[ifwinterco]

Yes I thought this was the standard solution?

People have been doing this since way back in the TrueCrypt days - IIRC you could configure it to run a whole fake version of Windows if you wanted without easily revealing your actual main volume.

Most hardware crypto wallets also have a "duress wallet" feature where you keep a low balance for the same reason.

Wiping is obviously extremely suspicious and asking for trouble

[jjbinx007]

"Wiping is obviously extremely suspicious and asking for trouble"

It's sad this is the default view. It's his device, his data, his life on that phone. If he had wiped the phone before the interrogation it wouldn't be a problem. How long before? A second before? A week before? But wiping the data a minute later is suddenly asking for trouble.

[ifwinterco]

I don't like it and I wish we had more privacy, but realistically there is no such "right".

If you're going to be in a situation where you're in a room with some goons backed by the full power of the state, it is what it is.

Maybe because I'm not American I don't have any hangups about seeing the US government this way, but my own government is no different - you can (and people have) get stopped at Heathrow, taken to a dimly lit backroom and given a going over for hours

[schoen]

I don't know that there is case law on this but I imagine that "prior to the admissibility inspection" is likely to be treated differently from "during the admissibility inspection" or "during administrative detention or secondary inspection" (or "in response to a request or question by a border agent"!).

Edit: a bigger picture question is the difference between things that may be legally punishable and things that may cause suspicion from CBP agents, which aren't the same thing at all.

[bryanrasmussen]

it seems to me that if you give them a password to unlock the phone and when it unlocks it has been wiped that will cause problems whether it is the password that causes the wiping or not?

[Zak]

A US citizen has an almost unlimited right to enter the USA. The border search rule permits officials to search for things that are illegal to import. A blank phone is not illegal to import.

A non-citizen who arrives with a blank phone might be denied entry because it seems suspicious.

[bryanrasmussen]

well OK, luckily my checking of media informs me no citizens have been stopped and held in custody by immigration without due process or any particular grounds, especially recently, so it all sounds good.

[schoen]

We noted in the border search guide that lying to the agents in response to their questions is potentially a crime in its own right (even if it's not done in order to hide anything illegal). We thought that this made hidden volumes quite tricky, particularly if one's intent was to pretend to comply with a question or request while actually not complying.

[Cider9986]

It's not possible to make a robust feature like that because of low-level architecture of SSDs. Implementing a detectable solution would give people a false sense of security.

https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/2081471477174456340#m

[mrandish]

IANAL but I think while lying to some questions might lead to obstruction charges, not answering is simply exercising the right to remain silent.

[tsimionescu]

Sure - but the point is, if you're instructed by the officer to enter a password so they can inspect your device, and you enter a fake password and show them a fake version of your data, that could easily be found later to constitute a lie and lead to serious legal trouble.

[withinboredom]

I'm pretty sure they can't compel you to enter a password.

[tsimionescu]

They can't compel you, no. However, they can ask you to do so, and if you enter a privacy password that shows them something other than your real device (which is what this thread was about), you can very likely be faced with charges of obstruction of justice or even perjury. The point was that it's better to simply refuse, and accept the consequences of that, rather than trying to use technical means to trick them or to wipe data.

Note that if you're not a citizen of the USA, refusing to comply with a request like this is very likely to have you sent back to your country and denied access to the USA forever. While they can't legally force you to comply, they can absolutely deny you entry for any reason like this, regardless of having a valid visa and everything else in order. This even applies to legal residents.

[mrandish]

> you can very likely be faced with charges of obstruction of justice or even perjury.

If they can't compel you to enter a password (courts have ruled passwords are 'speech' and the government can't compel or constrain speech, absent some well-defined grounds for doing so. There IS law around spoliation of evidence but AFAIK this requires a judge issuing an order. Of course, suddenly taking actions you wouldn't otherwise have on learning you're under suspicion could be claimed by a prosecutor in court as circumstantial evidence of guilt but it's not a cause of action in the first place until you're notified by a court to preserve evidence. Can a prosecutor try to construct a theory that the alleged actions do amount to obstruction? They can try but it's a serious long shot. I think this is a case of this administration directing the justice department to bring yet another dubious, likely-to-lose case as an extremely aggressive way to make a point by trying to assert and establish rights they don't actually have. So far, their track record in such cases hasn't been good.

> Note that if you're not a citizen of the USA

Yes, everything is different in this context if you're not a U.S. citizen. The U.S. govt can deny entry to non-citizens essentially without justification. I think this sucks as it goes against long-held American ideals around presumption of innocence, consistent treatment under the law, standards of evidence and having cause, but it's not currently prohibited.

[inigyou]

How would they discover you entered a wrong password?

[actionfromafar]

They can't, but that will put you in another "suspicious" bucket.