Ain’t that some BS

  • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Everyone is cheering but the case was not thrown out yet. For now we just know this is technically possible which we knew already. Now we will find out if you can do this and not go to jail. I will cheer when this guy walks free.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Guy was innocent until they had proof of a crime. They didnt have any proof so boohoo for them. And they charged him of damaging property. Its his property, and its not damaged.

    • Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The intent of the law was to have something to charge corporate fraudsters with if they destroyed the accounting records with proof of their fraud when served a warrant. Or illegal drug manufacturers destroying their chemlab. Ownership of the property doesn’t come into it.

      The envisioned cases were always domestic crime investigations where there was already enough evidence to get a warrant. The application at customs where they don’t need a warrant is the novelty, and I really hope the government loses its case.

      • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 hours ago

        That isn’t their property. That belongs to the company.

        Case should be thrown out and the prosecutors charged with something.

  • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    193
    ·
    1 day ago

    Friendly reminder that, per the fifth amendment, you are not required to disclose your passwords to the authorities under any circumstances. This protection does not apply to biometric authentication, so don’t enable those methods.

      • Eh-I@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 hours ago

        It is actually harder to torture a password out of someone than hold the phone up to their face.

        Constitution ain’t got shit to do with that one way or another.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yep.

      Biometrics are SUPER unsafe, and insecure, because you can be physically forced to put your finger on a sensor, or to stand still for them to hold a phone infront of your face for faceid. I’ve literally seen videos of cops holding a guy in a choke hold whole another cop unlocks his phone with his face.

      but they can’t physically manhandle you into typing in a password.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Depending on your skin color, reaching into your pocket to do this may be punishable by immediate execution. Just don’t use biometrics.

        • HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Depending on your skin color being pulled over is punishable by execution. It’s an easy way to disable it while handing it over if you have that chance.

        • sculptor0725@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 hours ago

          The thing with android lockdown is that it turns back off as soon as you unlock it. For something like going to an airport, I would go into settings and disable “use biometrics to unlock” under the biometric settings. Lockdown is more of an “oh shit” button, if you have the time to do it properly make it stick until you’re safe.

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

            Better to just turn the phone off if you’re in the power menu anyway. On boot up the phone requires a non-biometric credential to decrypt it.

          • Lumelore (She/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            21 hours ago

            I wish I read more of this thread first. In GrapheneOS it first opened my camera app and then attempted calling 911. Freaked me out so much cause I was relaxing in bed with my titties out. Also the setting is called Emergency SOS if you want to disable it.

            • Sunflier@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              Not sure what the difference is between my adroid locking when I just tap the power button one ane when I enter lockdown mode after holding the power button. They both get to tge same needing to put in a pattern to unlock.

        • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Android varies a bit depending on the software/manufacturer. It was added in Android 9 but some software releases remove it.

          By default it is not enabled. You can search settings for “Lockdown”, and then it will just be an option in the menu when you hold the power button.

    • StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      That’s honestly a curiosity in this for me. You dont have to unlock your phone for them but the fact that he was made to even with a duress pass makes me think that this was more than a standard stop.

      He absolutely didnt have to unlock it under the law.

      He was within his right to wipe it.

      But what led him to doing so?

      This isnt a defence of the boarder officers. Im just curious what the other side of the story is.

      Edit: ah there it is. They suspected him of having csam and by implication being a sex tourist.

      Heavy accusations. So they did have some suspicion (or at least claimed to) to justify the search.

      • sleepydragn1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        108
        ·
        1 day ago

        From The Guardian article on the same incident:

        The defendant, Sam Tunick, was stopped for interrogation at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport on 24 January last year, after vacationing in the Dominican Republic. Unbeknown to him, federal authorities had put him on a terrorism watchlist because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City.

          • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            36
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            24 hours ago

            Every time I hear someone invoking “protect the kids” I know 3 things.

            1. It has nothing to do with protecting kids, they’re hiding their intention.
            2. It’s probably some outrageous bullshit they absolutely need to hide.
            3. It’s probably because they are fucking kids.

            Number 3 was added recently because apparently based on the facts we now know… that is MUCH more common with these people than I could even imagine.

            • EliteCloneMike@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              23 hours ago

              That’s why I stopped using Google for anything. Their AI is calling people child abusers left and right. And even after a person is cleared by law enforcement, they will not let that person get their data back. It could be innocent family photos or legal adult content. Haven’t used their services in years after the NYT articles and the several others from other news organizations that followed about their awful practices. They don’t care about correcting false positives only about the perception to share holders that they are fighting child abuse by closing almost a million accounts a year. Same for Meta, who closes many millions of account per year to stop child abuse, while hosting child abuse for advertisers. I didn’t supply links to the articles, but they can be easily found through a StartPage or DuckDuckGo search or which ever search engine you use (hopefully not Google).

              • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                13 hours ago

                The crazy thing is that tech CEOs hear that their bullshit machines are calling people pedos, so they look and at their own CEO social circles and see 50% are pedos, and think, “sounds about right”.

