....largest prison population on Earth, predominantly made up of African Americans and Hispanics who carry out labour essentially for free. (< Thats what they mean by the "free" part.)
That might be accurate in some places, but it VERY misleading for the US in particular.
In the US, the courts are currently divided on whether encryption has 5A protection. But more cases than not, have ruled they DO enjoy 5A protection against self incrimination. For example, US v. John Doe, 2012. VA vs David Baust, 2014. SEC vs Bonan Huang, 2015. US vs Mitchell, 2017. There are lots of other individual cases, where courts ruled a defendant does NOT have to unlock an encrypted device. The warrant gives the gov the right to the device, but the defendant did not have to help them access it.
One prob with compelling a pw, is it's impossible to know if the suspect is refusing, or legit forgot. Esp when there is a long time interval. Ex, Voigt and Victor, it was 10 months before the gov requested the pw, and
A judge declined to hold Hencha Voigt in contempt of court after she gave incorrect pass codes to police investigating a 'sextortion' case.
There have been cases that went the other way, and a suspect was held in contempt
... Show more...
That might be accurate in some places, but it VERY misleading for the US in particular.
In the US, the courts are currently divided on whether encryption has 5A protection. But more cases than not, have ruled they DO enjoy 5A protection against self incrimination. For example, US v. John Doe, 2012. VA vs David Baust, 2014. SEC vs Bonan Huang, 2015. US vs Mitchell, 2017. There are lots of other individual cases, where courts ruled a defendant does NOT have to unlock an encrypted device. The warrant gives the gov the right to the device, but the defendant did not have to help them access it.
One prob with compelling a pw, is it's impossible to know if the suspect is refusing, or legit forgot. Esp when there is a long time interval. Ex, Voigt and Victor, it was 10 months before the gov requested the pw, and
A judge declined to hold Hencha Voigt in contempt of court after she gave incorrect pass codes to police investigating a 'sextortion' case.
There have been cases that went the other way, and a suspect was held in contempt for failing to produce a pw. Hence why it is a chaotic legal situation, until a higher court sorts it out. But your odds are pretty good, at the mo, in the USA.
It is likely, SCOTUS will eventually rule that just like a GPS track enjoys 5A protection, so does the device contents. Not certain, ofc! But that would align with recent court rulings, ex, Chatrie v. United States.
The headline is misleading. They're not prosecuting him for using GrapheneOS; they're prosecuting him for using a duress code to erase data when they wanted to search it.
That's also bad, but it's a different set of facts. If he had simply refused to provide access, they would have seized his phone, but wouldn't have this particular creative charge to prosecute.
Yes there are apps called durress and sentry and wasted amongst others. But eventually it become built in the graphene operating system by default. No different than find my device delete or other methods. It's just any data deletion is a law breaking charge.
Yes. On that node it's important to know that in many countries you can refuse to give up your password but if you erase the data it's seen as destruction of evidence.
In my opinion a duress code should wipe the phone invisibly. So the cops shouldn’t even know it wiped the real data off the phone. Like if you type a duress code it should open the phone with an alt account on a different data partition and hide the partition of the other account and delete it in the background and then zero out the storage drive of that partition so they can’t retrieve the data with forensic tools. You use one account for normal everyday stuff. And the other account for shit the fascists will hang you for.
A phone that is empty when they unlock it is sus as fuck.
Do all your non-sus stuff on one phone, do all your sus stuff on the other phone.
You're going to sell your old phone and start using this one. You just hadn't gotten around to it yet.
As much as I don't trust Samsung, they have an encrypted profile and you can put all of your social media over there and just wipe knox if you need it, having empty knox on Samsung was probably the default.
The way profiles work right now makes a decoy profile not work properly. GrapheneOS developers don't add features that can be defeated by basic training.
Last I heard, the way the developers want to do it is add an early boot passphrase and then a decoy setup would be possible without leaving a way for attackers to be able to know for sure that a decoy feature was used.
TBH I hope he can get more than public defenders. They work hard but they are often over worked and under resourced. Plus not being specialists in this. Maybe the EFF will offer specialist help. EFF is already aware of his case. Hence why anyone who is able to, should donate to the EFF. So they can employ high powered lawyers.
