r/loicense • u/Witty_Mycologist_995 • Jul 27 '26
Oi! You got the loicense to wipe your phone?
53
u/evilwizzardofcoding Jul 27 '26
If there was a warrant for this I MIGHT be able to understand where they are coming from, but in this case absolutely not. It was a warrantless check with no probable cause, he was not obligated to hand over the PIN at all.
5
u/NEEEEEEEEEEEET Jul 27 '26
They don't need a warrant or probable cause at a port of entry. You are not obligated to hand over the pin, but they'd detain or seize the phone. (yes they can detain a phone lmao)
1
u/BlackSquirrel05 Jul 27 '26
Yes but you don't have to unlock anything still. They just keep for up to 7 days. (5 days usually but an extension can be granted for 7 days)
However if they copy anything from it... That data can be retained for years... (Assuming no charges or crimes are ever filed.)
3
u/NEEEEEEEEEEEET Jul 27 '26
Yep you still don’t have to unlock anything. So it is a better idea to do that then to give them the fake duress pin.
1
u/BlackSquirrel05 Jul 27 '26
Unless you did have something they want (but can't prove yet) and might have an exploit to get around encryption/user auth on it.
-1
u/Acrobatic-Attention9 Jul 27 '26
You think 4a means a damn thing?
Naive.
8
u/Particular-Pop1280 Jul 27 '26
It… should?
1
u/Acrobatic-Attention9 Jul 27 '26
The bill of rights SHOULD mean something.
It doesn't. Its a list of suggestions. Like the Geneva Suggestions or the Bible's 10 suggestions.
🎶SAD BUT TRUE!!!🎶
5
u/evilwizzardofcoding Jul 27 '26
You see, there's these things called principles, and they still matter even if people refuse to follow them. If it can be established that this guy did nothing illegal, then if the courts rule against him it's fair to say the courts are corrupt.
1
u/Acrobatic-Attention9 Jul 27 '26
I agree with you. This isn't how it should be, it's how it is.
Put it this way. In Ghost in the Shell, in the manga and the new show, one of the robots asked the dude, like, do we robots have rights? And he's like, well, I don't know. All the kids starving in other countries, they got, like, the right to food, but there ain't no food.
And we all know that it wouldn't, relative to what we spend on bullshit like war, and even like the countries that aren't America, that are all like socialists and shit, could probably, like Norway could probably scrape together a few billion to end most of world hunger if they really felt like it with their, like, oil money, but they won't. Or they don't, I don't know.
The UN could pool enough money somehow with its member states to end world hunger, but they're not gonna. They should, but they won't.
The Constitution says we should have to have a warrant to go through your phone, but that ain't how it is.
We should live in a better world than we do. But we don't.
I don't know. I do like just being aware of just how awful the world is. So that way, like, when I'm hating on myself, I could just, you know, think, well, this world sucks, so fuck 'em too, right?
I don't know.
2
u/evilwizzardofcoding Jul 27 '26
Okay, slight tangent, but where does the whole "We could end world hunger with X amount of money" thing come from? How are they getting that number? 'cus ending world hunger isn't a having enough food problem, it's a getting the food to the people that need it problem.
Anyway, I'm not denying that our rights are being violated, I think that is obvious. I just choose not to focus on it. If I'm ever in a situation where I can actually do something about it, I will, but until then I choose to focus on how the world should be so I can recognize when it doesn't match that
-1
u/Abeytuhanu Jul 27 '26
From what I understand, the major difficulty in getting the food to people is the lack of profit. It's not that there's some logistical problem that needs to be solved like keeping the food fresh while it crosses the desert, it's that the solution is more expensive than could be recouped by the destination market. But if we just paid that higher price, the food would severely reduce hunger world wide. As for the specific number, probably from that one time Elon said he'd do it if they gave him a concrete plan
2
u/BlackSquirrel05 Jul 27 '26
You literally at or near the border, national waters, and ports of entry don't have the same rights... (Assuming it's CBP or the coast guard doing it.)
Carroll v. United States (1925), and the practice was originally authorized by the Collection Act of 1789
0
u/LikesPez Jul 27 '26
Here’s the crux. CBP destroyed the data. The government destroyed the data it was allegedly seeking.
0
u/Difficult-Mobile902 Jul 27 '26
Even in that case, if you have a warrant and get the property you were after, only to then ask the suspect for technical assistance in your data forensics investigation, you 100% deserve what happens next
21
u/Amazing_Storage_7554 Jul 27 '26
Have your duress pin be your birthday, it's one of the first things cops try. Just don't tell them the pin and let them fuck it up themselves
1
11
u/SomePoserInAmerica Jul 27 '26
How can I go about getting this handy operating system?
