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

[john_marsten_1873]

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.

I would not trust the government with my data. He didn’t panic, he did the right thing, rather than letting the government forensics attempt to crack his phone.

You can only expect the targeting will get worse if they’re literally lying to detain you.

If this had been a 2A activist people would be running to his defense while the anti-2A people say they’re just keeping the country safe.

This is deeply problematic for anyone.

 

[Gawernator]

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

Correct. He panicked that they would find his child porn on his phone so he wiped the phone. That's why he's charged.

 

[RustVendor]

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

But that's the whole issue, they don't know if there is any evidence in the first place to destroy

 

[Gawernator]

I would not trust the government with my data. He didn’t panic, he did the right thing, rather than letting the government forensics attempt to crack his phone.

You can only expect the targeting will get worse if they’re literally lying to detain you.

If this had been a 2A activist people would be running to his defense.

This is deeply problematic for anyone.

Lol such BS - if he was a 2A activist why would he need to wipe his phone?

*crickets*

 

[john_marsten_1873]

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

Evidence of what?

If he is convicted, it could open the door for that exact thing or any other security/privacy feature.

 

[ButteFlyFisher]

But that's the whole issue, they don't know if there is any evidence in the first place to destroy

If a cop tries to arrest you for a crime you didn’t commit and you resist you are getting charged for resisting arrest. It was a dumb move on his part. Better to refuse to unlock.

 

[RustVendor]

I would not trust the government with my data. He didn’t panic, he did the right thing, rather than letting the government forensics attempt to crack his phone.

You can only expect the targeting will get worse if they’re literally lying to detain you.

If this had been a 2A activist people would be running to his defense.

This is deeply problematic for anyone.

This is what people don't get, you want the law applied equally because if you apply it lopsided to your enemies your enemies can then do the same to you. If you don't give your "enemies" the same rights then you don't get them either.

 

[RustVendor]

If a cop tries to arrest you for a crime you didn’t commit and you resist you are getting charged for resisting arrest. It was a dumb move on his part. Better to refuse to unlock.

Well it remains to be seen if it was dumb or not, but I don't think any of us would agree to download the contents of our phones arbitrarily any time we come back into the country. there's no indication they had any reason besides bullying and intimidation.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

If a cop tries to arrest you for a crime you didn’t commit and you resist you are getting charged for resisting arrest. It was a dumb move on his part. Better to refuse to unlock.

Duress code == pleading 5th amendment

 

[HibikiR]

Duress code == pleading 5th amendment

Not according to case law.

Burning a file cabinet that could be full of pasta recipes or could be full of CP is handled differently than saying nothing when questioned.

 

[PlinkyDinky]

Lol such BS - if he was a 2A activist why would he need to wipe his phone?

*crickets*

Dude, are you seriously taking the "If you've done nothing wrong, then you have no reason to hide" stance? I haven't committed any crimes, I don't have any illegal material on my phone, but I'm still not gonna gladly hand it over for anyone to rummage through my personal photos and messages, badges or no. An invasion of privacy is still an invasion of privacy, and we should be adamantly opposed to it. They wanted to see his phone, they should've gotten a damn warrant.

 

[HibikiR]

Evidence of what?

If he is convicted, it could open the door for that exact thing or any other security/privacy feature.

Most security/privacy features involve having a damn good lock on the file cabinet, GrapheneOS's duress code is more in line with burning the contents of said file cabinet. If convicted, only the latter is affected.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Not according to case law.

Perhaps. But technically he didn’t destroy evidence either.

At least the government can’t currently prove there was any crime to seize evidence for.

 

[ButteFlyFisher]

Evidence of what?

If he is convicted, it could open the door for that exact thing or any other security/privacy feature.

I dont disagree with the overall point you are trying to make. I just think it would be a better position to defend that he refused to unlock his phone vs destroying it. I agree that nobody should be compelled to assist the police or government in building a case against themselves by providing evidence, but covering their potential tracks is too far.

The government desperately wants secret doors in these encryption algorithms, they might already have them. I agree that’s a fight worth fighting.

 

[RustVendor]

Except you can't look in a file cabinet without a warrant. The exceptions to the 4th amendment at the border are regarding control of contraband and not domestic policing.

 

[HibikiR]

Perhaps. But technically he didn’t destroy evidence either.

At least the government can’t currently prove there was any crime to seize evidence for.

And he can't prove that the phone wipe wasn't to cover up a crime.

His actions could allow the government to get a warrant to seize every electronic device he owns.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Most security/privacy features involve having a damn good lock on the file cabinet, GrapheneOS's duress code is more in line with burning the contents of said file cabinet. If convicted, only the latter is affected.

Doesn’t matter. The government lied just to get a look at his phone. They have teams that can still crack the most secure phones.

Wipe the device. Get a new phone and install the backup.

Make them get a real warrant or charge with a real crime.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

I dont disagree with the overall point you are trying to make. I just think it would be a better position to defend that he refused to unlock his phone vs destroying it. I agree that nobody should be compelled to assist the police or government in building a case against themselves by providing evidence, but covering their potential tracks is too far.

The government desperately wants secret doors in these encryption algorithms, they might already have them. I agree that’s a fight worth fighting.

FBI wanted his data - probably his contacts and messages.

They didn’t have an active investigation or reason to get a warrant to search and seize.

The CBP has broad authority for routine enforcement.

FBI saw this guy coming back into the country as a way to use CBP to target this guy seize his phone - without needing a warrant - so CBP fabricated the CSAM stuff. They admitted it was fabricated and he’s not even being charged for that.

The ONLY charge is destruction of evidence but the government has yet to say evidence of what.

In all likelihood, CBP wouldn’t have stopped him at all if FBI hadn’t conspired against him.

I would not trust ANY of these folks with my data if they would go through all of that.

I have enhanced privacy and security features on my phone, primarily for loss or potential theft.

This reminds of the people who say there’s no reason to carry gun unless you’re looking for trouble.

Extremely sickening!

 

[HibikiR]

If the charges are bogus then that means two things:
1) The "teams that can still crack the most secure phones" will find nothing useful on the phone
2) If the "teams that can still crack the most secure phones" do find something, but there wasn't a warrant, then what they find is useless and will be thrown out in court.

And if you're serious about "crack the most secure phones", then this GrapheneOS phone is one of the "most secure phones" as the info is encrypted, not 5220.22-M zeroed, and the guy gets nothing but an added charge for being fancy with the evidence. His actions are enough for a judge to issue a real warrant. Stick to the script.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

If the charges are bogus then that means two things:
1) The "teams that can still crack the most secure phones" will find nothing useful on the phone
2) If the "teams that can still crack the most secure phones" do find something, but there wasn't a warrant, then what they find is useless and will be thrown out in court.

No. They’re either looking for something to further target he or his contacts with. It’s basically corruption. Even if they don’t find anything to charge him with they have a bunch of other people they can now target in a similar manner. Charging him in the first place is probably retaliatory so he has to now spend time and money defending them.

And if you're serious about "crack the most secure phones", then this GrapheneOS phone is one of the "most secure phones" as the info is encrypted, not 5220.22-M zeroed, and the guy gets nothing but an added charge for being fancy with the evidence. His actions are enough for a judge to issue a real warrant. Stick to the script.

The security is not in the phone or the OS. It’s in making sure there’s no longer any data to secure or making it really difficult to recover.

What is the judge issuing a warrant for?