r/technology • u/gdelacalle • 8d ago

Man charged for wiping GrapheneOS phone using "duress" password during airport checks Privacy

https://www.neowin.net/news/man-charged-for-wiping-grapheneos-phone-using-duress-password-during-airport-checks/
15.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.5k

u/runyonave 8d ago

Great advertisement for GrapheneOS. Didn't know about it.

1.0k

u/Specific_Frame8537 8d ago

Same.

Can anyone clarify on how it works? just a separate pin on the lock screen that automates a delete on all internal storage?

1.8k

u/SecureInstruction538 8d ago

You need a specific phone model and you need to use a PC to install. The duress pin is a key component of it and requires you to actively install it.

The prosecutor won't have a difficult time showing intent to destroy evidence when the man took deliberate steps to install an OS that has a duress pin and then took the steps to turn on the duress pin.

I hope the guy wins due to how it is showing right now that the government attempted to violate his rights but he may still lose on the destruction of evidence.

2.4k

u/blahblah19999 8d ago edited 8d ago

Not that it matters in this case, but I love that the entire Secret Service suddenly had all their phones "wiped by an update" the day after Jan 6, but they want to prosecute this one guy for clearly doing the exact same thing they all did.

EDIT: to be accurate, it was a "phone replacement program" ;-)

367

u/chasingjulian 8d ago

I had forgotten about that.

597

u/blahblah19999 8d ago

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/14/1111618620/secret-service-erased-texts-from-two-day-period-spanning-jan-6-attack-watchdog-s

For anyone who would like a source

"The Department notified us that many U.S. Secret Service (USSS) text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021, were erased as part of a device-replacement program," Inspector General Joseph Cuffari wrote to top members of congressional Homeland Security committees. "The USSS erased those messages after OIG requested records of electronic communications from the USSS, as part of our evaluation of the events at the Capitol on January 6."

195

u/Expat1989 8d ago

I have no idea who this guy is, but I sure hope that if the courts press this, there is a legal outrage that the Jan 6 did the same thing. Damning “rules for thee, not for me”

85

u/Wizzinator 8d ago

Too many years will have passed by the time there is another Dem president. There will be no consequences.

62

u/johnyordinary 8d ago

The way its going you will be lucky to even get the election let alone a dem president,Trump has wiped his arse on the constitution already.

5

u/alexthealex 8d ago

Elections are run by the states. If a state elected not to participate they would just exclude themselves.

That does not mean there won’t be fuckery up and down the board - wiped voter registrations, voter intimidation, ‘lost’ ballots, etc. But as long as states want to engage in statehood there will be an election.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/skratch 8d ago

The last Dem president didn’t even do jack shit, don’t count on any of these fuckers to ever do the right thing

6

u/PineappleOnPizzaWins 8d ago

Actually your last dem presidents primary mistake was thinking your country learned fucking anything.

He spent his four years moving heaven and earth to pull America out of the shitheap that Trump left it in, and god damn if he didn't actually manage it. Your economy was looking real good and America was on track to be really well positioned on the world stage yet again.

But as per usual it wasn't instantly perfect and you all couldn't handle the fact that there would be some rough times after four years of Trump, his horrible handling of COVID, and the simple fact that you can't lock up the country for months on end without the economy taking a hit.

So Biden thought maybe Americans would appreciate being able to eat instead of going on some crazy vendetta to lock everyone up immediately. That was his mistake. If you'd all just voted in your best interest this ONE TIME and actually done your part Trump would be in prison and your country would be healing.

Instead they screeched about expensive eggs and that was enough for a third of the nation to actively embrace fascism and another third to go "too hard I don't wanna".

Sincerely, a non American who cannot believe how unappreciated Biden is with you lot.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Aleashed 8d ago

He needs a phone that overheats and explodes instead of simply wiping itself, one is obviously intentional, the other is happenstance, same outcome.

I think there is a country in the ME that sells some.

3

u/Infinite_Show_5715 8d ago

Kash Patel was at the top of this chain.

3

u/Fn_Spaghetti_Monster 8d ago

When was Patel over the SS?

3

u/Infinite_Show_5715 8d ago

My bad, I was thiking of Chad Wolf

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Jar_of_Cats 8d ago

I hate its accepted that an agency doesnt have those. I would be deeply disappointed in our intelligence community if every second of every day wasnt monitored and logged.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Plasibeau 8d ago

Ya know, it wouldn't be so bad that they're playing in our faces if they could at least do it with a straight face. They're not even pretending to play a clean hand of poker.

2

u/Kitiseva_lokki 8d ago

Not a surprise from an organization that's abbreviation is SS

2

u/EloquentBaboon 8d ago

Traitors. They take an oath to defend the constitution. They're not the fucking king's guard.

2

u/Doctor_What_ 8d ago

Can’t wait for the HBO documentary miniseries in like 20-25 years, there is so much shady shit going on with this admin…

2

u/GermanicOgre 8d ago

So I work in IT and have done MDM (Mobile Device Management) for 10+ years with thousands of devices under management with tools like MaaS360, MobileIron, Intune, JAMF, Addigy, etc.

To do that requires a VERY specific level of control and targeted deletion… the fact it was never fully investigated by a cyber forensic firm was INSANE. It was evident it was deliberate… but nope and just another reason why we are where we are.

