this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
549 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

87469 readers
3359 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/49853131

Feels to me like GrapheneOS did exactly what it should, passing the US border test with flying colours!

Funny part about this lawsuit: “With a little planning ahead of time, you can always download the data you need once you get to where you’re going,”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] terezi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 165 points 1 month ago (2 children)

this was a streisand effect for me because i didn't have duress password set up on my grapheneos phone (security & privacy => device unlock) before but i do now! :D

[–] madeindex@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago (1 children)

best promotion ever haha What is it? FU-123?

[–] volore@scribe.disroot.org 47 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

I imagine the best duress PIN is something you'd actually see a "normal" person set as a PIN, like their birth year or something innocuous and easy to remember (and easily believed by whoever's demanding your PIN), while their real PIN would be longer or more abstract.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Honestly I would use a stupid basic one that someone might try and use if they were guessing. Like a duress pin of 1-1-1-1, 1-2-3-4 or 2-4-6-8. It gets the people who take the device and then try and break into it without your permission as it's almost certain they will at least try one of those three.

Worst case scenario they ask you and you say what it is and they give you a blank stare of "really?..." it's not like they wouldn't try a pin you gave them.

[–] obvs@lemmy.world 24 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

I don't recommend a duress password of 1-1-1-1, because that could be set off accidentally.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Archimedes@sh.itjust.works 20 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The sort of code an idiot puts on his luggage.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] obvs@lemmy.world 26 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (3 children)

On GrapheneOS, you can also set a "second factor PIN" in the unlock settings under "Fingerprint Unlock", so that to unlock your screen you need to first use the fingerprint unlock and then separately enter your PIN. This means BOTH are required every time you unlock. Your phone can't be unlocked unless it's your finger AND unless you enter the PIN that only you know.

And under the Screen Lock settings you can also enable "Scramble PIN input layout", so that the number buttons on your unlock screen will be out of order, so people watching you or recording you can't just make note of the shape your index finger is making when touching the numbers to unlock your phone(like people looking over your shoulder or recording on store security cameras).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 138 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

Perfectly legal. Unless they were legally charged and ordered by a court to preserve data considered to be used in a crime, they can't be charged with shit. Cops don't dictate this, courts do, AND that scope only applies to an active prosecution anyway.

[–] Sinax@lemmy.world 83 points 1 month ago

Legality seems to be a fairytale concept in the USA, except for oligarchs. They get full legal coverage.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 1 month ago (3 children)

There’s a bunch of legislation and case law saying that searches are OK within x (50?) miles of a border crossing which covers something like 90% of the population because they count international airports.

So it might get sticky for the person.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Search is not the same thing. Search means they CAN legally search. It absolutely does mean that wiping your phone prevented, obstructed, or obscured a SEARCH. Search all you fucking want, that data is gone. It's not retroactively comparable.

That being said, had there been a judge that said "You can't wipe your phone, because you are being charged with a crime, and we believe there is evidence of this crime on your phone, and here is why..."

Way different, and these laws only exist to prevent law enforcement from being caught in a cyclical legal roundabout in court related to the 4th amendment, and even then, many defense lawyers get "gray area" material data evidence thrown out because of Miranda Rights, or illegal searches by law enforcement of data harvested when the defendent was not properly advised or advocated for their ability to refuse.

Murderers get off for this shit because Cops get overzealous and don't follow the letter of the law or chain of custody in evidentiary collection.

[–] Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

From the article

"The government’s indictment, which contains a typo (“Untied States Code”), accuses Tunick of allegedly providing a passcode to border agents that caused the phone to “delete the digital contents,” prior to the device being seized."

"When Tunick provided his passcode and the authorities entered it, “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart.” The authorities seized his phone anyway, before telling him that he was free to go and could enter the United States."

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Yes, and only JUDGES are able to make that determination.

There is no stature in Federal or State law that says this is a crime, and no superceded precedent for this.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Perfectly legal. Unless they were legally charged and ordered by a court to preserve data considered to be used in a crime, they can’t be charged with shit. Cops don’t dictate this, courts do, AND that scope only applies to an active prosecution anyway.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not arguing that you're wrong here, but the article describes the federal law the journalist was charged with. It seems very broad, and it's a bullshit law, but from what's here, it seems more grey area than perfectly legal. All of 2232 seems to require knowledge (which it seems like he had, but might be arguable) and action. You could argue that the journalist didn't take any affirmative action to wipe the phone. The action that wiped it was the feds entering a code.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 117 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is why I'm never going to the US until all this shit is fixed. Which will probably be never

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 55 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Tourists going to the US and US residents leaving should take a burner phone.

[–] thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world 13 points 4 weeks ago

Citizens too, at this point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Strider@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (14 children)

I lost interest of ever visiting again when they started collecting fingerprints from everyone visiting.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] db2@lemmy.world 85 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Good. Annoying to rebuild his phone, but better than handing it to fascists who don't even have a lawful court order for it.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In all likelihood they kept his phone and will retain possession until charges are dismissed. Get a burner phone and wipe it before going through security. I assume if they see your phone is "fresh" they'll take it on suspicion anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tabular@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Would you want the phone back after it's been in their hands? I wouldn't trust them to leave it alone.

