top 92 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 185 points 3 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 105 points 3 months ago (22 children)

    Without a warrant, it's literally his phone to do with it what he pleases. Baffled that that's not the end of the conversation.

    Assuming we lived in a rational world with a fair and impartial justice system, and not one that exists to funnel money from the working class into the Epstein class and kill or imprison everyone that makes that less easy.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I think the supreme court has said they can search phones without warrants at the border and points of entry, so airports.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    You can't be compelled to give them your password, but you can be compelled to use your biometric ID. Clear as mud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    well they have the "border search exception" so at the border, no, they generally do not need a warrant for "routine searches" of electronic devices. Fucked up, but that is the law on the books and US courts have virtually always upheld it when it comes up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    A judge issues a warrant when there is an active criminal investigation. If there's no investigation, no warrant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    Oh, that's not how it works in the united States. Is this some commonwealth legal thing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    It is how it works inside the united states. It's just they claim that because he was on the flight side of the airport, he wasn't inside the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 3 months ago* (8 children)

    it is how it works

    Thanks but I live here and it's not basically ever.

    Cops either use a pretense tools like a drug dog to establish probable cause for the search they want or do parallel construction after they've already built the general structure of a case, usually tracing things to a valid cause for search, usually via coached informant.

    Or its ice and they can just do whatever they want.

    You're living in a fantasy world and your delusional ignorance is real danger is worrying. Please never approach or speak to me in person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Did you stop reading at that point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    That's not how it works. I'm not sure that's how it's ever worked. You're living in a fantasy. Warrants are not a meaningfully real thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    My point was that they fabricated a pretense to avoid needing one, just as you said. You're making the same fucking point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

    I'm about to cook lunch to avoid using the replicator. Then masturbate to avoid bothering my loving girlfriend.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    So I'm completely on the outside of the debate you guys are having, but I'd like to but in and ask anyway

    Please explain what you were trying to say with that comment because I've been staring at it for like 20 minutes trying to make sense and I'm so lost 😂 just str8 stunlocked and I'm really curious please translate pleeeeease :D

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    'These are viable alternatives to the thing you're insisting exists, on the assumption that the thing exists. Notably a thing that is a piece of SciFi tech from 'star trek' and something that obviously doesn't exist as evidenced by my personality.'

    The point being that warrants are equally a thing to the star trek stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Still having difficulty connecting that to conversation you were having, im just dumb prolly, thanks for trying ✌️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I was saying 'the cops aren't avoiding anything. They're just doing it the normal way that isn't fantasy bullshit' because warrants are basically unicorns over here except for parallel construction style cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 175 points 3 months ago (43 children)

    This is fucking stupid. If I delete something on my phone while I'm on vacation am I going to prison because the border patrol might have wanted to look at it?

  • source
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 123 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Should have been born a child fucking billionaire if you don’t want to be sentenced to prison for 30 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    It’s bullshit but with the current laws. Back up your phone before you head home wipe it before going through border control, and restore your backup when you get home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    That's what I do but evidently that pisses them off

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 3 months ago* (24 children)

    We don’t need hyperbole here …. If authorities have a legal reason to search and you interfere with that, destruction of evidence is a crime. Delete all you want …. Right up until authorities claim the legal reason to search. Usually that takes a warrant: investigators must convince a judge there is a good reason

    This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.

    The slippery slope here is “or within 100 miles”, but that wasn’t a factor here either

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.

    Have to disagree with that one. Simply entering a country is not justification for searching someones phone. I don't care what the law says. People have a right to privacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    I’m not saying I agree with it, just that it’s always been so

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.

    You literally said they are not violating rights by doing this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    He’s saying that right was taken away by George W Bush.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Governments cannot take rights away. They can only infringe upon them. They are rights. Not privileges.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    as far as I understand, they were not there to serve a warrant. he was crossing a border and the feds are claiming that the 4th amendment doesn't apply because he hadn't yet crossed into America.

    border patrol was essentially using a loophole to preemptively collect potential evidence (they'll figure out what to charge him with after they see his phone contents). he's a political activist against a cop city, they were obviously trying to do him dirty.

    they were not serving a search warrant. they were abusing what should be an illegal search at the border in order to silence those who speak out against govt overreach.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    If he wasnt in the US how can the US claim he violated a US law?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The US claims jurisdiction over its citizens wherever they are.

    Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, because it means you can be prosecuted in the US for stuff like going to Thailand and sexually abusing children there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    So the law applies, but protection under the law does not.

    Isn't all law essentially derived from powers granted by the constitution?

    If the powers granted by it to enforce a law are applicable when not within the US then then it very reasonably ought to apply to any and all amendments.

    But, reason is on the extinction list with the magafascists. (And all LEO)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    In addition, the law that he's charged with relates to knowingly destroying property that the police have a warrant to sieze.

    There is no precedent of it being applied to border searches where they may not even have reasonable suspicion of a crime and can stop people for questioning on a whim.

    The State has absolutely no claim over your personal property at that point and destroying property that the police hope and dream of siezing isn't the same as destroying property where they've demonstrated probable cause to a judge.

