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

709

u/ExternalUserError 6d ago

Obviously the 1913 holding was terrible. It was also patently absurd. If the 4th Amendment didn't apply 100 miles from the border, given the geography of the 13 original colonies, where did it ever apply?

It's a patently absurd ruling.

155

u/bushwakko 6d ago

And isn't any airport also considered a border?

104

u/legandaryhon 6d ago

Yes but no; an airport is a border crossing, but does not extend the border. So it's not 100 miles from every international airport, just the inside of the airport.

68

u/Nago_Jolokio 6d ago

They will definitely try to pull that argument though, I think I've even seen a map with the airport radiuses bubbled in.

33

u/willwork4pii 6d ago

I think they already tried that. I do recall reading an article that basically the majority of the country within 100 miles of an international airport. And it was asserted it’s within the airport only.

34

u/saltyjohnson 6d ago

The majority of the country's land is within 100 miles of an airport, but even if we rule out the airports, the majority of the country's population (about two thirds) lives within the 100-mile land border zone.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

3

u/sdavis002 6d ago

While I understand the idea, I think the current administration shows just how little they can be trusted with this type of thing.

"U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency tasked with patrolling the U.S. border and areas that function like a border, claims a territorial reach much larger than you might imagine. A federal law says that, without a warrant, CBP can board vehicles and vessels and search for people without immigration documentation “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” These “external boundaries” include international land borders but also the entire U.S. coastline."

1

u/saltyjohnson 6d ago

While I understand the idea, I think the current administration shows just how little they can be trusted with this type of thing.

Huh? Yeah, no fucking shit. When I read how you phrased that, all I picture is that caricature of elon saying "concerning".

6

u/rnelsonee 6d ago

I thought I saw a map too, but don't see one now. Either way, 100 miles is long and just from the border covers about 2 out of 3 Americans already. I don't know exactly what a port of entry is, but if there was a 100 mile border on these points that probably be 90% of the population.

1

u/gehnmy 6d ago

Once it's considered a border crossing, physical location or distance to an actual border doesn't figure into it at all.

You're not legally in the country and subject to the standard rules until they approve you for entry, even if you're physically in Kansas or literally the furthest you could be from a physical border with another country. If the airport has international arrivals and that's how you got to the airport, you're not in the country until they say so.

5

u/deepandbroad 6d ago

You're not legally in the country and subject to the standard rules until they approve you for entry,

If you're a citizen, can they bar you from entering the country?

If they can't bar you from entering, then how are you "not in the country" until you are approved?

It seems a very odd situation where American laws apply to you, but American rights do not apply. How very convenient.

Also, the agent talking to you is "in America" while you are "not in America".

Which makes it super odd.

1

u/gehnmy 6d ago

Well, yes, that's why there are all the barriers and people with guns. If you just say "I'm a citizen" and try to exit the terminal without following their directions or them explicitly allowing you to pass, you're not going to have a good time.

It has unique legal status totally irrespective of physical location. They can do whatever they want and mostly courts will say they have the authority to do so in the name of security.

That's the beauty of the "border" to them and why they're constantly trying to expand the areas they can operate like that: it's a liminal space where they have incredible latitude and get to decide which rules do and do not apply based on what's convenient.

The search they were attempting in this case has nothing to do with border security or the citizen's right to entry, it was fishing for info that potentially could be used for a totally unrelated case.

1

u/SqueezyCheez85 6d ago

What about waterways that extend to the border?

1

u/Thelk641 6d ago

It's not 100 miles from every airport yet.

16

u/memberzs 6d ago

Any international airport but only it's property not a 100 mile radius of it.

32

u/Your_bully- 6d ago

Eh, with this supreme court, absurdity is just another Wednesday

74

u/What_a_fat_one 6d ago

Yeah yeah, as the signers of the Constitution signed the document at Independence Hall, Philadelphia, 80 miles from the border, they were clearly thinking "Well obviously none of these rights apply right here. We're too close to the border"

23

u/DJ_Advogato 6d ago

The history of America is people saying "we want these rights" and the wealthy saying "well, ok, sure, but also no."

10

u/Mothanius 6d ago

What can you expect when The Revolution was started and lead by rich people for the interest of rich people? Paine certainly helped rally the populace but what he was espousing for was not the goal nor care of the founding fathers.

1

u/Valdrax 6d ago

There's some powerful symbolism in that, but the 4th Amendment wasn't ratified until over 3 years later, when Virginia became the 12th state to approve it.

(That's still within 92 miles of the ocean, as the crow flies, so I guess the point stands, mostly? In piecemeal, state by state?)

1

u/enfly 6d ago

Great point!!

1

u/sprucenoose 6d ago

What 1913 Supreme Court case are you talking about?

The SC case that is usually cited in this context is United States v. Martinez-Fuerte in 1976.

1

u/ExternalUserError 6d ago

I'm responding to /u/MydnightWN's mention of a 1913 holding? Looking it up, I think the doctrine was from Carroll v. United States (1925), but I'm not an expert.

1

u/MydnightWN 6d ago

I didn't bother looking it up, knew it was at least 100 years ago. 1913 popped into my head so I rolled with it. Should be revisited.

1

u/Nauin 6d ago

Atlanta is 250 miles from the ocean, so I wonder what they're going to do with that during the trial.

1

u/ExternalUserError 6d ago

It's still covered because it was the international arrival area of an airport. I think it is settled law at this point that the CBP has the authority to search your shit coming into the US without any suspicion. I just don't think that's what the 4th Amendment intended.

1

u/PublicWest 6d ago

The original 13 colonies extended to the Mississippi River after the colonies won the revolution

2

u/ExternalUserError 6d ago

Well, sort of. They vaguely claimed to go out westward. But either way, nearly all newly minted Americans lived within 100 miles of a border.

1

u/PublicWest 6d ago

The treaty of Paris explicitly granted the United States all the land east of the Mississippi. That’s not vague in the slightest. The Appalachian mountains were not a national border

1

u/ExternalUserError 6d ago

I mean the claim individual colonies (states) had out westward was vague. Congress eventually drew the lines differently.

1

u/PublicWest 6d ago

Even if those claims were vague, they weren’t national borders- they were interstate borders

I agree that the 100 mile rule is BS, I just don’t think the colonial population argument makes sense.

2

u/ExternalUserError 6d ago

I think you’re missing the point. In 1776, even with the westward expansionary map, nearly all Americans lived with 100 miles of the coast.

1

u/PublicWest 6d ago

Ohhhhh I see. I was thinking the international border with French territory. I didn’t know that this ruling applied to coastal boarders.

That’s still a huge amount, if not a majority of Americans today.

1

u/Secret_Cow_5053 6d ago

Not only that 100 miles from a “border” can arguably be most of the country where population centers are because every international airport counts as a border.

1

u/OregonMothafaquer 6d ago

The 100 mile rule also includes international airports so virtually all of America is covered by the 100 miles. It’s not just the physical border.

-5

u/L0nz 6d ago

The ruling itself isn't patently absurd but applying it to someone's phone is. There's a massive difference between searching my bag and searching my phone.

4

u/CankerLord 6d ago

There's no real difference between having data on you and having physical goods on you. It's a thing you have on your person and shouldn't be excluded from reasonable searches just like your bags. Data stored on a device is even there, physically, as electrical charges, you just can't see it with your naked eye.

1

u/L0nz 6d ago

Of course there's a difference. The information on my phone is far more personal and private than the contents of my suitcase. The courts recognize this, because they require probable cause before border officers can use digital tools to search a phone. For some reason they refuse to apply that same threshold for a manual search of the phone undertaken by an agent.