• MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Citizen enforces his own right to the Fourth Amendment and is prosecuted by the government for not letting them try to find incriminating evidence on him. For something. Maybe. Because he looks suspicious.

    I hope that lawyer gets it thrown out. I’m not holding my breath. We’ve gone so far into fascism I’m not sure it’ll take anything less than violence to end it.

  • apftwb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    FYI if you are using GrapheneOS and the duress password, you can natively backup your phone. Its in settings.

    • FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I don’t have those chops either. Also NAL. The wiki page says Tampering charges require there to be an ongoing investigation, which wasn’t the case here, so I’m thinking it wouldn’t apply. But! I wonder about spoliation. Spoliation before a case is brought, while not illegal per se, can result in negative inference,

      spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a trier of fact can draw from a party’s destruction of evidence that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding

      Negative inference, to my NAL understanding, means the tampered evidence may be taken in the worst light for the defense. Here, it’s all resting on flimsy and politically motivated pretext with no evidence. Still.

      Needs an immigration lawyer to give an answer to this, but I’m thinking it may be legally safer to have strong encryption and refuse to unlock, rather than to wipe. Not unlocking isn’t tampering, so no spoliation, but wiping might be. Well, safest of all is to use a burner. But next best, strong encryption + don’t unlock. CBP can confescate the device, but they cannot compel you to produce a pw or unlock code.

      • pemptago@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        12 hours ago

        From what I’ve gathered, I think you’re right to assume it’s legally safer to refuse to unlock rather than wipe. Also, worth noting that you can be compelled to unlock with biometrics, but not a password. On grapheneOS this means simply shutting off/restarting your device as it requires a pw after a fresh boot, even if biometrics is enable.

        • FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          you can be compelled to unlock with biometrics, but not a password

          Yah, I’ve been trying to get my friends to use a pw rather than biometric unlock, for that exact reason.

          I’m batting like 0 for 5, lol. Biometrics are just too convenient I guess. Plus they don’t think it will impact them personally. Which is prob true. I still think it’s best to use the way that preserves more civil rights. I just can’t convince them.

  • pierre_delecto [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Sounds like the cops entered the passcode… Therefore the cops erased the evidence.

    who knows what would’ve happened if they bothered to get a warrant first.

    • humble_boatsman@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      12 hours ago

      From what I read, upon demand he gave the code to the Investigator, whomst had to watch the phone start to load and then erase it self. What a joy it must have been to watch them gifauh at that

    • N0t_5ure@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      12 hours ago

      The authorities conducting the illegal search entered the code, so the phone owner could assert that he gave them the right password and they were the ones that screwed it up. It’s a bit late for that argument, but someone could use that in the future and there’d be no way to prove it wrong.