[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.