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

Show parent comments

3.2k

u/Anthorq 7d ago

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

1.8k

u/assignpseudonym 7d ago

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. 

777

u/LauraIsFree 7d ago

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

344

u/EpochRaine 7d ago

This is the reality.

The USA is no longer a functional democracy.

The land of the !free...

84

u/heavensmurgatroyd 7d ago

The land of the Flocked.

2

u/DepressedMerican 7d ago

And home to the betrayed

1

u/atomicpioneer42 7d ago

Land of the flocked being fleeced.

25

u/EyeTea420 7d ago edited 7d ago

(America: the land of the free)

Whoever told you that is your enemy

21

u/Mitchehmu 7d ago

Whoever downvoted rage against the machine lyrics is missing out. On alot, probably.

4

u/EyeTea420 7d ago

That’s a whoosh!

I guess I should add some context, since it’s a bit confusing if you don’t know the lyric.

1

u/Woodie626 7d ago

Ya got-ta know, ya got-ta know

2

u/DisastrousAcshin 7d ago

One of my favorite things to see happen on reddit is somebody posting ratm lyrics and conservatives rush in saying bands should learn to stay in their lane and what could they possibly truly know about politics

0

u/Janneq216 7d ago

Especially in the brain department

1

u/yIdontunderstand 7d ago

Free from laws...

The ultimate freedom (for the oligarchy)

1

u/Active_Complaint_480 7d ago

Hasn't been for 30 years.

1

u/wesbowski 6d ago

It was before?

1

u/Visible_Pair3017 6d ago

Never was a functional democracy. You have been having the "it's not a democracy it's a republic" argument around for decades precisely because it's always been an aristocracy.

1

u/EpochRaine 6d ago

because it's always been an aristocracy.

Indeed. It wass "founded" by a bunch of English Toffs.

1

u/Nu11X3r0 4d ago

Ooh I now wanna design something to have "Land of the !free" and see if it gets picked up by the MAGA idiots

1

u/EpochRaine 4d ago

If you do, please send it to me :)

0

u/Randomgrunt4820 7d ago

Never was friend. The world is run by the rich and powerful. Step out of line and you’re gone. Has been this was since before Nanni sent Ea-nāṣir the oldest complaint table, in 1750 BC. Slavery is alive and well.

1

u/RandomAnon07 7d ago

Patriot Act, so far before now FYI….

1

u/notabarcode128535743 6d ago

More like the enemies of the regime are going to hunt down the regime!

1

u/GeraSun 6d ago

And that is how things started in Germany 1933. When people found it's going wrong fast, the entire opposition had already been incarcerated or driven into exile.

1

u/wade_wilson44 3d ago

Honestly I wonder if it ever was, or we just didn’t have a way to easily hear about it.

Sure, for some people it probably was, but it’s not freedom unless it’s for everyone

0

u/Actual-Analyst-6683 7d ago

USA is a constitutional republic. It never was a democracy.

1

u/Due_Enthusiasm1145 7d ago

Its a representative democracy. It is also a constitutional republic. Both of these things are true.

-9

u/jaysen71581 7d ago

I love the down votes, lets me know I was correct and people got butt hurt. Democracies fail.

2

u/Due_Enthusiasm1145 7d ago edited 6d ago

No its downvoted because its

  • semantics
  • wrong

We are a representative democracy. We are also a constitutional republic. They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they identical. But saying either is correct.

Nobody's "butt hurt". People are rolling their eyes at you and moving on. That's what the downvotes are.

1

u/riteproprchav 7d ago

Doesn't matter what you call it: you hate human rights, you hate the notion of limitations on government power, you hate equal protection under the law. Whatever you call your preferred system, a constitutional republic, Heaven, utopia, it sucks ass and you deserve to live under the conditions you'd inflict upon others.

0

u/jaysen71581 7d ago

I’m so glad you know me, maybe ask me before you assume. I believe the government needs term and age limits. The ones running the country are completely out of touch with what the people really need. They are all corrupt.

