Concern over US effort to prosecute Sam Tunick, accused by authorities of wiping his phone using GrapheneOS

  • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 day ago

    IANAL too, but 4th amendment protections are different at borders, and this was at an international airport. The duress code is an interesting wrinkle, like what if he told them the code and the officers entered it into the phone, did the officer technically erase evidence then? I think Apple has some similar setting to wipe the iPhone after 10 failed attempts or something like that, so surprised this hasn’t come up before to setup precedence

    • FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yah, lots of interesting things here. I agree, seems like it’s long past the point where this needs to get sorted out.

      I think in legal cases with a warrant and so on, the police make a forensic image of the device, and will not just try to unlock it like happend here. They entered the code here without a safe image, b/c there was no court case, no warrant, just the border search.

      Here’s what the EFF has to say about border searches. They agree with us, it’s past time to get a solid legal framework. They talk about the 4A border search exception a little.

      Mostly I’ve heard that they can take your device, but they can’t stop a US citizen from entering the country, and they can’t compel a pw from you. However, for most ppl, that’s already a LOT of duress, b/c losing a phone with your whole life on it, is a huge blow.

        • FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 day ago

          Interesting. Thanks for the link! I didn’t hear about that one before.

          Seizing a journalist’s phones provides the government access to private sources and years of protected newsgathering. Allowing political pressure to determine whose protected electronic devices the government may search would pose a profound threat to the free press and the Constitution.

          Indeed.