    This argument from the border patrol that you can be arrested for destroying data that is in your possession without ever been given due process and 4th amendment protections isn't supported by precedence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    These fucking conservatives crawl out of the woodwork like cockroaches anytime the government does something heinous and use their piss poor understanding of EVERYTHING to try to justify the heinous actions. It happens every time, and I wish just once to see one of them use real and relevant facts, just so I can pretend that these people live in reality for just one second.

    Hasn't happened yet though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -8 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    That's not really how the law works. You're not making a comparable analogy. You sitting at home or in a hotel room is legally not remotely the same as when you're being actively searched by a federal agent.

    This is more like if the a police officer is about to do a pat-down search of someone, and they reach into their pocket, grab something, and rapidly swallow it.

    You can destroy your property in normal circumstances whenever you please. If you delete a file in the privacy of your own home, odds are you're not doing so for the purposes of evading law enforcement. However, if you do it literally seconds before law enforcement is about to get a hold of it, it's pretty unambiguous that you're trying to destroy evidence.

    That's the crucial difference here legally. Plausible deniability does not exist when you're destroying something because a police search is imminent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Or maybe you just don't want some cop to see your dick pics. If they had anything on this dude they wouldn't have needed to go through his phone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I am explaining how the law works and the assumptions behind it. The law assumes that if you were embarrassed about your dick pics, that you would delete those before the officer is right about to search you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The laws assumptions are bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    This guy has no fucking idea how the law works. Destruction of evidence requires a primary crime, the one you're destroying the evidence for. There is no crime, therefore no destruction of evidence. Only an incompetent or corrupt judge would let this even go to trial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 70 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    The charge treats the alleged wipe as destruction of property intended to prevent a government seizure.

    He is being charged with destroying "evidence" but he was never charged with anything in the first place. That is like saying deleting any files at home is a crime. I'd think forcing you to present evidence necessary to charge you with something would fall under the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Unfortunately according to the federal government you automatically consent to limited 4th amendment protections when you choose to fly. Domestic flights have more legal protections, but international flights basically wave your right to privacy.

    They are allowed to ask for your phone's password and do a "non-forensic" search of your phone for just about any reason. A more extensive "forensic" search where they plug your phone into another device can be made if they present reasonable suspicion. If you refuse a search they can hold onto your phone for several weeks.

    The smarter move would have been to just refuse to give the password and trust that they wont want to go through the hassle of cracking your phone once it's in custody.

    Basically the only real way to protect yourself is to not keep any incriminating information on your phone. The courts have ruled that these searches only extend to data that can be physically accessed on your device and things like social media and cloud storage are not subject to the search. So it's just best to save everything on the cloud and then restore it once you are done traveling.

  • source
  • parent
  • The headline is wrong.

    Fascist regime fucks over people's constitutional rights and could send a man to prison for protecting his own privacy.

    There, fixed.

  • source
  • [–] 66 points 3 months ago

    What a shithole

  • source
  • [–] 61 points 3 months ago*

    GrapheneOS should update the duress passcode to load a dummy profile like Only Key’s Plausible Deniability Feature.

  • source
  • [–] 109 points 3 months ago* (13 children)

    The indictment alleges that Tunick knowingly deleted the phone’s digital contents

    My hot take: the officer wiped the phone. With their own hands. They're just stupid.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Hotter take: The phone was empty when he handed it over. There was nothing to delete.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    If they succeed I guess in the future an officer could delete your phone to save face then blame it on you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Those of us who have asked to avoid the cancer box and been subjected to a subjectively punitive pat-down and fashion show experience are already anticipating just that. Yay!

    (And for added fun, call it a cancer box. Wow, when you get that one TSA who only has bad days will you get a great speech as well)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Why do you call it a cancer box? I've been through plenty of them and never seen anything to indicate they're unsafe. Then again, we also used to let people x-ray their feet in shoe stores, soo...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    Fun fact: Logan TSA asked the FAA for paperwork showing those things are safe. Anything.

    FAA said fuck you.

    That's kinda all I need.

    I know the anecdotes say it's good. But with anything introduced hurriedly and without clear need - we know the TSA doesn't have good track record anyway - the hype-to-utility ratio is too high.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 24 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, they are masters of parallel construction. ( Aka lying)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Parallel construction is a way to present evidence illegally obtained by coming up with a plausible-seeming other way it was found.

    So, rather than saying "we illegally stopped and searched the defendant" they'll get an "informant" (sometimes paid, sometimes coerced) to swear that they tipped them off beforehand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    It's a form of lying, but with a specific meaning.

    Like how the 9th (or 8th, depending on how you're counting) Commandment says to not bear false witness. That doesn't mean that people following an Abrahamic faith cannot lie... just that they can't lie in that one specific way.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    that was the issue I was going to bring up. If the officer wants to try varuous pin numbers how is it the owners responsibility as to what the phone does.

    My phone is set to automatically wipe after X number of incorrect pin attempts. If I just kept telling law enforcement the wrong pin number because I cant remember it exactly, what is the difference if the phone wipes. Once the phone is out of my hands how can I be responsible for what the phone does? (Assuming I dont issue a remote wiping command)

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    53 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.ml view that post
    33 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.world view that post
    17 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    11 comments in c/android@lemdro.id view that post
    4 comments in c/android@programming.dev view that post