[sfRattan]

Edit for the confused and misinformed: 18 USC 1001. Also, is ≠ ought.

Lying to a federal officer is a crime, IIRC, and if the lie results in destruction of evidence, the person who told the lie is probably accountable for both crimes. This isn't a lie with plausible deniability: you have to set a duress PIN, understanding what it does, and then communicate that PIN instead of the unlock PIN.

A duress PIN to wipe the device don't exist to absolve the owner of liability... It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.

It is an extreme solution for extreme scenarios. People need to be sober in weighing its use.

[datsci_est_2015]

> It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.

Devil’s advocate, it sounds like the accused could be part of some mutual aid networks who could be helping people who are vulnerable against the actions of the current government. People who may die if they’re deported, or returned to their family (gay or trans youth). This person may literally have saved lives by not handing over their phonebook and messages.

[Rohansi]

> It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.

Or it's preferable to get caught lying to a federal officer than it is for them to have the evidence on your phone.

[dathinab]

possible

but not necessary evidence, as evidence would imply a crime. But when it comes to police harassing activists, or outright mislabeling them as terrorists, there are many fully legal things you still might prefer the police not to have. Lets not forget that boarder police has in the past tried absurd things like trying to seize Attorney-client privilege protected information from a US attorney.

Through most likely many people setting up and using a duress pins never truly think this thought from a legal POV.

[malcolmgreaves]

I’m quite unfamiliar with this notion. What law says it’s illegal to lie when you’re not under oath during a court proceeding?

[sfRattan]

18 U.S. Code § 1001 [1]

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

[hinata08]

does this apply to defendant ?

the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying"

[sfRattan]

In America, the defendant generally has the right not to testify against himself by remaining silent, both in court and when questioned by agents of the state out of court. Not a right to lie. This is why criminal defense attorneys advise everyone to shut up, shut up, SHUT UP without a lawyer present. Police can and will attempt to catch you in a provable lie.

> the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying"

What on Earth is this second part of your comment supposed to mean?

Do you expect to be able to lie to the government in an authoritarian country? And not be arrested if they catch you in the lie there? And not be charged or worse if they consider the lie serious?

[hinata08]

Alright. Most places would investigate crimes and charge you for them before they look at your defense itself, so I had several worries about that

One of which is self indications (even of things that cops didn't know about or couldn't prove) that would allow them to just question anyone into admitting even a parking offense, but I guess you can shut up indeed

I was worried that they could use any crime in a broad area and just force everyone to say with who they were and what they were doing, but you can also shut up

I was also worried than on investigations with no real crime involved, they could just go play jeopardy and ask you what you were doing minute by minute, and get you to talk until something gets inaccurate (while they have cctv but you have no vcr in your brain). But again, you can shut up.

When I'll be in America, I'll remember not to talk to cops.

Not even to 911 as emergency calls are error prone : You said someone was attacked by a suv and knife when it was a pickup truck and machete, you go to jail

[15155]

> Not even to 911 as emergency calls are error prone : You said someone was attacked by a suv and knife when it was a pickup truck and machete, you go to jail

Very few states have anything resembling this specific federal statute, and one doesn't typically call 911 to obtain service from federal law enforcement agencies. And in the case of a 911 call specifically, "heat of the moment" and "good faith" do a lot of work.

Unless you obviously intended to mislead an emergency services response, you will not be criminally implicated from good faith statements made during a 911 call regarding some incident you merely observed as a bystander.

[sfRattan]

> I was worried that they could use any crime in a broad area and just force everyone to say with who they were and what they were doing

In authoritarian countries, that absolutely happens. In America and the West, police are generally expected to have reasonable suspicion of anyone they detain to interrogate, and the length of detention is also limited if no evidence validating suspicion is forthcoming. They could not simply arrest everyone in the proximity of a crime, and geofence warrants are controversial exactly because that was the standard in the analog world.

> I was also worried than on investigations with no real crime involved, they could just go play jeopardy and ask you what you were doing minute by minute, and get you to talk until something gets inaccurate

Again, they must have reasonable suspicion to even detain you. You are reasoning about law codes as if they were literalist computer code for a compiler. The law, at least common law in America, is written by and for humans who are expected to exercise good faith as a part of enforcing and interpreting the law.

