Man uses GrapheneOS feature to wipe his phone during border search
https://cybernews.com/privacy/atlanta-man-border-search-prosecuted-grapheneos/?utm_source=cn_facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=cybernews&utm_content=post&source=cn_facebook&medium=social&campaign=cybernews&content=post
In response, 18 U.S.C § 2232 should not be applied here on the grounds that Wiping Data does not meet the definition of "Destroying" Property. The smartphone would still function without issue With or without that Data. As it does not Depend on that Data. Deleting Data on a smartphone is in no way "Destroying property to prevent seizure" our Gestapo Police forces might be butthurt that they were not able to Spy on someone but Cry me a River as US Statue 18 U.S.C § 2232 does not apply for the Simple reason that Deleting Data on a Device does not "Destroy" Said device.
On these grounds and on the basis of known information on this case I would vote not guilty if I got on that jury as Deleting Data is not "Destroying" anything and I believe the government is trying to conflate deleting things from Data Storage with property destruction.
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2232/
Libertarian Party of Texas
The federal government just indicted a man for having good security settings.
Samuel Tunick flew home to Atlanta. CBP grabbed him at the airport, demanded his phone, and told him they did not need a warrant. He had GrapheneOS installed with a duress PIN, a feature that wipes the device instead of unlocking it. The screen flashed. The data went away. Now he is facing a federal charge for destruction of property to prevent seizure.
Read that again. They said they did not need a warrant to take it. Then they charged him with a crime for the state of the thing they did not need a warrant to take.
The agents floated child exploitation as the reason for the search. His lawyers say the actual interest was his association with the Cop City opposition. Funny how that works. The scariest possible accusation gets deployed at the checkpoint, and the political one shows up in the paperwork later.
Here is the principle. Your phone is not a suitcase. It is your papers, your effects, your entire life, and the Fourth Amendment does not evaporate because you are standing on a particular square of linoleum at Hartsfield-Jackson. A duress PIN is a lock. Refusing to open a lock is not obstruction. If the government wants what is behind it, there is a well established procedure. It involves a judge.
Encryption is not evidence of a crime. It is evidence that you were paying attention.
I don't always agree with the Libertarian party but, I do here.
In response, 18 U.S.C § 2232 should not be applied here on the grounds that Wiping Data does not meet the definition of "Destroying" Property. The smartphone would still function without issue With or without that Data. As it does not Depend on that Data. Deleting Data on a smartphone is in no way "Destroying property to prevent seizure" our Gestapo Police forces might be butthurt that they were not able to Spy on someone but Cry me a River as US Statue 18 U.S.C § 2232 does not apply for the Simple reason that Deleting Data on a Device does not "Destroy" Said device.
On these grounds and on the basis of known information on this case I would vote not guilty if I got on that jury as Deleting Data is not "Destroying" anything and I believe the government is trying to conflate deleting things from Data Storage with property destruction.
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2232/
Libertarian Party of Texas
The federal government just indicted a man for having good security settings.
Samuel Tunick flew home to Atlanta. CBP grabbed him at the airport, demanded his phone, and told him they did not need a warrant. He had GrapheneOS installed with a duress PIN, a feature that wipes the device instead of unlocking it. The screen flashed. The data went away. Now he is facing a federal charge for destruction of property to prevent seizure.
Read that again. They said they did not need a warrant to take it. Then they charged him with a crime for the state of the thing they did not need a warrant to take.
The agents floated child exploitation as the reason for the search. His lawyers say the actual interest was his association with the Cop City opposition. Funny how that works. The scariest possible accusation gets deployed at the checkpoint, and the political one shows up in the paperwork later.
Here is the principle. Your phone is not a suitcase. It is your papers, your effects, your entire life, and the Fourth Amendment does not evaporate because you are standing on a particular square of linoleum at Hartsfield-Jackson. A duress PIN is a lock. Refusing to open a lock is not obstruction. If the government wants what is behind it, there is a well established procedure. It involves a judge.
Encryption is not evidence of a crime. It is evidence that you were paying attention.
I don't always agree with the Libertarian party but, I do here.