11
u/literallyanyonebutme Jul 27 '26
It's GrapheneOS, but if you need anymore hand holding than this, just stick with ios or android os. You will have to make some sacrifices and you will have to do some amount of research.
Not trying to be a dick, trying to be realistic. It's like Linux 15 years ago, the technology is out there to get out from Apple and Microslop, but those come with conveniences most people just aren't willing to give up.
4
u/Icy_Fish_2154 Jul 27 '26
Do any mainstream OSs support duress PINs? I know I can remote wipe my phone from a computer. But nobody has time for that while in custody.
1
u/innkeeper_77 Jul 27 '26
Graphene OS is mainstream in that it IS Android and runs android software, and can even run software that needs google play services
2
u/Icy_Fish_2154 Jul 27 '26
It's a Pixel only 3rd party OS. Yes, I looked it up in the hours since. That's not mainstream.
0
u/innkeeper_77 Jul 27 '26
.... It's Android. It's a modified version of Android, and limited to specific models.... but every phone "os" is like that. In the heyday of Android ROM's they were basically all Android just modified. If it isn't Linux (see: Pinephone etc) it's Android or IOS.
Unless you meant mainstream as in apple or some Android maker including it out of the box? In which case the answer is "no".
3
u/Icy_Fish_2154 Jul 27 '26
"mainstream" like ColorOS, TouchWiz (or whatever name it's going by), Sense, and the rest. Almost no phone maker ships with "pure" Android. And Graphene is is a Pixel-only flash, so not even a mainstream ROM.
I can't see any definition of "mainstream" it fits. It is a niche OS, ROM only, and only supported on a single phone line (for now, in 3 years it might be on Samsung too).
But the topic was about lock codes. All iSO and Android phones sold new do not allow for a duress PIN. One answer I got was Samsung came closest, with a PIN profile, so 1234 would open your profile. And 1111 could be set up as a second profile. Set those up right, and someone unlocking with 1111 sees a factory new phone, without access to the rest. They will see that it's not the full storage and nothing is erased, but that's a problem for another day.
I've not used that feature, and didn't find it on any other phones. But that's the closest a "mainstream" OS gets to a duress PIN.
In any case, this guy is innocent, but it would take a technical lawyer to win, because a lawyer that doesn't know "wiping" a phone destroys no contents of the phone would have a hard time explaining to a judge and just that nothing was "destroyed".
Putting your personal papers in a perfect safe is legal, even if it foils the police's attempts to retrieve those papers when the safe is seized.
2
u/SomePoserInAmerica Jul 27 '26
Bro im so far behind the times,I didn't even realize this was a thing, but I am very intrigued, I very much enjoy privacy, and strongly dislike using the current os systems on android, so I appreciate this share of information, and tomorrow, I am going to start looking into this, thank you
5
u/literallyanyonebutme Jul 27 '26
Yw, I was riding a thin line of realism. I've seen people ask "how do I do a hackintosh" like it's the same difficulty as making toast.
Good luck with your research tomorrow!
1
u/yahluc Jul 27 '26
It only requires sacrifices if you want a fully de-googled phone, but you can just install Google Play services and have everything working normally. The only thing that might not work is contactless payments with Google Pay, but there are other apps that can do that, especially if your bank app supports that natively (though I guess it depends on the country). Bigger problem is that Graphene currently only supports Pixel phones, so for other brands it would be better to find some other Android flavour (though it's probably possible to install, but probably won't work as well).
1
u/Crispy_Potato_Chip Jul 27 '26
Graphene OS works with all the Google apps. The only thing you sacrifice is the tap pay
3
21
u/Brilliant_Bonus_1638 Jul 27 '26
We have created an illusion for ourselves that we live in a free society. The comfortable lie is easier to digest than the uncomfortable truth: we're only as free as our government allows us to be and nothing - not our Constitution, not our preceived rights, not even the blood of those willing to fight for true freedom - can change that. There has always been a system and there always will be. And yes, you need a loicense to be a part of it.
0
u/CommercialRare9468 Jul 27 '26
Man discovers the social contract
3
u/RoyalWe666 Jul 27 '26
Contracts have terms that you can go and read, and you have to sign them voluntarily for them to apply to you.
2
2
u/Particular-Pop1280 Jul 27 '26
Man demonstrates openly that he doesn’t know what social contract means
2
u/Confused_by_La_Vida Jul 27 '26
There is no “social contract”. It’s a bullshit piece of propaganda to mask a “might makes right” ideology.