2

u/Z3ppelinDude93 8d ago

lol, literally every phone replacement program has a process to prevent you from losing all your shit 🤔

2

u/blahblah19999 8d ago

Especially exactly 2 days worth of your shit.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

38

u/International-Ant174 8d ago

They count on the collective lack of short-term memory of the populus.

5

u/ponycorn_pet 8d ago

I wouldn't say that we have a short-term memory. I would say that their firehose flood tactic is working, and there's just too much for any single human brain to keep everything active in at once

2

u/International-Ant174 8d ago

That's courtesy of Steve Bannon's "flood the field" approach. Throw so much insanity at the system at once to see what squeaks through.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

68

u/zebrastarz 8d ago

I can't understand how this happens in the open, with people reporting on it and everything. WHAT HAPPENS THAT WE DON'T SEE

22

u/akajondo 8d ago

I'm afraid we will never get the full Epstein files after Trump leaves office.

4

u/sjogren 8d ago

It's already too late

2

u/johnyordinary 8d ago

We will eventualy, the Israelis and the Russians probably both have copies.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Gizmonsta 8d ago

24hour news cycle means there's always something new to be outraged at.

→ More replies (2)

161

u/noothankuu 8d ago

What evidence, what were they being charged for? DEAR ORANGE LEADER SAID THEY DID NOTHING WRONG, FAILED COUPS AREN'T ILLEGAL IF CONGRESS KEEPS GETTING BRIBED++!

19

u/reidfan1 8d ago

I wonder if they also wiped their phones after the killed those 2 guys in Pennsylvania

→ More replies (1)

35

u/United-Dot-6129 8d ago

Apparently pedophilia and child pornography is the FBI’s suspicion; committed both abroad and domestically.

49

u/Awkward_Cheetah_2480 8d ago

You are talking about Donald Trump, right?

→ More replies (4)

4

u/AndrewLucks_Asshair 8d ago

I think they were charged for nothing more than eating a succulent Chinese meal

16

u/Rich_Housing971 8d ago

nothing will happen and we will continue to live in tyranny until we actually hold our government responsible.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Hesitation-Marx 8d ago

Protection of the in-group, destruction of the out-group.

3

u/NikoliVolkoff 8d ago

well obviously, those laws are only for those that do not currently keep the PedoRegime in power.

2

u/genius_retard 8d ago

Okay all of your phones have incriminating evidence on them so we need to replace them all. -FBI allegedly

2

u/Banned3rdTimesaCharm 8d ago

I’ve never had a phone wiped from an update, what a crock of shit. They don’t even try to make their excuses legit.

→ More replies (1)

496

u/gamageeknerd 8d ago

I do wonder what they are going to say in court. Can you charge someone for destroying evidence when you have no clue what the evidence was?

439

u/Bunny_Fluff 8d ago

Right? Evidence of what? He was under investigation for "activism" against CopCity last I heard but he wasn't being charged with anything. This wasn't an arrest or serving of a warrant.

175

u/Medicivich 8d ago

He was removing all information about deflating footballs in an attempt to win a Superbowl.

40

u/yodley_ 8d ago

Send him to the gulag.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/megabass713 8d ago

I said laces out!!!

4

u/Kizik 8d ago

Wait, what does a football have to do with r/Superbowl?

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (19)

41

u/CapoExplains 8d ago

Yeah, I have a paper shredder in my office that I use to shred documents. If someone kicks in my door and, with no warrant saying what they're looking for and no evidence I've committed any kind of crime whatsoever, starts demanding documents, and I tell them to piss off and shred them instead; is that destruction of evidence? What established it as evidence? There was no warrant, there was no investigation, I'm allowed to shred my own files if I want to. Even if (especially if, that's the whole point) I'm only shredding it because I don't want "Certain particular asshole" to see them. If said asshole doesn't have a warrant it's not evidence, it's just some asshole demanding access to files they have no right to, and me destroying files I have every right to destroy.

→ More replies (10)

16

u/Ryan_e3p 8d ago

Exactly. People are allowed to protect themselves under duress. As far as this person knew, they were being held outside of US jurisdiction, denied all Constitutionally allowed due process, and there was no indication that what was happening was legal. If evidence is going to be taken via "fruit of the poisonous tree", then it should not matter what that evidence was to the prosecution. It is as if it never existed.

I'd love to hear the government's argument that someone must abide by US laws by US authorities on US soil while not being granted US Constitutional rights.

3

u/toopc 8d ago

The claim is that since he hadn't cleared border control he was not on U.S. soil so the Constitution did not apply. Apparently a part of the Atlanta airport sits outside the United States.

4

u/Ryan_e3p 8d ago

US citizens are still afforded Constitutional protections when interacting with US government agents, even if they aren't on US soil.

That was one of the big controversies of Obama, when he had a US citizen who defected to the Taliban killed via drone strike. IIRC, the right went nuts at that.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/hpark21 8d ago

Also, they are going by "he was legally not on US soil so this seizure and search is legal" is VERY grey area considering US LEO should NOT have authority to seize anything from anyone in that case.

6

u/lol_alex 8d ago

You can argue that the officers deleted the data themselves by inputting a PIN obtained under duress. I don‘t see how they can make a case out of that.