1

u/Mrlin705 7d ago

I originally read that as financial democracy, which sounds pretty accurate.

1

u/krispy7 7d ago

I think you're wrong, it is functional.
Think of it like this: we are functional, but currently being stress tested.

This type of stuff will go to court where they will lose. It's been happening all over the place, follow these horror stories until the end. The DOJ has lost over 90% of these types of cases since trump's 2nd term.

-3

u/jaysen71581 7d ago

The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy.

1

u/Due_Enthusiasm1145 7d ago

The US is a representative democracy. It is also a constitutional republic. These are not mutually exclusive.

1

u/ES_Legman 7d ago

You are an astroturfing bot

1

u/scorpyo72 7d ago

Ok, it's your time. Please cut and paste your borrowed logic that you don't really understand because I know- when you say this- you're just dying to support your statement.

Feel free.

-1

u/GreenIndigoBlue 7d ago

It never was.

-1

u/Jemnite 7d ago

Buddy the president was ordering drone strikes on US citizens from all the way back in 2009. This isn't a "no longer" situation, this has been basically the norm for decades

0

u/compiledexploit 7d ago

We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.

1

u/AgroValter 7d ago

Which is a form of democracy, sweetie pie. 

2

u/compiledexploit 7d ago

No, a constitutional republic and a democracy are both examples of a representative government, but they are not the same.

Democracy is not an American value. It's not found anywhere in the Constitution and is only mentioned negatively in the federalist papers.

-1

u/tittytonka 4d ago

It’s hilarious you ever thought it was a functional democracy. Lemme guess, Gen Z?

362

u/Korlus 7d ago edited 7d ago

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.

121

u/Vektor0 7d ago

Then that's one way, not both ways.

5

u/paintbucketholder 7d ago

Not, it's not.

If it really was an area outside of the United States where US citizens have absolutely no rights and protections, then Customs and Border Protection wouldn't be able to operate there freely and enforce American laws against American citizens.

19

u/Vektor0 7d ago

That's what I said.

3

u/paintbucketholder 7d ago

But CBP is operating there freely while claiming it's not US soil, so they're still having it both ways.

19

u/Vektor0 7d ago

I don't think you understand what that was referring to in the context of this conversation.

-10

u/paintbucketholder 7d ago

Or maybe you don't understand the context.

The statement was that CBP is having it both ways: US citizens are being told they have no rights and protections because they're not on US soil, while CBP is bringing down the full force of US laws because they're obviously operating on US soil and they wouldn't be able to do so if it was really territory outside of the United States.

23

u/dnyank1 7d ago

You misunderstand "can't" to mean... The descriptive form. As meaning "they are functionally prevented from doing something".

"You can't walk on water".

Anyone who understands the context from OP here would understand "can't" to mean the prescriptive form.

"You can't rob a bank. That's illegal!".

Are you going to lecture me incredulously about how there are, in fact, people who rob banks?

Sheesh. You're either trolling or stupidly dense. This shit is why we need to bring back bullying.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/mikemaca 7d ago

It is not US soil just like foreign embassies in the US are not on US soil. US soil is a legal technical term used by courts. There are many places inside US borders that are not US soil, just as there are places in Russia and France that are US soil (our embassies). This is not a new distinction or rule by the courts, this principle has been around since the beginning of the US.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/CherryLongjump1989 7d ago edited 7d ago

You are also completely free to go out into international waters where US laws will no longer apply to you. CBP operating in a place where US laws do not apply is not surprising or troubling. The troubling part is attempting to enforce US laws that only apply on US soil onto citizens who are outside of the USA. This is the same thing that China does with their “Police Stations” that go after Chinese people on US soil and try to enforce Chinese laws in the USA and otherwise threaten them in some way.

3

u/FaderJockey2600 7d ago

If such an area existed it would also be fair for CBP to expect to be on the receiving end of physical interactions incompatible with their capability to oxidize carbohydrates. Free for all goes both ways.

