• pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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.

    • cdf12345@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 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)

  • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Write the duress PIN on a piece of paper in your wallet. Someone searching your phone is probably also searching your wallet and may try the PIN.

    • Folstar@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Genius. Flips the script. In the process of conducting an illegal search, you deleted my phone causing considerable financial and emotional damage. Lawsuit time.

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        It probably won’t work, at least (US)domestically. The requirement for obtaining a warrant before searching a phone is part of training because there is a clear Supreme Court ruling to that effect.

        That being said, what the law says and what some random asshole does during a stop are not always the same thing.

          • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            That being said, what the law says and what some random asshole does during a stop are not always the same thing.

  • soratoyuki@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Oh, because they are outside US borders they claim not to need a warrant, but that doesn’t stop them using US law to prosecute him though.

    • Malyca@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

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

  • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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?

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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

      • stopdropandprole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

          • frongt@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

    • kaotic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

          • Murse@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            isn’t shouldn’t be*

            Their mood is a major determining factor in their target’s ability to stay out of prison.

            Due process is dead.

  • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    From reading up on the laws and if what this article says is true, even if they unlocked his phone and found evidence of crimes on it, his case would be kicked to the curb as it was all an illegal search and correct procedures weren’t followed.

    • CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Border guards do not need a search warrant to search you and your property at a crossing or point of entry. The search was perfectly legal.

  • Malyca@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    What law did he break? Vs the warrantless search that is breaking the law. If only the supreme court didn’t give them a pass.

  • notabot@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    To be fair, a duress pin is definitely a good thing to have if you’re being mugged, but using it to deliberately destroy data when it’s been seized by a lawful authority is guaranteed to land you in serious trouble pretty much anywhere. Whether the border agents were, in fact, a lawful authority, and whether they had a lawful reason to seize his phone are very different questions.

    The much more sensible approach is to either have a separate phobe for travelling, that has nothing you care about on it, or wipe your phone before you travel, and spend a little time building up an innocuous history on it, without putting anything you care about on it. Anything you absolutely must have access to while you’re away can be stored, encrypted, online, and you can remember the details to retrieve it.

      • Ragerist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Even memes or slightly (to them) offensive comments or messages can land you in detention.

        You would have to have zero messages, social profiles or anything like it on that phone.

        And no references or logins to that private server.