• FauxLiving@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Write the duress PIN on a piece of paper in your wallet. Someone searching your phone is probably also searching your wallet and may try the PIN.

    • Folstar@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Genius. Flips the script. In the process of conducting an illegal search, you deleted my phone causing considerable financial and emotional damage. Lawsuit time.

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

        It probably won’t work, at least (US)domestically. The requirement for obtaining a warrant before searching a phone is part of training because there is a clear Supreme Court ruling to that effect.

        That being said, what the law says and what some random asshole does during a stop are not always the same thing.

  • arc99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 hour ago

    If the duress pin makes obvious it’s the duress pin then it’s not really doing its job. It should instead open a profile with not much in it while erasing the other profile and files in the background.

  • khepri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 hours ago

    My understanding is you can’t actually be forced (legally) to give up your phone’s PIN or password as part of a police search, because it violates the 5th amendment against self-incrimination, even at the border. Now will they still find a way to fuck up your day if you refuse to unlock your phone, sure, but I feel like saying “I have a right under the 5th Amendment to not reveal my password” is going to be a lot easier to defend than “I intentionally wiped/locked/bricked my phone when you asked to look through it.”

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Depends

      Most phones can be accessed by forensic software. The more secure phones are protected as long as they’ve just been restarted but before they’re unlocked for the first time.

      Some phones, like an up-to-date GrapheneOS on a supported Pixel, may resist forensic imaging after first unlocking but the information is in memory so there could potentially be zero days or other exotic methods of obtaining the data.

      A duress wipe lets you know 100% that the data is not accessible.

  • ramble81@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Back up and wipe your phone before you cross the border. That way if they want to look at it, feel free to hand it to them. When you get back home, restore the backup.

    Also consider getting a throwaway phone if they try to keep it.

  • Malyca@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    5 hours ago

    What law did he break? Vs the warrantless search that is breaking the law. If only the supreme court didn’t give them a pass.

  • soratoyuki@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Without a warrant, it’s literally his phone to do with it what he pleases. Baffled that that’s not the end of the conversation.

    Assuming we lived in a rational world with a fair and impartial justice system, and not one that exists to funnel money from the working class into the Epstein class and kill or imprison everyone that makes that less easy.

    • khepri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      well they have the “border search exception” so at the border, no, they generally do not need a warrant for “routine searches” of electronic devices. Fucked up, but that is the law on the books and US courts have virtually always upheld it when it comes up.

    • Folstar@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Assuming we lived in a rational world with a fair and impartial justice system

      That’s like assuming unicorns will protect all that is good and sugar is effective weight loss

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Oh, because they are outside US borders they claim not to need a warrant, but that doesn’t stop them using US law to prosecute him though.

    • Malyca@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I think the supreme court has said they can search phones without warrants at the border and points of entry, so airports.

      • jaschen306@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 hours ago

        A judge issues a warrant when there is an active criminal investigation. If there’s no investigation, no warrant.

          • wewbull@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 hours ago

            It is how it works inside the united states. It’s just they claim that because he was on the flight side of the airport, he wasn’t inside the US.

            • cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              it is how it works

              Thanks but I live here and it’s not basically ever.

              Cops either use a pretense tools like a drug dog to establish probable cause for the search they want or do parallel construction after they’ve already built the general structure of a case, usually tracing things to a valid cause for search, usually via coached informant.

              Or its ice and they can just do whatever they want.

              You’re living in a fantasy world and your delusional ignorance is real danger is worrying. Please never approach or speak to me in person.

                • cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  That’s not how it works. I’m not sure that’s how it’s ever worked. You’re living in a fantasy. Warrants are not a meaningfully real thing.

  • AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    169
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The headline is wrong.

    Fascist regime fucks over people’s constitutional rights and could send a man to prison for protecting his own privacy.

    There, fixed.

    • GMac@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Loading any profile allows the operating system access to root privileges, and opens potential for user privilege escalation.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The profiles are independently encrypted with a key derived from the user’s profile PIN. If the other profiles are not logged in then their keys are not in RAM (and they get zeroed beforehand so they can’t be read out of unallocated memory).

        Even if the bad guys get root via a LPE in a dummy account there are no keys to find and the profiles’ storage are not mounted.

        You couldn’t trust the device after that however, who knows what kind of persistent spyware they could have installed.

        • GMac@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          That would be an interesting proposition… under duress load profile x and delete all other profiles, apps, settings and keys.

          • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Or maybe a lighter version of the duress pin that just loads the fake profile (or alternate profile) but leaves the other(s) intact.

            If you’re just handing your phone over for a border pig to swipe through before waving you through that might be adequate.

            • iopq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              It depends on whether you believe forensics can recover the data when handed over. So make it a setting

              • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                44 minutes ago

                Yeah I was thinking of this as a half measure. But less secure than just wiping

  • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    This is fucking stupid. If I delete something on my phone while I’m on vacation am I going to prison because the border patrol might have wanted to look at it?

        • FreeBooteR69@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 hours ago

          It’s like pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. So obvious. Just because it is impossible to do is no excuse.

    • kaotic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 hours ago

      It’s bullshit but with the current laws. Back up your phone before you head home wipe it before going through border control, and restore your backup when you get home.

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

      Nah, they just lube up the rubber gloves and fist you, checking in case there’s a micro SD stashed up there. You should still make your flight if you relax.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      We don’t need hyperbole here …. If authorities have a legal reason to search and you interfere with that, destruction of evidence is a crime. Delete all you want …. Right up until authorities claim the legal reason to search. Usually that takes a warrant: investigators must convince a judge there is a good reason

      This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.

      The slippery slope here is “or within 100 miles”, but that wasn’t a factor here either

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 hours ago

        This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.

        Have to disagree with that one. Simply entering a country is not justification for searching someones phone. I don’t care what the law says. People have a right to privacy.

      • stopdropandprole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        as far as I understand, they were not there to serve a warrant. he was crossing a border and the feds are claiming that the 4th amendment doesn’t apply because he hadn’t yet crossed into America.

        border patrol was essentially using a loophole to preemptively collect potential evidence (they’ll figure out what to charge him with after they see his phone contents). he’s a political activist against a cop city, they were obviously trying to do him dirty.

        they were not serving a search warrant. they were abusing what should be an illegal search at the border in order to silence those who speak out against govt overreach.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          So the important takeaway is to delete your phone before customs. Presumably you have an encrypted backup you can restore without too much effort

        • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          In addition, the law that he’s charged with relates to knowingly destroying property that the police have a warrant to sieze.

          There is no precedent of it being applied to border searches where they may not even have reasonable suspicion of a crime and can stop people for questioning on a whim.

          The State has absolutely no claim over your personal property at that point and destroying property that the police hope and dream of siezing isn’t the same as destroying property where they’ve demonstrated probable cause to a judge.

          This argument from the border patrol that you can be arrested for destroying data that is in your possession without ever been given due process and 4th amendment protections isn’t supported by precedence.

          • frongt@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 hours ago

            The US claims jurisdiction over its citizens wherever they are.

            Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because it means you can be prosecuted in the US for stuff like going to Thailand and sexually abusing children there.

  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    The indictment alleges that Tunick knowingly deleted the phone’s digital contents

    My hot take: the officer wiped the phone. With their own hands. They’re just stupid.

    • cdf12345@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 minutes ago

      that was the issue I was going to bring up. If the officer wants to try varuous pin numbers how is it the owners responsibility as to what the phone does.

      My phone is set to automatically wipe after X number of incorrect pin attempts. If I just kept telling law enforcement the wrong pin number because I cant remember it exactly, what is the difference if the phone wipes. Once the phone is out of my hands how can I be responsible for what the phone does? (Assuming I dont issue a remote wiping command)

    • Cheebus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 hours ago

      If they succeed I guess in the future an officer could delete your phone to save face then blame it on you.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Those of us who have asked to avoid the cancer box and been subjected to a subjectively punitive pat-down and fashion show experience are already anticipating just that. Yay!

        (And for added fun, call it a cancer box. Wow, when you get that one TSA who only has bad days will you get a great speech as well)

      • iknewitwhenisawit@fedinsfw.app
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Parallel construction is a way to present evidence illegally obtained by coming up with a plausible-seeming other way it was found.

        So, rather than saying “we illegally stopped and searched the defendant” they’ll get an “informant” (sometimes paid, sometimes coerced) to swear that they tipped them off beforehand.

          • iknewitwhenisawit@fedinsfw.app
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 hours ago

            It’s a form of lying, but with a specific meaning.

            Like how the 9th (or 8th, depending on how you’re counting) Commandment says to not bear false witness. That doesn’t mean that people following an Abrahamic faith cannot lie… just that they can’t lie in that one specific way.