https://www.404media.co/man-charged-for-wiping-phone-before-cbp-could-search-it/

A man in Atlanta has been arrested and charged for allegedly deleting data from a Google Pixel phone before a member of a secretive Customs and Border Protection (CBP) unit was able to search it, according to court records and social media posts reviewed by 404 Media. The man, Samuel Tunick, is described as a local Atlanta activist in Instagram and other posts discussing the case. The exact circumstances around the search—such as why CBP wanted to search the phone in the first place—are not known. But it is uncommon to see someone charged specifically for wiping a phone, a feature that is easily accessible in some privacy and security-focused devices. 💡 Do you know anything else about this case? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at joseph.404 or send me an email at joseph@404media.co. The indictment says on January 24, Tunick “did knowingly destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, and otherwise take any action to delete the digital contents of a Google Pixel cellular phone, for the purpose of preventing and impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take said property into its custody and control.” The indictment itself was filed in mid-November. Tunick was arrested earlier this month, according to a post on a crowd-funding site and court records. “Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta-based activist, Oberlin graduate, and beloved musician, was arrested by the DHS and FBI yesterday around 6pm EST. Tunick's friends describe him as an approachable, empathetic person who is always finding ways to improve the lives of the people around him,” the site says. Various activists have since shared news of Tunick’s arrest on social media.

The indictment says the phone search was supposed to be performed by a supervisory officer from a CBP Tactical Terrorism Response Team. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote in 2023 these are “highly secretive units deployed at U.S. ports of entry, which target, detain, search, and interrogate innocent travelers.” “These units, which may target travelers on the basis of officer ‘instincts.’ raise the risk that CBP is engaging in unlawful profiling or interfering with the First Amendment-protected activity of travelers,” the ACLU added. The Intercept previously covered the case of a sculptor and installation artist who was detained at San Francisco International Airport and had his phone searched. The report said Gach did not know why, even years later. Court records show authorities have since released Tunick, and that he is restricted from leaving the Northern District of Georgia as the case continues. The prosecutor listed on the docket did not respond to a request for comment. The docket did not list a lawyer representing Tunick.

top 86 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 152 points 11 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago

    @favoredponcho @InternetCitizen2 I knew a guy that leaved the wipecode "hidden" in the phone case hoping that it would be entered without asking if someome took his phone

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -63 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    If that's the case, this would definitely be destruction of evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 77 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    You have to be charged with a crime first or actively part of a crime investigation for that to be true, even then thats Stretching.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Thats not true at all. The most basic example would be flushing drugs down the toilet when the piggies knock on your door.

    Edit: I guess that would fall under your “actively under investigation” clause?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -43 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I really don't think that's how it works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 81 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    it should be my fucking right to to delete my data on my device at any time. Your lack of planning on your warrant doesn't constitute an emergency or wrong doing on my part.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 70 points 11 months ago* (12 children)

    I heard on the news today that the US is planning to force people visiting their slave pen country to show their social media history and 5 years of recent phone numbers. :)

    They really dont want anyone coming there do they... :)

    https://www.dw.com/en/us-demands-access-to-tourists-social-media-histories/a-75096949

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Yes! What if they would find something in my history? That would be horrible! Something like Fuck you tRump, you orange clown. Pedophile president. Does he also paint his dick orange? Does he fuck bag of cheetos every morning? Charlie kirk was fucking racist. Something like this could popup in my social media history! Oh no!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    I think they are not even interested in any of that. Its just a method of control. Continuing to apply pressure to people, reminding them to bow down to authority.

    They can already get the social media history from any big tech company. :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    They are getting everything since always. That is why tech companies are getting so much money from government. Social media is a dream come true for US government.

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

    I think they are all going further and further into madness. Us government and big tech together.

    They dont seem to understand that themselves. The consciousness of wanting to control by force, in combination with big tech dystopian dreams of raising humans with Ai, and watching everybody in real time... Its a very strong difference in that kind of consciousness compared to a good person on this planet.

    Ive lost interest in building technology solutions myself. Because its just about ads and control now. Its just the wrong kind of consciousness in charge of humanity. Tech isnt helping us, its making us more and more helpless and depressed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    They don't want foreigners in the US, looking healthy and fit and spending money while Americans are struggling to get by. And they don't want Americans visiting European countries where the standards of living are much higher than in the US. Americans might start getting the idea that they are getting the shit end of the stick.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago*

    to show their social media history

    For visa I think they already do, well not exactly show their social media history but the background check includes social media because people from the Philippines trying to get a visa remove pictures with Americans when they apply for visa.

