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

[Hybrid100V]

So are all of use in coastal CA are subject to a search at any time since we are more than likely 100 mi from a nautical border? Do you think the founders would have found that reasonable?

 

[RustVendor]

So from what I could gather the 11th circuit gives broad authority for search regardless of warrant or suspicion during border crossings.

Why Tunick’s case is unique:
- this wasn’t just a random person entering the US who raised suspicion that resulted in a search
- he was targeted before he even landed (~3 hours)
- along with no charges for CSAM, a CBP witness acknowledged at the July hearing that was made up
- while given the broad authority to search there is no law that compelled Tunick to give up any information, the 11th also ruled on this in 2012

And again, the ONLY charge he’s facing is destruction of evidence. Evidence for what?

And regardless of what the 11th or any courts rule this is extremely anti-Constitutional

I can somewhat get on board with searching physical goods at the border for contraband from out of the country but electronic contraband can pass through borders freely without leaving the country at all. So what exactly is the justification for ignoring the 4th amendment in this case? Even if they successfully prosecute this one guy, in the future only the dumbest criminals will travel without wiping their phone. There is a much bigger chance that your private information will be used inappropriately by border patrol than there is they will catch people with electronic contraband.

 

[RustVendor]

How was the material destroyed damaging to the defense if the entire case is leveraged on destruction of evidence?

If there were underlying charges that phone data might have been evidence for, sure!

But if he didn’t wipe the phone there’s not even a case.

If they had any probable cause they would have had a warrant to search his home and other personal effects, but they clearly didn't. This is exactly why the 4th exists

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Adverse Inference, the act of destroying is the issue, not what was destroyed. Idiot created his own case by trying to be smart instead of silent.

Sure, his underlying charges could have used the phone evidence. However, his new charge doesn't need it, the act of resetting the phone creates new evidence.

And it would have stayed that way if he didn't try to be clever with the factory reset. Should have just stuck to asking for a lawyer instead of handing out distress codes.

But it seems that only applies the destroyed evidence has potential to be damaging to the defense by some aspect of charges.

So how would any of the data on the phone potentially hurt the defense for the destruction of evidence charges?

If there are no other reasons that information would be damaging then how would it apply?

(BTW: I’m not a legal professional. I’m just shooting from the hip here for what I think is logical. And I’m well aware that laws often defy logic and/or my version of it)

 

[john_marsten_1873]

I can somewhat get on board with searching physical goods at the border for contraband from out of the country but electronic contraband can pass through borders freely without leaving the country at all. So what exactly is the justification for ignoring the 4th amendment in this case? Even if they successfully prosecute this one guy, in the future only the dumbest criminals will travel without wiping their phone. There is a much bigger chance that your private information will be used inappropriately by border patrol than there is they will catch people with electronic contraband.

Especially, if the CBP agent admitted in court that the CSAM suspicion was fabricated.

Even if I know there’s nothing incriminating I still wouldn’t trust them with my data.

 

[Experimentalist]

Here's an important bit of information that may not be fully recognized here.

Until you have been formally admitted to the United States, you have No. Rights.

The Constitution applies within National boundaries, and you're not in the Country yet.

This is not speculation on my part, I used to do some work on smuggling issues. Until you're admitted to the U.S., you have zero rights. Cavity search? Detainment? All that and more are on the table.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Here's an important bit of information that may not be fully recognized here.

Until you have been formally admitted to the United States, you have No. Rights.

The Constitution applies within National boundaries, and you're not in the Country yet.

This is not speculation on my part, I used to do some work on smuggling issues. Until you're admitted to the U.S., you have zero rights. Cavity search? Detainment? All that and more are on the table.

Then why would the FBI and JTTF even fake terrorism and CSAM as a reason to detain and search when they can do so at their own will, without any need for justification?

Also, it wasn’t like he was going through customs as any other traveler and they found something suspicious that warranted further search. They planned to detain and search him hours before he even landed. He was targeted.

Then, he was never even charged with terrorism or CSAM - the CBP agent admitted in court the CSAM was fake.

The ONLY charge is destruction of evidence for wiping his own phone.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Also, the 11th circuit is ! Avoid flying int’l out Florida or Atlanta.