Do know your right to remain silent, and ask for a translator and consular assistance if detained or arrested. Police departments will provide these things because attorneys in court will question the reliability and admissibility of any testimony in the absence of their provision.

Don't worry too much about police if you're in America to visit. They're ordinary people who mostly want to catch criminals who are hurting their community. Bad apples are rare, and bad apples who harass someone on a tourist visa are rarer still.

[jibal]

From the cited statute:

> Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

[object-a]

Famously, 18 USC 1001

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

[dathinab]

Technically they deceived an officer to delete (potential) evidence for them a duress PIN in a context where they implied it was a normal PIN.

But also I don't think a duress pin _usage_ should be legal, _during a lawful search_ (not unlocking your phone is a different topic, similar a duress pin which restarts your phone in lock-down mode to prevent extraction of encryption secrets from memory is another topic).

The reason is quite simple, allowing it would mean allowing actual criminals to delete evidence, which isn't desirable.

Through the "during a lawful search" part is the very important part.|And independent of weather or not the search in this case was lawful, _it shouldn't have been_. Boarder police expanded search powers should be limited to finding _physical_ smuggling/illegal goods, not phone searches (for _many_ reasons). And definitively not for a citizen without warrant, as this effectively means fundamental rights don't apply to US citizens when re-entering the US, which is ridiculous and IMHO should be found unconstitutional (sadly probably won't). (Also labeling activists as terrorist is a huge no-go for a state of law, so is making up supposedly committed crimes).

So while using a duress pin during a lawful search should IMHO always have some legal consequences, using it during a unlawful search should be fully allowed. But this still kinda sucks as finding a search unlawful requires a judge. Still if phone search in general aren't legal without warrant (IMHO they shouldn't) this would be a pretty simple case and the police should be required to drop charges without going to court if it's fully clear it is their fault...

[c22]

Here's one: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-37-08/

[mannanj]

you had answers here. I'm trying to understand why our leaders can get away with lying so much and it being obviously in the public record, with videos on YouTube etc, and there being no recourse or accountability?

Is it true that the law is only selectively applied to some people?

[8note]

if you follow the links theres a lot of carve outs for the government to be allowed to lie

[Exoristos]

"Our leaders" also are sometimes persecuted for lying to a federal officer; the past few years there have been more than one high-profile case.

[mannanj]

Yes and did you see how Biden issued dozens of pardons before he left office absolving several leaders of their lies and whatever was actually persecuted to the "crime" level?

Seems if crimes are only crimes for normal people, theres rarely actual application of law for everyone. It instead shows itself to the governed as a system of control for them for the benefit of the leadership (since their friends absolve them of crimes, and also participate in the systematic neutering of any other forms of justice opposing their friends privileged behaviors).

Not saying this as a political thing to target one side like Biden/right and say Trump/left is clean. I'm saying I notice this in all levels both left and right.

[deejaaymac]

>Lying to a fed

They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin"

>Destroying evidence

How did they know there was any evidence on there?

>it exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.

No, the duress pin is there for when I'm under duress and being forced to unlock my device against my will

>It is an extreme solution for extreme scenarios

Wiping a device I own is extreme?

[lelanthran]

> >Lying to a fed

> They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin"

The law doesn't work like that. Unless you're provably at the developmental level of a 5 year old, the court knows you know what was required, and also knows what you intended when you gave the duress pin.

The justice system famously never plays "simon says"...

[sfRattan]

> They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin"

This is a Mickey Mouse distinction no court will take seriously.

> Wiping a device I own is extreme?

When the consequences are potential years in prison for lying to the US government or, in another country, torture or death in prison for obstructing an authoritarian government, then yes... Extreme.

All I'm saying is to decide to use a duress PIN at any national border or in any foreign country soberly, with knowledge of the potential or likely consequences.

[b40d-48b2-979e]

Just submit citizen. Nothing to hide, right?