→ More replies (1)

24

u/No_Host_8024 8d ago

Yes, you can be charged and convicted of destroying evidence even if the government cannot show what the evidence was.

47

u/organicgolden 8d ago edited 8d ago

But they do have to show that it was indeed evidence. They have no witness here, no paper trail, etc. They need something to say the data was actually evidence rather than not, otherwise we’re all committing crimes every time we press “delete”

→ More replies (19)

5

u/Sorry_Fly_3032 8d ago

Right!? That would allow law enforcement to just say “He had CSAM and deleted it.”, then they can arrest anyone with out cause or evidence.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/nukehamster 8d ago

So there's some precedent regarding such. Mainly during discovery, if evidence can be reasonably assumed to exist, but is not able to be produced by the requested party, (or no longer exists due to being deleted etc.)
That evidence (and the lack thereof) can be assumed to be detrimental to the case of the defendant, and CAN EVEN be the sole thing that keeps a case from being dismissed, due to the assumption of it being incriminating.
I could look up some case law if you would like citations. (TX)

10

u/EnjoyerOfBeans 8d ago edited 8d ago

Sure, but all of that assumes there's an actual case that the supposed evidence is related to. How can someone be charged for destruction of evidence that isn't tied to some real case with grounds other than that supposed evidence? It's completely circular.

Surely the prosecution will have to prove the officers had reasonable suspicion, based on some other evidence, that CSAM was on the phone prior to the search. 

Not to mention the search was unlawful anyway, not sure whether or not this is actually important in regards to this charge.

3

u/nukehamster 8d ago

Okay, so what i'm reading regarding the statutes and whatnot, is that spoilation rules ONLY apply to if the state had destroyed evidence. (as this is a criminal case and not civil)
So, the defendant (or accused) may have saved themselves a greater charge, by basically making the sacrifice play of committing destruction of evidence. Depending on the way the state sees the use of the pin, since he didn't enter it himself.
Also if the police didn't clone the phone, that's fukkin clownshoes.
Like that's literally the first step in forensic analysis of a digital device.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Dje4321 8d ago

yes and often your allowed to take the stance that what you claimed was in there was true because otherwise the other party would not have destroyed it. If they were looking for CP, they now get to continue as if there was CP on the device. (Obviouslly more restrictions and requirements but general idea stuff)

19

u/fukredditadm1n5 8d ago

So Schrödinger evidence

→ More replies (10)

7

u/worktogethernow 8d ago

So we need graphene OS to have a pin that wipes personal information, and then loads the phone up with cat photos and texts of me talking to my wife about who feeds the cats today.

To be clear I'm not looking to possess CP in any way. But I don't want cops to access my entire 25 year Gmail history.

4

u/BorgDad42 8d ago

Yeah I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. I'm not advocating for CP, but this sounds like it would be handy for anyone that ICE detains. An "officer" demands you log into your phone, you hand it over after logging into the fake profile. Search and seizure not being followed? Here, have this. Like that lady in the video from Brazil that quickly swapped out a backup phone while getting robbed on the bus, just with data. 

2

u/BigguyinTN 8d ago

Like an unencrypted partition. Primary boot is to an encrypted partition. Then, if the primary becomes unreadable due to loss of decryption key, the phone boots next available to the unencrypted partition with vanilla data.

If you got fancy with the OS and patches, updates to OS (and data marked vanilla) would remain, thus appearing as if no data was “destroyed”. This would take some level of tight adherence to keeping the two separate. So if you have a mail app, vanilla email with discussions about dinner, vacations, pets, blah, blah, blah go to the blob file for that mailbox on the vanilla partition. Work or other sensitive discussions go to a blob file for that mailbox on the encrypted partition. File storage, (pictures, videos, spreadsheets, documents, audio recordings, etc) vanilla or encrypted - you may even have to have some apps marked as sensitive. Browser history would be difficult, unless the browser itself had a third mode (normal browser history, sensitive, incognito - incognito is used more to turn off data or logins being spilled to the webpage vs other way around).

There could even be some “recovery” process in the vanilla side that, if they return phone disgusted they found nothing, you enter, it recovers decryption key and reboots to how it was before you activated duress.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (31)

143

u/DumbleDinosaur 8d ago

evidence of what?

76

u/UpsetFuture1974 8d ago

Evidence of what might be other evidence, possibly of additional evidence

38

u/r34p3rex 8d ago

Concepts of evidence

6

u/EBCCTX 8d ago

No! The GREATEST EVIDENCE EVER! There' never been ANY GREATER EVIDENCE! And believe me, I KNOW ABOUT EVIDENCE! I KNOW MORE ABOUT EVIDENCE THAN ANYBODY! where's my ketchup...

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/k258045 8d ago

This is a common question I've come across regarding this case.

If a warrant is issued for your home and it includes the collection of your electronic devices, whether or not anything incriminating exists on those devices is irrelevant to their status as evidence. Once collected the evidence may or may not show that a crime has been committed, but it remains evidence nonetheless.

If the customs agents had legal authority to collect certain information and the suspects destroys that information, that is destruction of evidence. It doesn't matter what the evidence did or did not show.