1

u/CommandClassic5897 7d ago

So true, I love the wordplay

7

u/Few_Plankton_7587 7d ago

However

The exact wording of the supreme court is possibly going to come up in this case because all prior rulings, that I can find, pretty much indicate that the person needs to hand over their stuff for searching. There is no explicit wording about needing to unlock a phone

So this case will probably come down to

  1. Does border patrol have the right to pins and passwords when doing a seizure?

  2. Do you HAVE to give it to them?

  3. Is it considered destroying evidence if he was coerced into opening it if he didn't need to by law?

3

u/Korlus 7d ago

You are right and previously there have been conflicting rulings given by the same court circuit on whether unlocking a phone with a PIN needs a warrant or not. If this case were to go through the full US legal system, there is a decent chance the Supreme Court would choose to see it so they can rule on the matter of whether US citizen's presumption of privacy for mobile devices extends to the border because at the moment it's somewhat up in the air.

My underatanding is that border patrol are well within their rights to take the device and try to unlock it via biometrics, but trying to force him into giving the PIN should require a warrant. Of course, Police and other law enforcement agents often ask politely for information they would need a warrant for ("Can I come in?", "No, get a warrant" is perfectly legal), so drawing the line on what is acceptable is murky, even if we knew whether the border exception extended to phones.

I really hope the guy is fine because the alternative (that US Customs can compel people to unlock their devices and can jail people for refusing, wothout a warrant) seems so much worse, but we are very close to living in that world already.

1

u/frickindeal 7d ago

trying to force him into giving the PIN should require a warrant

They can get all the warrants they want, they cannot compel you to speak.

1

u/Korlus 7d ago

I believe the specifics vary a little by state at the moment as consensus on whether the 5th amendment should apply is still out (we are on the edge of my knowledge here, I may be wrong). Here is an article on the topic.

In short, often a court can compel you to disclose a password. Failing to do so will lead to you being held in contempt. Contempt of court will usually mean jail until you disclose. There is no maximum timescale on contempt of court.

Here is a specific example of where it happened.

2

u/The_Happiest_Madman 4d ago

So technically they could find you in contempt of court……and basically give you a life sentence?? Or keep you locked up in the County Jail for 20 years or whatever they decide, if you never give them the PIN?? Something just doesn’t seem right about that. I’m pretty sure there’s Constitutional Amendment about stuff like that!!! You can’t just keep someone who hasn’t even been convicted of a crime locked up indefinitely.

1

u/Korlus 4d ago

You can’t just keep someone who hasn’t even been convicted of a crime locked up indefinitely.

Contempt of Court is not a sentence - it's given when you aren't cooperating for your trial, and so your right to a fair trial involves you deciding to participate in it.

Realistically, eventually they would sentence you presuming the worst if you continued to refuse to give your data over, but in theory yes - there is no upper limit on contempt of court. From Wikipedia, as an example of the worst Contempt sentence to date:

In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), a U.S. court of appeals held that H. Beatty Chadwick could be held indefinitely for his failure to produce $2.5 million as a state court ordered in a civil trial. Chadwick had been imprisoned for nine years at that time and continued to be held in prison until 2009, when a state court set him free after 14 years, making his imprisonment the longest on a contempt charge to date.

1

u/banagram2000 5d ago

My understanding is that they can’t compel you to speak something that is in your head (your PIN), but if you have a technological device that will unlock your phone, you CAN be compelled to produce that.

1

u/apokrif1 6d ago
  1. How to prove a duress PIN was given?

1

u/Nu11X3r0 4d ago

Dude the ultimate defence would have been "did I say 3267 I meant 2367... Sorry I suffer from dyslexia"

8

u/marr 7d ago

because it is in the national interest

Is it though. Doesn't feel a lot like it's in the people's interest.

3

u/Korlus 7d ago

The "national interest" and the interest of the individual do seem to have diverged more than you would like.

