Privacy

4965 readers

174 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

danielintempesta@programming.dev

311

‘The Government Hopes To Set a Precedent’: An Interview With the Man Charged for Allegedly Wiping His GrapheneOS Phone (www.404media.co)

submitted 5 days ago by cm0002@mander.xyz to c/privacy@programming.dev

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] msokiovt@lemmy.today 19 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

The charge is destruction of evidence because he used a duress password (he was legitimately under duress) to wipe the encryption keys off his phone, making it impossible for officers to do anything with.

This was a violation of his 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment rights (4A is unreasonable search and siezure, while 5A is prevention of forced self-incrimination). Oh wait, the PATRIOT Act and Red Flag laws made 4A and 5A (respectively) defunct.

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 days ago (1 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!

[–] msokiovt@lemmy.today 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Aren't those the zones within 200 miles of the US border? Florida seems to have it the worst, as that state is surveilled big time.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

And points of entry, airports

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 4 points 4 days ago

So, pretty much everyplace

[–] ITGuyLevi@programming.dev 2 points 4 days 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.