Additionally, the agents produced no warrant and did not read Tunick his rights.
NAL, but I think the gov can't have it both ways. IF they did not produce a warrant or Mirandize him, THEN they cannot come at him for wiping his own phone. The gov might have a case if they had a warrant and he knowingly wiped it. But that's not what allegedly happened here. No warrant = still 100% his device to do what he wants.
Aside from his case, courts in the US are all over the place, on whether you can be compelled to unlock a device if there IS a warrant. More often than not, they have ruled you CAN'T be compelled to produce a passcode from your memory. But i
... Show more...
Tunick’s federal public defenders,
TBH I hope he can get more than public defenders. They work hard but they are often over worked and under resourced. Plus not being specialists in this. Maybe the EFF will offer specialist help. EFF is already aware of his case. Hence why anyone who is able to, should donate to the EFF. So they can employ high powered lawyers.
Additionally, the agents produced no warrant and did not read Tunick his rights.
NAL, but I think the gov can't have it both ways. IF they did not produce a warrant or Mirandize him, THEN they cannot come at him for wiping his own phone. The gov might have a case if they had a warrant and he knowingly wiped it. But that's not what allegedly happened here. No warrant = still 100% his device to do what he wants.
Aside from his case, courts in the US are all over the place, on whether you can be compelled to unlock a device if there IS a warrant. More often than not, they have ruled you CAN'T be compelled to produce a passcode from your memory. But in some cases, they have ruled the opposite. It's super chaotic, and prob needs a SCOTUS ruling.
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
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.
With the number of border searches of electronic devices increasing every year, how can travelers keep their digital data safe? Our lives are extensively documented on the phones, laptops, and other electronic devices we carry.
Edit to add: Perhaps not: DHS has returned his devices, probably because they did’t want this to go to court, probably because they know their legal position is weak.
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.
...Federal authorities had put him on a terrorism watchlist because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City.
Terrorism watch lists, no fly lists and government lists of cults and sects should not be legal in the US, as they violate the right to due process. Often there's no reasonable way to challenge having your name on a list. It's put there arbitrarily by a law enforcement officer without any oversight or process, meaning your name can be added again without restriction. And being on those lists often affects the civil rights to which you have access.
But then, the new regime is trying to strip ordinary citizens of their rights until we are all bonded serfs again.
The way the term terrorism is used so indiscriminately in the US and even more widely recently, is really worrying. I've heard Flock spokespersons casually refer to Antifa as terrorists. Like it's a (largely) undisputed fact.
This also spills over into other countries that have long-standing agreements with the USA.
Despite most of them actually giving up on the term terrorism entirely.
Around the time a 14-year-old Arab kid brought a clock to class and was arrested as a suspected terrorist, I wrote about this. At the time muckrakers were being called FOIA terrorists for daring to engage in public oversight of the government. Things were already getting pretty fashy, just in time for Trump to take his escalator ride.
At the time I observed that terrorist had turned into a generic derisive, the way gay was used in the early aughts or communist during the McCarthy red scare... which Trump and the Republican party seem to be trying to resurrect.
So yeah, it really doesn't surprise me that the State Department is defining Antifa as a terrorist group and an enemy of the state. In this context, Antifa and terrorist don't actually relate to their original meanings, but serve as a catch all to lend legitimacy when the regime wants to persecute its political enemies.
Much the way that any
... Show more...
Around the time a 14-year-old Arab kid brought a clock to class and was arrested as a suspected terrorist, I wrote about this. At the time muckrakers were being called FOIA terrorists for daring to engage in public oversight of the government. Things were already getting pretty fashy, just in time for Trump to take his escalator ride.
At the time I observed that terrorist had turned into a generic derisive, the way gay was used in the early aughts or communist during the McCarthy red scare... which Trump and the Republican party seem to be trying to resurrect.
So yeah, it really doesn't surprise me that the State Department is defining Antifa as a terrorist group and an enemy of the state. In this context, Antifa and terrorist don't actually relate to their original meanings, but serve as a catch all to lend legitimacy when the regime wants to persecute its political enemies.