                Then they ask Grok to undress another minor.

      • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Since they just let him walk after the phone wiped itself, they clearly didn’t actually believe he was a risk of any kind. If there was any actual reason for suspicion they would/should have detained him outright.

        • StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          47
          ·
          1 day ago

          He was put on a terrorist watchlist because he didnt want his tax dollars funding a cop city. Thats reason enough for the judge to throw this out.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 day ago

        There are some of us that know these things happen and take steps to protect our rights and personal data.

        Most all of us here have multiple methods employed to avoid being tracked online via browser plugins or whatever. Some of us take it a step further and lock our phones should an encounter with LEOs be a possibility, and he had a wipe command to go even further.

        These days the US is closer to a lot of fascist authoritarian states, and it’s probably only a short time before they throw people in jail for whatever manufactured reason because they wipe a phone before the Gestapo can pry into it and charge us with the crime of being un-American or some shit because we posted a meme mocking trump.

        • busted_Anoose@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          If you really want to pass through customs without issues, you need to do what most companies do through their IT. use a burner phone or laptop. Of course you may get a bit of scrutiny, make sure you take heaps of holiday snaps and send messages and such before you leave so theres something for the fart tube pigs to look through.

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            While valid, I think people have a hard enough time affording the phone they have now. Adding an additional line or better yet separate account and international data access might be too much. I think for most people turning their phone completely off with biometrics disabled and a decent lock password is about the best we could expect.

    • ugo@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      16 hours ago

      The police has access to computer software that can crack 8 digit smarphone pins in minutes.

      Not every police department, and not every phone, of course. But the software exists. Refuse to unlock your phone and they just take it from you and crack it open anyway.

      I’m not saying this to tell you to just comply. I’m telling you this to let you know that refusing to unlock your phone does largely nothing.

      • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 hours ago

        It takes more than minutes, especially with an OS that doesn’t have a back door built into it. Also that’s a forensic tool, IIRC those require a warrant to use.

      • FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        12 hours ago

        They’d need a warrant signed by a judge to crack your passcode or everything would be inadmissible and any half-assed lawyer could win you a civil rights settlement.

        • Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Not at customs. Courts have consistently held warrantless searches are a-ok before you are officially admitted entry to the country.

      • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        But if he wants to spy on you in your home, suddenly there’s a perfectly valid reason (in hsi book) why your house is special and doesn’t get the right.

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        to be fair there’s a flip side to that too. I don’t want to be charged with invasion of privacy because I took a photo of my friend at a party and someone is in the background who sues me.

  • phoenixarise@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Even if he did, so what? His phone, his property, his business. He should be able to do what he wants.

    • dreamkeeper@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      12 hours ago

      “except within 100 miles of the border where you have no rights at all, because that’s convenient for me so I made it the fuck up”

      –SCOTUS, defender of FREEDOM

    • cecilkorik@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      98
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The laws are now made up when needed and justice doesn’t matter. So, yes. Anything the authorities don’t like is a crime in a fascist regime.

      • tidderuuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 day ago

        Kinda wild that most Americans are just going about their day while this is going on all around them.

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Americans have a false belief in their elections and that they can simply vote this away later. Or when that illusion is shattered, they often develop a political nihilism, having no further concept of political power.

          This is not actually unique to Americans, either.

          • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            This is particularly frustrating amongst my Chinese friends who just absolutely trip over themselves to defend the status quo because one person can’t change the world etc.

          • busted_Anoose@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            thats because they have voted for octogenarians the last couple of times. might as well run the elections at nursing homes.

        • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          22 hours ago

          They too busy getting by day by day, as designed by the billionaire-run system. Commuting back and forth possibly up to an hour each way, getting paid a fraction of what they should be, unable to afford a mortgage, little to savings, probably working paycheck to paycheck. Reliant on work for their insurance coverage for chronic issues that would otherwise cost tens of thousands of dollars because the medical system inflates all costs to justify its existence on paper. No time to research issues, reliant on things like an hour of TV news to inform them. And those are owned by the billionaires as well, pushing their propaganda and ignoring the real issues.

          There are a lot of smaller independent things keeping people busy and stuck. While they almost all come back to the billionaires and end-stage capitalism, the propaganda from them is nearly inescapable for the average person.

          • busted_Anoose@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            And when you don’t have kids because you can’t afford them, they just open the borders and fill however many positions they need. because f you.

          • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            18 hours ago

            This. Freaking thank you.

            I called my reps to tell them to oppose the slew of bad Internet bills (badinternetbills.com) and even something so simple felt like I had to make myself an appointment to get around to it.

            And it turns out I should be calling a lot more often. Oh boy.

            Working class folks must struggle excessively to even be civically active while managing a ton of responsibilities domestically. That’s why you mostly see old people at local government stuff.

            And these keyboard warriors are talking crap because we’re not forming militias and running weeklong campaigns against the secret police.