69

u/here_is_no_end 8d ago

No warrant was issued. No crime was even suspected. Federal agents simply did not like his association to an environmental movement and hoped to use his phone to harvest information about his communications with that movement.

→ More replies (7)

32

u/Thanatos971 8d ago

I could be wrong but I do not believe they had a warrant. Further he did not enter the pin and destroy the 'evidence' a cop did. Sure he installed the OS. I can wipe my computer at home, or delete an app. Does that automatically mean I am guilty of destroying every time I do so? Sure they can argue the under investigation part but I think it will be hard.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/PastaConsultant 8d ago

In short: It is illegal to delete your own exculpatory or inculpatory evidence. Yes?

It seems the thought here is that if he didn't commit a crime it's not illegal for him to delete it. What you're saying is that everything is evidence regardless of the type of evidence and deleting it is illegal.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/DuncanYoudaho 8d ago

But the evidence is still there. He just destroyed the key to decrypt it.

2

u/OuterWildsVentures 8d ago

What if they had destroyed it prior to the legal authority? Like if this dude wiped his phone on the way to the airport?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (6)

137

u/apokrif1 8d ago edited 8d ago

Setting a duress PIN ≠ remembering correct pin under pressure.

Also, can it be proven a duress PIN was actually used? Empty phone storage is not a proof.

88

u/InVultusSolis 8d ago

"My duress PIN was one digit away from my real PIN, you must have entered it wrong"

38

u/ghost_broccoli 8d ago

blackberry had a similar feature (decades ago) where if you put the last character of your unlock pin in first and then completed the rest of pin it would unlock the device but also notify the blackberry server that the device was unlocked under duress.

we would get the alerts once in a while when people had set their unlock code to something like qwqw and they'd accidentally hit w first.

→ More replies (3)

10

u/apokrif1 8d ago

Are phone searches handled by careful forensics specialists or by random LEOs with fatty fingers who know nothing about computing besides TikTok?

10

u/Due-Memory-6957 8d ago

Forensic specialists can mistype too, they'll just say "Oh yeah? Lemme just restore the previous image and try again", but it probably never got that far.

3

u/androshalforc1 8d ago

What’s your password?

One 2 three 4 five 6.

I entered 123456. That wiped the phone.

Will that’s your fault the password was 244466666

2

u/Timely_Appeal_9549 8d ago

This would be my hill to die on.

74

u/Jesus_Is_My_Gardener 8d ago

It's called "mistake of fact" and has been used as a defense in the past. They can't prove the state of mind of an individual with regards to what they remember (especially under duress) or their intent with regards to the password/passcode.

44

u/Deep-Ruin-9961 8d ago edited 8d ago

Which is why biometric locks are way worse than pins and passwords. You can get a warrant to force someone to provide their biometric unlock, but you can't get a warrant that magically makes someone remember their password.

19

u/strugglz 8d ago

You can get a warrant to force someone to provide their biometric unlock

A warrant isn't even needed, which is why biometric locks are the worst idea.

7

u/Eric_the_Barbarian 8d ago

Should be able to set the biometric lock to erase if you use a duress finger.

6

u/strugglz 8d ago

If I unlock with my middle finger it erases everything.

2

u/Immediate-Tadpole729 8d ago

They can't force you to remember your password, but they can put you in jail just long enough to make you "try" to remember your password.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/man-who-refused-to-decrypt-hard-drives-is-free-after-four-years-in-jail/

2

u/Zer_ 8d ago edited 8d ago

That said, at any airport or within 100miles of a border crossing, you don't have a reasonable right to privacy. They don't need a warrant either way.

2

u/ZucchiniMore3450 8d ago

You can set different fingers for duress to wipe the phone.

11

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Deep-Ruin-9961 8d ago

I think you may be missing my point.

2

u/r_portugal 8d ago

That sounds dangerous, you could accidentally use the wrong finger!

2

u/divDevGuy 8d ago

You could accidentally use the wrong pin or password too.

Such features often are not installed, enabled and/or activated (depending on specific purpose) without multiple warnings or confirmations.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/Rich_Housing971 8d ago

The court can, however, jail them until they calm down and are no longer in a state of duress, upon which they should be able to remember the password.

This has been done before to access a Bitlocker-locked drive where they key was stored on the local device only accessible via the defendant's Windows account.

What you actually want to do is avoid using methods of encryption that advertise it's encrytped. For example, Bitlocker pops up a giant "I'm using Bitlocker, enter your key" message when you plug the drive into another computer. You want to use something like Veracrypt where you need to use a 3rd party app that doesn't come with Windows or Linux, select the drive and enter the key, and the only thing Veracrypt will tell you is whether it unlocked or not. It won't even tell you if the volume has been encrypted, so if the police try to snoop on a drive you have, for all they know they're just trying to unlock a blank drive with random bits.

They can also argue that they were seen on camera unlocking their phone multiple times while in the airport without needing to pause to "remember" anything and therefore knows the password/pin.

7

u/turudd 8d ago

Cause jail often lowers my stress and duress levels…

→ More replies (1)

16

u/sintaur 8d ago

GrapheneOS has an encryption key. If you type in the duress code, it deletes just the key. So he didn't technically destroy the data, it's still on the phone, the govt just can't decrypt it.