Much the way that anyone who opposed McCarthy could be investigated and tried as a communist, anyone who opposes Trump or MAGA or ICE can be investigated and tried as Antifa.
Some of that nonsense should get halted at the courts -- ICE and the DoJ have already lost the presumption of regularity -- but we've seen already protestors get disproportionately long sentences for alleged and minor crimes based on alleged association to terror groups. And Trump is still getting awful people confirmed to federal benches.
Meanwhile, if they seized his phone and tried to unlock it without a warrant signed by a judge, that is a violation of his rights as per the fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. However, in the US presently, such violations are routine by law enforcement.
Some agencies insist suspects do not have access to those rights if certain conditions apply, such as being within one hundred miles of a US border (such as a coast), or being on a terror watchlist.
Some agencies insist suspects do not have access to those rights if certain conditions apply, such as being within one hundred miles of a US border (such as a coast),
It seems kinda nuanced tho. From various sources, the rules look like this. Ofc sometimes the rules may not be followed, that's a separate issue. This is just the rules CBP has,
CBP agents can, with no cause, perform a "basic search". That means looking through photos, text messages, call logs, and emails. But not using tools or forensic methods.
CBP CANNOT compel you to unlock the device for them or produce a pw. They CAN confescate the device if you don't, tho.
CBP agents CANNOT perform a forensic search without reasonable suspicion and a signoff from a supervisor. A forensic search is one that uses external tools, not just the agent eyeballing your photos and messages after you unlock it for them.
CBP a
... Show more...
Some agencies insist suspects do not have access to those rights if certain conditions apply, such as being within one hundred miles of a US border (such as a coast),
It seems kinda nuanced tho. From various sources, the rules look like this. Ofc sometimes the rules may not be followed, that's a separate issue. This is just the rules CBP has,
CBP agents can, with no cause, perform a "basic search". That means looking through photos, text messages, call logs, and emails. But not using tools or forensic methods.
CBP CANNOT compel you to unlock the device for them or produce a pw. They CAN confescate the device if you don't, tho.
CBP agents CANNOT perform a forensic search without reasonable suspicion and a signoff from a supervisor. A forensic search is one that uses external tools, not just the agent eyeballing your photos and messages after you unlock it for them.
CBP agents CAN perform a forsensic search with reasonable suspicion, and a supervisor signoff.
CBP CANNOT access cloud data from your device. Only data on the device is in bounds.
CBP MUST follow a special protocol if the owner asserts certain privileges, such as attorney client priviledge, or protected medical data.
This leaves travelers in a position where they CAN assert their 4A rights when it comes to data on the device. But it comes at a price. It may lead to the confescation of the device. That is coersive ofc, and many ppl won't want to. So in practice, many ppl will cooperate and unlock the dev for the agent. But if you really want to push back, you can, and they have to let you into the country still if you are a citizen.
For most Americans, it would take a lawyer present just to know what is safe to do while under arrest.
The problem is, SCOTUS has already ruled on this in 1985, via the good faith exception. If a police officer mistakenly violates your fourth-amendment rights, but did so in good faith, then evidence of any crime found is inadmissible. It's very difficult to prove bad faith, and officers have learned to lie to cover up, say, that they knew they were crossing a line, or were motivated by corruption, bigotry or ideology to fish for evidence beyond the scope of a reasonable search.
Besides which, I wouldn't trust an officer to turn off data before combing though my phone, and the difference between what is on the phone and what is cloud data is transparent. They would absolutely have access to my entire email history of decades, and law enforcement has intrinsic personal cause to fish for criminal activity.
For one thing, collars is how police officers
... Show more...
For most Americans, it would take a lawyer present just to know what is safe to do while under arrest.
The problem is, SCOTUS has already ruled on this in 1985, via the good faith exception. If a police officer mistakenly violates your fourth-amendment rights, but did so in good faith, then evidence of any crime found is inadmissible. It's very difficult to prove bad faith, and officers have learned to lie to cover up, say, that they knew they were crossing a line, or were motivated by corruption, bigotry or ideology to fish for evidence beyond the scope of a reasonable search.
Besides which, I wouldn't trust an officer to turn off data before combing though my phone, and the difference between what is on the phone and what is cloud data is transparent. They would absolutely have access to my entire email history of decades, and law enforcement has intrinsic personal cause to fish for criminal activity.
