all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 48 points 3 months ago (1 child)

It is not the Graphene OS's feature that could land a man in prison, but a fascist government.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    "Being prosecuted" is not the same as "being charged" or "being convicted." It could lead to prison time, but if he's a US citizen, the fifth amendment applies (which means you do not have to divulge passwords or information). The prosecution part is a fear and intimidation tactic being used by the fascist government, but whether it even goes to trial is another matter.

    It's possible they'll get him on some obstruction charge, and while I suspect this will ultimately amount to nothing, it is nonetheless scary that a hostile government exists with this much global hegemony and is still allowed to use a paramilitary extrajudicial group with virtual impunity.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    the fifth amendment applies (which means you do not have to divulge passwords or information)

    That's not really true but it's also not what is happening here. The duress pin wipes the device so this is destruction of evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    That's not really true

    It is absolutely true. The fifth amendment means US citizens have a right to silence. It has already been ruled that neither the government nor the courts can compel someone to divulge a password under those fifth amendment protections, which is why former mayor Eric Adams was able to avoid having his phone searched by the FBI.

    Whether this is destruction of evidence or not will be a decision made by the courts (it's a question at the heart of the matter in the first place), and the facts that he was allegedly repeatedly denied access to a lawyer and not read his Miranda rights are both things that are decidedly in his favor for getting the case tossed before that question is even addressed.

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

    It is absolutely true

    It isn't. Check out United States v. Apple MacPro Computer and NJ v. Andrews.

    Whether this is destruction of evidence or not will be a decision made by the courts

    Regardless, the point remains that the subject at hand is destruction of evidence and not password compulsion.

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

    Check out United States v. Apple MacPro Computer and NJ v. Andrews.

    I did. To be perfectly frank, I think they are wrong. They even said that divulging the contents of your mind is protected by the fifth amendment, but they also say that noncommunicative actions (like entering a password) are not. So you can't be compelled to say what your password is verbally, but you can be compelled to essentially write it? Absolute horseshit.

    Anyway, you are correct that this is more about alleged destruction of evidence. Hopefully the court isn't able to rule on that at all due to the case being tossed.

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

    That phone wasn't evidence of anything, and all he did was give them a password when they asked for one. Not under oath

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

    all he did was give them a password when they asked for one

    Which...promptly destroyed any evidence?

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

    It's still better to have a duress PIN/password. You can still decide, if you actually want to use it.

    In non-shitty countries no one is allowed to search your stuff without a warrant.

    Oh... and "warrantless" is an euphemism for "blanket warrant". So be careful.

  • source
  • [–] 81 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    His attorneys say border agents repeatedly demanded access to his phone and told him they did not need a warrant.

    Tunick’s legal team is now trying to have the evidence thrown out. It argues that he was questioned without being read his Miranda rights, that agents repeatedly refused his requests to speak with a lawyer, and that the phone search was an unreasonable seizure. His lawyers also say questions about child sexual abuse material were used as a pretext to investigate his alleged links to the movement opposing Atlanta’s police training center, commonly known as Cop City.

    And that's why you always use a burner when going in or out of Nazi country, even if you live there.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 3 months ago

    I’m more concerned about this case setting horrific precedence for violating the privacy of a citizen.

    We basically don’t have rights anymore as it is.

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

    For example, would it be considered destruction of evidence if a defendant had written it on the back of the phone and the officers assumed it was the correct PIN? That’s just a hypothetical

    What a good idea! Hypothetically. :)

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Nazi country. These morons will start WW3...

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

    I have a feeling future historians will use the start of this year as the beginning of WW3..

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

    I was talking with my wife how when you learn history they kinda say what lead up to things or why something came to be and im like. How are they going to explain this? Then one day a bunch of dicks became incrdibly stupid.

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

    I really think history will butter it up somehow in a way that will make it look logical that WW3 started when in reality it will all becaused by a bunch of morons with way too much time and way too little common sense in their brains.

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

    I wonder if it'll matter who put the pin in the phone. If the officer put it then he just lied about that the correct pin is while not under penalty of perjury.

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

    Reminder that there is no need for a duress pin if you simply put a 4h autoreboot, 6 number pin and a strong password

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

    I think the purpose of the duress pin is different. It's for when someone hands you your phone and forces you to unlock it. In those circumstances the things you mentioned wouldn't suffice

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

    Women: free to go.

  • source
  • 259 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    53 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.ml 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