 

[Experimentalist]

Then why would the FBI and JTTF even fake terrorism and CSAM as a reason to detain and search when they can do so at their own will, without any need for justification?

Also, it wasn’t like he was going through customs as any other traveler and they found something suspicious that warranted further search. They planned to detain and search him hours before he even landed. He was targeted.

Then, he was never even charged with terrorism or CSAM - the CBP agent admitted in court the CSAM was fake.

The ONLY charge is destruction of evidence for wiping his own phone.

I have no insights into the actions of the U.S. Government. I would suppose there was credible evidence this person was guilty of the crimes for which he was initially accused. This is ostensibly why he was targeted. Today, unfortunately, we must also cede the possibility he was targeted for other political reasons. Again I have no insights, my observations are intended to be general in nature.

And yes, before you're admitted to the U.S. the Government can detain and search at their own will, they don't need justification. Passenger profiling is a thing. This is where they literally walk down the line as travelers wait to talk to the CBP admission desk, evaluating people to be pulled out for additional interviews. That said, resources are limited and contrary to what many may believe, most in the U.S. Government are sincerely working to mitigate against criminal and terrorist acts. Thus attention is generally directed where it will do the most good.

I'm unfamiliar with the CBP officer's testimony that CSAM charges were fake. Could you please link to a source? Thanks in advance.

Ultimately the "duress code" was effective, and whatever evidence the Government hoped to recover from the phone was lost. Thus no evidence of the original crimes, leaving only destruction of evidence as the remaining lever against him. Had the phone been recovered intact then maybe the conversation would be different.

 

[HibikiR]

But it seems that only applies the destroyed evidence has potential to be damaging to the defense by some aspect of charges.

So how would any of the data on the phone potentially hurt the defense for the destruction of evidence charges?

If there are no other reasons that information would be damaging then how would it apply?

(BTW: I’m not a legal professional. I’m just shooting from the hip here for what I think is logical. And I’m well aware that laws often defy logic and/or my version of it)

That's the worst part about it, the fact that the suspect took the time and effort to install GrapheneOS, program the distress code, and provided the distress code to the authorities knowing full well what the effect would be is all that it takes. The contents could have been innocent, but the planning and execution of the reset is enough to allow the government to reasonably assume that the contents were damning enough to justify such preparation and destruction. The preparation of the reset code is Mens Rea, providing the code to the authorities is Actus Reus.

The guy turned what could have been manageable encounter into a hard knock lesson if only he didn't panic and stuck to the script of "No consent to search or questioning without a warrant and legal counsel."

 

[Gawernator]

Most journalists know to not cross borders with anything important on their phones.

It’s funny how some people quickly get on their knees to defend law enforcement.

Proof?

When they're doing the right thing, definitely.

Proof? He deleted it lol. That's why he is facing charges. Bro must have been so scared they would find his kiddie rape porn, and you are gonna defend it. Wonder why...

 

[john_marsten_1873]

That's the worst part about it, the fact that the suspect took the time and effort to install GrapheneOS, program the distress code, and provided the distress code to the authorities knowing full well what the effect would be is all that it takes. The contents could have been innocent, but the planning and execution of the reset is enough to allow the government to reasonably assume that the contents were damning enough to justify such preparation and destruction. The preparation of the reset code is Mens Rea, providing the code to the authorities is Actus Reus.

The guy turned what could have been manageable encounter into a hard knock lesson if only he didn't panic and stuck to the script of "No consent to search or questioning without a warrant and legal counsel."

A few friends on international trips have been robbed at gun point where the robbers asked for their phone passcode’s - they explicitly disable any and all biometric access.

There’s other duress configurations as well. Apple has the 10 passcode entry erase, for example.

The problematic premise that I’m getting to is exactly: “we can charge you for a potential crime because you installed a security/privacy feature on your phone, even though we have no actual evidence or even suspicion of other crimes”

 

[HibikiR]

Robbers and government officials are different enough to the courts; despite any feeling you have on the matter. Again, stick to the script, don't try and be fancy.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

I have no insights into the actions of the U.S. Government. I would suppose there was credible evidence this person was guilty of the crimes for which he was initially accused. This is ostensibly why he was targeted. Today, unfortunately, we must also cede the possibility he was targeted for other political reasons. Again I have no insights, my observations are intended to be general in nature.