For one thing, collars is how police officers get accolades and promotions. And for another, there's the matter of asset forfeiture. Police routinely will declare any open cash or valuable property as criminal in order to confiscate it. And it's very difficult to get it back. In the 2010s some precincts already had the capability to empty pre-loaded credit cards, so it wouldn't surprise me if they could do something similar with mobile payment services.
In the US since the aughts, law enforcement departments have regarded the public as enemy, and this shows up countless times in uncovered intra-department memorandums. It also shows up in precinct suspicious activity guidelines that are contradictory and include all possible forms of behavior (including inaction). It also shows up in police tools like poorly-trained detection dogs who signal at a 90%+ false positive rate, or the two-dollar roadside drug test that false positives on dozens of inert chemicals, such as donut sugar glaze.
In the twentieth century, I would hypothesize over 50% of our incarcerated are innocent, or are serving a sentence disproportionate to the alleged crime they committed. Of course we're now in the era of random abductions and detention centers run by private prison companies.
0x0
in reply to HailSeitan • • •Free publicity for GrapheneOS.
Murica, land of the free...
like this
modem_down likes this.
Coleslaw4145
in reply to 0x0 • • •Home of the.....
....largest prison population on Earth, predominantly made up of African Americans and Hispanics who carry out labour essentially for free. (< Thats what they mean by the "free" part.)
eldavi
in reply to HailSeitan • • •dan1101
in reply to eldavi • • •FineCoatMummy
in reply to eldavi • • •That might be accurate in some places, but it VERY misleading for the US in particular.
In the US, the courts are currently divided on whether encryption has 5A protection. But more cases than not, have ruled they DO enjoy 5A protection against self incrimination. For example, US v. John Doe, 2012. VA vs David Baust, 2014. SEC vs Bonan Huang, 2015. US vs Mitchell, 2017. There are lots of other individual cases, where courts ruled a defendant does NOT have to unlock an encrypted device. The warrant gives the gov the right to the device, but the defendant did not have to help them access it.
One prob with compelling a pw, is it's impossible to know if the suspect is refusing, or legit forgot. Esp when there is a long time interval. Ex, Voigt and Victor, it was 10 months before the gov requested the pw, and
... Show more...There have been cases that went the other way, and a suspect was held in contempt
That might be accurate in some places, but it VERY misleading for the US in particular.
In the US, the courts are currently divided on whether encryption has 5A protection. But more cases than not, have ruled they DO enjoy 5A protection against self incrimination. For example, US v. John Doe, 2012. VA vs David Baust, 2014. SEC vs Bonan Huang, 2015. US vs Mitchell, 2017. There are lots of other individual cases, where courts ruled a defendant does NOT have to unlock an encrypted device. The warrant gives the gov the right to the device, but the defendant did not have to help them access it.
One prob with compelling a pw, is it's impossible to know if the suspect is refusing, or legit forgot. Esp when there is a long time interval. Ex, Voigt and Victor, it was 10 months before the gov requested the pw, and
There have been cases that went the other way, and a suspect was held in contempt for failing to produce a pw. Hence why it is a chaotic legal situation, until a higher court sorts it out. But your odds are pretty good, at the mo, in the USA.
It is likely, SCOTUS will eventually rule that just like a GPS track enjoys 5A protection, so does the device contents. Not certain, ofc! But that would align with recent court rulings, ex, Chatrie v. United States.
Zak
in reply to HailSeitan • • •The headline is misleading. They're not prosecuting him for using GrapheneOS; they're prosecuting him for using a duress code to erase data when they wanted to search it.
That's also bad, but it's a different set of facts. If he had simply refused to provide access, they would have seized his phone, but wouldn't have this particular creative charge to prosecute.
like this
modem_down likes this.
doleo
in reply to Zak • • •Just for my information, is that possible on androids without grapheneOS?
GreatWhiteBuffalo41
in reply to doleo • • •OhVenus_Baby
in reply to GreatWhiteBuffalo41 • • •GreatWhiteBuffalo41
in reply to OhVenus_Baby • • •Eggman
in reply to Zak • • •DanceMomsSavedMe
in reply to Eggman • • •quick_snail
in reply to Zak • • •Is shutting down your phone considered tampering with evidence? It wipes the key from memory
What about lockdown mode?
