this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2026
530 points (99.8% liked)

Privacy

51538 readers
644 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When a Department of Homeland Security official sent out an alert to stop Samuel Tunick, a Stop Cop City activist, at an airport in January 2025, they said the reason was because he was suspected of “terrorist activities,” according to new filed court records which include a screenshot of the alert and photos of Tunick’s interrogation.

Tunick ultimately provided Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials with a code that, when entered, wiped his security- and privacy-focused GrapheneOS phone. Tunick is now being criminally charged for that alleged act, in one of the most high profile technology civil rights cases in recent memory.

The court records also showed that CBP officials lied to Tunick during his interrogation. Instead of saying he was being targeted for suspected terrorism — although this search happened just at the start of the second Trump administration, it has dramatically broadened what organizations or people may be considered such — they said they needed his phone to look for “kiddie porn.”

“Good afternoon,” an email sent from a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) official, part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to CBP and other officials reads. “The following subject is scheduled to arrive in ATL [Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport] today via DL 1778 @ 1930 Hours. TUNICK is under investigation by HSI/JTTF for suspected terrorist activities.” The email includes a photo of Tunick, and asks the officials to direct him to secondary inspection, retain all of his electronics, and collect their passcodes.

As 404 Media first revealed in December, Tunick was charged because he allegedly “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.” Matthew Dodge, one of Tunick’s lawyers, previously told 404 Media he only found one other case using the same obscure law, a drug trafficking case. “This is extraordinarily rare,” Dodge said.

Tunick was part of the Stop Cop City movement in Atlanta, which broadly protested the building of a large police training center, and which authorities investigated for arson, vandalism, and doxing. Tunick is not suspected of any crime beyond the alleged wiping of the phone, and has previously put his current prosecution in the context of the wide spanning cases against other Stop Cop City protesters.

The newly filed court record, in which Tunick’s lawyers argue that evidence should be thrown out, include new photos and descriptions of the airport encounter. The CBP officials asked Tunick if they were going to find “kiddie porn” on his phone, which Tunick immediately denied. “As the evidentiary hearing made clear, these unfounded accusations were nothing more than pretext for a fishing expedition into the depths of Mr. Tunick’s devices,” the lawyers wrote. They added, “Officer Findley acknowledged that officers had no reason whatsoever to believe Mr. Tunick possessed child pornography,” referring to one of the officials.

Tunick faces a maximum of five years in federal prison for allegedly wiping the phone.

“I hope people understand that the charges against me are meant to intimidate people against protecting their data and their privacy, and the government hopes to set a precedent that no one has the right to privacy,” Tunick previously told 404 Media.

(page 2) 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SaltyAxe@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not surprising. Protecting Kids & Fighting Terrorism are always the reasons to violate our rights and it's rarely ever actually about that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AvocadoVapelung@hexbear.net 18 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Officer Findley

doesn't find shit

what did he mean by this?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Takeshidude@lemmy.world 65 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Passcodes should be covered by the fifth amendment: when asked to provide them, say "I am exercising my right to remain silent."

Biometrics, however, are not covered, and cops can point your phone at your face or grab your hand to unlock the device

[–] foofighter@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Iirc this happened at a border crossing outside of American jurisdiction where the officers argued that those laws do not apply (while insisting that the american laws he is being charged for breaking do)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sudoer777@lemmy.ml 10 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

It should add a biometric duress option so that when cops do this it shoots themselves in the foot

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

They should! Also then they can't blame the phone owner for giving them a duress password to wipe the phone, because they didn't.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blackshirt@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

yes, and use the middle finger as the duress biometric code

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

that's an interesting idea, but what would you mean exactly? Like biological signs of duress being detected or a secret duress biometric pass that's distinct from the one you'd normally use such as one finger and not the other? Because the first option would be bad news if you felt stressed one day and tried to use your phone and the 2nd option would I guess be just as bad as the passcode wouldn't it? They'd say you used a duress biometric instead of the normal one you'd otherwise have used and it wiped the phone, interfering with their investigation and destroying evidence and then prosecute you for it.

