this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2026
618 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

87417 readers
3821 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

The headline is wrong.

Fascist regime fucks over people's constitutional rights and could send a man to prison for protecting his own privacy.

There, fixed.

[–] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 194 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)
[–] jestho@lemmy.zip 75 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 180 points 3 weeks ago (37 children)

This is fucking stupid. If I delete something on my phone while I'm on vacation am I going to prison because the border patrol might have wanted to look at it?

[–] unconsciousvoidling@sh.itjust.works 127 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Should have been born a child fucking billionaire if you don’t want to be sentenced to prison for 30 years.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 33 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I always forget that "choose better parents" one weird trick. ;-)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 35 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

What color are you and how far left are your politics?

[–] kaotic@lemmy.world 28 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

It’s bullshit but with the current laws. Back up your phone before you head home wipe it before going through border control, and restore your backup when you get home.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)
[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 111 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children)

The indictment alleges that Tunick knowingly deleted the phone’s digital contents

My hot take: the officer wiped the phone. With their own hands. They're just stupid.

[–] piskertariot@lemmy.world 64 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Hotter take: The phone was empty when he handed it over. There was nothing to delete.

[–] djdarren@piefed.social 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It doesn't look like anything to me.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cheebus@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

If they succeed I guess in the future an officer could delete your phone to save face then blame it on you.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sanitation@lemmy.today 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, they are masters of parallel construction. ( Aka lying)

[–] iknewitwhenisawit@fedinsfw.app 18 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Parallel construction is a way to present evidence illegally obtained by coming up with a plausible-seeming other way it was found.

So, rather than saying "we illegally stopped and searched the defendant" they'll get an "informant" (sometimes paid, sometimes coerced) to swear that they tipped them off beforehand.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] soratoyuki@piefed.zip 107 points 3 weeks ago (22 children)

Without a warrant, it's literally his phone to do with it what he pleases. Baffled that that's not the end of the conversation.

Assuming we lived in a rational world with a fair and impartial justice system, and not one that exists to funnel money from the working class into the Epstein class and kill or imprison everyone that makes that less easy.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 33 points 3 weeks ago

Oh, because they are outside US borders they claim not to need a warrant, but that doesn't stop them using US law to prosecute him though.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 85 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Write the duress PIN on a piece of paper in your wallet. Someone searching your phone is probably also searching your wallet and may try the PIN.

[–] Folstar@lemmus.org 68 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

Genius. Flips the script. In the process of conducting an illegal search, you deleted my phone causing considerable financial and emotional damage. Lawsuit time.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 73 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

The charge treats the alleged wipe as destruction of property intended to prevent a government seizure.

He is being charged with destroying "evidence" but he was never charged with anything in the first place. That is like saying deleting any files at home is a crime. I'd think forcing you to present evidence necessary to charge you with something would fall under the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] k0e3@lemmy.ca 64 points 3 weeks ago

What a shithole

[–] kaotic@lemmy.world 62 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (10 children)

GrapheneOS should update the duress passcode to load a dummy profile like Only Key’s Plausible Deniability Feature.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Murse@slrpnk.net 51 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Idr if this was a feature that made it into a real OS or just a concept that never came to be, but...

I recall reading about a duress pin that instead of deleting stuff, just booted up normally... but to basically a separate user profile. From the non-duress profile you could choose features that would be shared between the two, like texts or call history of specific people, browser history, photo albums, etc.

So "sure officer, it's 5224" would open up a phone profile that looks convincingly used, with nice long trails of cat memes and chatter with your gaming buddies about your favorite franchise enshittifying, and so on.

Punch in your real pin to unlock it though, and it's got full access to everything, including data you want to keep private.

...and, uh, if any of you are designing a mobile OS right now, here's your feature suggestion!

[–] jdaxe@infosec.pub 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So basically veracrypt hidden volumes

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Chivera@lemmy.world 42 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Guys don't travel to fascist countries.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] arc99@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

If the duress pin makes obvious it's the duress pin then it's not really doing its job. It should instead open a profile with not much in it while erasing the other profile and files in the background.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 29 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

What law did he break? Vs the warrantless search that is breaking the law. If only the supreme court didn't give them a pass.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] T156@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago

I'm half-expecting for it to turn out that he was being wholly compliant, and he's being accused of destruction of evidence because they were looking for something that never existed to begin with.

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

Prosecuted for what, exactly? If push comes to shove, it's a fifth amendment issue.

[–] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I would wager that this is going to become a test case that is intended to appeal it's way to the SCotUS. The SCotUS has already ruled that many constitutional protections are waived at the border, so it wouldn't be surprising if that is the intended outcome.

Land of the Free™

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] notabot@piefed.social 18 points 3 weeks ago (32 children)

To be fair, a duress pin is definitely a good thing to have if you're being mugged, but using it to deliberately destroy data when it's been seized by a lawful authority is guaranteed to land you in serious trouble pretty much anywhere. Whether the border agents were, in fact, a lawful authority, and whether they had a lawful reason to seize his phone are very different questions.

The much more sensible approach is to either have a separate phobe for travelling, that has nothing you care about on it, or wipe your phone before you travel, and spend a little time building up an innocuous history on it, without putting anything you care about on it. Anything you absolutely must have access to while you're away can be stored, encrypted, online, and you can remember the details to retrieve it.

[–] gdbjr@piefed.social 76 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not sure any law force agency in the US is lawful anymore.

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 35 points 3 weeks ago (13 children)

Third option: Refuse to give your phone credentials unless these fascist pigs have a warrant or provide you with a lawyer.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 22 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Then they will just deny you entry into the country

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 42 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The guy from the article was referred to as "a US man," so I'm assuming he has US citizenship.

The border cannot legally deny US citizens from entering the US. But they can do all sorts of other things, like detain or delay or prosecute people for not complying.

[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 26 points 3 weeks ago

Unless they're going to see real repercussions for doing so, get definitely can do whatever they want. Rules and laws only matter if people care enough to follow them and enforce them. All they have to do is pretend the person didn't comply, and now they've got all the authority in the world to anything they want, regardless of what it says in the law books. Just look at what ICE is doing to US citizens; border patrol knows they can do all of that, too.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

He's a US Citizen. Legally they cannot deny him entry into the country.

Central to these protections is the absolute right of a U.S. citizen to return to their country. This right is unequivocal. No matter where an individual has traveled, the duration of their absence, or their personal or legal background, a U.S. citizen cannot be denied entry into the United States. This principle is supported by both statutory and constitutional law. A landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), established that citizenship includes the right to reenter the nation. Unlike lawful permanent residents or visa holders, U.S. citizens are exempt from admissibility criteria. Consequently, even if a U.S. citizen lacks proper documentation or is subject to further questioning, the government is obligated to permit their entry once their citizenship is verified.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

The fifth amendment applies to this because he was a US citizen. He had every right to not give them his pin and it would only be destroying evidence if charges had been pressed. In this case some butt hurt border guard just really wanted to look at his vacation pictures or some shit.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›