    Since most of the popular social networks are Americans I don't think there is a limitation, probably even if you remove things...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    It was already in effect last year when I had to get an ETSA. They wanted my:

    • twitter account: don't have one
    • facebook account: don't have one
    • WhatsApp: don't have
    • Instagram: don't have
    • LinkedIn: OK, that I have
  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 41 points 11 months ago (18 children)

    The indictment does not say anything more than what is quoted. I am wondering if this is because he deleted the contents after being told it would be searched or something

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 11 months ago (17 children)

    Given that it says the phone was a Google Pixel, I'm guessing it was GrapheneOS and the activist entered their duress PIN before handing over the phone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago (13 children)

    If he's a US citizen, he's better off refusing to enter any PIN. That's protected by the 5th amendment.

    If not a citizen and this was in a port of entry context, then he would still have the 5th amendment protection. But customs can simply choose to refuse entry on discretion. So that's a potentially serious consequence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    At least on an iPhone, if the device has been unlocked since powering on, then forensic tools such as Cellebrite’s can extract information from the phone. The absolute safest bet is to perform a wipe. If this person is an activist then he’s an easy target and likely knew to be prepared for such an interrogation with our current fascist administration.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Absolute safest is a wipe but just powering off the phone means they won't be able to access anything without a PIN (protected by the 5th amendment). There's no laws against turning your phone off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    If you did it in response to an attempted seizure, they'd probably charge you for that too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    GrapheneOS has a feature which automatically restarts the phone if it hasn't been interacted with after some user-configurable delay. For example, you could configure the phone to automatically reboot if it hasn't been used for an hour. This way, even if the phone is seized, that reboot timer is ticking. Once it reboots, the encryption on the phone is basically unbreakable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    The absolute safest bet is to perform a wipe.

    This may be effective at preventing the government from accessing the data. But as we see, the law, including the 5th amendment, doesn't protect from legal exposure to obstruction-type charges. Or lying to the cops type charges if you say you'll unlock the phone, but then you actually wipe the phone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    Sure, but nothing protects you from Fascists if they want to go after you. There's so many laws that are malleable enough that they can always come up with some excuse. You should be legally protected for doing what this person did, but they'll still try. We'll see if their bullshit holds up in court I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    It depends on port of entry. The ninth circuit, which covers San Francisco, has upheld that entrants can refuse to provide a phone pin, but other circuits have found differently.

    So odd that this happened in California because there's a pretty powerful set of protections in place in the ninth circuit specifically - not that the current admin gives a shit about the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    This was in Atlanta, Georgia, unless you're referring to a different incident than what's in the OP

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    The second paragraph discusses an incident that occurred at San Francisco International Airport with the same circumstance. Should have indicated that's what I found weird because it should have been prevented. The southern courts have been less protective of individual freedoms. Might be legal there under the border exemption according to their courts.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago

    It should be noted for the record, if you ever have to use your duress code, do it before you hand the device over, don't offer it up to them, and SHUT THE FUCK UP.

    If you have time, turn the phone back on and you'll get a "recovery" screen asking to do a factory reset. Select this and let it boot back to the setup screen then turn it off again. It's now in a state where, if you remembered to shut the fuck up, they'll have a much harder time proving that you destroyed evidence and didn't just hand over a device you hadn't setup yet, as is a somewhat common (good) practice with border crossings.

    As with all things you may have to depend on, ideally you should test this flow. Carefully make a backup, verify the backup integrity, then use the duress pin ensuring that everything works the way you expected.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7oM0IB-IiM

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 152 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    We should all have a digital self detonation button in case of overreaching small dicked incel fascists.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 80 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    I object to your use of penis size as a derogative. I have the smallest dick on the planet but I haven't become a fascist yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago*

    I accidentally put in the hardware code to reset my phone to factory settings once by jamming it into my car console. It sucked at the time, but made me appreciate that I could use this code in the future if needed.

    You may have this option on your device as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Does the Rights against self-incrimination and the Right to remain silent help here?

    I don't see something they can really do against it? I am not in the USa so, someone?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    Not really, no. You have the right to not give testimony against yourself, including by not providing evidence that would hurt you, but that doesn't mean you can actively destroy evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Evidence of what exactly? Was a crime previously committed? Was it the officer's "instincts" that told them so? This is the fun part of authoritarianism, there may have been zero evidence deleted (we don't know), but now the act of wiping it creates a crime they can charge someone with. Bake him away, toys!

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

    It's CBP, probably at the airport, so I don't think you'd find a court saying they exceeded their authority in seizing the phone for search. They have very broad authority.

