513
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
513 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
87575 readers
3622 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here is my problem with this interpretation...
Is data property? Sure, ideas, concepts, photos, etc can be trademarked/copy-write protected and have some degree of ownership, but I'm talking at a much lower level here... Is the particular configuration of memory on your phone a piece of property? If no, then no property was destroyed by wiping the phone. All of the storage and memory is still intact and functional. If yes, then we must look further...is the position (not the switch itself) of a binary switch (like a light switch) a physical thing that you can own? Would you consider it destroyed if it was switched away from it's original position?
I don't think you could charge him with destroying property... Destruction of evidence maybe, but the property is undamaged and functioning normally.
Other arguments. The cop actually destroyed the data. Or, defendant claims he did not know the cops would use the pin to wipe the phone, and that they just wanted to know what the PIN was.
I wouldn't say there is enough evidence here to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy destroyed any property in response to a search. He didn't destroy anything, what was destroyed is arguably not property, and he may not be aware that his duress pin was going to be used on the device in the first place.
None of that would hold up in court.
Bucees just successfully argued in court that a beaver and an alligator are visually indistinguishable to the common man...
So far, every time I've been outraged about Buckees, they've sued a small business that's trying to file their own trademark. And while I don't like it one bit, trademark law is more or less designed for that exact purpose. Logos don't have to be close, they could just vaguely remind you of another established trademark. The barrier to winning is extremely low, and the fault lies with the shitty, overly vague trademark law that attempts to make trademark owners fight any possible contender.
I don't know if these guys were or were not trying to file a trademark, but I do know the three I looked at so far were begridgingly acceptable by trademark standards.
The video I provided covers this. There are plenty of statutes and precedents. There's a tiny little bit of unsettled case law to be decided here that will, at best, lower his sentence a bit.
I strongly suspect an imminent plea bargain, unless they want to use him as an example.