[mingus88]

This should be an interesting case in today’s legal climate

Obviously grafeneOS has no liability. But the owner of the device didn’t take the action to remove the data, the CBP officer entered it. We already have some precedent around being forced to give up your password.

How does that change if you are forced to give up a password that is destructive? What if the password works fine at home and the same password does a wipe based on location? Either way, the user complied, and did not take action to wipe their device.

[victorbjorklund]

Intentions matter. If the intent is to trick the officer to enter a PIN code that will destroy potential evidence then it does not matter that you didn't type the PIN code. Your speech is the thing that triggers a series of events that you know will lead to a wipe. Just like you can be charged with destruction of evidence even if you trick someone else to take the action.

[Groxx]

while attempting to avoid armchair-law-interpreting because I really do not intend that, and I agree that this is going to be an interesting/deeply-worrying legal case:

wiping the device before carrying it across the border seems essentially identical to me. like, saying "you can't wipe it when searched" would also imply "you can't have an empty device when crossing because it may have been wiped before the search to avoid having your data searched" since people can (and often do) do that for exactly that reason.

that may very well be what they want / what they are trying to legally allow during searches, but it also seems like it'd raise a hell of a lot more outrage. it's essentially claiming all citizens are under full legal hold all the time, if they ever intend to leave the country for any length of time.

[iamnothere]

To my knowledge, no citizen has ever been prevented from reentry due to a blank or absent device. In fact they cannot block a citizen’s legal reentry for any reason, they can only detain you while they investigate.

Beyond this, “I dropped my phone in the ocean” is always a perfectly valid reason.

If you’re a foreigner and they already suspect you of something, they can deny you entry for any reason. It may be better to be denied than arrested!

[Groxx]

No citizen afaik. Foreigners yes, afaik. Bad, but materially different... but slippery slope arguments are rather predictive with the current government controllers.

[dotancohen]

  > wiping the device before carrying it across the border seems essentially identical to me.

This seems more in line with many companies' email retention policies to delete all mail after some time period. This is to protect the company from anything compromising that might have been said, should an investigation ever occur. Better to just not have any record of anything.

And this policy is already accepted in practice.

[nemomarx]

similar to structuring laws, right? trying to not provide evidence is occasionally similar to destroying it.

[Groxx]

yes, this is what I'm leaning towards. if intent (without accusation!) is the issue, then not providing access seems the same as removing or denying access. they're trying to do this kind of thing for foreigners (no social media account -> no entry: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/10/us-to-inspect-tourists-socia...), this feels like a grab at applying it to citizens too.

if someone is accused of something (possibly retroactively), any of those may be illegal (under specific details etc). if not, then... am I going to be required to never delete anything just in case?

[nemomarx]

realistically it'll just be arbitrarily enforced based on the individual cop / agent / whoever's judgement. so try not to look any particular way, I guess?

[tsimionescu]

> wiping the device before carrying it across the border seems essentially identical to me.

On the contrary, there is a huge gulf between these. Providing a fake password that wipes a device while under active questioning is a clear case of providing false testimony. Lying to the police while under investigation is simply illegal, regardless of the thing you're lying about.

By contrast, entering the country with a clear device is not a crime under any possible interpretation that I can see. Now, if you are wiping evidence while you know there is an active investigation against you, that may be a crime as well, but it's a completely separate crime and can't be easily judged by an officer that simply finds you with a clean phone.

[pc86]

> Providing a fake password that wipes a device while under active questioning is a clear case of providing false testimony.

False testimony of what? Can you be compelled to provide testimony that allows a police officer access to your private data? Can a police officer demand I log into my online medical chart so they can complete their investigation?

> Lying to the police while under investigation is simply illegal, regardless of the thing you're lying about.

Perhaps for certain definitions of police, investigation, illegal, and lie. But as a blanket statement, not even remotely. Otherwise every person found guilty of any crime they said they didn't commit would also be found guilty of lying to the police officers who interrogated them.

[tsimionescu]

> False testimony of what?

False testimony of what your password is.

> Can you be compelled to provide testimony that allows a police officer access to your private data?

When under police investigation, you are only allowed to do one of two things: explicitly invoke your 5th amendment right not to provide testimony, or provide truthful testimony of anything the police ask you. Anything else is technically illegal.

> Can a police officer demand I log into my online medical chart so they can complete their investigation?

Yes, though you can refuse their demand by explicitly invoking your 5th ammendemnt right to stay silent. They can legally lie to you about your obligations, though.

> Otherwise every person found guilty of any crime they said they didn't commit would also be found guilty of lying to the police officers who interrogated them.

Indeed, people who proclaim their innocence to police can face additional charges if later found guilty. It's quite rare for this to be pursued in criminal cases, as the additional punishment would not be worth the effort of proving you knowingly lied about this. But it is actually sometimes pursued in misdemeanor cases, as lying to the police is a crime and can actually carry a steeper sentence than the misdemeanor itself, so it can be a powerful incentive to convince you to admit guilt for the lesser charge.

