You must log in or register to comment.
28 daysInteresting to see how this goes.
- he didn’t wipe it, the CBP officer did
- what evidence? Phones empty.
- um repeatedly denied a lawyer? Toss the case.
- 28 days
A duress PIN should load a normal looking phone so the dumb cops think you complied. Hide the wipe behind texts from your mom and emails from work.
- 28 days
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social everyone seems to be clamouring for the same thing: add “duress profile” to the roadmap. Keep up the good work.
- 28 days
Hell, an OS that gave me separate profiles for different pins could be useful for a bunch of things.
gOS already has separate profiles with different passwords, how about setup a profile with a few pictures of gaping anuses to match the energy of nosy warrantless searching federals and install a couple apps with some activity I’m guessing is going to be better than an obvious wipe, even though a wipe is legal as it’s your property and not evidence of a crime to destroy your own stuff.
- Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.worldEnglish28 days
OOOOOHHHH!!! I like that. I have nefarious ideas with that. MWA HA HA HA HA!!! They’ll never know I dislike cheesecake!!! Oh! Shit! I’ve said too much!!!
runs away
hi every1 im new!!! holds up spork my name is katy but u can call me t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m!!! lol…as u can see im very random!!! thats why i came here, 2 meet random ppl like me _… im 13 years old (im mature 4 my age tho!!) i like 2 watch invader zim w/ my girlfreind (im bi if u dont like it deal w/it) its our favorite tv show!!! bcuz its SOOOO random!!! shes random 2 of course but i want 2 meet more random ppl =) like they say the more the merrier!!! lol…neways i hope 2 make alot of freinds here so give me lots of commentses!!! DOOOOOMMMM!!! <— me bein random again _ hehe…toodles!!!
love and waffles,
~t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m~
- 28 days
@modem_down @beep @Semi_Hemi_Demigod It would be trivially detected by widely distributed standard forensic software including the non-Premium variant of Cellebrite able to run on a laptop.
- orclev@lemmy.worldEnglish28 days
The point isn’t to make it forensically undetectable, but to prevent the room temperature IQ cop from noticing what happened. If they “unlock” the phone and don’t see anything that looks out of the ordinary they won’t make a big deal out of it and there’s a chance they’ll let you go.
The room temperature IQ cop is going to plug the phone into a system that will do that forensic detection. Using commercial or special software.
Room temperature IQ cop knows how to plug the cord into the phone and the cord into the laptop.
- 27 days
@orclev Standard operating procedure is increasingly to extract data with standard forensics software. If it doesn’t go smoothly then they’ll likely detain people and get experts to deal with it.
- 28 days
It would be trivially detected by widely distributed standard forensic software including the non-Premium variant of Cellebrite able to run on a laptop.
By “duress profile”, I mean that if user has enabled a “duress profile” feature in Settings, then entering the duress PIN would:
- Erase (the encryption key for) all profiles and storage outside the duress profile; then
- Unlock the duress profile.
So, how would forensic software detect that the unlocked profile is a duress profile?
- 27 days
@modem_down @beep @Semi_Hemi_Demigod The software walks the person using it through enabling Android Debug Bridge and extracting data with it. It’s either not going to work or will be able to see many signs of what happened. GrapheneOS is well known to the forensic data companies and they make a point of trying to support it. They haven’t had much success with locked GrapheneOS devices but they can certainly handle detecting it and detecting if a feature like this was used via ADB.
- TWeaK@lemmy.todayEnglish28 days
Lol I wouldn’t hold your breath, these devs won’t even give you inverted navbar buttons so unless it’s something they themselves want, you won’t see it.
- TWeaK@lemmy.todayEnglish27 days
Nope, and in the support threads the devs were all “Tough, we don’t want it, use gestures”.
Inverted navbar and long press back button to force close an app are essential for me. Meanwhile diva devs are a massive turn off.
Love some of what they’ve done, hate their attitude. Bit like the lemmy devs, except the GOS devs won’t allow anyone to fork or incorporate their stuff.
- SpaceNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish28 days
But what about the spam emails your wife accidentally signed you up for ???
