US accuses American of allegedly wiping his phone using a 'duress' password during border search | TechCrunch
US accuses American of allegedly wiping his phone using a 'duress' password during border search | TechCrunch
A U.S. citizen has asked a court to throw out the government's claim that he gave over a passcode to border authorities that wiped his phone's data, opening up fresh questions about a person's constitutional rights at the U.S. border.Zack Whittaker (TechCrunch)
StumblingWasabi
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
in reply to StumblingWasabi • • •atrielienz
in reply to EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted • • •They have a point though. Technically from what I've read just living near an airport would give ICE the authority to search your phone and anything else you might be carrying if it's within a certain mile radius. Even if you aren't using the port of entry (airport for instance). Regardless of whether or not they have any other form of probable cause.
I don't understand how others don't understand that. Because it's a hell of a conclusion to come to.
EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
in reply to atrielienz • • •Duamerthrax
in reply to atrielienz • • •It's 100 miles. They claim 100 miles from the boarder and now "the board" is including international airports.
aclu.org/know-your-rights/bord…
100 Mile Border Zone
American Civil Liberties UnionEternal192
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •quick_snail
in reply to Eternal192 • • •He didn't delete it. The officer did.
I wonder if he'll sue them for damages
blackbrook
in reply to quick_snail • • •quick_snail
in reply to blackbrook • • •More like "sorry I couldn't remember the password. I guessed, but I have a bad memory"
This is exactly the reason the government can't force you to give your password in the US. They can't prove that you remember the password.
NauticalNoodle
in reply to quick_snail • • •Cethin
in reply to quick_snail • • •Eager Eagle
in reply to quick_snail • • •lol that'd be a neat uno reverse card right there
Dultas
in reply to quick_snail • • •davel
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamperin…
Even if I had more information, I still wouldn’t have the law chops to predict where this may lead.
concealing, altering or destroying evidence in a (usually criminal) investigation
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)FineCoatMummy
in reply to davel • • •I don't have those chops either. Also NAL. The wiki page says Tampering charges require there to be an ongoing investigation, which wasn't the case here, so I'm thinking it wouldn't apply. But! I wonder about spoliation. Spoliation before a case is brought, while not illegal per se, can result in negative inference,
Negative inference, to my NAL understanding, means the tampered evidence may be taken in the worst light for the defense. Here, it's all resting on flimsy and politically motivated pretext with no evidence. Still.
Needs an immigration lawyer to give an answer to this, but I'm thinking it may be legally safer to have strong encryption and refuse to unlock, rather than to wipe. Not unlocking isn't tampering, so no spoliation, but wiping might be. Well, safest of all is to use a burner. But nex
... Show more...I don't have those chops either. Also NAL. The wiki page says Tampering charges require there to be an ongoing investigation, which wasn't the case here, so I'm thinking it wouldn't apply. But! I wonder about spoliation. Spoliation before a case is brought, while not illegal per se, can result in negative inference,
Negative inference, to my NAL understanding, means the tampered evidence may be taken in the worst light for the defense. Here, it's all resting on flimsy and politically motivated pretext with no evidence. Still.
Needs an immigration lawyer to give an answer to this, but I'm thinking it may be legally safer to have strong encryption and refuse to unlock, rather than to wipe. Not unlocking isn't tampering, so no spoliation, but wiping might be. Well, safest of all is to use a burner. But next best, strong encryption + don't unlock. CBP can confescate the device, but they cannot compel you to produce a pw or unlock code.
pemptago
in reply to FineCoatMummy • • •FineCoatMummy
in reply to pemptago • • •Yah, I've been trying to get my friends to use a pw rather than biometric unlock, for that exact reason.
I'm batting like 0 for 5, lol. Biometrics are just too convenient I guess. Plus they don't think it will impact them personally. Which is prob true. I still think it's best to use the way that preserves more civil rights. I just can't convince them.
MasterBlaster
in reply to FineCoatMummy • • •pemptago
in reply to FineCoatMummy • • •Carl
in reply to pemptago • • •Even on iOS, you can disable biometrics by entering the power/SOS menu. Just hold the lock button and volume down for like two seconds, and biometrics are now disabled until the passcode is entered.
Worth noting that this doesn’t actually re-encrypt the device. The device boots in an encrypted state, and entering the passcode allows the phone to unencrypt itself to function. But disabling the biometrics doesn’t re-encrypt the device. You would need to reboot to accomplish that. But if you’re able to access the power menu, you’re probably able to hit the “Power Off” option too.
I only make the distinction because cops have started imaging devices after confiscating them. If they manage to image your device while it’s unencrypted, they can take their time with whatever new exploit/bypass is discovered in the future. But if the device is encrypted when they image it, they’d only get an encrypted data blob and would need to actually break the encryption instead of being able to use a passcode bypass method.
... Show more...Even on iOS, you can disable biometrics by entering the power/SOS menu. Just hold the lock button and volume down for like two seconds, and biometrics are now disabled until the passcode is entered.
Worth noting that this doesn’t actually re-encrypt the device. The device boots in an encrypted state, and entering the passcode allows the phone to unencrypt itself to function. But disabling the biometrics doesn’t re-encrypt the device. You would need to reboot to accomplish that. But if you’re able to access the power menu, you’re probably able to hit the “Power Off” option too.