This is a slippery slope
Zak
in reply to quick_snail • • •OtakuAllTheWay
in reply to Zak • • •In my opinion a duress code should wipe the phone invisibly. So the cops shouldn’t even know it wiped the real data off the phone. Like if you type a duress code it should open the phone with an alt account on a different data partition and hide the partition of the other account and delete it in the background and then zero out the storage drive of that partition so they can’t retrieve the data with forensic tools. You use one account for normal everyday stuff. And the other account for shit the fascists will hang you for.
A phone that is empty when they unlock it is sus as fuck.
Juice
in reply to OtakuAllTheWay • • •rumba
in reply to OtakuAllTheWay • • •Carry a second phone.
Do all your non-sus stuff on one phone, do all your sus stuff on the other phone.
You're going to sell your old phone and start using this one. You just hadn't gotten around to it yet.
As much as I don't trust Samsung, they have an encrypted profile and you can put all of your social media over there and just wipe knox if you need it, having empty knox on Samsung was probably the default.
other8026
in reply to OtakuAllTheWay • • •The way profiles work right now makes a decoy profile not work properly. GrapheneOS developers don't add features that can be defeated by basic training.
Last I heard, the way the developers want to do it is add an early boot passphrase and then a decoy setup would be possible without leaving a way for attackers to be able to know for sure that a decoy feature was used.
FineCoatMummy
in reply to HailSeitan • • •TBH I hope he can get more than public defenders. They work hard but they are often over worked and under resourced. Plus not being specialists in this. Maybe the EFF will offer specialist help. EFF is already aware of his case. Hence why anyone who is able to, should donate to the EFF. So they can employ high powered lawyers.
NAL, but I think the gov can't have it both ways. IF they did not produce a warrant or Mirandize him, THEN they cannot come at him for wiping his own phone. The gov might have a case if they had a warrant and he knowingly wiped it. But that's not what allegedly happened here. No warrant = still 100% his device to do what he wants.
Aside from his case, courts in the US are all over the place, on whether you can be compelled to unlock a device if there IS a warrant. More often than not, they have ruled you CAN'T be compelled to produce a passcode from your memory. But i
... Show more...TBH I hope he can get more than public defenders. They work hard but they are often over worked and under resourced. Plus not being specialists in this. Maybe the EFF will offer specialist help. EFF is already aware of his case. Hence why anyone who is able to, should donate to the EFF. So they can employ high powered lawyers.
NAL, but I think the gov can't have it both ways. IF they did not produce a warrant or Mirandize him, THEN they cannot come at him for wiping his own phone. The gov might have a case if they had a warrant and he knowingly wiped it. But that's not what allegedly happened here. No warrant = still 100% his device to do what he wants.
Aside from his case, courts in the US are all over the place, on whether you can be compelled to unlock a device if there IS a warrant. More often than not, they have ruled you CAN'T be compelled to produce a passcode from your memory. But in some cases, they have ruled the opposite. It's super chaotic, and prob needs a SCOTUS ruling.
like this
modem_down likes this.
bamboo
in reply to FineCoatMummy • • •FineCoatMummy
in reply to bamboo • • •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.
Border Searches
Electronic Frontier Foundationdavel
in reply to FineCoatMummy • • •Perhaps the suit over Max Blumenthal’s recent experience will set some precedence. ADC sues DHS Secretary Mullin over illegal CBP seizure of Max Blumenthal’s devices
Edit to add: Perhaps not: DHS has returned his devices, probably because they did’t want this to go to court, probably because they know their legal position is weak.
The Grayzone
The GrayzoneFineCoatMummy
in reply to davel • • •Interesting. Thanks for the link! I didn't hear about that one before.
Indeed.
ohshit604
in reply to HailSeitan • • •Ferrous
in reply to ohshit604 • • •Bane_Killgrind
in reply to Ferrous • • •quick_snail
in reply to ohshit604 • • •sudoer777
in reply to ohshit604 • • •Uriel238 [all pronouns]
in reply to HailSeitan • • •...Federal authorities had put him on a terrorism watchlist because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City.
