all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 62 points 3 months ago (5 children)

The government is a bunch of clowns. What gives them the right to tell him what he can or can't do with his own personal device?

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

    To be clear I don't agree with this statement, but the steelman counterargument would be something like: if the president of the United States were to destroy evidence of a crime, shouldn't that also be a crime?

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

    Have to be accused of a crime first for this to apply. The victim here was purely the target of extra customs search due to his support of a politically unfavored cause

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 44 points 3 months ago

    If this goes through it sets a precedent for the government declaring someone a criminal for being in a political organisation simply unfavorable to them. He couldn't destroy evidence if he wasn't a criminal could be the take-home-message between the lines they intend to propagate.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    Story has already changed. Originally it was him giving border agents the kill code which they entered.

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