Political Post: Should Phone Privacy Tools Be Illegal for Citizens?

[RustVendor]

Applying 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) to the contents of a phone is unprecedented. Definitely not a slam dunk for the government.

The Supreme Court has never squarely decided the conflict that exists between Riley and Vergara.

It’s not clear cut if this guy had a legal obligation to not cause his own data to be deleted.

I bet he gets acquitted

Would be interested to see how the current SC would decide this, it could really go either way but I feel like Roberts, ACB and Gorsuch lean a bit more to the privacy side. Having unbridled access to our phones just because we come home is extremely problematic, it has all of our passwords, our financial records, in some cases the controls for our security systems, cameras inside our home, our door locks, our 2FA, not to mention many of us work in professions with sensitive information, I have work emails that are legal documents and ongoing investigation products, correspondence with the lawyers I work with that are under privilege etc. If they can make you sign into your phone can they make you sign into any other applications? Would deleting applications before you go through customs make you open to prosecution for deleting something they may want to search? And without a warrant there is less oversight meaning border agents have even more ability to break the law with your information.

 

[Gawernator]

Would be interested to see how the current SC would decide this, it could really go either way but I feel like Roberts, ACB and Gorsuch lean a bit more to the privacy side. Having unbridled access to our phones just because we come home is extremely problematic, it has all of our passwords, our financial records, in some cases the controls for our security systems, cameras inside our home, our door locks, our 2FA, not to mention many of us work in professions with sensitive information, I have work emails that are legal documents and ongoing investigation products, correspondence with the lawyers I work with that are under privilege etc. And without a warrant there is less oversight meaning border agents have even more ability to break the law with your information.

Are you a paralegal?

 

[DJD100]

AI will argue based on the prompt, I’m just saying don’t copy/paste. It’s for storage and also your thought on it. The AI augmented side has its own section. It’s also for everyone else, no one is going to read the wall of text and you don’t want to argue, so please don't copy/paste a response from ai. Statistics is ok and your own words.

I work with ai enough to know there’s some specific downsides to it filling the db. Theres some other underlying technical reasons too.

Just a note that I read the long AI posts and found them the most factual posts in the thread citing precedent and all, just saying etc...

 

[RickD427]

I read that yesterday and was wondering "custody or control" is, does them reading something off your phone count as that?

It can. This is going to be an interesting case to follow and I'm not gonna make any bets on how it turns out.

I would bet that the government is gonna argue that the unknown content(s) of the cell phone were something akin to "intellectual property." There was no reported physical damage to the phone. But the non-physical stuff that coulda been contained on the phone (imagery and documents) have value as "property" and I would think are therefore covered by the statute.

One key issue for the prosecution is that they have to show that something was damaged. If the "wiping password" didn't remove anything from phone, then there is no violation.

 

[HibikiR]

Interesting take, as GrapheneOS's legal team would have to prove the function does indeed effectively wipe the data or risk the company being dragged through the mud as frauds promising false security.

 

[RickD427]

Interesting take, as GrapheneOS's legal team would have to prove the function does indeed effectively wipe the data or risk the company being dragged through the mud as frauds promising false security.

Keep in mind that GrapheneOS's legal team is not a party to this action. They only get to watch as spectators to the action. GrapheneOS's software engineers may be called as witnesses, but witnesses don't get a say in either the prosecution, or defense, strategies.

 

[HibikiR]

I never said they were a party, but that doesn't mean the GrapheneOS legal team isn't going to be preparing for any future case and any involvement as a witness in this case will set the stage for the future where they do have a say in regarding strategy.

If their expert witness says that the data is retrievable to disprove the claim of damage by the prosecution of this case, then they will be in the crosshairs of customers demanding wipe-level security in a future, different case.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Just a note that I read the long AI posts and found them the most factual posts in the thread citing precedent and all, just saying etc...

I suspect I’m ignoring the user who did the AI copy and paste. But like Ikeo said I immediately scroll past those regardless.

I used AI to help me understand some of the concepts here, like where the CBP 4A might end and custodial vs. non-custodial questioning, specific details of the case and sources of information.

However, every post here was formulated on my own. I work with it enough that I just don’t trust it speak for me. For example, it never provided me with the actual motion to suppress document and instead “news” articles and opinion pieces along with social media posts.

It was @dvoncock who shared the actual motion to suppress. I read the whole thing which better put Tunick’s legal team arguments in context. It was also his responses that helped the legal arguments actually “click” for me. Where the actual violations of Constitutional rights [might] kick in.

I had a similar issue around a post about PCC’s/blowback where AI was getting me nowhere but engaging with a real person, a gunsmith on this site, actually saved me a lot of money and frustration.

 

[ikeo1]

Just a note that I read the long AI posts and found them the most factual posts in the thread citing precedent and all, just saying etc...

I don’t mind if he starts with original thought, but straight copy paste is the issue. Citing is ok.

 

[miles888]

Would be interested to see how the current SC would decide this, it could really go either way but I feel like Roberts, ACB and Gorsuch lean a bit more to the privacy side. Having unbridled access to our phones just because we come home is extremely problematic, it has all of our passwords, our financial records, in some cases the controls for our security systems, cameras inside our home, our door locks, our 2FA, not to mention many of us work in professions with sensitive information, I have work emails that are legal documents and ongoing investigation products, correspondence with the lawyers I work with that are under privilege etc. If they can make you sign into your phone can they make you sign into any other applications? Would deleting applications before you go through customs make you open to prosecution for deleting something they may want to search? And without a warrant there is less oversight meaning border agents have even more ability to break the law with your information.

That’s my line of thinking as well.

With cloud backups it will probably become practice for people to factory reset their phones before getting to customs, then reviving the backup when they leave the airport.