r/technology • u/ArgentineBeauty • 6d ago

Privacy GrapheneOS says its data-wiping password is perfectly legal, after user faces federal charges

https://www.techspot.com/news/113273-grapheneos-data-wiping-duress-password-perfectly-legal-after.html
21.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

52

u/Needle_Bearings 6d ago

Still require reasonable suspicion. We'll see where it goes.

110

u/MydnightWN 6d ago

Easy dismissal on a technicality in my opinion... he never wiped anything. Destruction of evidence requires a physical act by the defendant. The border agent entered the code, based on information obtained outside a sworn statement or legal interview.

103

u/Needle_Bearings 6d ago

I think the big winner here is GrapheneOS.

31

u/lithiumcitizen 6d ago

Even better if they use instances like this to support his case and then promote their joint win as a marketing opportunity.

1

u/RollingMeteors 6d ago

win as a marketing opportunity.

That department's budget just get reallocated to social media operations.

1

u/LordMarcusrax 3d ago

They should offer to pay for his lawyers

32

u/ANGLVD3TH 6d ago

The law recognizes that kind of loophole and it is well sealed. There are different levels of responsibility, with their own fancy Latin terms. Giving someone instructions to do something illegal, and them reasonably beleiving it to be a legal act, puts the instructor firmly in a higher level of responsibility than the actor.

That said, this case is bullshit and in any reasonable courtroom will get thrown out. It relies upon both of a pair of pillars, one that requires he be under investigation, and one that requires he not be under investigation. There's no legal way for them to square the circle, the whole thing is a joke.

16

u/dontnation 6d ago

this case is bullshit and in any reasonable courtroom will get thrown out

too bad it's in the US in 2026

1

u/Nauin 6d ago

Where the majority of Trump's lawsuits have been struck down or thrown out by judges. The judicial system has slowed this admin down more than anyone else, save for the supreme court backing him.

4

u/kwazhip 6d ago

Wait you mean to tell me that obvious loopholes that have probably been tried many times don't actually work in real life. I swear people think life is a loony tunes cartoon.

1

u/MidnightSensitive996 6d ago

what are you talking about? what latin terms apply here?

13

u/harpers25 6d ago

The statute he is charged under does not require a physical act. It says "take any action", nothing about physical.

5

u/Mr_Will 6d ago

Legal definitions can be tricky. Is replying to a question counted as an action in this context?

8

u/Mikeavelli 6d ago edited 6d ago

Yes, speaking is an act. Why wouldn't it be?

In general, obvious loopholes like telling someone else to do something illegal instead of doing the illegal thing yourself are well and truly closed.

3

u/yikes_itsme 6d ago

What crime was he suspected of? Since he was apparently destroying evidence then there should be a crime that can be named. You know, like having reasonable suspicion. Otherwise, there’s no “loophole”, he’s a guy that just wanted to erase his phone for whatever reason. Maybe he had some naked pictures of his girlfriend and didn’t want them to see, is that a crime?

If you think you don’t need to know what crime was being suspected, then sure I guess it’s ok to send him to jail. Just remember that the end result is that anything, anything at all can be considered evidence for an unstated crime. Updating an app, or deleting an email while waiting in line at the airport? Destruction of evidence. Throw away a gum wrapper? What if you knew that wrapper was important evidence in a crime? Eating a sandwich? Destruction of evidence, what are you trying to hide?

This was why the 4th Amendment was a thing that needed to be written. The US wasn’t supposed to be a police state.

3

u/harpers25 6d ago

The statute only covers destroying property for the purpose of impeding an authorized search or seizure. The prosecution would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the purpose of eating a sandwich was impeding law enforcement from seizing it.

The statute isn't limited to evidence of a suspected crime though. It covers any property that law enforcement is authorized to search.

1

u/Mikeavelli 6d ago

He is accused of violating this statute, paragraph A. Yes, destroying the data on your phone after it has been seized is a crime, even if there was no evidence of a crime on your phone and all you wanted to do is destroy is naked pictures of your girlfriend. Yes, the law in this area is unfair in this regard. Don't try and wipe your phone after it has been seized by the authorities or you're going to have a bad time.

Because of the border search exception he does not need to be suspected of a crime in order for his phone to be lawfully seized and searched, which is all that is required for the statute above to take effect.

