Rather suspicious. Do you have something to hide ?
US prosecutors charge Atlanta man after GrapheneOS phone wipes itself during airport search
- Thread starter Skye Jacobs
- Start date
Ah yes, the us turning more and more into a fascist/totalitarian country. When you have nazi simps like @Endymio who support fascists like trump then it's only natural.
To the rest of the world, it's difficult to tell whether America is a fascist state or some bizarre comedy. You arrest people for arranging seashells or for having a funny looking tattoo on their hands or just accuse bicycle Olympians of being knife wielding terrorists. I suppose they were lucky they weren't just shot by mask wearing thugs following the presidents orders. America really needs to wake up.
acrossthestars
Posts: 363 +328
Honestly, if the United States government actually cared about giving people back any "semblance of a right to privacy", they'd have repealed the Patriot Act 15 years ago, rather than renewing it for the 5th time. The Constitution is something politicians like invoke to virtue-signal about the American identity and "pride in our nation", but we all know what they actually think―which is that the Constitution is a seemingly-insurmountable barrier against total control of the populace.
They can't just strip people of their rights, because even a 5-year-old could see that as the naked power grab that it is. But, what they can do is, create so many exceptions and loopholes in the letter of the law, that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are effectively nullified. The fact that people are increasingly look at the EU and its GDPR laws, to reign in the powers of United States government surveillance, tells you have far we are backsliding into despotism.
So he wasn't given a reason for his detention before the wipe? Then it's just null and void as he didn't know they were looking for CSAM. If the border agents know he had CSAM on his phone and have a good reason (warrant) for search and seizure then it shouldn't be an issue backing that up with actual evidence. Can't see anywhere in the court filings that they have any proof.
Lawyer question was not answered. "Different" legal rules for border searches does not say much. When someone is detained and asks for a lawyer and wasn't read his rights, that is the end.
Melkor Unlimited
Posts: 418 +383
The headline reads like the phone decided to wipe itself. This isn't about security. The suspected terrorist provided the code to wipe this phone. He essentially destroyed evidence. Open and shut case. No civil liberties violated.
I wonder at what point theyll demand a list of every online accessible account you've ever had with the password, including private cloud based access like a home server and data store. Until then maybe the only way to protect your God given privacy is never hold data on a mobile device and only use it to access private remote controllable / accessible systems like a home pc behind a private firewall and conduct your online business from those systems. If the data isnt on the seized device and not in the corporate cloud then what can they do? Your mobile device just becomes portal device to a system outside of their jurisdiction.
MasterAce
Posts: 333 +469
Our phones have become incredibly personal, its much deeper than searching ones pockets or looking in your bag.
Endymio
Posts: 5,605 +5,231
Try telling the next judge you're standing before that.
Once again: he wasn't "detained" in a sense that activated his Miranda rights; he was merely stopped for a routine border search. Furthermore -- not that facts seem to interest you in the least -- even if he had a right to attorney that was denied -- the denial would only excuse his statements made without an attorney present. NOT the crime he committed while at the border.
Why do you people overwhelmingly reject facts and reality? You seem to conflate the legal term of evidence as "something that proved I did it". Evidence is, just as often as not, corroborates or confirms innocence, not guilt. Under the law as written, evidence is defined as "anything requested by law enforcement".
I have read many of these comments, and I must say, one should do some research before posting, and if you don't want to, probably not post.
A lot of people here seem to be confusing the right to privacy with a supposed right to actively destroy potential evidence while federal agents are attempting a lawful search.
There is an important fact being ignored is that this occurred while the traveler was entering the United States through an international airport.
An international airport’s port of entry is legally treated as the border. Border inspections operate under different constitutional rules from an ordinary police stop inside the country. Federal agents generally do not need the same warrant, probable cause, or prior designation of someone as a criminal suspect to inspect travelers and property entering the United States.
So repeatedly saying, “He wasn’t a suspect,” or, “Why didn’t they just get a warrant?” does not settle anything. A person does not have to be suspected of a specific crime before being subjected to a routine border inspection.
Owning GrapheneOS, using encryption, or refusing to provide a passcode is not automatically criminal. A person can remain silent, refuse consent, and later challenge the legality of the search in court. Those are legitimate legal protections.
What is being alleged here is different. Prosecutors claim he knowingly entered a special duress password that wiped the phone after agents requested access. That is not passive refusal...it is an affirmative act allegedly intended to prevent the government from taking custody of possible evidence.
The “no property was destroyed because the phone still works” argument misses the point entirely. Destroying the contents of something does not require destroying its physical container. If someone shreds every document in a filing cabinet, the cabinet remains perfectly usable. That does not mean nothing was destroyed.
The same applies to digital evidence. Emails, photographs, financial records, messages, databases, surveillance footage, and documents can all be destroyed while the physical phone or computer remains intact.
This is also not about police somehow taking ownership of his intellectual property. Seizure does not mean the government becomes the new legal owner of everything it collects. Police routinely seize items temporarily for examination or use as evidence without acquiring ownership of them. A seized laptop, document, firearm, or phone does not suddenly become government property in the ordinary ownership sense.
Whether a movie file was licensed, pirated, personally created, or owned by someone else is beside the point. The issue is whether data was intentionally erased to prevent authorities from examining or taking lawful control of the device and its contents.
As for the claim that maybe the phone was already empty, that is a factual issue for the prosecution to prove. Investigators may rely on device logs, software behavior, timestamps, forensic evidence, witness testimony, or admissions. The fact that a defendant can suggest an innocent possibility does not automatically make the allegation impossible.
And no, merely deceiving law enforcement is not always a standalone crime. People are generally not required to volunteer information or help build a case against themselves. However, specific lies or deceptive acts can become crimes depending on the circumstances. Lying to federal investigators can be prosecuted under certain statutes, and using deception to destroy, conceal, or impair evidence can support obstruction or evidence tampering charges.
Again, the government does not automatically win. Prosecutors still have to prove that the agents possessed lawful authority, that data was actually destroyed, that he knowingly triggered the wipe, and that he intended to prevent the seizure. His attorneys are free to challenge the search itself and argue that border authority was being misused.
But “the phone still turns on, so nothing was destroyed” is no more convincing than saying, “The filing cabinet still opens, so shredding everything inside it caused no damage.”
The distinction remains simple....refusing to unlock the phone is noncooperation.
Giving agents a deceptive password designed to wipe its contents is an alleged affirmative act of obstruction.
Privacy rights let people challenge government power. They do not necessarily create a legal right to destroy possible evidence during the encounter.
A lot of people here seem to be confusing the right to privacy with a supposed right to actively destroy potential evidence while federal agents are attempting a lawful search.
There is an important fact being ignored is that this occurred while the traveler was entering the United States through an international airport.
An international airport’s port of entry is legally treated as the border. Border inspections operate under different constitutional rules from an ordinary police stop inside the country. Federal agents generally do not need the same warrant, probable cause, or prior designation of someone as a criminal suspect to inspect travelers and property entering the United States.
So repeatedly saying, “He wasn’t a suspect,” or, “Why didn’t they just get a warrant?” does not settle anything. A person does not have to be suspected of a specific crime before being subjected to a routine border inspection.
Owning GrapheneOS, using encryption, or refusing to provide a passcode is not automatically criminal. A person can remain silent, refuse consent, and later challenge the legality of the search in court. Those are legitimate legal protections.
What is being alleged here is different. Prosecutors claim he knowingly entered a special duress password that wiped the phone after agents requested access. That is not passive refusal...it is an affirmative act allegedly intended to prevent the government from taking custody of possible evidence.
The “no property was destroyed because the phone still works” argument misses the point entirely. Destroying the contents of something does not require destroying its physical container. If someone shreds every document in a filing cabinet, the cabinet remains perfectly usable. That does not mean nothing was destroyed.
The same applies to digital evidence. Emails, photographs, financial records, messages, databases, surveillance footage, and documents can all be destroyed while the physical phone or computer remains intact.
This is also not about police somehow taking ownership of his intellectual property. Seizure does not mean the government becomes the new legal owner of everything it collects. Police routinely seize items temporarily for examination or use as evidence without acquiring ownership of them. A seized laptop, document, firearm, or phone does not suddenly become government property in the ordinary ownership sense.
Whether a movie file was licensed, pirated, personally created, or owned by someone else is beside the point. The issue is whether data was intentionally erased to prevent authorities from examining or taking lawful control of the device and its contents.
As for the claim that maybe the phone was already empty, that is a factual issue for the prosecution to prove. Investigators may rely on device logs, software behavior, timestamps, forensic evidence, witness testimony, or admissions. The fact that a defendant can suggest an innocent possibility does not automatically make the allegation impossible.
And no, merely deceiving law enforcement is not always a standalone crime. People are generally not required to volunteer information or help build a case against themselves. However, specific lies or deceptive acts can become crimes depending on the circumstances. Lying to federal investigators can be prosecuted under certain statutes, and using deception to destroy, conceal, or impair evidence can support obstruction or evidence tampering charges.
Again, the government does not automatically win. Prosecutors still have to prove that the agents possessed lawful authority, that data was actually destroyed, that he knowingly triggered the wipe, and that he intended to prevent the seizure. His attorneys are free to challenge the search itself and argue that border authority was being misused.
But “the phone still turns on, so nothing was destroyed” is no more convincing than saying, “The filing cabinet still opens, so shredding everything inside it caused no damage.”
The distinction remains simple....refusing to unlock the phone is noncooperation.
Giving agents a deceptive password designed to wipe its contents is an alleged affirmative act of obstruction.
Privacy rights let people challenge government power. They do not necessarily create a legal right to destroy possible evidence during the encounter.
Endymio
Posts: 5,605 +5,231
Was that a joke or just incredibly poor logic? A police training facility is still government owned land. As for it having "public use", why spread disinformation like this?
"...The land where the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center (known as Cop City) is being built was previously used as a slave plantation, a city dairy and prison farm, and later an abandoned forested ...."
Oops again!
"No, the use of Cop City is not illegal without a public vote, relying instead on City Council approval, state law, and local ordinances. The Atlanta City Council legally voted to pass the project, and federal courts ruled that citizens cannot use petitions to overturn local rules. "
11th Circuit kills 'Cop City' opponents' referendum effort
A 2-1 decision by the appeals court crushed an effort by opponents of the nation's largest public safety training center to repeal an ordinance authorizing the land lease for the massive facility.
www.courthousenews.com
Thanks for a stellar example of the bandwagon fallacy. Your statement is false, and even were it true, it does not justify domestic terrorism.
Endymio
Posts: 5,605 +5,231
You're confused. Germany's National Socialists began as a far-Left labor party; they were voted into power by promising Left-wing Germans to overthrow the conservative Wiemar Republic and implement dozens of far-Left policies and proposals.
Sounds similar to flushing drugs down the toilet before cops can get to them.
And I could totally see radical tech nerds defending this guy simply because of GrapheneOS being involved.
So if a cop shows up at my door I dont let him in, then go upstairs and flush the toliet-have committted a crime? The cops have no idea what I flushed, and likewise they have no idea what was wiped. Also seems to me it was the the cops who wiped the phone, not himSounds similar to flushing drugs down the toilet before cops can get to them.
And I could totally see radical tech nerds defending this guy simply because of GrapheneOS being involved.
He would only be a criminal if the authorities had presented a search warrant. They didn't, he has every right to destroy his own property at that point. Constitution also gives the right to have an attorney present at the time of any questioning, they denied that as well.
"Looking for child sex materials" is not a justification for a search. The basis is basically "you have a computer therefore it could have child sex materials on it" if that were a reason for a search then every single computer and phone would be open to a legal search at any time but it's not. Basically the authorities had nothing on him, they knew they had nothing so they denied an attorney and tried to illegally search his phone.
Title 18 doesn't apply because there was no search warrant presented.
Indeed, and look at what side hates Israel and the jews. But the Nazi party and Dems arent the same. Sure.
I am moderate. I dont pick a party to align with because that is close minded.
Tell that to Hilary Clinton. Lol Do as I say, not as I do. If they had other supporting evidence to prove he had committed a crime then they get a warrant if the suspect refuses to comply then maybe it would be a little easier to get behind authorities on this one. That is the game isn't it? Law enforcement investigates, if they have reasonable suspicion to search his belongings because he is using an airport then it is on them to secure potential evidence. Suspicion shouldn't give the government the right to bypass a man's 4th amendment rights. But hey I am supportive of good police but am against the idea or any laws that require a citizen to incriminate themselves. It is their job to provide proof of a crime and a citizens right to privacy.
Sure dude and the nazis were the kindest people in the world and they gave everybody flowers and candy. Hitler was just a misunderstood angel. /s
"they were voted into power by promising" - promising being the operative word here. You've just denied and destroyed ALL of your arguments un until now and proved to everybody that I was right. Like every maga I've talked to, you seem to have a natural tendency of falling for propaganda and refusing to accept the reality of what actually happened or is happening.
Trying to rewrite nazi history is beyond dumb. But that's to be expected from somebody who supports fascists like pedo trump.
If the guy at the border was a pro-trump activist you would be yelling "freedom of speech" BS like you did a few days ago. But here you are... pathetic.
This is actually an extremely interesting case, but it may not turn into the privacy/anti privacy battle that you might expect. There are just so many variables here; they ignored requests for a lawyer, the sex abuse charges, the procedures of the officers knowing he had a graphene OS pixel, etc. It's common in IT to encrypt and protect phones, and IT can wipe them at any time. I support the govt being able to investigate things and protect our country, but you also didn't give up all of your rights during the investigation. He obviously wasn't free to leave, and had asked for his lawyer several times, so it sounds like the officers may have broken protocol, or the govt was waiting for this and actually are just using him to establish precedent on the Graphene issue. It could get pled to, or go all the way to the supreme court, one to watch for sure.
It's digitally pleading the 5th. Once he said he wanted s letter, they continued to search, then coerce the subject. A phone, or digital files, has been determined to be "papers" and protected under the 4th.
They violated two of his rights. If they manufactured charges three. The official Charly started they were"looking for something," which is a fishing expedition and also illegal.
Similar threads