[AnimalMuppet]

That's a different discussion. Are you interested in staying out of trouble at the border? Or are you interested in taking down the system (or at least fixing it)?

If you think the system needs fixed or destroyed, you do you, but don't be surprised when that approach gets you in trouble at the border.

[za3faran]

> or, in another country, torture or death in prison for obstructing an authoritarian government

Also happens in the US

[jibal]

It's sad that your perfectly valid previous comment is dead (and that HN even works that way) ... adding is ≠ ought probably doesn't even help for the people who don't grasp that in the first place.

People who think that tricking the cops into wiping your device legally absolves you need to grow up. Also those who argue that LE can't prove any evidence was destroyed since it's been destroyed.

[sfRattan]

Yeah, but the way HN works is leagues ahead of other, similar platforms. And the top voted comment of a subthread (at that moment) being flagged is its own interesting signal about both the issue at hand and the HN userbase. I'll be grateful if reasonable folks vouch, but I'm not mad about it either way.

[jibal]

It's now undead.

[dathinab]

just want to point out that I'm happy you comment has been reinstated.

my original comment was really just about the irony and the vage formulation wrt. legality was mainly there because I wasn't sure if there might be subtle differences between "destroying evidence yourself" and "deceiving officers to destroy evidence for you", both of which are obviously not legal

The level to which people insist on nitpicking formulations with the intend to intentionally misinterpret what meaning the author tried to convey is honestly frustrating. Weather it's people which think they can doge laws, make it ethical okay to scam people or start hate complain on twitter because someones post can be misinterpreted when nit picking it's formulation reading each sentence out of context it's all unproductive, destructive and IMHO pretty mean behavior. It's also IMHO quite quixotic(1) to believe the world does or should work that way, at least IRL/outside of X. I mean in which word is it desirable that criminals can doge legal responsibility through "clever speech" or similar.

Like getting back to this case

- sure the boarder police has to much power to harass people, sure some degree of search for physical smuggling goods is needed, but as there is little point in physically smuggling digital goods (assuming you aren't North Korea) any digital searching right requiring phone unlock is more then just one step too far. Especially given how this can be abused by unlawful officers, weather it's in context of impersonation, snooping into very private matter (e.g. sexting of wife) or outright trying to breach attorney-client privilege or size companies trade secrets

- similar him being internally labeled as a "terrorist" while most likely by any sane definition only being a "activist" is nothing new, but very much not what any state of law should do

- so anything leading up to the phone unlock requirement most likely shouldn't happen

- BUT iff there where a search warrant on him for an actual reasonable matter, then yes deceiving the officers to delete his data for him by giving them a duress pin _should_ have legal consequences. Everything else would be absurd. But also a ethical & legal warrant requires that there is a well founded suspicion of there being evidence in the searched places, e.g. based on evidence of the person being entangled into criminal activity or similar.

Or in other words the problem here isn't that using a duress pin has legal consequences, but that, from the facts we have, from a democratic/state of law POV, it should never have come to a point where he is under duress to give out the PIN. Which also seems to be roughly the direction his defense goes, but that isn't fully clear from the article.

Lastly there is a (slim) possibility of him actually being a criminal by any reasonable standard playing victim, sure it doesn't look like it. But it's worth mentioning as people love an underdog story and love to hate on police/boarder control, but not every underdog is a good person sometimes police does the right thing.

[digitalPhonix]

> Lying to a federal officer is a crime

That doesn’t pass the sniff test

[sfRattan]

Double check your nose.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 [1]

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

[NullPrefix]

but it is perfectly legal when federal officers lie themselves?

[jkaplowitz]

Generally yes, unfortunately, with very narrow exceptions. Not all countries follow this rule, but the US does, and it’s certainly not alone in this respect.

[collabs]

If you ask me, this law ought to be removed completely.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/25/939064270/trump-pardons-forme...

> President Trump has issued a pardon to his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and then recanted.

Rules for thee but not for me.

[switchbak]

"Rules for thee but not for me" - isn't that beyond obvious now? The folks running things simply do not play by the rules you or I do (assuming you do).

[8note]

a pardon is still within the rules

make sure to give trump a payout and you too can loe to the fbi