Instead of a duress password that blatantly and obviously nukes everything why doesn't someone just come up with something that seems to just regularly unlock the phone but stealth deletes selected files when a certain code is entered?
Removing data from your phone is not a crime. In order to charge him for destruction of evidence they need to prove he committed a crime in the first place and that data contained the evidence of that crime.This won't go anywhere. American justice system is retarded.
>>109711736Wrong, once you are detained you cannot hinder an investigation.
>>109711770>you cannot hinderyeah but the ones the entered the password are the officers.
>>109711736How do you become this retarded?>Oh no... no! Of course not! Never! I didn't have anything on my phone! I deleted all the data during a police investigation anyway.
>>109711781>Did you press 1 2 3 4? I meant 1 4 3 4
>>109711770Dog, the justice department knows this is a dog water case. They're theowing shit up against the wall to see if it will stick, and to make the process the punishment.
>>109711770>>109711781This is strategic litigation. Prosecutors are trying this to see if sticks. If so, they just got a very nice precedent to use in the future.If not, oh well
>>109711794>I deleted all the datano, because it's not that HE entered the password. it's the police.
>>109711819So he gave the police wrong password on purpose.
>>109711815>If not, oh wellYeah, the only burned a few million dollars and God knows how many hours of an already dying justice system.
>>109711815Even if it doesn't stick, for as long as the case goes on the mere possibility will produce a chilling effect on the use and development of privacy software.
>>109711829>on purpose.
>>109711708at what point does the usa admit it's in a dictatorship?
What's ass about this case is you can just refuse to give them your code in the first place
>>109711708this dude was a moron...every fucking one knows that if you're high profile and risk in-depth control at border you have to reset your phone to factory settings, this is COMMON SENSE and a requirement for people who work on critical stuff>Instead of a duress password that blatantly and obviously nukes everything why doesn't someone just come up with something that seems to just regularly unlock the phone but stealth deletes selected files when a certain code is entered?the devs just have to create a "duress" profile that you can populate wtih data and hide the fact taht it's another profile by showing a madeup setting menu where it show the current fake profile as the only available one, the fake mode is infinite and survive reboot until you enter a certain password and it goes back to normal mode, it really is that simple.>>109711736this is still a massive waste of time, it's better to have a factory new iphone when you pass the border then you restore it once inside the country, do the same when you leave, it REALLY is that simple and millions have done it before, in fact.the lack of survival/preservation instinct of some people is astonishing...>>109711736>Removing data from your phone is not a crimeso? why waste ressources for no fucking reason instead of complying? as I wrote above, you already have all the tools you need to create a fake identity on your phone, use the tools wisely
>>109711851Autocracy, anon. The word you are looking for is an autocracy.
>>109711847So cops just bruteforced his password?Anon, do you even think before typing?
I think you'd need two profiles with completely separate apps and accounts. One used for everyday normie shit, one used for whatever degenerate filth or activist contacts you're trying to hide from border control. If you're using the normie profile and there's some incoming call/notification/whatever on the secret profile, there should be some subtle sign like a news/weather/battery notification so you know to switch.
>>109711856Why are you arguing with me? It's the jury you need to convince he purposefully did it.
>>109711708>Instead of a duress password that blatantly and obviously nukes everything why doesn't someone just come up with something that seems to just regularly unlock the phone but stealth deletes selected files when a certain code is entered?Hm, you mean like it just secretly deletes your data, your contacts, your message history, browsing history, your apps, your other passwords, and anything else? hm yes why hasnt someone come up with something like that
>>109711866You are proposing that cops just bruteforced his password and came across his duress pin.
>>109711900No, I am (weasely) proposing that he did not give them the duress password intentionally, because it's a higher hurdle to prove intention.That's very different from a claim that police brute forced it.
>>109711929Then how else did the phone wipe? If he didn't enter it, and if police didn't enter it?
>>109711770You can't be detained unless there is a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime.
>>109711854>so? why waste ressourcesAsk American justice system and what their tax payers think about it.Oh well, they were trained to be a cattle and lick that boot so they will never complain or vote for a non authoritarian option.
>>109711939Accidentally gave them the wrong code. Fat boy who took his phone went to put the code in and slipped on cheeto duat, fat fingering the password. Allah willed it.
>>109711781Courts side more often with the common sense argument than they are given credit for. The argument will be>any reasonable person would expect that the password given would unlock the phone, and any reasonable person would also infer the above. Thus a reasonable person could expect that giving the duress password would lead to the destruction of evidence, thus, given he is a reasonable person, his action was premeditated destruction of evidence.The more interesting case here is if the police had any right to demand the evidence they requested. I imagine laws exist to protect private persons from unlawful searches
>>109712049>destruction of evidenceEvidence of what?