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The idea is that you didn't voluntarily input the duress biometric, they just grabbed your hand and used it to attempt to unlock the phone. That way, you didn't take any action at all.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

So for access to your phone under normal circumstances would you use something other than biometrics then? Like a passcode or something?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] David_Eight@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Passcodes are not "private info" everywhere, AFAIK in the UK if you refuse to give up your passcode you could get up to 5yrs of jail time.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 21 points 22 hours ago

While that's good information to know, this is a case in the US, so it's kind of irrelevant.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (2 children)

Hands duress code

oops, you should've been more specific

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I mean clearly destroying evidence is also illegal.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Carmakazi@piefed.social 43 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This specific case is kind of a clusterfuck of questions regarding jurisprudence. He might slip away on a technicality because law enforcement has gotten sloppy under feelings of invulnerability these days.

In general though, I doubt they are going to protect the right to destroy data on a device that is or is about to be legally seized. Any reasonable person would expect that the device includes the data on board, and therefore taking action that results in the destruction of that data would be destroying evidence.

Use burners when traveling.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 11 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

He didn't destroy anything. The customs officer did by entering the "destroy data" key. He wasn't under any obligation to give them the correct one, because no court had told him to provide his data.

[–] senseamidmadness@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 17 hours ago

That is an educated guess. How a court or jury will rule is what really matters here.

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 26 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If he’d just committed a heinous crime I could understand them being allowed to legally seize and search his devices after getting a warrant, but he wasn’t being criminally charged with anything, right? Do they have the right to scroll anyone’s private photos who passes through customs?

[–] Carmakazi@piefed.social 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's one of several questions this case will likely set precedent for. I'm guessing the answer will end up being yes.

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Society will be forced to move to polaroid nudes only :(

[–] NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml 1 points 16 hours ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago

Most probably only the USian "society", tho. I know they're too insular brained but still. The difference is important. Most of us don't live under a Patriot Act, for instance. Crazy, right?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago

Seize devices yes, but after they have it, it's not going anywhere. There's no sign of imminent danger either. So they can apply for a warrant just like for any other search.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What’s the difference between destroying data and encrypting it with a random key? And is it okay to destroy/randomly-encrypt data through a scheduled dead-man’s switch instead of by giving out a duress code?

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 6 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

If the cops express interest in your data and then you take active steps to conceal or erase said data, they might charge you with Obstruction.

If there is an automated system, the charge is less likely to be brought, and unlikely to stick, because you were not responding to something that just happened.

(And I'm not saying the guy in this situation actually did what they said he did. Cops lie constantly. Video or it didn't happen.)

[–] LedgeDrop@lemmy.zip 5 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (2 children)

I thought about this too, but I think you'd still be charged (IANAL).

If you look at what he was charged with:

Tunick was charged because he allegedly “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.”

So, even if you nuked your phone before going through security or even at home before your flight, I imagine you could still be prosecuted for "knowingly... delete the digital contents... for the purpose of preventing... lawful authorities to take said property into its custody".

It's all based on your intent behind the action and this is what the prosecution and defense would argue.

edit: typo

[–] diablicja@lemmy.zip 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

So technically, if I as much as delete cookies because I don't want anyone, including the government, to track me, I'm breaking the law in the US and could be charged and imprisoned for up to 5 years? Land of the free 🤣

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] senseamidmadness@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 17 hours ago

The real test will be how a jury, and subsequent judges, rule on this case. I think that matters a ton for future precedent and there is a chance this case moves waaaaay up the court system before a firm answer gets laid down.

[–] RichardNixos@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago
[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is what they'll always do to make privacy impossible.

[–] gandalfthewhite@lemmy.ml 5 points 17 hours ago

Theyre jus trying to scare people, and even in this spooky scary context dummy phones defeat it

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›