Note: I'm using legal terms rather loosely, and I am probably wrong on some of the details. Perhaps a statement such as "I'm innocent, officer" is too vague to constitute a material falsehood and be prosecutable, even in principle. But something like "I couldn't have killed that man, I was not there that night, I was at this other location" would almost certainly qualify you for additional liability if it can be clearly established that you were in fact at the location the victim was.

[iamnothere]

> But something like "I couldn't have killed that man, I was not there that night, I was at this other location" would almost certainly qualify you for additional liability if it can be clearly established that you were in fact at the location the victim was.

Exactly. This is important, because even accidental lies can be prosecuted or used as evidence. Imagine yourself panicking under duress with someone asking you rapid fire questions that seem to contradict each other. It’s likely that you will get the facts mixed up.

This is why you need to invoke the 5th and retain an attorney in any situation where someone appears to be asking you questions about a serious crime. For all you know, they may suspect you of some heinous act that you aren’t even aware of.

[Zigurd]

The level of duress also matters. US citizens have been shipped to foreign prisons and there's an active case of high-level officials at DOJ violating court orders about that.

[victorbjorklund]

yea, maybe that can be a case but then I assume (I'm not a US lawyer) it would be that yes they destroyed the evidence by providing the wipe pin claiming it was the normal pin BUT under the circumstances it was OK to destroy the evidence because they acted under duress and could not be expected to act correctly.

[gruez]

>The level of duress also matters

Theoretically yes, but in this case there's approximately zero chance a judge would accept "I destroyed evidence because there's a vague chance ICE might send me to a deportation camp".

[Zigurd]

That's a bit of a strawman. No defense attorney would omit the other circumstances of the search, some of which very likely overstepped legitimate authority.

[gruez]

>some of which very likely overstepped legitimate authority.

That's not what you originally said though, which was "The level of duress also matters. US citizens have been shipped to foreign prisons ...".

[pc86]

Well the issue was that you made a good point, so now the goalpost has to move.

[dotancohen]

  > US citizens have been shipped to foreign prisons

From US soil?

[stvltvs]

I'm not aware of any confirmed citizens being sent to foreign prisons (maybe?), but Trump is deporting people without due process, including the chance to demonstrate to the courts that they are here legally.

[order-matters]

isnt it amazing how we are able to know when something is a trick and clearly caused by your action/intention vs when it isnt? i mean sure we can contrive (or maybe even find example of) some scenario where it might be a hard grey area, but ive always found it so cool how we often operate on "top down" methods like this that logically have no basis for working out but 'common sense' happens to be common enough still

i pray that sense doesnt erode

[deepfriedchokes]

If police can lie to the public because free speech then the reverse should also hold true.

[fluoridation]

>Your speech is the thing that triggers a series of events that you know will lead to a wipe.

The owner of the phone doesn't know that. They have no control over or insight into the officer's brain to know what they'll do. The officer might suspect the phone-wiping functionality exists and decide not to enter the password. If we start talking about ultimate causes then judicial matters become infinitely complex. What immediately caused the phone being wiped is the wrong password being entered by the officer.

[logifail]

> Intentions matter

Fed: "give us your PIN or else"

me: "528491"

Fed: <types 528491, presses OK>

me: "no! 528419, I meant 528419!!"

Fed: <watches phone wipe...>

[tsimionescu]

You could still be brought before a jury to determine if you knowingly provided the wrong PIN (and thus knowingly gave false testimony) or not. Records of you intentionally setting two very similar PINs and discussing any such plan could be used to convince a jury that it was malicious.

[gruez]

>"write the pin on a piece of paper"

>"ok are you sure that's your pin?"

>they exit the room and come back 5 min later

>"that pin didn't work, can you write it again?"

You're going to have a hard time convincing the judge that you "accidentally" gave the wrong pin in this case.

[logifail]

> You're going to have a hard time convincing the judge that you "accidentally" gave the wrong pin in this case

Counter-example: muscle memory.

My OH has - more than once - attempted to tell me her PIN code. On more than one occasion two of the digits have been transposed. Happily I know that it's the middle two digets that get transposed... :)

[victorbjorklund]

yes, and it would be up to the jury/court to judge if you made a mistake or if you intended to give the wipe pin. Not different from you shooting someone saying you thought the gun was a fake gun. They will evaluate and decide if they believe you are lying or telling the truth.

[1970-01-01]

See also, 5th amendment. They can't just declare on the spot that your data is now their data.

[tsimionescu]

The 4th ammendemnt is the one that protects your data and other possessions in general, not the 5th. The 5th protects you from being compelled to give testimony that might incriminate you, which then protects you from being compelled to offer a password to access data that could be used to incriminate you.