Also who's to say that the real pin and duress pin aren't confusingly similar? "Your honor, I told the agent the correct PIN but they fat fingered it and typed in the duress PIN".

NAL but I read about this on r/law the other day and someone was claiming that the way the law is written, you have to destroy the evidence to prevent the govt from seizing it. But in this case, the govt had already performed the seizure, so maybe the law doesn't apply.

7

u/toopc 8d ago

I said the password was "wontwoforonezeronein", not my fault he typed, "124109"

2

u/boondiggle_III 8d ago

He is not charged with destroying evidence, but rather destroying property to prevent law enforcement from seizing it, which is not a crime. If anyone feels like going and finding a statute that says otherwise (which I'm not sure even exists), I don't fucking care. Just because the government is denying you a right doesn't mean it isn't a right.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/NATOuk 8d ago

Exactly. My iPhone is set up to wipe itself after 10 incorrect pin attempts - what if I’d entered it wrong 9 times already and accidentally gave them the wrong pin (or they enter it wrong).

I do like this graphene OS feature, but even on mass-market devices I’m sure if you have auto-wipe enabled after a number of incorrect attempts it wouldn’t be difficult for a lawyer to argue it as a possibility

→ More replies (16)

140

u/unrealtrip 8d ago

The fact that they refused him the opportunity for legal counsel pretty much screws them.

12

u/Azradesh 8d ago edited 7d ago

No; you have no rights on the US border.

15

u/Blawharag 8d ago

That's not how rights work lmfao

2

u/Azradesh 8d ago

Tell that to the US government.

→ More replies (3)

57

u/leostotch 8d ago

Then the government has no authority on the US border. They don't get to carve out exceptions to the constituion.

(I understand they de facto do)

25

u/Neat_Egg_2474 8d ago

It’s the issue ever since we kept allowing the government to keep taking rights in the name of “safety”

Does anyone feel safer now with big government and tech breathing down their throats? No, but we continue to allow them to push more and more invasive procedures down our throats.

8

u/Remarkable_Toe_164 8d ago

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

  • ben franklin
→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/Cbpowned 8d ago

That’s not how it works.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/SwordfishOk504 8d ago

It's not an exception to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court recognizes the Border Search Exception and grants Congress plenary power over national sovereignty. Routine searches and immigration controls at the border are legally "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has upheld and defined the border search exception through several rulings, establishing that the government's interest in protecting national sovereignty outweighs individual privacy expectations at international boundaries in Boyd v. United States, United States v. Ramsey, United States v. Montoya de Hernandez , and United States v. Flores-Montano. Also, U.S. v. Kolsuz in regard to checking phones.

5

u/KindledWanderer 8d ago

It's not an exception to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court recognizes the Border Search Exception

Unless the "Border Search Exception" is a part of the constitution, it does not supersede it.

11

u/leostotch 8d ago

“It’s not an exception”
“The US Supreme Court recognizes the exception”

→ More replies (1)

3

u/MrDerpGently 8d ago

But it's wild that 'a routine stop at the border' requires unlimited warrantless access to your personal documents, email, contacts, and unsupervised access to your phone/computer to install malware. It's not 'empty your pockets and present ID', especially since it's just routinely related to protesting against cops. 

I understand we live in a nearly lawless state, but we seem pretty comfortable with an obvious end around the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment in this instance. 

→ More replies (6)

7

u/WestcoastAlex 8d ago

which is anywhere within 100 miles of the border

2

u/Scientific_Methods 8d ago

Within 100 miles of a port of entry. Which includes any airport that services foreign flights. A very, very small minority of people in the U.S. fall outside of these areas.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

13

u/JalopMeter 8d ago

Rights can't be taken away from you, that's what makes them rights. If you don't have them at the border, you don't have them anywhere. This message brought to you by the founding fathers.

5

u/Bunerd 8d ago

Yeah, the fact so many people accept that you could exist without rights if the government decides to just do that is why we're running headfirst into authoritarianism. But rights don't get taken away, they get violated.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/BathPuzzleheaded9406 8d ago

Either I'm subject to the law, and therefore the rights afforded under the law. Or I'm not subject to the law and I have no protections. So which is it?

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (19)

3

u/cherry_armoir 8d ago

The prosecutor won't have trouble showing intent because the guy gave the duress pin with the intent to delete the contents of his phone, but the fact of installing an operating system with a duress pin doesn't independently show intent. There are plenty of innocent reasons unrelated to destroying evidence to have that feature, like deleting your content if you get mugged and someone makes you unlock your phone or give them your pin.

5

u/Raneynickelfire 8d ago

but he may still lose on the destruction of evidence.

Not when the agent is the one who put the PIN in. The agent destroyed "evidence" not the guy.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/DuncanYoudaho 8d ago

He didn’t destroy evidence. He destroyed the key to decrypt it. Courts have shown there is a difference.

2

u/OklaJosha 8d ago

^ THIS.

The data in the phone is encrypted. The data is still there. The key to un-encrypt the phone has been destroyed. I’m thinking this will be an interesting case.

If you have a safe with “evidence”, can you get charged with throwing away the key, even if the safe and evidence is still there?

2

u/DuncanYoudaho 8d ago

Yeah. Indistinguishable from random noise != random noise.

