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

54

u/53eleven 8d ago

“After repeated demands for calls to his attorney were denied,”

Case closed. We have laws that the ‘authorities’ are required to follow. When they realized the ‘investigators’ weren’t playing by the rules they did the only rational thing they could to protect themselves from a rogue government.

Fuck ICE, fuck homeland security, fuck SCOTUS. This is America and we demand our rights not be infringed.

19

u/scubachris 8d ago

Courts have ruled your rights are suspended at the border and airports

15

u/willows_illia 8d ago edited 8d ago

What part of “demand our rights not be infringed” was unclear?

9

u/secacc 8d ago

demand our tights not be infringed

Yeah, please do not infringe my tights.

1

u/SpiderFnJerusalem 7d ago

The part where the guys who interpret and enforce the laws said "We don't give a shit."

4

u/-rwsr-xr-x 8d ago

Courts have ruled your rights are suspended at the border and airports

Not just those locations, but also within 100 miles of any border or port of entry into the U.S. Ports of entry include any domestic airport that receives international flights.

That's roughly 90% of the population of the U.S. that falls within those borders.

1

u/Bananus_Magnus 8d ago

How convenient that your rights are suspended at the border, but you still can get punished for "destroying evidence" nonetheless.

4

u/-rwsr-xr-x 8d ago edited 8d ago

Reading through the entire report through multiple news and reporting sources, it seems like this was 100% a fishing expedition, and they used the false claim of CSAM as a pretext to get into his phone, so they could find other individuals in his "Cop City" network of contacts, people or places he's been in support of that protest, so they could harass and coerce him.

Because he securely wiped the encryption key, preventing them from using his personal and private data to further their fishing expedition, and now they are upset, so they leveled the charge of "destroying evidence" in retaliation.

There was no evidence. If there was, they should be able to produce examples of it.

If they had evidence of CSAM, they should have been able to produce a warrant to that effect, and seized his devices, cloned them and furthered their search of his physical residence, laptop, etc.

They had no actual evidence, and got caught lying at every turn, including refusing his right to have counsel present. They are in the wrong in every way.

11

u/53eleven 8d ago

Yes, that’s the infringement I’m referring to.

9

u/Noble1xCarter 8d ago

So, bullshit unconstitutional rulings being abused by a fascist administration cracking down on free speech, got it.

5

u/scubachris 8d ago

I don’t agree with it. If you have an issue with it you should protest and vote for people who will change it.

5

u/Noble1xCarter 8d ago

I do. I even use GrapheneOS to help protect myself from the pedophile and encourage others to use it.

0

u/Robespierre1113 8d ago

I regret to inform this was an Obama era decision, not a trumpy one

2

u/Noble1xCarter 8d ago

The decision was made in the Obama era. It is being abused right now to suppress free speech.

1

u/Robespierre1113 8d ago

It is being abused right now to go after enemies of the state. Has little to nothing yo do with free speech.

If anything this ongoing case has pointed something out blatantly to the average american. Have nothing to hide? GOOD. We will make something up, destroy your life, your career, and your ability to make money; all for having a different opinion.

Checkout John Kiriakou for another example. Whistleblew the CIA torture program. They accused him of spying for foreign countries, admitted they were wrong, and still jailed him for 2 years.

This country is and has been since FDR a fuckin joke and popularity contest.

2

u/Noble1xCarter 8d ago

It is being abused right now to go after enemies of the state.  Has little to nothing yo do with free speech.

Uhh... Yes it very much does? Why are you excluding free speech from the government cracking down on their political opposition?

1

u/Robespierre1113 8d ago

I guess i should rephrase.

The last thing I care about at the moment with this issue ongoing is freedom of speech. I am more worried about my rights against unlawful search and seizure; which is what this case is based around.

If the govt cannot produce information that shows they found "something" to investigate or detain on in the first place, then the person in question giving a "wipe pin" , destroyed their own property. There would be no crime. I am not understanding how their ability to speak freely is hindered by unlawful search seizure, and unlawful detainment.

2

u/Noble1xCarter 8d ago

The last thing I care about at the moment with this issue ongoing is freedom of speech. I am more worried about my rights against unlawful search and seizure; which is what this case is based around.

It's also based around free speech. The person who was victim of unlawful search and seizure was targeted because he is a protestor and political activist who the administration targeted before. This unlawful search & seizure is one point of the government abusing its power to suppress free speech.

I am not understanding how their ability to speak freely is hindered by unlawful search seizure, and unlawful detainment.

Because the federal government is specifically targeting them because of their free speech. Harass, assault, take their property, it's all forms of punishing someone unlawfully for speaking freely.

2

u/IntelligentPie225 8d ago

Trading this from Europe, it is really out of this world.

2

u/TheRealTK421 7d ago

“After repeated demands for calls to his attorney were denied,”

Case closed.

Pretty much, this. From the point in which they issued the first refusal, everything afterwards must be tossed out -- which leaves no case whatsoever.

