A US man is being prosecuted after allegedly using a GrapheneOS duress PIN to wipe his Pixel during a border search.
  • Telorand@reddthat.comEnglish
    3 months

    “Being prosecuted” is not the same as “being charged” or “being convicted.” It could lead to prison time, but if he’s a US citizen, the fifth amendment applies (which means you do not have to divulge passwords or information). The prosecution part is a fear and intimidation tactic being used by the fascist government, but whether it even goes to trial is another matter.

    It’s possible they’ll get him on some obstruction charge, and while I suspect this will ultimately amount to nothing, it is nonetheless scary that a hostile government exists with this much global hegemony and is still allowed to use a paramilitary extrajudicial group with virtual impunity.

    • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
      3 months

      the fifth amendment applies (which means you do not have to divulge passwords or information)

      That’s not really true but it’s also not what is happening here. The duress pin wipes the device so this is destruction of evidence.

      • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        3 months

        That phone wasn’t evidence of anything, and all he did was give them a password when they asked for one. Not under oath

      • Telorand@reddthat.comEnglish
        3 months

        That’s not really true

        It is absolutely true. The fifth amendment means US citizens have a right to silence. It has already been ruled that neither the government nor the courts can compel someone to divulge a password under those fifth amendment protections, which is why former mayor Eric Adams was able to avoid having his phone searched by the FBI.

        Whether this is destruction of evidence or not will be a decision made by the courts (it’s a question at the heart of the matter in the first place), and the facts that he was allegedly repeatedly denied access to a lawyer and not read his Miranda rights are both things that are decidedly in his favor for getting the case tossed before that question is even addressed.

        • artyom@piefed.socialEnglish
          3 months

          It is absolutely true

          It isn’t. Check out United States v. Apple MacPro Computer and NJ v. Andrews.

          Whether this is destruction of evidence or not will be a decision made by the courts

          Regardless, the point remains that the subject at hand is destruction of evidence and not password compulsion.

          • Telorand@reddthat.comEnglish
            3 months

            Check out United States v. Apple MacPro Computer and NJ v. Andrews.

            I did. To be perfectly frank, I think they are wrong. They even said that divulging the contents of your mind is protected by the fifth amendment, but they also say that noncommunicative actions (like entering a password) are not. So you can’t be compelled to say what your password is verbally, but you can be compelled to essentially write it? Absolute horseshit.

            Anyway, you are correct that this is more about alleged destruction of evidence. Hopefully the court isn’t able to rule on that at all due to the case being tossed.

  • stravanasu@lemmy.caEnglish
    3 months

    It is not the Graphene OS’s feature that could land a man in prison, but a fascist government.

  • 87Six@lemmy.zipEnglish
    3 months

    Nazi country. These morons will start WW3…

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    3 months

    For example, would it be considered destruction of evidence if a defendant had written it on the back of the phone and the officers assumed it was the correct PIN? That’s just a hypothetical

    What a good idea! Hypothetically. :)