And yes, before you're admitted to the U.S. the Government can detain and search at their own will, they don't need justification. Passenger profiling is a thing. This is where they literally walk down the line as travelers wait to talk to the CBP admission desk, evaluating people to be pulled out for additional interviews. That said, resources are limited and contrary to what many may believe, most in the U.S. Government are sincerely working to mitigate against criminal and terrorist acts. Thus attention is generally directed where it will do the most good.

I'm unfamiliar with the CBP officer's testimony that CSAM charges were fake. Could you please link to a source? Thanks in advance.

Ultimately the "duress code" was effective, and whatever evidence the Government hoped to recover from the phone was lost. Thus no evidence of the original crimes, leaving only destruction of evidence as the remaining lever against him. Had the phone been recovered intact then maybe the conversation would be different.

“Matthew Dodge, who is also Tunick’s attorney, told Atlanta News First that officers told Tunick they believed he had child pornography on his phone — a claim they later walked back.

“That was a lie,” Dodge said. “The agents came to court two weeks ago for our court hearing and admitted they had no reason to believe that Sam had child pornography. They made it up as a ruse.”“

Additionally, as you’ll see in the article, that broad authority is for routine customs enforcement. But this was NOT routine. The FBI/JTTF/HHS basically used the CBP to try and get a look at his phone. Had they not circulated those memos and his photo, 3 hours before his flight landed, would CBP had even stopped him?

Activist faces federal charge after airport phone search

Samuel Tunick was stopped by CBP agents on Jan. 24, 2025, upon returning from the Dominican Republic.

www.kkco11news.com

 

[HibikiR]

Even more reason to not panic. If he didn't have CP, then there's no reason to factory reset. He should have rode the process out and then sue.

 

[Gawernator]

So are all of use in coastal CA are subject to a search at any time since we are more than likely 100 mi from a nautical border? Do you think the founders would have found that reasonable?

Yes. National security trumps your 4th amendment rights at these places of inspection. The founding fathers only wanted white male landowners to vote, you agree with that btw?

 

[Gawernator]

Then why would the FBI and JTTF even fake terrorism and CSAM as a reason to detain and search when they can do so at their own will, without any need for justification?

Also, it wasn’t like he was going through customs as any other traveler and they found something suspicious that warranted further search. They planned to detain and search him hours before he even landed. He was targeted.

Then, he was never even charged with terrorism or CSAM - the CBP agent admitted in court the CSAM was fake.

The ONLY charge is destruction of evidence for wiping his own phone.

Proof?

 

[Gawernator]

Even more reason to not panic. If he didn't have CP, then there's no reason to factory reset. He should have rode the process out and then sue.

We all know why he panicked hardcore and wiped the phone. He had kiddie porn that would send him away for years and freaked out. Some guys in here support child porn I guess.

I know that I'm not wiping my phone if CBP wants to inspect me when I fly in. They can see all my memes and racing pics, go crazy.

 

[ButteFlyFisher]

The problematic premise that I’m getting to is exactly: “we can charge you for a potential crime because you installed a security/privacy feature on your phone, even though we have no actual evidence or even suspicion of other crimes”

They didn’t charge him for having it installed did they? It’s that he destroyed evidence.

 

[RustVendor]

“Matthew Dodge, who is also Tunick’s attorney, told Atlanta News First that officers told Tunick they believed he had child pornography on his phone — a claim they later walked back.

“That was a lie,” Dodge said. “The agents came to court two weeks ago for our court hearing and admitted they had no reason to believe that Sam had child pornography. They made it up as a ruse.”“

Additionally, as you’ll see in the article, that broad authority is for routine customs enforcement. But this was NOT routine. The FBI/JTTF/HHS basically used the CBP to try and get a look at his phone. Had they not circulated those memos and his photo, 3 hours before his flight landed, would CBP had even stopped him?

Activist faces federal charge after airport phone search

Samuel Tunick was stopped by CBP agents on Jan. 24, 2025, upon returning from the Dominican Republic.

www.kkco11news.com

the fact that they admitted they made it up makes this even more insidious, like what are the limits to which they could apply the federal statute? Erasing anything from your phone for the previous 24 hours?