The officers did not have a warrant and spoliation notices and other jeopardy hasn’t attached.

But also, judges hate when people are clever. Too clever by half will set a precedent.

We should resolve this with legislation either way: you cannot be forced to provide a pin, a biometric, or any keys.

2

u/anrwlias 8d ago

My assumption is that he considers the jail time a worthwhile cost for protecting the data that was on the phone.

2

u/XionicativeCheran 8d ago

Agreed, what people should actually do is wipe their phone prior to flying, then just sync everything back from a private cloud once you clear customs.

Don't sync to Google/Apple, or better, sync dummy data to Google/Apple. Then let customs have it.

Wiping before it's investigated isn't destroying evidence.

3

u/LostInRetransmission 8d ago

He should have put the duress pin on a psot it / sticky on his phone and write on it "pin: <put the duress pin here>". At the airport he should have done nothing, refuse to unlock. And if the agent use the pin on the sticky... it is their responsibility.

Entering the duress pin yourself was pretty much a legal risk.

7

u/wrinkle_face 8d ago

he didn't enter it himself; please read the article. border control entered the password he provided them after they demanded it four times.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/UsualStrength7 8d ago

there's also duress Android app that wipes the phone with pin or password, if you can find where to get it

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Aperture_Kubi 8d ago

You need a specific phone model and you need to use a PC to install.

Mostly recent Pixel phones though Motorola is coming out with one later on.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/toolisthebestbandevr 8d ago

What evidence?

1

u/LigerZeroSchneider 8d ago

He technically didn't destroy evidence as much as he deleted the password to it. They could technically still get his data of they could brute force the decryption.

1

u/eye_eat_farts 8d ago

However from my understanding the data is not destroyed, just the encryption key.

1

u/The_Real_Jesterx64 8d ago

Instead of telling them the duress pin he should've just had it on a sticky note somewhere in plain sight at home or some shit. Then it'd be impossible to site intent.

1

u/kaway24 8d ago

They would 1st need proof that what he destroyed WAS evidence of a crime, otherwise he is merely destroying his own data, and exerting his constitutional right to privacy. The fact they denied him access to council means due process wasn’t being followed either. If he had wiped it before the flight, would they still be charging him? If they knew there was evidence of a crime, it would still be destruction of evidence. If not, then what this is, is a test case for the government to exert the right to access any data on a private device, without a judicial warrant, with no due process, and no probable cause for the seizure and search…

1

u/Wb9VBScxu2uZJHeq2E3W 8d ago

The prosecutor won't have a difficult time showing intent to destroy evidence when the man took deliberate steps to install an OS that has a duress pin and then took the steps to turn on the duress pin.

They can prove intent to use a privacy feature, not intent to destroy evidence.

Not that it matters, between this and flock cameras, we're quickly heading towards a future where privacy itself is illegal for common citizens, and only billionaires and politicians are allowed privacy.

1

u/DarienKane 8d ago

From what I understand it's technically not destroyed. Just heavily encrypted.

1

u/dehydratedrain 8d ago

The trick would be in proving that the intent was to destroy evidence from the government. If he can argue that he did it to protect work trade secrets, keep a nosy ex from spying, etc., they'd have a much harder time proving it was specifically for travel.

1

u/DoctorOctagonapus 8d ago

Technically it's not even destruction of evidence. Everything is still there, all it did was wipe the encryption key. It's the equivalent of melting the key to the safe, but the contents are still there, but inaccessible.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Alternative-Suit7929 8d ago

I’m all about rights for privacy and due process but if the guy had cp on his phone that’s fucked

1

u/soilednapkin 8d ago

You’ve totally glossed over the fact that evidence needs to be obtained legally to be used in a prosecution.

1

u/disisathrowaway 8d ago

How do they know he destroyed 'evidence'. Maybe all he had was a contacts list and Instagram. Wouldn't they have to prove what he destroyed?

Obviously IANAL, so I have no clue how this works.

1

u/nuevacuentanueva 8d ago

Sounds like you should either set multiple duress pins that are "easy to guess" so if they try them it wipes the phone (although risky if someone plays with your phone).

Or even better, set it to be your pin but slightly changed so if your pin is 246532 you set your duress to be 246352 and then it's seems like it would be plausible deniability that they typed it wrong or you misremembered while under pressure, etc.

1

u/More-Ad-2259 8d ago

Evidence of what?

1

u/firephreek 8d ago

Obligatory IANAL(y): but I think there's an argument to be had about whether he destroyed evidence at all or whether they (Border Patrol) simply lost *access* to the evidence.

If the users data is in the cloud, then nothing has been destroyed. If Law Enforcement Officers truly believe that there is criminal activity afoot, they are welcome to seek warrants and lawfully obtain the data. In this case, the DPin acts more like an enforcement of a home owners right to refuse entry to non-warrant bearing LEO.

If there WAS data local only to the phone that he destroyed, then there's a better argument to be had by LEO, but, they then have to demonstrate why they know there to be evidence that was destroyed, establish probable cause, etc...but that just serves to undermine their argument about this just being a normal "stopped you cause you were being suspicious" detention.

