The U.S. government has charged Samuel Tunick with allegedly typing in a passcode to wipe his phone before officers could search it. “I hope people understand that the charges against me are meant to intimidate people,” he said.

Just another example of the Trump admin trying to intimidate protestors using whatever the fuck they can to bring up whatever charges they can.

all 53 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 48 points 3 months ago (8 children)

I mean I think privacy advocates are looking to set a precedent. This case is perfect for us.

The officer was the one that wiped the data, so hopefully he'll loose his job. And they should be sued to pay compensation to the victim for the damages caused by lost data

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    There's already strong precedence that destroying data after learning of an investigation is a crime. Doesn't matter to the courts that is via a clever trigger. If he knowingly provided a pin to an official that destroys the data then he's hosed. His only hope is if they guessed on their own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 3 months ago (20 children)
  • [–] 76 points 3 months ago (16 children)

    Destroying evidence, which is funny because that assumes there was any to begin with, which they can't prove.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    That wasn’t the charge. The charge is destruction of property that the government is trying to hold on to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Which would still be unreasonable search and seizure.

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

    They were not in the United States and the constitution doesn’t apply at border searches. Their argument is going to be limited to very few things, like “I didn’t destroy anything, the cbp officer did”

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

    If they were not in the United States so that the constitution doesn't apply, why would the other US laws apply? Makes no sense.

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

    He was in fact in the US when this happened. Also he alleges he wasn’t read his Miranda rights, and there’s a good case for presumption of guilt from the “officers.” Also denied him having a lawyer present before engaging.

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

    But he did not destroy, officer did by type in code he got. His mistake to trust user.

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

    I agree. I don’t think the charges will hold for exactly that reason, the device owner didn’t do anything to destroy the device and also didn’t prevent seizure. The CBP still has the device.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Destroying what? The phone is still there, you just have to install an OS in there or something. A charge with "destruction of property" hinges on the assumption that 1.- there was something in there before the passcode (could have been an empty profile) 2.- that was property (corporate interests insist that our data is not ours, so I don't see how the agent can insist here that the user destroyed his own property, at least) 3.- that was destroyed (which relies on proving point 1).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 21 points 3 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    There are 4th amendment free zones in the US surrounding certain areas... Meaning the government can just violate your 4th amendment because it decided you have no rights due to living within a no rights zone.

    Freedom!

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

    Technically he didn't enter the PIN. When repeatedly asked for it with no way to speak to a lawyer first, he gave them his PIN. Did they ask for his phone PIN, yep, did he give them his phone PIN, yes. Had they asked for a specific PIN for the device, they might have been able to get one specific to a profile on the device but they didn't.

    Did they ask him if this PIN was for a specific profile? Doubtful so it's kind of on them.

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

    Turning this feature on right now, thanks for the reminder

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

    What happened to the fourth amendment

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

    It exists as part of your argument in court. The gos helps you enforce your right and catch them in the cookie jar if they try to be slick. At least that is how I think of it.... Or used to in more normal times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    I don't really know anything about privacy and security in this context, but I remember playing around with encrypted disks and reading that encryption isn't really useful if your adversary knows that something exists albeit encrypted.

    I think this is similar: having a freshly wiped phone is going to attract attention. I'm not saying it's the wrong move in all cases, but it's probably the wrong move in the kinds of situations most people are going to encounter.

    I think the latest advice for attending protests and similar is to take a cheap burner.

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

    What we really need is deniable encryption, where you can decrypt just a specific layer of your device which is entirely innocent, while also possibly destroying the deeper layer which has anything incriminating. It's been a concept since the 90s, but it's not widely used or known of.

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

    Veracrypt can do this with hidden volumes. The danger is the hidden layer can look stable and fake so you need enough data that changes recently enough, and if you add too much to either volume it starts corrupting everything because one partition overwrites the other.

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

    The trouble here is that this happened to him in an airport, not during a protest.

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

    for attending protests and similar

    Emphasis added.

    I remember reading warnings about having laptops and devices checked at airports a decade ago. As a matter of fact I think that's why I was looking into having hidden, encrypted partitions: because getting caught with some pirate TV series on my laptop might have meant having to pay a bribe or whatever.

    Regardless, it doesn't really change my point - if there's a chance you're going to interact with a government official and they might want to look at your device, wiping it is going to attract attention.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Which according to mafia he has about the same rights as Fauci's beagles. Which is what makes this case interesting. The bewigged political activists will be doing legal cartwheels to keep the "before admitted to US" scam alive.

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

    I mean, most people don't know their encryption keys. A correct password retrieves the keys from the TPM, the duress pin wipes the TMP so now even a correct password is unable to get any of the data.

    Hell, even if you use the same password in multiple locations (you shouldn't) a good service will salt (add a random but consistent jumble of characters for your account specifically) and then hash (weird complicated math that makes it really hard to reverse your password) your salted password then check if that salted hash matches what's on file.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Different CDMWorlds, different assumptions about privacy.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Article doesn't load

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