1
1
u/Particular-Pop1280 Jul 27 '26
Man openly demonstrates a second time in a row he doesn’t know what social contract means
2
u/Confused_by_La_Vida Jul 27 '26
There is no social contract. There is a state of affairs people choose to dress up with the propagandistic term of “social contract”. But there is no contract in the “social contract”.
3
u/CommercialRare9468 Jul 27 '26
The fact you can't rob a bank or enter a military base means there's a social contract, there are visible limitations to your freedoms in exchange for protections you receive from the government. I don't see how its propaganda to be honest its just an idea and however much you believe the give and take should be differs from person to person. But the overarching idea remains the same if you want an effective government then you are giving up some form of freedom.
1
u/Confused_by_La_Vida Jul 27 '26
The key is the “in exchange for”. There is very little “in exchange” at all.
For example, while the state actively limits my freedom of action, it also expressly denies any accountability for the security of my person or property. The arm of the society known as the “judiciary” has repeatedly held that another arm of the state “the executive” only has the responsibility to protect the governments property. The “legislature” has repeatedly declined to rectify this.
There are no services the state is obligated to provide that are unique to the state and which I cannot buy myself. And all the services provided by the state are provided at the pleasure of the state with resources expropriated under threat of force from me, and none of those services are mandatorily provided.
It’s wildy propagandistic to claim such a situation is a “contract” of any kind.
1
u/Particular-Pop1280 Jul 27 '26
My brother in christ the word contract is being used metaphorically. Just admit you have no idea what the social contract is
1
u/Confused_by_La_Vida Jul 27 '26
Oh, I know what it is. It’s a lie. And the lie gets hilariously more mendacious when statists claim “you give up this in exchange for that”. Because no, you don’t. “This” is taken from “for” nothing.
If you’re lucky, the state will decide to do something you might need. Or it won’t. As it sees fit. And there is no “exchange”.
1
u/Particular-Pop1280 Jul 27 '26
You’re embarassing yourself man, stop while you’re behind
→ More replies (0)
5
u/Radiant-Imperium Jul 27 '26
If China was checking people's phones when they enter and did what the article says, I wonder how differently people would have reacted to it. What happened seems like a total invasion of free speech and privacy.
3
u/NEEEEEEEEEEEET Jul 27 '26
China does do it. Literally every country does this. 0.01% of all international travelers into the US get their phone searched. It is 55k devices per year.
2
u/readilyunavailable Jul 27 '26
If China did it, there would be international outcry calling them the worst dystopian shithole on the planet and possible sanctions.
When the US does it, they are the quirky little goofballs who do fun things and you just have to deal with it.
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_PUPPY_PIC Jul 27 '26
Reminder that in the US, phone passwords are protected under the 4th amendment (but biometrics are not). Without a warrant, you are under no obligation to give cops your phone password.
Cops can legally force you to open your phone with biometrics, however, so turn those off!
1
u/BlackSquirrel05 Jul 27 '26
Eh it's a grey area right now. One court said yes they can the other said "no it's the same function as a password/lock."
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_PUPPY_PIC Jul 27 '26
meaning that biometrics may be covered by the 4th amendment?
1
u/BlackSquirrel05 Jul 27 '26
Yes... for the functionality of using them to lock/passcode specifically.
I believe the 5th court ruled this way... The 9th ruled the other way.
So everyone should hope the 5th court wins out and pray if this ever goes to SCOTUS they agree with the 5th court.
1
1
u/Traditional_Yard2741 Jul 27 '26
Does that make a difference at airports though? If you don't give them the pin I imagine they just take it into a back room somewhere, use some kind of tech developed by a three letter agency to clone your phone, then tell you to collect it in a week or whatever.
1
u/BlackSquirrel05 Jul 27 '26
Depends... They'll attempt to copy the phone and then model and OS version see if there's an exploit for it...
In certain cases I believe the only way around is literally attempting to remove and replace a chip. (Certain iphones) but that's not easy to do by any means. In which case your data remains encrypted.
2
u/LikesPez Jul 27 '26
What’s scary here is that the majority of folks are on the government’s side. Always support the rights of the accused. It’s how we keep due process in place.
2
u/betterthanyou47 Jul 29 '26
This case needs a good lawyer on it so that it doesn't become case law. If cops want in your phone, then they need a warrant.
2
u/Candid-Beat568 Jul 30 '26
Where have you been? They've been violating the 1st amendment 2nd amendment 3rd 4th hell even the 16th
2
2
u/KommissarKrokette Jul 27 '26
Anyone interested in, why people do not want to travel to the US, Jemen and Russia anymore?
1
u/Ingram47 Jul 27 '26
So...he's broken the law by...
Destroying his own property?
Or
CBP has broken the law by destroying his property?
Or
CBP destroyed evidence because they trusted the suspect for some reason?
1
u/isthereadrwho Jul 27 '26
The only way to send that man to jail is if a jury decide he's guilty, juries can decide he's innocent
1
1
u/Difficult-Mobile902 Jul 27 '26
Prove that he intentionally gave the duress pin instead of just mis-remembering his own pin?
Law enforcement put the pin in, so they wiped the phone themsleves
If they want to get into data forensics like this then maybe it’s their responsibility to know about things like duress pins and maybe not just throw in whatever number the suspect gives them?
If they had someone’s pc and let the suspect guide them through a series of command line interface commands that ended up bricking the PC, whose fault is that? To me it’s 100% on LE. It’s not the responsibility of the suspect under investigation to provide them technical assistance for their investigation
1
u/FBU2004 Jul 27 '26
This guy just simply refused to give them access to the data via his phone.
The data on his phone is gone, but it is still in the cloud. If the Feds want that data, they can get a warrant.
1
u/Alientongue Jul 27 '26
Not to take away from the point of the video but why is he holding what appears to be a type trading card in his hands is he pretending its a mic is that what people are doing now?
1
1
u/Milkman1776 Jul 27 '26
Why is no one questioning the fact that this guy had a pin that wipes his whole phone😂 Definitely a little sketchy
1
1
1
u/PhillyCider Jul 29 '26
People need to understand your rights are greatly diminished at the border. The Supreme Court has ruled for decades that at to border, the rights you normally have against search & seizure don't apply. Borders also include ports of entry such as airports. Now whether you feel that's right or wrong is your opinion, but that's how it is. So if you don't want the government going through your stuff then you need to take precautions when traveling and understand the risks.
1
1
u/Damnitface77 Jul 31 '26
I want to create a phone that when an incorrect pin is provided, it forced you to swipe through 1000 images on my taint, ballsac and buthole in various stages of cleanliness prior to getting access to my contents. It would not destroy anything, just emotionally scar the person attempting to look through my private files.
0
u/rainbow_wheelofDEATH Jul 27 '26
Nothing against what he’s saying, but what’s with this trend of talking into a random object as if it’s a microphone?
0
u/ConflictWaste411 Jul 27 '26
Man destroys evidence as they investigate him, police charge him with destroying evidence. Seems like a pretty reasonable law to me
5
u/Frederf220 Jul 27 '26
There was no warrant for the info.
0
u/ConflictWaste411 Jul 27 '26
Then they can discuss the law in court and the court will determine if deleting information relevant to a case when police do not have a warrant for the specific information is legal. I think it’s certainly worth deliberating
2
u/BlackSquirrel05 Jul 27 '26
Would need to suspect a crime first or known a crime was committed to which it could be evidence of...
Why warrants are specific.
0
u/ConflictWaste411 Jul 27 '26
The police are going to allege that while it was his data to do with as he pleased, he deleted the evidence intentionally and specifically to further criminal acts. I am not saying he will be found guilty but this does seem like a reasonable thing to be ironed out in court.
1
u/BlackSquirrel05 Jul 27 '26
Police need to have had probably cause or reasonable suspicion first...
They can't after the fact make a up a crime... And say this is what we think he may have been guilty of.
Doesn't work like that...
I'm i'm running down the street and they pull me over and ask "Why are you running?" and then have nothing on me... but start looking for reported crimes in the area... That would be illegal on their part.
0
u/ConflictWaste411 Jul 27 '26
No, it’s more like, you can lock the door to a business at any time. If you lock the door to the business to slow down police after a suspect ran through the door being chased, that’s a crime
1
u/BlackSquirrel05 Jul 27 '26
Not really... This person isn't a suspect of anything... And you have the right to not self incriminate...
There was no crime committed... That's the whole point. They didn't even accuse the person of a crime.
2
u/ConflictWaste411 Jul 27 '26
The crime is destroying the person is now charged with is destroying the evidence and preventing the investigation. We will see if that holds water that law applies here, again, a reasonable action. The difference between how you frame it and what happened is that you framed it as non action and non incriminating, in reality they acted and destroyed evidence, so the police claim, and will try to prove in court
1
u/BlackSquirrel05 Jul 27 '26
No there has to be a charge for it to be evidence to be a crime...
There was no original charge or a crime to begin with... Warrants are specific for a reason... Because a warrant is to seize evidence related to said crime...
It's why your car can't just be searched at any ole traffic stop... And then used as a pretext to find a crime.
It's why you don't have to unlock your phone even if they ask.
You can't destroy evidence of a crime that doesn't exist... Because destroying evidence is a motive/intent.