- 28 days
And a bunch of random apps for restaurants that you installed to get a discount
- voodooattack@lemmy.worldEnglish28 days
accidentally
Reading this comment with the assumption my wife will find it some day: Right, she doesn’t give out my number instead of hers as a contact point every time she visits a shop that asks, and certainly not because she has it memorised and it’s too much of a bother to give out her own, not at all.
All the WhatsApp group invitations for clothing and grocery places that happen after she goes shopping are completely unrelated.
- phx@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
That is more or less what the old TrueCrypt (and also VeraCrypt) systems did. One password gets you the real data, the other opens a different partition that could be stuffed with dummy data.
True privacy/security night involve a hybrid, where it opens the device to the fake partition+profile but also kills off internal keys to the real data when the duress is used
- wuffah@lemmy.worldEnglish28 days
Tunick asked four times during the interrogation to speak with a lawyer, but was rebuffed each time, according to courtroom testimony. Additionally, the agents produced no warrant and did not read Tunick his rights.
If he’s not even accused of a crime, how is wiping his phone “destroying evidence”? What is the crime being committed here? You are allowed to wipe your own phone, and technically he didn’t even do that.
Furthermore, asking a suspect for their passcode is bargain basement police work. Being surprised when this doesn’t work seems pretty incompetent. I think they’re throwing the book at him because they fucked up.
No, they’re throwing the book at him to make a statement.
Their argument, which is stated in the article, is that since he was not in the US (you are not considered in the U.S. until you go through border protection, even if physically here), US rights and protections don’t apply.
Similarly, this isn’t destruction of evidence they are charged for. It is destruction of property to prevent seizure. Which is a bit awkward because that’s a law in the US, but he isn’t in the US yet…?
Of course, it’s all bullshit. We all know this, but this is going to set a very dangerous precedent if it sticks.
- sunnie@slrpnk.netEnglish28 days
The argument is that the US government doesn’t have to follow US laws when interacting with US citizens outside of the US?
That’s especially dubious when “outside the US” is referring to a legally flimsy distinction like the international terminal of an airport which is on US soil and controlled exclusively by the US government.
There’s no way this isn’t going to be abused if allowed by courts.
- khepri@lemmy.worldEnglish27 days
And being “in the US” or not doesn’t have shit to do with it anyway. Yes, CBP gets some special powers at the border, like warrantless search, but whether you are before or after passport control does not determine whether or not you are subject to the laws of the US, with, again, the exception of the special powers granted CBP that do reduce some protections you would normally have.
- 26 days
I didn’t read the article or anything but he typed in a duress password which wiped the phone right?
Edit: wait, is this article saying they’re tryna charge him for merely using GrapheneOS?
Edit: read it, it says he gave them the duress password. If it were me, I would’ve withheld it and tell them explicitly not to use my duress password
including the erasure of the phone’s contents after he gave them a passcode, due to violations of his constitutional rights
- JustDorky@lemmy.worldEnglish28 days
I just read the article and the whole thing is fucking crazy
Tunick asked four times during the interrogation to speak with a lawyer, but was rebuffed each time, according to courtroom testimony. Additionally, the agents produced no warrant and did not read Tunick his rights.
What are the dumbasses gonna do? Sorry man we’re gonna arrest you on charges for phone restart. The fuck?
Besides the accusations of pedophilia? Are these people actually mental?
- sunbeam60@feddit.ukEnglish28 days
I’m not a US citizen but do you have any rights at a border checkpoint? I was under the impression that no warrant is necessary, nor lawyer required, to answer questions.
- khepri@lemmy.worldEnglish27 days
You have fewer rights at a border crossing for sure, but that doesn’t make it some sort of “constitution free zone”, mostly it means that they are allowed to conduct ‘routine’ searches and interviews without a warrant, and hold you for a certain amount of time, and deny you entry if they deem that necessary, all without a judge or warrant involved. How much protection you get from the 4th and 5th amendments is definitely different at the border than not at the border. But that does not mean you have zero rights at the border, they just want you to feel that way so you stay compliant.
- trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtfEnglish26 days
Besides the accusations of pedophilia? Are these people actually mental?
Why yes, yes they are. Like, actually. They are actively attacking the people of our country.