Terrorism watch lists, no fly lists and government lists of cults and sects should not be legal in the US, as they violate the right to due process. Often there's no reasonable way to challenge having your name on a list. It's put there arbitrarily by a law enforcement officer without any oversight or process, meaning your name can be added again without restriction. And being on those lists often affects the civil rights to which you have access.
But then, the new regime is trying to strip ordinary citizens of their rights until we are all bonded serfs again.
A_norny_mousse
in reply to Uriel238 [all pronouns] • • •The way the term terrorism is used so indiscriminately in the US and even more widely recently, is really worrying. I've heard Flock spokespersons casually refer to Antifa as terrorists. Like it's a (largely) undisputed fact.
This also spills over into other countries that have long-standing agreements with the USA.
Despite most of them actually giving up on the term terrorism entirely.
Uriel238 [all pronouns]
in reply to A_norny_mousse • • •Around the time a 14-year-old Arab kid brought a clock to class and was arrested as a suspected terrorist, I wrote about this. At the time muckrakers were being called FOIA terrorists for daring to engage in public oversight of the government. Things were already getting pretty fashy, just in time for Trump to take his escalator ride.
At the time I observed that terrorist had turned into a generic derisive, the way gay was used in the early aughts or communist during the McCarthy red scare... which Trump and the Republican party seem to be trying to resurrect.
So yeah, it really doesn't surprise me that the State Department is defining Antifa as a terrorist group and an enemy of the state. In this context, Antifa and terrorist don't actually relate to their original meanings, but serve as a catch all to lend legitimacy when the regime wants to persecute its political enemies.
Much the way that any
... Show more...Around the time a 14-year-old Arab kid brought a clock to class and was arrested as a suspected terrorist, I wrote about this. At the time muckrakers were being called FOIA terrorists for daring to engage in public oversight of the government. Things were already getting pretty fashy, just in time for Trump to take his escalator ride.
At the time I observed that terrorist had turned into a generic derisive, the way gay was used in the early aughts or communist during the McCarthy red scare... which Trump and the Republican party seem to be trying to resurrect.
So yeah, it really doesn't surprise me that the State Department is defining Antifa as a terrorist group and an enemy of the state. In this context, Antifa and terrorist don't actually relate to their original meanings, but serve as a catch all to lend legitimacy when the regime wants to persecute its political enemies.
Much the way that anyone who opposed McCarthy could be investigated and tried as a communist, anyone who opposes Trump or MAGA or ICE can be investigated and tried as Antifa.
Some of that nonsense should get halted at the courts -- ICE and the DoJ have already lost the presumption of regularity -- but we've seen already protestors get disproportionately long sentences for alleged and minor crimes based on alleged association to terror groups. And Trump is still getting awful people confirmed to federal benches.
incident in which a child was arrested for bringing clock parts to school
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Uriel238 [all pronouns]
in reply to HailSeitan • • •Meanwhile, if they seized his phone and tried to unlock it without a warrant signed by a judge, that is a violation of his rights as per the fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. However, in the US presently, such violations are routine by law enforcement.
Some agencies insist suspects do not have access to those rights if certain conditions apply, such as being within one hundred miles of a US border (such as a coast), or being on a terror watchlist.
A_norny_mousse
in reply to Uriel238 [all pronouns] • • •Isn't that like a third of USA area? And probably half its residents?
edit: it's not quite so thick, but actually more than half its residents:
chris
in reply to A_norny_mousse • • •A_norny_mousse
in reply to chris • • •Within the 100 mile zone, of course.
Apart from that I find no mention in the top search results, except here:
old.reddit.com/r/immigration/c…
tl;dr: No.
FineCoatMummy
in reply to Uriel238 [all pronouns] • • •It seems kinda nuanced tho. From various sources, the rules look like this. Ofc sometimes the rules may not be followed, that's a separate issue. This is just the rules CBP has,
- CBP agents can, with no cause, perform a "basic search". That means looking through photos, text messages, call logs, and emails. But not using tools or forensic methods.