    It's not ethical at all, of course, but it's been perfectly legal for decades, under multiple administrations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    They have broad latitude to initiate searches, but if there isn't a specific crime they're going after you for, you're not destroying evidence. If they're just fishing to see what you have in there, then there isn't evidence being destroyed because they have no way to know whether you erased stuff because you were doing crimes or just didn't want them to see your nudes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago

    The real question is when the wipe happened. If it happened after he was informed they were taking the phone as evidence, then that's bad for him.

    But otherwise they'd have to convince a jury that he could see the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    The exact circumstances around the search—such as why CBP wanted to search the phone in the first place—are not known

    until this isn't an unknown it's impossible to voice opinion on the legality of this action. If they had evidence that there was something incriminating or against the law on the device and can prove the user intentionally destroyed the info to impede the investigation(honestly this last part is fairly easy as long as the first part can happen) then yea what he did would defo break the law, but until those aspects can be determined this seems like a massive abuse of that persons 1st(due to activism), 4th (due to the seizure of private property without a lawful search), and 5th(again private property) amendment rights.

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

    I'm having a tough time thinking of an example where this makes sense. I guess if there was one incriminating document they had evidence was on your phone and then you wiped it you'd be interfering with the investigation under the assumption there could be more? If they knew a out the one then they would have a copy of it and some proof you have it on your phone. You wiping it doesn't help you much for that particular crime. If it's a crime to delete the stuff they didn't know you had, that sounds ripe for abuse. They could find something banal like a miscompleted tax form and use it to do a deep dive into someone's entire document library, browser hx, etc. Perhaps I'm on the wrong side of the law on this one, but it seems like the law should favor a right to avoid self-incrimination and a right to protection from unjust violations of privacy. Anyway, while it looks suspicious, couldn't it just be an accidental data wipe? Cops making accusations against someone could make them nervous, maybe make typing finger shaky and inaccurate. Maybe they could mis-enter their password 10 times in a row and trigger a wipe?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    yea you have it yes, if they have confirmation that you had said evidence, and they were seizing the device to collect more evidence regarding it then it would be obstruction of justice and destroying evidence, but they need to be able to prove that claim. Unless they can prove that claim then it's an unlawful search (excluding port authority specific laws regarding searches because checkpoints generally have reduced restrictions on lawful searches)

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

    Another case is if they get a warrant for whatever's on your phone, you knew, and then erased your phone.

    Warrants make more sense, because a warrant can be issued just due to probable cause. They need that cause, but that cause doesn't have to be directly related to your phone. Once you know they have a warrant to search it, you would qualify as "knowingly" altering or destroying evidence.

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

    Erasing one's phone if you had a warrant for search is exactly what I would advise someone to do. Take your chances the evidence destroying charge over handing over what they might use against you unknowingly. For all I know my stash of articles on the efficacy of vaccines could be deemed contraband in this day and age or perhaps my trans cake fart video library now violates a state law with each video bearing a one year prison sentence. There's a term for anyone that trusts the US legal system is going to treat them justly and that's "damn fool"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I agree with the sentiment but not with the advice "commit a felony to avoid maybe getting a felony". There isn't a chance you'll get charged with destroying evidence if they're already looking at you under a microscope like your hypothetical.

    Anyone that concerned needs to just not store sensitive data on their phone, and use a messaging app that doesn't permanently store messages, either. That way you didn't erase your phone, AND they find nothing. Attempting to secure your data from the cops while you're already under the lens with a warrant is far too late.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    At this point I think everyone should be concerned. Use encrypted communication as much as possible. I find it really helpful to have my communications saved, so I'm not going to live with the degree of sacrifice needed to be a ghost. I have prey setup for remote wipes and have practiced rapid factory reset wipes locally.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Isn't there a right to not self-incriminate?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    There is, but there is a difference between not admitting you've broken a law and impeding an investigation into whether you broke the law or destroying evidence.

    The particulars are going to be very important in this case. It's also possible they have no case and they'll just use the legal system to torture him, ruin his life, and waste his money then drop the charges before it ever sees a judge.

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

    Ya'll have phones?

    Maybe I should not, if it can be taken with no articulable reason given.

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

    In Georgia, where this is happening, they also consider not having a phone to be probable cause for arrest.

    https://georgiarecorder.com/2024/02/12/georgia-ag-claims-not-having-a-phone-makes-you-a-criminal/

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

    better of getting a burner phone .

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    CAUT, Canadian Association of University Teachers has a travel warning about going to the US, including:

    Do not wipe your phones. Do not carry a burner phone. Anyone who declares they are a Professor will be searched.

    The overal advice, which I took, is avoid travel to the US. My NEXUS/GOES cards went to a shredder.

  • source
  • parent
  • 6 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.world view that post
    5 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    2 comments in c/privacy@sopuli.xyz view that post
    1 comment in c/thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world view that post