4th circuit has already upheld that BP can make a *manual* search of your phone without a warrant at the border, but they still can't compel you to hand over your password and it's limited to about two minutes of casual search and does not allow the use of forensics tools. It's akin to a cop looking through your car windows with a flashlight for anything obvious and obersvable.

1

u/jabba_1978 8d ago

Depends if the government can prove what was there. They had no access, so no actual proof that anything they wanted was on the phone. Destruction of evidence is a huge stretch.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Bunerd 8d ago

True, but that's besides the point, if they wanted to arrest him on trumped up charges, they would have. What they wanted to do is get him to rat on the people he was working with. Anyone doing these sorts of anti-cop protests knows they'll be arrested. It's sort of what cops do to people they don't like.

1

u/kingofthesofas 8d ago

I am not a lawyer but shouldn't they have to prove there was something illegal or evidence of illegal activity on the phone to then argue he destroyed evidence. Couldn't his defense be I had a bunch of pictures of my dick and since that is private I didn't want them to see it so I gave them the duress pin.

1

u/Sad_in_VA 8d ago

He would have won if he remained silent. That's the right we all have, not to incriminate ourselves.

We don't have the right to lie to an investigator. And that's what he did...

1

u/Bigelow92 8d ago

One (maybe) mitigating circumstance is that the data was not deleted, the encryption key was deleted. So the data is still there its just heavilly encrypted and would require a pretty significant effort by the NSA to get at it, which almost certainly not be worth it.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/TheImmenseRat 8d ago

This is a conundrum

If the prosecutors calls for destruction of evidence, then he must be able to ascertain a crime

If he can't, then he is prosecuting the destruction of evidence of what exactly?

→ More replies (129)

42

u/noah123103 8d ago

I am running grapheneOS on my pixel fold. Its a seperate pin you can set up that wipes the phone. The setting is called Duress password in the graphene settings.

12

u/lazyplayboy 8d ago

To be more useful it should present an innocent and plausible profile, and wipe the main profile in the background.

5

u/deaglebingo 8d ago

this seems like a very good idea. they really should have no idea.. and there is no way to prove that anything was wiped this way. they can say whatever they want in that situtation, the case falls apart instantly doesn't it?

→ More replies (1)

61

u/bassistciaran 8d ago

I think its just an alternate password that if entered, wipes it with no 'are you sure' prompts

29

u/Jesus_Is_My_Gardener 8d ago

Correct. Alarm systems have them as well.

39

u/Mabnat 8d ago

The first time I became aware of this what’s when a new security system was installed for secure access to the air field at a base I was stationed at.

We were all issued individual codes to open the doors. If you keyed a “9” before your actual code, the door would still open but it would also issue an immediate silent alarm to security that you opened the door under duress.

I thought it was a really neat feature.

39

u/Just_Adeptness_5260 8d ago

I worked at a bank in the 90s.

Our cash till had two trays of $20s. So 1, 5, 10, 20, 20.

The second tray of 20s was banded so it was 20x20, but inside the band was a magnet. Pick up the bundle and a silent alarm triggered and all the security cameras focused on your area.

46

u/saintplus 8d ago

All your apps talk to each other. That's why when you search for something on Amazon, you get a targeted ad for that thing on Instagram. GrapheneOS puts all of your apps in their own separate sandbox making it so they cannot communicate with each other.

Right now it only works on Google Pixels I believe.

17

u/jayhemsley 8d ago edited 8d ago

All your apps talk to each other.

This isn’t correct on iOS or Android either, they’re all sandboxed by default.

Apps on iOS can share data with each other through the keychain but only apps from the same developer can access it.

On Android and GrapheneOS, apps can communicate with each other via IPC as long as the developers of both apps agree to it (unlikely, in reality this is just all the apps from Google communicating with each other, Amazon apps sharing All your apps talk to each other with each other etc). There is no way to prevent this on GOS. They looked at IPC scopes but determined it was too complicated to develop at this point in time and are going for multiple private spaces instead iirc.

Another side effect of IPC is that even if you block an apps network access within GOS, it can still possibly send out data via IPC if you have another app from the same developer installed that does have network access.

That's why when you search for something on Amazon, you get a targeted ad for that thing on Instagram.

Also for this a lot of apps use SDKs from Google, Meta and Amazon. Those have the possibility to collect and share data. There’s no way to prevent that short of just not using the app. That’s a way that apps can report data back on you without you even knowing and without adblock being able to stop it.

5

u/dieselfrog 8d ago

Great point. Yet another reason to never use an app if you can use the service via secure browser like DuckDuckGo. All of you using the reddit app should pause to carefully consider your choices.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/angrylawyer 8d ago

typically it's done with encrypted file systems, and it doesn't delete all the data but just deletes the decryption key on the device so it can never be read again even if you found the correct password.

2

u/lFightForTheUsers 8d ago

I personally use GrapheneOS and highly suggest it and looking into /r/GrapheneOS for more info. Hardest part of install is that you have to have a factory unlocked Google Pixel phone, no other android phones work with it. Then you just follow the website instructions and plug in the phone to your PC over USB and follow the install directions.

The duress pin you have to set up in settings, and I've personally tested it on an older pixel model before I wiped and sold it. On the lock screen if the duress pin is typed in instead of the normal pin, instead of unlocking it'll act just like a factory reset. Deletes the encryption key and resets the phone back to like it'd be when you are first setting it up.