>>109711854>Speak out against our greatest ally>The men in small hats send their thugs to arrest you for goy crimes>They intend to plant some of their mountains of csam on you>Why didn't you just comply and let them ruin you?
>>109712049pic related is the reasonable person btw
>>109712049>I imagine laws exist to protect private persons from unlawful searchesYes, but the Justice Department is claiming he has CSAM material, despite their case prior to that being against him for protesting a police training site, so we will of course delete all of his civil rights
>>109712116They don't know because you destroyed. That's worse for you because it meant the evidence was incriminating.
>>109712160In a better world this would require a warrant
>>109712170>meant the evidence was incriminatingIt doesn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.Of there is no crime then there is no evidence. If there is no evidence then there can't be a destruction of evidence.
>>109712178It would if he was on US soil, but since it's the border (international airport), the 4th amendment no longer exists, even for US citizens.
>>109712186>Of there is no crime then there is no evidence. If there is no evidence then there can't be a destruction of evidence.
>>109712204I don't know why I'm laughing. I should be crying.
>>109711708>why doesn't someone just come up with somethingJust back up your phone before you leave, fedex it to your destination. Put your sim in a cheap throw away phone. Simple as.
>>109712049>>any reasonable person would expect that the password given would unlock the phonethis is the most blatantly retarded thing i have heard all day. no. there's no reasonable person on the face of this earth that would compromise his personal device by giving the password willy nilly. it goes again any sense of self determination.
>>109711844Yeah, this too
>>109712254The "reasonable" person in this sentence would be the cop asking for the phone to be unlocked. You would be right if they just refused to hand over the password or told them that the password given was a duress pin, otherwise the cop asking for x and getting y is mislead to some extend, even if y is vastly more reasonable to give than x
>>109711708There's no point. If you want to feel like a spook when you cross a border you should wipe your phone ahead of time and restore to an encrypted cloud backup at your destination. The duress pin at least is legally defensible, it is unlikely that the state will win this case. They are almost certainly engaging in lawfare.
give duress passwordpolice can't prove you gave duress passwordsue police for destroying your phone
>>109712366thisdude fucked uph should have gone"wtf did you do to my phone ill fucking sue you!" and cause a big scene so everyone around him noticed
>>109712049In regards to the legality of demanding evidence, if he was legally compelled by the courts to give over the password, and gave the duress one, Im 100% sure he will be guilty of whatever conditions they placed on that, but if it was just police interrogating him, then I highly doubt they have a case for that here. It would be the polices due diligence to confirm these things. Either case, you should be aware of the charges for giving false passwords when compelled to give real ones, in order to weigh your options. For example, having under 10 csam images, you did not produce, with no other charges, prosecuted by the state (not federal) would likely be 1-2years in jail at most, many times simply held till sentanced (few days to weeks) then released with time served, though the after effects are usually the worse part by getting stuck on a registry for 10-20years. Which is like a multi-decade public shaming or excommunication. Compare that to lying or falsifying evidence when legally compelled to, which is min 6 months to 20years, which most cases for this being 5years sentencing. And is that charge is usually considered an additional charge to whatever they actually are trying you for, so if your gonna be guilty of something its gonna be that thing + 5years. So lying when compelled to tell the truth, would only be a good idea when you know all they could get you on is on that device and whatever evidence is there, it would be greater than a 5year sentencing. Otherwise if you have nothing to hide, or at worse its a first time CSAM with few images, you should definitely not lie. This is only in regards to a court legally compelling a witness, suspect, defendant, etc
>>1097117081. Store files encrypted on remote server.2. Wipe and set up phone; do not copy files yet3. Enter facist retard country with freshly set up phone4. Copy files now that you're inside
Only criminals need this feature.
>>109711799>Did you press 1 2 3 4? i meant 2 4 4 4
>>109712477/thread
>>109712449>when legally compelled toyou use the vague verb "compelled" signing a statement can hold you liable. being asked to reveal your password is not the same. say they formally ask you to write down your password in your statement. you can just refuse because that's the 5th. you can't be forced to incriminate yourself.
>>109712521Its not a vague term. Legally being compelled by a court is a formal, written and documented procedure where you are aware of the consequences. Police asking you whats your password, is not legally being compelled by a court, but part of an investigation. The latter is vague, the former is not. Lying to a cop, can result in nothing or same as being legally compelled by a court, which is why I used it as reference. It be most likely worse case scenario.
>>109711708Or maybe it just opens the phone to a second profile thats basically empty?