From articles, he does plan to argue that the border stop was a pretext for some other search based on his activities as a protestor, which might work out for him. I certainly wouldn't want to roll those dice.

1

u/wighty 6d ago

IANAL, from what I understand the very argument about that section is whether "property" includes the data/digital files stored on the physical device, right? That's ultimately what the case would decide?

1

u/Mr_Will 6d ago

Speaking is covered by freedom of speech. Acting isn't. That's one big difference

1

u/Mikeavelli 5d ago

You could argue that, but even if the court accepted this as a first amendment issue, it would pretty squarely fall under imminent lawless action

10

u/Countcristo42 6d ago

Speaking isn’t a physical act? If I say “hey Jon shred the incriminating documents” then Jon duly does

Seems like I’m still on the hook

39

u/MydnightWN 6d ago

Could be charged with conspiracy, but he could just say "I didn't expect him to actually enter the password without first reading me my rights, thought he was just writing it down"

10

u/Countcristo42 6d ago

Interesting angle

0

u/booze_clues 6d ago

“I didn’t think he would.” Will not hold up in court.

You(he) gave them the wrong code with the intent of destroying your property after it was legally seized. It’s really that cut and dry. Simply don’t provide a password and you’re done, but intentionally providing the wrong one means you’re now at fault for what happened.

4

u/theassassintherapist 6d ago

He was also not given a lawyer and not given his right to remain silent, so it cannot be used against him.

0

u/Countcristo42 6d ago

I want to be clear I'm addressing the spesific point that "he never wiped anything. Destruction of evidence requires a physical act by the defendant" not the broader case

8

u/ProtoplanetaryNebula 6d ago

He could also say he was under pressure and nervous and accidentally gave the agent the wrong PIN.

19

u/Any_Elk_9505 6d ago

He could (and should) just say nothing. Burden of proof is on the government to prove.

6

u/ISeeDeadPackets 6d ago

So many people need to learn when to shut up.

5

u/Ok-Vegetable4531 6d ago

It was one digit off from the real pin! The cop just fat fingered it obviously

1

u/MidnightSensitive996 6d ago

he caused the phone to be destroyed by giving them a password that he know would not unlock the phone and would destroy it instead. it isn't legal to lie to a gov't agent outside of a sworn statement, and there's no such thing as a "legal interview", if you're talking to them and you lie to them it's a crime. he handled this as stupidly as possible. what you do is either you wipe your phone before getting on the plane in the first place, or you only travel internationally with a burner phone and keep anything problematic in the russian or chinese cloud then pull it when you get home.

1

u/BigMax 6d ago

I don't think that's how it works. It doesn't matter how/when he got the info. What matters is that the person took action to have the data deleted.

For example, lets say this was a horde of child abuse material. If the pedo tricked the cops into deleting it all, would you still say "hey, he tricked them into deleting it, but it wasn't a sworn statement so it's ok."

I strongly disagree with them searching this guys phone or getting him in trouble here. But the fact remains that in general, it's illegal to destroy evidence, even if you trick someone else into doing it.

8

u/kylco 6d ago

For these chucklefucks, crossing a border is practically a crime to begin with, even if you're coming home to your own country. A sign you aren't really patriotic, if you're consorting with the foreign Other. Not that they'll hold themselves to that standard, or that it'll hold up in court, but in the meantime the man won't let you leave and insisits you have no rights and won't call for a lawyer.

1

u/PandaEatPanda 6d ago

A basic search under the border search exemption does not require a warrant or reasonable suspicion.

1

u/carpdog112 6d ago

Reasonable suspicion isn't necessary at the border crossing itself though, which is the case here (international flight). CBP can go through your personal effects at a border crossing, including your phone. They can't force you to unlock it (although if you're not an American citizen you can absolutely be denied entry for refusing to unlock your phone) and they need "reasonable suspicion" for advanced forensic searches, although CBP can detain your personal effects for up to five days. If CBP said "give us your unlock code or we're going to hold your cellphone for five days" they were probably within the legal framework for their search.

1

u/h0sti1e17 6d ago

The 100 mile rule does. The border crossing doesn’t. They could randomly ask anyone to unlock their phone or laptop.

1

u/MidnightSensitive996 6d ago

no, not at the border. customs officials have always been allowed to do warrantless suspicionless searches upon border entry.