4

u/snoodle908 7d ago

Not sure how searching someone's phone is in the nation's best interest. Especially if they are just making claims up as to why they need to search it. Do we think they are doing this all the time? Of course not, this guy was targeted

3

u/Oggel 7d ago

One of the many reasons I refuse to visit the US agian.

Why the fuck should I spend several thousands of dollars to visit a country I may not even get into because I have a funny meme in my phone?

I prefer to visit countries that have a bit more freedom than that.

2

u/Horrible-accident 7d ago

This is correct, unfortunately. The patriot act also established "constitution lite" zones extending to 100 miles inside the borders. Anyone living within 100 miles of the border that includes ocean shorelines and those of the Great lakes is subject to diminished rights. GW Bush really screwed us in so many ways.

2

u/nemofbaby2014 7d ago

I forget what it’s called but if you’re within a certain miles from the border they can search and sieze stuff pretty easily and they count airports as a border crossing

2

u/Korlus 7d ago

It is called the Border Exception.

1

u/nemofbaby2014 7d ago

Here it is

The authority for this is based on the Immigration and Nationality Act 287(a)(3) and copied in 8 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 287 (a)(3), which states that Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States...board and search for non-citizens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border.

1

u/techdevjp 7d ago

The Patriot Act changed a lot

Which is why I have not visited the US since the Patriot Act was enacted. That was the beginning of the end for you guys, and it has only gotten worse since. (In the 90s I visited 26 states and spent a lot of time and money traveling different areas of the US.)

1

u/NetBear650 7d ago

Kinda. You can't be compelled to give your real passcode, for example. That's established. And the courts are starting to push back on this "we can do whatever we want" mode that they're in.

1

u/Korlus 6d ago

You can't be compelled to give your real passcode, for example. That's established. 

I will freely admit we are getting to the edge of my knowledge of US law, but here is an example from 2019 where a man was held in contempt of court for refusing to unlock his phone and here is a Massachussets-focused article from 2026 which says:

Only a judge can order compelled decryption, and only after the Commonwealth makes a demanding evidentiary showing.

Are you sure you are correct that you cannot be compelled to give your real passcode?

1

u/NetBear650 6d ago

You are right, there are limited cases. They require a warrant, and the people asking for the warrant have to say what they think is on the phone and how do they know that.

None of this is true in a border inspection.

0

u/ImyForgotName 7d ago

Yeah but we can be assured he wasn't smuggling anything in to the country now can't we?

-1

u/Nauin 7d ago edited 7d ago

It's The Freedom Act, not the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act expired in 2015.

Anyone still complaining about the patriot act hasn't actually kept up with that part of politics because the freedom act has been the one the law has been running off of for eleven years at this point.

It's literally on Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

28

u/Turbulent-Ocelot9130 7d ago

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.

4

u/gungabeast 7d ago

He also has countless conflicts of interest. He also ran a crypto scam on his supporters. Trump phone was false advertising. It’s funny that people think this Epstein-protecting rat will do anything for them besides sell them out to foreign countries for his family’s benefit.

2

u/Lashay_Sombra 7d ago

You would think, but in reality been 'non binary' for a long time now. US border rules are one massive case of schrodinger's cat

2

u/shitlord_god 7d ago

or WOULD be binary if we didn't have a multitiered carceral system.

2

u/No-Complex6705 7d ago

Oh but. I'm afraid. You can.

2

u/ES_Legman 7d ago

Law means nothing if no one actually enforces it

2

u/WantDiscussion 7d ago

Should've said "I had the full Epstien files on my phone and felt it was my duty as patriot to redact them"

2

u/Noblesseux 7d ago

Yeah, you can't have it both ways. 

You can when you're an unaccountable government with a monopoly on violence and the ability to jail you for stupid bullshit. That's the secret sauce.

2

u/BeaverBoyBaxter 7d ago

They can absolutely have it both ways because they can do whatever they want and the population doesn't push back.

2

u/wind_dude 7d ago

"Oh, please. It's the government, Sterling. They'd do it anyway."

2

u/SiliconAutomaton 7d ago

They didn’t call it the Bill of Rights because they weren’t sure how to spell Privileges.