- CBP CANNOT compel you to unlock the device for them or produce a pw. They CAN confescate the device if you don't, tho.
- CBP agents CANNOT perform a forensic search without reasonable suspicion and a signoff from a supervisor. A forensic search is one that uses external tools, not just the agent eyeballing your photos and messages after you unlock it for them.
- CBP a
... Show more...It seems kinda nuanced tho. From various sources, the rules look like this. Ofc sometimes the rules may not be followed, that's a separate issue. This is just the rules CBP has,
This leaves travelers in a position where they CAN assert their 4A rights when it comes to data on the device. But it comes at a price. It may lead to the confescation of the device. That is coersive ofc, and many ppl won't want to. So in practice, many ppl will cooperate and unlock the dev for the agent. But if you really want to push back, you can, and they have to let you into the country still if you are a citizen.
What CBP Can (and Can’t) Do With Your Devices at the U.S. Border
Mackenzie Froese (Berardi Immigration Law)Uriel238 [all pronouns]
in reply to FineCoatMummy • • •For most Americans, it would take a lawyer present just to know what is safe to do while under arrest.
The problem is, SCOTUS has already ruled on this in 1985, via the good faith exception. If a police officer mistakenly violates your fourth-amendment rights, but did so in good faith, then evidence of any crime found is inadmissible. It's very difficult to prove bad faith, and officers have learned to lie to cover up, say, that they knew they were crossing a line, or were motivated by corruption, bigotry or ideology to fish for evidence beyond the scope of a reasonable search.
Besides which, I wouldn't trust an officer to turn off data before combing though my phone, and the difference between what is on the phone and what is cloud data is transparent. They would absolutely have access to my entire email history of decades, and law enforcement has intrinsic personal cause to fish for criminal activity.
For one thing, collars is how police officers
... Show more...For most Americans, it would take a lawyer present just to know what is safe to do while under arrest.
The problem is, SCOTUS has already ruled on this in 1985, via the good faith exception. If a police officer mistakenly violates your fourth-amendment rights, but did so in good faith, then evidence of any crime found is inadmissible. It's very difficult to prove bad faith, and officers have learned to lie to cover up, say, that they knew they were crossing a line, or were motivated by corruption, bigotry or ideology to fish for evidence beyond the scope of a reasonable search.
Besides which, I wouldn't trust an officer to turn off data before combing though my phone, and the difference between what is on the phone and what is cloud data is transparent. They would absolutely have access to my entire email history of decades, and law enforcement has intrinsic personal cause to fish for criminal activity.
For one thing, collars is how police officers get accolades and promotions. And for another, there's the matter of asset forfeiture. Police routinely will declare any open cash or valuable property as criminal in order to confiscate it. And it's very difficult to get it back. In the 2010s some precincts already had the capability to empty pre-loaded credit cards, so it wouldn't surprise me if they could do something similar with mobile payment services.
In the US since the aughts, law enforcement departments have regarded the public as enemy, and this shows up countless times in uncovered intra-department memorandums. It also shows up in precinct suspicious activity guidelines that are contradictory and include all possible forms of behavior (including inaction). It also shows up in police tools like poorly-trained detection dogs who signal at a 90%+ false positive rate, or the two-dollar roadside drug test that false positives on dozens of inert chemicals, such as donut sugar glaze.
In the twentieth century, I would hypothesize over 50% of our incarcerated are innocent, or are serving a sentence disproportionate to the alleged crime they committed. Of course we're now in the era of random abductions and detention centers run by private prison companies.
United States legal doctrine
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)CileTheSane
in reply to HailSeitan • • •vayneblade
in reply to CileTheSane • • •soratoyuki
in reply to vayneblade • • •NewNewAugustEast
in reply to HailSeitan • • •Dammit! I have to go in and out of the us and I use GrapheneOS!
Not even because of some heavy privacy from the government. I just want to be able to use F-Droid and my own apps and sandbox Google.
Why does everything nice have to get tied into bullshit like this?
Government is so removed from doing anything by and for the people that it's just sickening. Speaking to the choir I know.
yestalgia
in reply to NewNewAugustEast • • •SocialistVibes01
in reply to NewNewAugustEast • • •Marxism has the answers to your question.