[–] metallic_z3r0@infosec.pub 13 points 1 month ago

I mean yeah, might be a fun reverse-engineering project to look for any backdoors or other modifications to the device.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 74 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Good.

That's legal, fuck you. It's my data, and I want it (gone) now!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 74 points 1 month ago
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 64 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (4 children)

claimed they did not need a warrant to search Tunick’s phone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border.

Also no right to search / seize his phone then. US law doesn't apply on non-US soil.

[–] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 34 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

If it's not US soil, it's not a detention, it's a rendition, a kidnapping.

Also, I don't know how citizenship works I this respect in the US, but in my country a citizen cannot be denied entry. It can be detained upon entering, but by then you are in sovereign soil.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago

Hmm. Maybe DHS can fuck all the way off?

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 34 points 4 weeks ago

Sounds like the border guard wiped his phone, not him.

[–] badbytes@lemmy.world 32 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

Would be cool to have your device partitioned by separate passwords, so you could unlock a dummy system.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 14 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

This is an excellent idea honestly.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mazzilius_marsti@lemmy.world 13 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

yes you can. On Graphene you can set the main profile as just there with nothing except to control wifi/add esim/etc. Then you can create many profiles with their own passwords. You can store your work stuff in 1 profile, private stuff in another. You can even create a dummy profile with fake Google. .

The downside currently is that the OS autoboot to main profile. Then you switch to your other profiles.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 26 points 4 weeks ago

Yeah I wonder what the penalty is for doing something legal with something you own.

[–] itisileclerk@lemmy.world 26 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

What? US police can ask you for the phone password? No way! That is 100% police state. Stalin was amateur comparing to present day USA.

[–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 15 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes US citizens cannot be compelled to provide a password, but biometrics such as fingerprint or Face ID can. Disable these when crossing into the US.

Non citizens can be detained and rejected for not providing access to a device via password. Best to bring a second device if you must enter. Depressing times.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (4 children)

I don't believe you can be compelled to provide a password. That does after all (at the very least) constitute speech. And freedom of speech is also freedom of non-speech, they can't make you say something.

They will however try to make you do that... In many situations authorities are allowed to lie to you. So that's sucks. They can tell you that you're required to unlock your phone, you just have to know that your not actually.

Also they can't make you say anything, but they can make you do things, like for instance "put your finger here" or "look into this camera", which is why biometric unlock is unsafe around cops.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mazzilius_marsti@lemmy.world 23 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

GrapheneOS - the only OS that i just installed and forget about it. Sure i spend time to tweak things like profiles but thats it.

And I am a distro and rom hopper.

The security model is that good: duress pin, scrambled pin, separate profiles with their own passwords, usb c restriction (you can set it charge only, charge while phone is off (most secure state).

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

and yet people even here don't understand why it would be useful even without the hardware security thinhs of the pixel

[–] BigTwerp@feddit.uk 14 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

You can only install Graphene on a Google phone and there's two big issues with that:

  1. you are rewarding Google by buying their hardware.
  2. it doesn't matter how secure the os claims to be if the hardware is compromised and there is nothing you can do to convince me that a pixel doesn't have a backdoor into your data at a hardware level. If I was a conspiracy minded type I might say that Graphene is a Trojan Horse.
[–] slumdogego@slrpnk.net 20 points 4 weeks ago (13 children)

why are they so concerned about what you OWN

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 16 points 1 month ago

I may be about to move to a town near the border, and I fully plan on visiting Mexico as frequently as I can. It's one of the things I'm most excited about about moving there.

I will 100% be getting a second cheap phone, and only taking that when I cross the border.

[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 13 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (3 children)

He would have had a lot better legal leg to stand on I think if he had just refused to give them any passcode. Now instead of a potential case of being forced to compel speech, he is facing what will be argued is an attempt to destroy evidence. His defense is probably a lot stronger with the former than the latter.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 13 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

To charge someone with destroying evidence wouldn't they first have to somehow prove the evidence existed?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Archr@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

This whole situation is making me strongly consider bringing a burner phone on my next vacation. That way I can wipe it before going through customs.

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 10 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I did something similar when I last visited the US ~15 years ago. I uploaded an encrypted backup of my phone to a server in my home country and reset the device. I then downloaded and restored the backup when I arrived at the hotel.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 11 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (4 children)

That’s it. I’m getting a burner phone if I leave the country.

Edit: Serious question… what if you just wiped your phone and then restored it when you got wherever you were going?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] spitfire@lemmy.world 10 points 4 weeks ago

„I think this case serves as a reminder that authorities may argue you knowingly destroyed data, so it’s better to not have that data on you when you cross certain borders.” Wow that’s an advice fitting entering Russia, Iran, etc. Nice club you’ve joined here

load more comments
view more: next ›