            I really wish direct action was a lot more exciting but while we’re fighting for our rights, any number of dozens of private institutions are waiting eagerly to punish us into the pavement for missing payments.

            Yeah this system needs to be rebuilt from scratch, but this is what we’re working with right now, and it sucks!

        • architect@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Would be good to have our allies help but just like ww2 they don’t do fucking shit but cry.

            • NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Especially when Americans are attacking their “allies”. Why the fuck should Canada help Americans when half their country is calling to annex us and actively economically attacking us for “wildfire smoke” (the same kind of thing we sent our own citizens to help the US with last year). Fuck that we’re done helping

      • sculptor0725@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Where have you been for the past 500 years that you think laws weren’t just “made up” before that? Standing here absolutely slapping the “stolen land” sign

    • titanicx@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Under the border search exception, federal officers may generally conduct routine, warrantless searches of persons and items entering the United States without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity.

      No.

    • CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 day ago

      I believe it’s only currently possible on Android. There’s Graphene’s built-in solution which uses a pin or password, and then there’s other android apps that can trigger the wipe if you get a text message with the code.

    • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Probably. The “Shortcuts” scripting language is actually quite functional if not well documented.

      Probably a good project for vibe coding.

      Definitely download the “Pulled over by the cops” one.

      It sends a text with your location to someone, turns off your screen, and starts recording video.

    • titanicx@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-6-6-3/ALDE_00000239/

      No need for a warrant, and the 4th amendment doesn’t apply in this case.

      Under the border search exception, federal officers may generally conduct routine, warrantless searches of persons and items entering the United States without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity.

      They have near autonomy to search you and your belongings for any reason upon entering the country.

      • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I’m not convinced this applies here as it’s discussing traffic stops to look for illegal immigrants and contraband near land border crossings. The article is referencing an American citizen getting detained and having his phone searched in the Atlanta airport without probable cause or a warrant.

        • titanicx@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          This is exactly describing that if you read the part that I quoted it specifically quotes upon entering the United States. At an international border. And air flight at an international airport is an international border. And they do not require a warrant. It’s already been settled in a court of law although as we can see that can be overturned however it would be very difficult to do so

      • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        We don’t have to let them. We can fight it to make change happen.

        And we should. They are no masters.

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

          Trying to fight them when you’re re-entering the border I guarantee you will lose. If you want to fight them, you do it in court.

          But you do you

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

            If you want to fight them in court, you need standing. To have standing, you have to have been affected by the law.

            You can not fight them in court until they do something. You can not sue for what someone might do.

            • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              This is no longer true. The Republican idiots on the Supreme Court have made a habit of ruling for plaintiffs with demonstrably zero standing. There is no longer rule of law in this country.

            • andrewta@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              Is it true that you have to have standing to fight them in court, yes.

              But to be completely honest, 99% of the people have no interest in actually going to court . they figure they can just fight them while standing in line.

              • Null User Object@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                You’re contradicting yourself.

                Trying to fight them when you’re re-entering the border I guarantee you will lose. If you want to fight them, you do it in court.

                There’s an implied “instead” in there. You’re saying don’t fight them at the border, because you will lose. INSTEAD, fight them in court.

                To fight them in court, you have to have standing. You get standing by fighting them at the border and losing.

                • andrewta@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  I’m not contradicting myself, you’re just not understanding what’s being said there.

                  So let me spell it out for you. If a person thinks they can just stand at the border and just fight it. And that’s it. And win. No they’re going to fail. Damn near every single time. It’s kind of like trying to argue with a cop alongside the road. Good luck you’re basically not going to win.

                  Now, if your intent is to fight in court, if that is your end goal, then yes you would have to fight it at the border. You have to say something at the border so then you have legal standing.

                  The point of my statement was 99% of the people have no intention going into the courtroom, so therefore there’s no point in fighting at the border because they’re going to lose at the border.

  • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    And…? There’s nothing illegal about wiping your phone if not already under indictment of something

        • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Your questions miss the point.

          The burden of proof is on those making the claim that this not illegal, when that claim is directly contradicted by the news story right in front of your eyes. The person was indicted, which means the government had to at least convince a grand jury the act was illegal.

          Here’s the indictment.

          Here’s the law cited in the indictment:

          Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

          Unless you can make the argument that the search itself was illegal, then wiping your phone when an officer is actively trying to search it is indeed illegal.

          It seems the key thing here is to not confuse what actions you can take just sitting at home with the actions you can take while actively being searched by a federal agent.

          You actually hint at this with your “under indictment” comment. The law treats destruction of evidence only as a crime under certain specific circumstances. Basically in a setting where it’s reasonably clear that you’re not doing it to stymie an investigation, then it’s legal. For example, you can normally delete personal financial records whenever you want. But if you’re under indictment for a financial crime, that would likely be illegal. So one of those is when you’re under indictment. But for the same reason, another case is when an officer is searching you. In both cases the philosophy is that it’s very unlikely that someone happens to want to destroy something for innocent reasons right at the moment they fall under indictment or search.