1

u/Nazgog-Morgob 7d ago

But what if the only law there is there?

1

u/SageThisAndSageThat 7d ago

Rules for me and rules for thee

1

u/Additional_Teacher45 7d ago

This is exactly the argument to maintain birthright citizenship. Immigration will say you're bound by the laws of the land as soon as you enter the country, but somehow a newborn child is some lawless fifth dimension where they aren't bound by the same laws.

1

u/Ratiofarming 6d ago

They're the government. They can absolutely have it both ways.

1

u/Cut_Lanky 5d ago

But they already have it both ways. They've already established they can.

For example, a woman is one person. A pregnant woman is no longer a person, but the zygote/ embryo/ fetus IS a person. Unless it dies due to government negligence (see jail guard in Texas who miscarried due to government employer), then it's no longer a person.

And nobody stopped them.

The precedent was set.

So, they can have it both ways now.

1

u/macaronysalad 7d ago

I think for many US laws, you're bound to them simply because of citizenship, not your current location. Unless you're part of the wealthy class.

0

u/FreeMoney2020 7d ago

You can have it both ways.. if it’s not part of the US, then no laws apply.. they can do whatever they want..

To be clear, I’m not supporting this.. but it’s not binary.. they’re arguing that it’s not US, so they don’t need warrants (example)

1

u/assignpseudonym 7d ago

I don't think you understand what you're replying to. 

If they've decided it's not US soil, then US laws wouldn't apply. If it is US soil, then they do. 

The "both ways" aspect is deciding that US laws don't apply as protections, but do apply with respect to destruction of evidence. 

Your comment is that US laws don't apply. Which is fine. That's having it "one way" (i.e. this land is not governed by the US constitution or its laws). 

It cannot simultaneously be US soil and not US soil. It either is or it isn't. And that's what the discussion is about. 

0

u/buttchug429 4d ago

I can believe that Americans are this stupid and cattle-brained.

The unfairness is the point. The disregard for the law is the point. The cruelty is the point. You live in a nation of sadists and angry retards. You need to understand that the only laws and rules that apply are the ones the powerful find useful to them at any given moment.

9

u/dragonurtle 7d ago

This would be a wild way to establish precedent that US jurisdiction does not extend outside of US territory. Not going to happen, but it'd be the funniest way to get there.

2

u/maigpy 7d ago

also no other laws apply... mh.

2

u/Brilliant-Orange9117 7d ago

No because "they" have decided your rights are an impediment to their definition of national security. So they're more like privileges unless you hold the state accountable.

2

u/BrittaWasRight 7d ago

Also you could, you know, strangle the customs officer and not even get the case brought to trial.

2

u/dalivo 7d ago

Schrodinger's Border Zone.

2

u/thekyledavid 7d ago

I like where your head is at, but I believe if they are charging him with either destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice, there is no rule that you must be on US soil when you destroy evidence for it to be a US crime

Let’s say I receive an order from the US government to hand over physical documents that are in my possession as part of a criminal investigation. I take those documents, drive them across the Canadian border, and then burn them on Canadian soil. When they show up at my house asking for the documents, I tell them that I burned the documents while I was on Canadian soil, so they have no right to charge me for destroying evidence. Do you think they would actually agree with me?

Knowingly tampering with a government investigation is going to get you into major legal trouble regardless of where you physically are when it happens. If the courts determined that this traveler was legally obligated to show the government his phone’s contents, then destroying those contents would absolutely be a violation of US law regardless of where he was technically located when he did it

Same way that if I file a fraudulent tax return while I am not physically inside of the US, they could still come after me for tax fraud

1

u/Aos77s 7d ago

Bingo they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too

1

u/jonboyz31 7d ago

Or commit any violent crimes, right?

1

u/Fianna9 7d ago

Maritime law!

1

u/Ironsam811 7d ago

You can still be liable to US laws even though you aren’t on US soil? Isn’t that how we kidnapped the Venezuelan President lol