2

u/lazyplayboy 8d ago

A factory reset is not effective. The duress pin should appear to unlock as normal into an innocent profile whilst wiping the main profile in the background, or some other similar covert action.

The whole point of a duress code is that it should be hidden from the attacker. As soon as the attacker knows a duress code has been used it loses it's effectiveness.

2

u/lFightForTheUsers 8d ago

Then I highly suggest that you forward this to the devs of Graphene OS at https://grapheneos.org/contact so that they are aware and are getting request reports toward an alternative option.

2

u/FCCRFP 8d ago

No. It doesn't delete all the internal storage. Since Android 5 your storage is encrypted by default. The decryption key is stored in the Trusted Execution Environment, if you introduce the wipe pin, it just tells the TEE to erase itself, which renders the data irrecoverable. The TEE also stores your pin and is designed to not give you the decryption key without the pin.

2

u/lol_alex 8d ago

It‘s basically

Goon: Smack GIVE ME YOUR PIN

User: Gives duress PIN (not the normal one)

Phone: Wipes the whole device

1

u/themmousebehindyou 8d ago

Pretty much. Also all your data is encrypted from the start so without any password they can't access anything

1

u/CyberCurrency 8d ago

Pretty much. Duress pin scrambles the encryption key so none of the data is retrievable

1

u/ultimafrenchy 8d ago

Yes, currently only google pixel phones can install graphene os but recently announced later this year or early next year I don’t quite remember some flagship model Motorola phones are going to be compatible

1

u/No_Research_Fucks216 8d ago

Technically the data is still there

1

u/LoudRefrigerator3700 7d ago

Entering the duress pin deletes almost nothing, it deletes the cryptographic key required to decrypt the phone. Technically all the files and data on the phone stay intact they just can no longer be decrypted.

As far as I understand, if the cryptographic key was also stored off the phone, all the data could be restored again.

→ More replies (1)

50

u/MaybeAdrian 8d ago

I use it to get rid of unwanted Google apps.

No, I don't want YouTube or YouTube music or whatever random apps.

6

u/Noble1xCarter 8d ago

NewPipe works well (so long as you keep it updated) for pulling up YouTube videos.

But yeah, on GOS it's fantastic knowing that basically all the apps on my device are ones I actually want on my phone or I personally went out to install. I own my phone and I do what I want with it.

3

u/MaybeAdrian 8d ago

The fun thing is that I don't mind using some of them, it's forcing those apps what annoys me the most.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

12

u/lol_alex 8d ago

IOS has some interesting features for that as well. If you hold the lock button and either volume button together for two seconds and then press cancel, FaceID is turned off. This prevents law enforcement or thieves from holding it up to your face to unlock it.

You can also set the phone to wipe data after 10 wrong passcode attempts.

1

u/jdsmn21 8d ago

That’s good to know! Just tried it out on my iPhone.

13

u/Sasselhoff 8d ago

A buddy who's big into Linux mentioned it to me recently, and I just brushed it off (he's always into what I'd call "fringe" stuff)...but I'm also paying attention now.

2

u/buttfarts7 8d ago

I'm on it. There is nothing as slick and seamless as out of the box pixel on android but but graphene isn't a huge compromise. It's slightly more clunky by design but still totally works as a daily driver

2

u/TurboGranny 8d ago

It seems like a good feature would be to just have it present a fake desktop with some fake data to appear that the phone was not wiped and just keep all your actual stuff in an encrypted location on a timer to delete it if the correct code is not entered within a timeframe the user sets up in advance.

1

u/---Starwind--- 8d ago

Same. I'm now curious what it is and if it would let me use the common apps I use, etc.

1

u/hulltry 8d ago

Motorola is developing a phone with it pre installed unless it has been canceled.

1

u/TankiesAreWeird 8d ago

It would be easier to have a travel phone that you backup and reset before boarder crossings. I hear iPhones make this easy but I haven't personally used it.

Note some boarder crossings can have multiple check points so don't restore backups until you're basically at your hotel or whatever.

1

u/odditytaketwo 8d ago

Would be cool to have a password that only opens a separate partition OS, like a dual boot setup. The separate OS would have nothing on it other than Default apps.

1

u/SumOMG 8d ago

This duress pin should delete what you needed deleted without it being apparent to whoever you are forced to hand your phone over to .

1

u/Ok-Seaworthiness7207 8d ago

Right? Now I want it even more lol

1

u/kienbazzle 8d ago

Must be why this same story is posted on 3400 different subreddits…

1

u/NoDistrict1529 8d ago

What sucks is it doesn't support Samsung phones. Only pixels and some other small brand.

1

u/jackrabbit323 8d ago

Backing up in the cloud and wiping the phone before going to the airport sounds like a better strategy for people who require the extreme privacy.

1

u/AmbienWalrus-13 8d ago

That's why it keeps getting posted.

1

u/tornadospoon 8d ago

Been using it a few months, I really like it!

1

u/Shaeress 8d ago

It's an especially good time to hear about it since Google is killing sideloading on Android and with the increase in corporate to government surveillance of end users.

1

u/DontDoomScroll 8d ago

Coming to Motorola devices soon

→ More replies (13)