cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/49853131

Feels to me like GrapheneOS did exactly what it should, passing the US border test with flying colours!

Funny part about this lawsuit: “With a little planning ahead of time, you can always download the data you need once you get to where you’re going,”

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Perfectly legal. Unless they were legally charged and ordered by a court to preserve data considered to be used in a crime, they can’t be charged with shit. Cops don’t dictate this, courts do, AND that scope only applies to an active prosecution anyway.

    • Sinax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Legality seems to be a fairytale concept in the USA, except for oligarchs. They get full legal coverage.

    • chillpanzee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Perfectly legal. Unless they were legally charged and ordered by a court to preserve data considered to be used in a crime, they can’t be charged with shit. Cops don’t dictate this, courts do, AND that scope only applies to an active prosecution anyway.

      I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not arguing that you’re wrong here, but the article describes the federal law the journalist was charged with. It seems very broad, and it’s a bullshit law, but from what’s here, it seems more grey area than perfectly legal. All of 2232 seems to require knowledge (which it seems like he had, but might be arguable) and action. You could argue that the journalist didn’t take any affirmative action to wipe the phone. The action that wiped it was the feds entering a code.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Yeah, you’re wrong in a number of different ways. No, you’re not a lawyer.

        What you linked to is precedent par notice. Every single subordinate literally mentions notice.

        A law enforcement officer of ANY type is not able able to issue that notice.

    • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      There’s a bunch of legislation and case law saying that searches are OK within x (50?) miles of a border crossing which covers something like 90% of the population because they count international airports.

      So it might get sticky for the person.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        Search is not the same thing. Search means they CAN legally search. It absolutely does mean that wiping your phone prevented, obstructed, or obscured a SEARCH. Search all you fucking want, that data is gone. It’s not retroactively comparable.

        That being said, had there been a judge that said “You can’t wipe your phone, because you are being charged with a crime, and we believe there is evidence of this crime on your phone, and here is why…”

        Way different, and these laws only exist to prevent law enforcement from being caught in a cyclical legal roundabout in court related to the 4th amendment, and even then, many defense lawyers get “gray area” material data evidence thrown out because of Miranda Rights, or illegal searches by law enforcement of data harvested when the defendent was not properly advised or advocated for their ability to refuse.

        Murderers get off for this shit because Cops get overzealous and don’t follow the letter of the law or chain of custody in evidentiary collection.

        • Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          From the article

          “The government’s indictment, which contains a typo (“Untied States Code”), accuses Tunick of allegedly providing a passcode to border agents that caused the phone to “delete the digital contents,” prior to the device being seized.”

          “When Tunick provided his passcode and the authorities entered it, “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart.” The authorities seized his phone anyway, before telling him that he was free to go and could enter the United States.”

          • just_another_person@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            Yes, and only JUDGES are able to make that determination.

            There is no stature in Federal or State law that says this is a crime, and no superceded precedent for this.

    • Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      It depends. If the police suspect the owner has evidence of some sort on the phone, destroying it can lead to a tampering with evidence charge from the police.

      A tampering charge doesn’t have to be from a court order. If someone eats or dumps out drugs where the police can’t collect the physical drug, it will stick.

      But in the story’s case, it falls within the 100 miles of the US boarder (called a boarder search exception) a warrant, probable cause, or RAS aren’t needed here. It’s considered a reasonable search so the 4th amendment is limited here.

      There is a lot to it and really don’t think this is the best format for it here.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It does not depend. 4th amendment is superceded by any state law, and it’s SUPER clear that unless a crime has been committed and prosecutorial procedures are in place, no search or seizure is legal.

        That’s the whole point.