I only make the distinction because cops have started imaging devices after confiscating them. If they manage to image your device while it’s unencrypted, they can take their time with whatever new exploit/bypass is discovered in the future. But if the device is encrypted when they image it, they’d only get an encrypted data blob and would need to actually break the encryption instead of being able to use a passcode bypass method.
iOS actually has a hidden “reboot if inactive after a little while” feature, specifically to re-encrypt an idle device. Most users only encounter it when they wake up in the morning and have to enter their passcode. But the point is that cops usually process devices in batches, so it usually takes them at least a few hours to get to your device. So if the device has been idle for a while, it will quietly reboot to encrypt itself. This also helps protect against future passcode bypasses that may be discovered, because an attacker would only get the encrypted data blob if they bypass the code on an encrypted device.
quick_snail
in reply to davel • • •Dr. Wesker
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •Vex_Detrause
in reply to Dr. Wesker • • •Can we get a source for this app/technique?
Anna
in reply to Vex_Detrause • • •grapheneos.org/features#duress
Graphene OS Team has developed quite a lot of other useful features and some of them have even been merged into upstream AOSP allowing others also the benefits. Recent example is contact scope for apps starting Android 17 but it was initially developed by GrapheneOS team long ago.
GrapheneOS features overview
GrapheneOSEager Eagle
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •Malyca
in reply to Eager Eagle • • •ExcessShiv
in reply to Eager Eagle • • •GrapheneOS features overview
GrapheneOShumble_boatsman
in reply to ExcessShiv • • •ExcessShiv
in reply to humble_boatsman • • •humble_boatsman
in reply to ExcessShiv • • •Yep e/OS 3.7.1
E: well I'm a fucking idiot
Scott 🇨🇦🏴☠️
in reply to humble_boatsman • • •whatiswrongwithyou
in reply to humble_boatsman • • •/home/pineapplelover
in reply to humble_boatsman • • •BCsven
in reply to Eager Eagle • • •pierre_delecto [he/him]
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •Sounds like the cops entered the passcode... Therefore the cops erased the evidence.
who knows what would've happened if they bothered to get a warrant first.
nfreak
in reply to pierre_delecto [he/him] • • •robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]
in reply to nfreak • • •/home/pineapplelover
in reply to nfreak • • •pierre_delecto [he/him]
in reply to nfreak • • •HiddenLayer555
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •N0t_5ure
in reply to HiddenLayer555 • • •humble_boatsman
in reply to HiddenLayer555 • • •quick_snail
in reply to humble_boatsman • • •lennee
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •ghost_laptop
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •ToiletFlushShowerScream
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •yestalgia
in reply to ToiletFlushShowerScream • • •sun_is_ra
in reply to yestalgia • • •It_is_gaslighting
in reply to sun_is_ra • • •yestalgia
in reply to sun_is_ra • • •I paid $300 for a mint condition 9a about a month ago on Swappa. Obviously the price is lower for other conditions.
grapheneos.org/faq#recommended…
GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
GrapheneOSScott 🇨🇦🏴☠️
in reply to sun_is_ra • • •surewhynotlem
in reply to sun_is_ra • • •sun_is_ra
in reply to surewhynotlem • • •What community do you sell at?
MidnightMarauder
in reply to sun_is_ra • • •Way Cheaper than a flagship Samsung or iPhone, runs really smooth on Graphene.
ColeSloth
in reply to ToiletFlushShowerScream • • •mnemonicmonkeys
in reply to ColeSloth • • •The bigger issue with GOS compatibility is the ability to relock your bootloader and a few other security features.
Also, Motorola is releasing a GOS compatible phone next year. They consuled with the devs on what features were needed
MML
in reply to mnemonicmonkeys • • •FineCoatMummy
in reply to mnemonicmonkeys • • •I really wanna give that time to be stress tested against Celebrite tho. Celebrite was able to get into locked devices. For all but the latest gens of iPhones and Andoids, which have better h/w security features. Older models they can access.
If we see that Celebrite isn't able to break the new GOS Motorolas, that'll be good to learn.
OS2Warp
in reply to ToiletFlushShowerScream • • •segfault11 [she/her, any]
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •quick_snail
in reply to segfault11 [she/her, any] • • •apftwb
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •MasterBlaster
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •Citizen enforces his own right to the Fourth Amendment and is prosecuted by the government for not letting them try to find incriminating evidence on him. For something. Maybe. Because he looks suspicious.
I hope that lawyer gets it thrown out. I'm not holding my breath. We've gone so far into fascism I'm not sure it'll take anything less than violence to end it.
AHemlocksLie
in reply to MasterBlaster • • •The D Quuuuuill
in reply to AHemlocksLie • • •magnue
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •Pandantic [they/them]
in reply to magnue • • •They were:
reagansrottencorpse
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •vrighter
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •MML
in reply to vrighter • • •quick_snail
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •Very glad to hear that he's a free man while the courts try to figure out what to do.
Also it's hilarious that he didn't wipe it. The officers did it. I think it's going to be very hard to get a conviction of this activist when it was the officer that wiped the data.
99zz99 [comrade/them, he/him]
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •ScoffingLizard
in reply to 99zz99 [comrade/them, he/him] • • •99zz99 [comrade/them, he/him]
in reply to ScoffingLizard • • •ScoffingLizard
in reply to 99zz99 [comrade/them, he/him] • • •99zz99 [comrade/them, he/him]
in reply to ScoffingLizard • • •quick_snail
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •Sounds like the police officer tried to gain unauthorized access to a device. And, while they were trying to crack it, they wiped all of its data.
I wonder if the police officer that did this will face criminal charges of unauthorized access and destruction of evidence.
And also there's a civil suit in there. The officer may have deleted valuable data on the victim's device, causing them harm. I wonder what the monetary value will be.
Hiro8811
in reply to quick_snail • • •queermunist she/her
in reply to quick_snail • • •gecko
in reply to QuadernoFigurati • • •NauticalNoodle
in reply to gecko • • •