Since 4th ammendemnt protections are significantly curtailed at border crossings, they can actually declare on the spot that your data is now their data. The only thing they can't do is force you to tell them how to access it - but, if they can hack your password, they actually have the right to search your phone just as much as they have the right to search you luggage.

[1970-01-01]

It's like this: The 5th protects your password, which protects your data, which is already protected by the 4th, but things happen, which is why we have the 5th after the 4th and the password. Agents shouldn't be able to just take your info on the spot, but if they try, you have the 5th amendment right to try and stop them. I'm not a lawyer, but I play one online.

[tsimionescu]

Sure - I'm just pointing out that it's pretty well accepted that they have a right to access your data for inspection when you cross the border, just as they do your luggage. I'm not happy or supportive of this, but it seems to be a lost battle absent new legislation.

The only consideration then is that they can't force you to help them access it. The fact that it's your data is irrelevant. This matters a lot if, for example, you have a copy of your password written down with you - as they are very much allowed to use that to acces your phone. Or, even more plausibly, if your phone is protected only by a biometrics, in which case they can compel you to provide those biometrics and access the phone that way.

[CSMastermind]

If you have a safe in your home and you knowingly wire up a bomb that goes off when a certain lever is pulled then you lie to the police and tell them the way to open the safe is to pull that lever you'd pretty clearly be responsible for the damage done when the bomb goes off.

I don't see why this would be any different.

[phoghed]

Because booby traps are illegal and wiping your phone doesn’t kill or maim the officer

[tomtomtom777]

I fully agree but that is a different argument than the one mingus88 presented. They suggested that the owner did not wipe the device because they did not actively enter the pin, which seems to be a flawed idea because legally intent matters.

[fluoridation]

They're still fundamentally different questions. Rigging up a bomb to a safe is already illegal, even if the bomb never goes off. Setting up a phone to destroy its own data under certain conditions is not.

[idbnstra]

cause you're not harming the officer. this is more like a safe that destroys whatever is inside

[theandrewbailey]

You put a sticky note with the duress PIN on your phone. When detained, the officer notices a PIN in plain sight on the phone, enters it, and the phone wipes itself. You were never asked for a PIN.

Could you be charged with destruction of evidence?

[Terr_]

> Could you be charged with destruction of evidence?

IANAL but I expect it depends on whether someone thinks they can prove your intent was specifically to disrupt a (legitimate) search.

To recycle a comment from 2 days ago, regarding why one might reasonably have the duress code written on the phone:

> "Your honor, I have the real pin memorized because I use it all the time, but since I can never use the duress code, I had to keep it somewhere handy."

> Or

> "Pickpocketing and phone-snatching is a real problem overseas, I put it there so that criminal would wipe the phone trying to get in, denying them access to things like my bank account."

> Heck, those aren't just plausible, they might be a good idea.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> they might be a good idea

I know everyone's situation is different, but it is regardless good to keep in mind one is writing a code on their device which will wipe said device, while also intentionally looking similar to a code that would unlock it instead.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Bonus points if they ask if it unlocks the device and you say, "No it erases the data," with a straight face.

[fluoridation]

Hell, you could truthfully answer yes to that question. The device will be unlocked at the end of the procedure.

[tsimionescu]

> Either way, the user complied, and did not take action to wipe their device.

The user claimed to offer a password to access the contents of the device, and instead offered a password that deleted the device. That is false testimony / lying to an investigation, and is almost certainly punishable in itself.

[GVIrish]

It would depend on precisely what the ask was. Did the officer ask, "Give me the pin to unlock the phone."? In that case the command was complied with.

[gruez]

Even if the prompt was vague like "what's the pin for the phone", you'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that a duress pin (to wipe the phone) is a reasonable person[1] interpretation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

[GVIrish]

The claim was that giving the delete PIN constitutes lying or making a false statement. If someone complied with what was asked, they would not be guilty of lying, even if a reasonable person would judge that the action did not meet the intent of the ask. And it doesn't appear that they are charging him with making a false statement.

The fact that the feds are using an obscure law to argue that he destroyed property to prevent it from being seized shows that they're reaching here.

[gruez]

> If someone complied with what was asked, they would not be guilty of lying, even if a reasonable person would judge that the action did not meet the intent of the ask.

This doesn't pass the sniff test. Consider the following:

Cops: "where were you on the night of the murder?"

Suspect: "at work"

Cops: "You're lying, we found surveillance footage of you near your girlfriend's apartment"

Suspect: "ah-ha, what I actually meant by 'at work', was that I was mentally at work!"

Of course, there's some grey area where the suspect gives cagey or vague answers, but in this case by giving a duress pin, it's pretty obvious the intention was to deceive the CBP officer.

[tsimionescu]

Not really, no. I think it would be extremely hard to convince any jury that you really believed that a PIN that wipes the phone was what the officer was asking for.

[troyvit]

"If you enter this password you will have access to everything you need and deserve."