- CanIFishHere@lemmy.caEnglish27 days
They don’t need a warrant to search. I’m going to assume he’s being charged with obstruction of justice. (Could be wrong)
- girthero@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
Laws can violate the constitution… This constitution free zone bullshit started in the patriot act era.
- stevles@aussie.zoneEnglish26 days
I should’ve specified. I mean’t you are wrong on what he is being charged with, not that border patrol can search without warrants.
- CanIFishHere@lemmy.caEnglish26 days
That’s why I said (could be wrong) in brackets.
This guy is in a heap of trouble. He should have consulted a lawyer way before encountering border officials so he knew his rights and the law.
- Brkdncr@lemmy.worldEnglish28 days
How does this work:
He’s not yet granted access to the US, so laws don’t apply to him.
He destroyed evidence, so laws do apply to him.
How can both of these statements exist at the same time? Why not just turn him away?
Even if they turned him away, he could get back in line with his clean phone and give them a working password.
- 28 days
I can’t believe he has to wait until October for a determination on this. The facts of the case are clear. If nothing else I hope he sues the police department that put him on a watchlist for terrorism.
If he wins this case that would be my first move. The only reason he was harassed like this was because he voiced a negative opinion about a city project.
- pHr34kY@lemmy.worldEnglish28 days
Something makes me think the officers intended to “find” CSAM on his phone. Like sprinkling crack, or a planter gun.
Absolutely the right move to nuke it.
- Manjushri@piefed.socialEnglish28 days
Mental note: When traveling internationally, back up phone to cloud somewhere and wipe it prior to traveling. Step two, restore from cloud after exiting airport.
Hell, I don’t even have anything remotely questionable on my phone other than some Trump mocking memes, but there is absolutely no reason to chance it.
- anon_8675309@lemmy.worldEnglish27 days
Step 1.5. Log into some email service that you only use for the purpose of travel (ie: forward your hotel reservation etc). Put some of your travel photos back on your phone.
That way it looks like you actually used the phone and didn’t wipe it before crossing.
Less sus.
I do wish this was an easier sequence of steps to follow. I know I should, but it’s so very much work.
- BrightCandle@lemmy.worldEnglish27 days
You want a dummy account on it that just has the details of the flight in there so its not completely blank just useless to the border police but clearly not just blanked awaiting setup.
- buddascrayon@lemmy.worldEnglish25 days
Because it’s a question about the constitutionality of whether or not they were within their rights to violate his.
This is a question for judges.
- Sirdubdee@piefed.socialEnglish25 days
Oh I’m talking down the line if this ever gets to a jury trial. Not literally at this point.
- buddascrayon@lemmy.worldEnglish24 days
Still not an option because jurors are not supposed to know about jury nullification and lawyers are not allowed in any way shape or form to suggest it.
There is in fact a current case in the UK, which is the legal system that the US has based itself on, in regards to a lawyer insinuating jury nullification during their closing remarks. The lawyer is being held in contempt and is now awaiting their own trial for that.
- Sirdubdee@piefed.socialEnglish23 days
That’s why it’s important to mention it as much as possible outside of court so potential jurors know it is an option and that they can ignore instructions for the better of the country. It’s why I mentioned it. I’m not a lawyer but I’m not going to say someone is guilty of a crime if the law is being abused. I’d rather let 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent suffer.
- buddascrayon@lemmy.worldEnglish23 days
I don’t think you understand how much it is that jurors are not allowed to know about jury nullification. If it’s found out that they bring it up in the jury deliberations, or mention or even allude to it during the trial, they can be kicked off the jury immediately.
- NocturnalMorning@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
Get fucked, it’s enshrined in the U.S. constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures through the 4th ammendment. You are not obligated to incriminate yourself in anyway.
- 26 days
The right against self incriminating is the 5th amendment. And he’s being charged for destroying evidence, not for not providing it. But I love the spirit.
- NocturnalMorning@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
I specifically called out the searches and seizures ammendment bcz that’s what this is about.
- buddascrayon@lemmy.worldEnglish26 days
I believe they’re citing two different rights in the Bill of Rights. They mention the Fourth amendment which provides against unwarranted search and seizure and then as an addendum they allude to the fifth amendment which provides against self-incrimination.
This is going to get dropped because I’m betting the last thing they want is for lawyers to dig in to the reason for the search.
