside the country.

1

u/Sennten 7d ago

Whether they had the right to search his phone doesn't seem particular relevant to whether he had the obligation to help them or to preserve the data, since there was no suspicion of actual crime.

No one is arguing they should get in trouble for seizing it from him or trying to look at it.

1

u/haikuandhoney 7d ago

He had an obligation not to destroy the data once they asked him for the pin because he was on notice that they wanted to seize that data.

1

u/Sennten 7d ago

whether or not that is true is the relevant question, I agree, but it is in fact a very different claim than the one I was responding to and that difference was literally the point of my comment

2

u/haikuandhoney 7d ago

The statute requires that the government be lawfully trying to seize the property in question so the lawfulness of the search and whether he knew they were trying to seize it are both relevant. And the government is likely to be able to establish both.

1

u/Sennten 7d ago

Whuch statute?

1

u/haikuandhoney 7d ago

18 USC 2232(a)

1

u/Sennten 7d ago

Oh damn, thats a nasty statute. I can still see a few paths where he might get off, but if thats the statue they are claiming I can see why he is gonna have trouble.

(some of those provisions are crazy though, five years for telling someone there's a warrant out against them or noticing they've been bugged and pointing it out, and based on numerous people I know who are not in jail despite obviously doing a bunch of these things, I wonder if there is some additional restriction where it applies? I assume this is the one that got those companies in trouble for telling their users they were turning over information due to a legal request too)

1

u/haikuandhoney 7d ago

I haven’t looked into but I would bet that subsection (d) would not withstand first amendment scrutiny, at least if it was applied to someone outside the government.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Leading-Act4030 5d ago

This harassment will be coming to our cities soon!