Privacy

6197 readers

179 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

Be civil and no prejudice
Don't promote big-tech software
No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
No reposting of news that was already posted
No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

otter@lemmy.ca

shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com

416

GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search (www.pcmag.com)

submitted 2 months ago by ExtremeDullard@piefed.social to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The foundation behind the ultra-secure Android-based OS is speaking out after an activist was indicted for using a 'duress password' to prevent federal agents from searching his phone.

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Tunick’s lawyers claim the agents “never read him his Miranda rights,”

irrelevant unless his statements are going to be used against him

I don't really see why this is an enormous civil liberties story. Destruction of evidence can, I think, legitimately be a crime even in a free and democratic society. It's not like they're trying to make the feature itself illegal... the main civil liberties complaint to have here is that searches of phones on borders are a thing at all.

Compared to https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history/ (from 2015 - 11 years ago, under the Obama administration!) where the person apparently didn't even know the government might be considering the deleted stuff "evidence", I find this story harmless.

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Except that, IIRC, it was not he, but an agent, who entered the duress PIN. He would have had to make a statement giving that PIN, and that statement would not be admissible if he weren't read his rights. If the only evidence of destruction of evidence was a statement he supposedly made, then how will they prove that he made it if it is inadmissable? This is, of course, pretending we live in the world of Faerie, where laws, the constitution, and silly things like "legal precedent" still have meaning.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Would it be better to have a pin that loads a different profile instead of just obviously wiping the phone?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] NRay7882@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I had read one source that stated they wanted to search his phone for possession of CP but I haven't found other stories with details suggesting that. It seems they went about it all wrong but I'd like to know the reasoning for why they wanted to search his phone in the first place.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

they wanted to search his phone for possession of CP

That's just the bullshit reasoning that ICE gave after the fact. They had no reason to suspect the guy beforehand

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments