623
GrapheneOS duress PIN could land a man in prison
(www.androidauthority.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2026
623 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
87473 readers
3027 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
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.
I'm not sure any law force agency in the US is lawful anymore.
Third option: Refuse to give your phone credentials unless these fascist pigs have a warrant or provide you with a lawyer.
What about give them the wrong pin, they initiate the device wipe, then you say they did it intentionally?
That is what happened. The accused told the boarder agent the duress pin when asked. The agent entered the pin that initiated the wipe.
Could make a difference at trial, didn't stop the case prior to the arrest.
Then a lot of it could come down to the wording the officer used. If they just asked 'what's the passcode' then the person DID give them a passcode.
As far as I understand, from their point of view they have the lawful right to seize and inspect your phone. You could certainly refuse to hand it over, but that would certainly lead to incarceration or worse, with no positive outcome for you or society. It's one of those things that you're bot going to beat at the point of application, vut needs to be cut off at the root.
Sure. They can look at the outside of the hardware all they like. But if they can't access the data on it, that's (Constitutionally-speaking) purely their problem, not ours.
My understanding is that, for the purposes of inspections during border crossings, that is not the case. Also, remember that the border agent can decide, for pretty nuch any reason, that you're not getting on the flight, and, I'm sure, can add a note to your record to suggest to agents on other flights that they stop you too.
US citizens have an unequivocal right to re-enter the county regardless of where they have been, how they returned, how long they were gone, or what they were doing. This was already determined by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
US citizens have an unequivocal right to enter the country, eventually, just not necessarily on a flight they booked (or any flight in the next few weeks, until the goons are done with them....)
I admit, I didn't check, but if he was stopped on returning, then yes, he must be allowed in. He'd then be arrested.
The other two issues are that he was allegedly repeatedly denied access to a lawyer when asked and not read his Miranda rights. Given how border patrol has acted lately, this is incredibly plausible and will hopefully lead to the motion to throw out the case being granted.
Absolutely, my initial comment was in relation to the duress code only, hus defence has some seemingly solid points tgat I hope will get the case tossed.
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.
The charge wasn't destruction of evidence, but destruction of property, probably for exactly the reason you mention. He could certainly have arguwd with the agent, but he certainly wouldn't be getting on the flight if he did, and I suspect he'd be lucky to walk out of the airport without being arrested. As I said in another comment, this isn't something you can beat at the point of application, it needs to be cut off at the root.
Ooo so wiping data is destruction of property now? That means data is property.
Let's apply that to Microsoft for the times their updates wiped user data, to apple when you take the phone in for a screen repair and they "had" to wipe your data, to Sony for deleting movie collections, and all the data collectors for stealing property....
The crux of those scenarios you outlined doesn't hinge on weather or not data is property. Their arguments are that it isn't YOUR property.
The 4th applies, too.
Maybe instead of wiping the phone and restarting the duress pin should show a pre-selected number of apps and wipe everything else.
That wouldn't avoid the destruction of property charge, just (possibly) make it harder to notice. It sounds like it was the screen flashing and the phone restarting, which is probably necessary for a full wipe, that tipped them off.
The man was in duress and being forced to hand over his PIN while being denied access to legal counsel, that is the very reason for a duress PIN. I don't think the charge is even going to make it to real court, his defense has a great case for it to be thrown out.
The fact that he's in the news is a VERY good sign. In a real 3rd world shithole he would just disappear because he pissed off an unaccountable field goon.
(That's why arrest data is required to be public, despite the damage it does to the arrestee's reputation, BTW.)
It's a tough balance, it puts cops in a position to destroy someone's life with zero proof of any law being broken - like Paul Reubens...
Whilst, yes, he probably did feel under duress, he had a choice to make; hand over the phone, or wipe it and face the repercussions from doing so. Bear in mind, that from the agent's point of view, they had the lawful right to search his phone, so arguing duress will be tricky at best. In his position, I'd like to think I was comfortable handing over the phone because I'd wiped it before travelling.
Having said all that, yes, I agree that his defense has some strong arguments. However, if they decide to make an exame of him, those arguments wont do him much good.
While I am not entirely disagreeing, I have to a bit for anyone that can't bring themselves to say it (all sides should be heard).
I may have misread but I don't think he typed the PIN, as far as I understood they had already taken the phone and were insisting he give them the PIN without any access to a lawyer. Not only did he not wipe it, he only gave them the 'I'm in duress' PIN because he felt he was, if I'm on the jury it's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't think the difference between him physically triggering the wipe and him giving them the code that triggered the wipe would have much effect from a legal point of view. In both cases he deliberately took an action he knew would lead to the destruction of the data. I think his defense's approach of challenging the legality of the stop is probably much safer.
I suspect that the prosecution would like to set precedent that you can't claim to be under duress when a lawful authority is performing a search, so the defence staying away from that area is probably a good idea.
its an intimidation tactic, and also useful soundbites for faux news.
The fact that we're discussing ways to sneak past the fascist border guards, by getting very lawyerly with a bunch of fiddly rules they don't actually give a hoot about, is kind of a big hint that we've already lost our liberties to a degree we are reluctant to acknowledge.
This guy was singled out for his political opinions. Border patrol held him as a political prisoner, and when we read the story about him, we all see only too clearly that this could be any one of us.
As far as anyone knows, the CP thing was an excuse, a lie. The authoritarians aren't following the rules, the rules exist to serve as excuses to hurt us. There isn't going to be some magic combination of smartphone hygiene and "I know my rights" phrases that will let us escape targeting by the most corrupt cops in the country.
That first paragraph is really powerful. Cool i parrot it around? I think that needs to become common sentiment.
I don't mind!
nice 🤘
and people have gotten in trouble for that, too, for having a travel phone, a phone that was too clean, etc etc.
Because its not about the phone. Its about stealing data. pictures for facial recognition, contacts so they can map groups, communications so they can search for whatever bullshit excuse they want to string people up.
This isnt about law. its not about protection people/the country.
Its about being fascist dicks to undesirable groups of people. Aint seen one motherfucker on the epstein list, one motherfucking CEO, or any trump cockface have their phone seized by border patrol to steal any data.
Not a lawful authority.
He was flight side at the airport. So either:
US border patrol are considered a lawful authority as they are granted their powers by the federal government and are federal law enforcement officers. They are charged with enforcing US laws, including immigration laws, at the border and in any US state or territory.
From their point of view, they are well within their rights to seize and search his phone, and he interfered with their duties by destroying the data on the phone. Whether that should be the case is a different matter.
Curious, why the innocuous history? Just to reduce friction?
"Where's your REAL phone?!? We'll strip search you for your real phone!"
Pretty much. A compketely blank phone is a clear sign that it's wiped, and why would you do that, unless you have sonething to hide, hmm? A phone with a couple of weeks of boring use, maybe a few photos of nice sunsets, a few messages, a take-out ordering app, some boring history in the web browser, and maybe a login to a social media account that follows some celebs and an old school friends or two who don't seem to post any more, just says you got a new phone a while back and you're fairly boring.
Obviously, if they actually have something on you, or they want to pin something on you, those precautions won't actually help much.
why even have some shit on your phone.
just have private stuff on some remote server
Even memes or slightly (to them) offensive comments or messages can land you in detention.
You would have to have zero messages, social profiles or anything like it on that phone.
And no references or logins to that private server.
Even unlocking your phone lets them install spyware.
Have to be careful, though. You need a curated social media presence...
Not having social media is considered suspicious in the US https://papersplease.org/wp/2025/05/30/us-state-dept-says-silence-or-anonymity-on-social-media-is-suspicious/
This is the correct take. Its common across various business contexts: destroying evidence after you learn you are being investigated is big time illegal. If you destroy data, you better be able to demonstrate you did so beforehand (I.e. an expiration policy), or you don't have it in the first place (because sensitive data doesn't touch a given mobile device and all.). Dedicated device for travelling is the best idea.
You could also take a video of yourself wiping the device before travelling for security in case it gets stolen. (Not a lawyer disclaimer).
Can thy prove it though