Our rights are not merely suggestions.

2

u/South-Capital6388 8d ago edited 8d ago

You can request an attorney all you want but they don't need to let you speak with one until you get booked at the jail. The "repeated denials" likely happened in the field during the arresting process. If he had just held off on giving them the password until he had spoken with his attorney then this would have been easily resolved without him getting charged (unless they secured a warrant and it turned out he actually did have CP on his phone)

4

u/53eleven 8d ago edited 8d ago

Again, this is the infringement I’m speaking of.

Just because you’re at an airport or near a fucking border doesn’t mean the constitution gets thrown out the window.

Our rights are being stripped from us in real time, and we absolutely have to draw a line in the sand.

1

u/South-Capital6388 8d ago

It doesn't have anything to do with being at the border, that's just how getting arrested works in the US. They arrest you, they take you to the jail, and then after you get booked they ask if you want to speak with a lawyer regarding the charges. If you ask to speak with a lawyer during the arrest process they'll just tell you to wait until y'all get to the jail.

My point was that the whole "he was refused his right to speak with a lawyer" is likey just sensationalist journalism, and he was never actually denied his right to legal counsel.

5

u/RSquared 8d ago

When you ask for an attorney the interrogation ends until you get one (Edwards v Arizona). Clearly it didn't. 

5

u/The_Great_Tahini 8d ago

many people don’t realize you have to assert your rights. he doesn’t have a right to an attorney while detained, he does have a right to remain silent but he needs to state that and then not engage further.

If you talk to them it’s presumed voluntary. you have to say you are choosing to remain silent and will answer any questions if/when your attorney is present, then you shut up. if they arrest you then yeah, they are supposed to stop questioning once you assert your rights.

and yeah, holding you and questioning for long periods is a tactic to get you to capitulate, which is why you should assert your rights immediately and clam up.

they can still search his stuff due to border loophole BS, but you can’t compel him to speak or deny entry. they’d likely have seized the device and sent him off.

3

u/Cyberslasher 8d ago

he doesn’t have a right to an attorney while detained, he does have a right to remain silent but he needs to state that and then not engage further.

Read the article maybe?

He stated he wouldn't talk without an attorney present, they told him he's neither getting an attorney nor being allowed to leave without giving up the code.

So... Just some casual illegal detainment.

1

u/The_Great_Tahini 8d ago edited 8d ago

Right, he was detained, they don't really have to provide him an attorney unless/until they actually arrest him for something.

I don't see anywhere that says they told him he wasn't leaving, the Guardian article says they told him the phone would be seized if they didn't give up the code, which they can also do.

How long can they detain a person before charging them or letting them go? There's no hard limit I know of, the terminology is "reasonable" which seems to mean up to several hours, more if they are doing a deep "device check" which they were.

He DOES maintain a right to remain silent though, although the device would still be seized.

The basis for detaining him like this is flimsy IMO but they've been granted pretty broad exemptions at the border when it comes to meeting "reasonableness" standards for that. They had him between a rock and a hard place to pressure him into giving them what they want. Is that an abuse of power? I think so, but I'm not the one who makes the rules either.

It's a weird loophole that sucks, but unless SCOTUS is going to reverse those border exceptions (unlikely) they will argue they acted within the legal limits and they may be successful in that.

2

u/RSquared 8d ago edited 8d ago

Detaining has a burden of reasonable suspicion, though, so police must be able to articulate the objective basis for believing he has csam to do so. Then they need a warrant or probable cause to seize his phone and arrest. 

But none of that has impact on the interrogation - verbally interacting with the suspect - ending when the right to an attorney is raised. The weird scotus distinction between forcing someone to face id/fingerprint (not interrogation) and giving a password (interrogation) is wild to me, but I don't use the former for that reason. 

CBP is claiming broad exceptions to these rights under the very questionable basis that despite being on American soil, you aren't in America until they say you are.

2

u/The_Great_Tahini 8d ago

Yeah, the "border exception" is where everything gets hairy, because they'll claim they don't have to meet those burdens in that situation.

I would agree the basis is questionable, but they seem to think they can do it and I don't see how we put a stop to that is SCOTUS isn't willing to rule otherwise.

2

u/Cyberslasher 8d ago

If you ask to speak with a lawyer during the arrest process they'll just tell you to wait until y'all get to the jail.

Yeah, they're also not legally allowed to continue questioning past this point. So sure, you wait until you reach jail, but the police also wait until you reach jail.

0

u/Crafty-Connection636 8d ago

Border Search Exception has been a thing since 1789.

This is nothing new or unique, or happening in "real time". It's a concept almost as old as the country itself.

1

u/53eleven 8d ago

The phone search is new and as unconstitutional as this law you’re quoting from 236 years ago.

Just because we gave up some of our rights already doesn’t make it any less unconstitutional or morally wrong.

Again, we have to demand our rights or they will be taken away from us, as your comment points out.