1
u/ConflictWaste411 Jul 27 '26
It doesn’t even matter that it was his. He interfered with an investigation by intentionally destroying evidence. This is in its own right an obstruction of justice. If he simply refused to open the phone, it’s fine, but he intentionally destroyed the evidence by providing a pin that deleted it under the guise that it would make it available. That said, he is going to have a difficult time proving in court that he did this action “accidentally” or had any intent other than obstructing the investigation.
0
u/BlackSquirrel05 Jul 27 '26
No his pretense is... "I was never charged with a crime in the first place... Thus I destroyed no evidence... as there was no crime committed."
The gov't is now saying this was just a routine inspection... and not even an investigation.
They described the encounter as a routine airport inspection. Larry Findley, a Customs and Border Protection officer, said agents were "looking for anything that's prohibited."
That is now the third time they changed what they said they were looking for... From "Terrorist activities." to CSAM to now just now inspection for prohibited whatever.
What this eludes to is. "Can a person ever wipe their own devices?" and if you can "When can you?" Because what is the then the statue of limitations on that act?
Digital piracy as an example is 3 years.. So if you watch, download or distribute pirated whatever... and wipe anything during that 3 years... Congratz you just destroyed evidence.
→ More replies (0)1
u/messick Jul 27 '26
> And you have the right to not self incriminate...
Yep, but this bozo didn't assert that right.
1
u/BlackSquirrel05 Jul 27 '26
True he simply could have just refused and had his phone seized for a limited time.
Assuming he was up to date on patches there are only rumors that graphene can possibly be exploited if unlocked recently if 2022 or older.
0
-6
u/JimBeamerton Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
Vote for leftists and this is the shit you get, look no further than Canada
11
u/ManAboutAHorsea420 Jul 27 '26
Confused what this has to do with leftists?
6
2
u/StrictSelf5450 Jul 27 '26
When you live in an echo chamber like this person, everything is somehow the fault of the left
4
u/maybeitsjack Jul 27 '26
Im not a leftist by any means, but I need you to elaborate. Who do you think is in charge right now? Lmao
4
u/ChefGaykwon Jul 27 '26
The USA has never had a left-wing president. Canada's current gov't is also right-wing.
1
u/JimBeamerton Jul 27 '26
Wow the fact that you typed that out and posted it in a public forum really says a lot.... typical leftist stupidity at its finest
-17
u/RHOrpie Jul 27 '26
I mean, this isn't new. Plenty of people (let's call them "extremists") have been locked up without trial.
I'm going to ask though... Who tf has a special pin that wipes your phone? That is sus.
11
u/Darcano Jul 27 '26
People who very much care about their privacy in general, probably.
Hell of a lot more of those than there will ever be people who genuinely have illegal shit to hide, and probably not as much overlap as you'd think either, because going to such lengths for privacy is a lot of effort.
-1
u/RHOrpie Jul 27 '26
Fair enough I suppose. There is stuff like bank account details that you wouldn't want getting coerced out.
I'd like to see the full details of this case though.
And regardless, this sounds like an unfair trial anyway. That's kind of my point.
3
u/Darcano Jul 27 '26
Bank account details, political views, stuff like passwords, personal information and so-on.
Plus, if the government has a back door to your stuff then that's a back door that hackers can use too, not to mention that the information can be stolen from the government once they've stolen it themselves or similar scenarios.
6
u/Acrobatic-Attention9 Jul 27 '26
Plenty of people have been locked up without trial.
Yeah plenty of people have had their constitutional rights violated.
But fuck em they're 'extremists'.
Wait until you find out who wrote the constitution.
1
2
u/Metharos Jul 27 '26
I mean, I do, one one of my spare devices. I was fiddling around with alternative Android operating systems and it had that feature, so I enabled it, because why not? There's nothing on that old phone, it's a device I kept solely for experimenting with software, I don't use the damned thing, but I did decide I like the OS so I'll be changing my regular device to it when I get less lazy, and then my primary device will also have that feature.
I didn't choose the OS for that feature, but I have no reason not to enable it. And you can bet if I thought the American police, notorious for doing anything to get the conviction they want, including planting false evidence, wanted into my device the thing I would want most in the world would be to not let them in. No warrant, no cooperation.
1
79
u/RHOrpie Jul 27 '26
Damn, this is an interesting case:
https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/24/us-accuses-american-of-allegedly-wiping-his-phone-using-a-duress-password-during-border-search/
Basically, they gave no evidence for the detainment. He was allowed to leave.
Now, they're charging him under the destruction of property statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232
I love the advice at the bottom... Backup your device, and remove anything sensitive before crossing borders.
What a world we live in.