Ain't that some BS

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Tunick’s case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter.

The U.S. government has long claimed it can search and seize people’s devices without a search warrant or court order until they are permitted entry to the United States.

Tough Shit! If you want to argue your laws (rights) don't apply to him, because he is not considered to be on US soil prior to being permitted in, I guess he can argue that he was still outside your jurisdiction.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    The evidence that he gave a duress password is that the phone flashed and restarted, and then it was empty?

    I've used multiple Android phones that freeze and restart out of nowhere, and sometimes when you unlock the phone it "flashes" and restarts.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    Good luck proving a duress password with a wiped phone. The government can claim it. Now let them prove it.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    I will always shake my etch-a-sketch before handing it over to the "authorities". All phones should have this option as it brings ultimate control of your own stuff, the stuff you own, back to you.

  • source
  • [–] 45 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

    Everyone is cheering but the case was not thrown out yet. For now we just know this is technically possible which we knew already. Now we will find out if you can do this and not go to jail. I will cheer when this guy walks free.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    what was the crime committed? I know they claim the guy "suppressed evidence", but evidence must point towards a crime that is at least suspected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago*

    Apparently destroying property to prevent it being seized is a crime in itself. 12th paragraph in the article, just after the part where they can seize things from people crossing the border before they cross the border, without any warrants etc, because they haven't crossed the border, yet their jurisdiction has apparently started enough to conduct seizures even though legally you're still on the other side of the border.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 2 days ago* (2 children)

    Guy was innocent until they had proof of a crime. They didnt have any proof so boohoo for them. And they charged him of damaging property. Its his property, and its not damaged.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    The intent of the law was to have something to charge corporate fraudsters with if they destroyed the accounting records with proof of their fraud when served a warrant. Or illegal drug manufacturers destroying their chemlab. Ownership of the property doesn't come into it.

    The envisioned cases were always domestic crime investigations where there was already enough evidence to get a warrant. The application at customs where they don't need a warrant is the novelty, and I really hope the government loses its case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 208 points 2 days ago (37 children)

    Friendly reminder that, per the fifth amendment, you are not required to disclose your passwords to the authorities under any circumstances. This protection does not apply to biometric authentication, so don't enable those methods.

  • source
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 days ago (11 children)

    Yep.

    Biometrics are SUPER unsafe, and insecure, because you can be physically forced to put your finger on a sensor, or to stand still for them to hold a phone infront of your face for faceid. I've literally seen videos of cops holding a guy in a choke hold whole another cop unlocks his phone with his face.

    but they can't physically manhandle you into typing in a password.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
  • load more comments (36 replies)
    [–] 20 points 2 days ago

    I like this guy. Oh, you wanna see my phone? Fine, here ya go asshole.

  • source
  • [–] 176 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    SECURE IN YOUR PERSONAL EFFECTS AND DOCUMENTS

    -Bill of Suggestions

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 114 points 2 days ago (1 child)
  • [–] 20 points 2 days ago (8 children)

    What a great idea. If I was able to I'd create a free Android and iOS app that did this exact same thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 51 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Good. We all need to set this up. Fuck ICE and TSA.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 2 days ago

    Even if he did, so what? His phone, his property, his business. He should be able to do what he wants.

  • source
  • [–] 64 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    Unless he was subpoenaed is this a crime?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 62 points 2 days ago (6 children)

    a duress password?
    What a neat idea.

    I wonder if i can set that up on my iphone.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›