JamieGeorge
18382
663
25
Encryption isn't suspicious. It's what responsible people do when they understand that the most valuable thing they own isn't the phone—it's everything inside it.
The truly dangerous idea isn't that someone can protect their own data. It's that governments increasingly expect access first and justification later. A warrant used to be a constitutional safeguard. Now we're apparently being told it's an optional courtesy.
When your phone contains your medical records, banking, private conversations, location history, photos, work documents, passwords, and the digital blueprint of your life, pretending it's no different than a piece of luggage is complete bullshit.
Privacy isn't about having something to hide. It's about recognizing that freedom disappears the moment the state assumes your entire life should be available on demand.
Today it's someone else's encrypted phone. Tomorrow it's your cloud storage. Next week it's your messages. Eventually it's the expectation that refusing access is itself evidence.
Authoritarianism rarely arrives wearing jackboots. It arrives carrying paperwork and insisting it's all perfectly routine.
If using strong security becomes probable cause, then the right to privacy has already been quietly hollowed out. The lock isn't the crime. Demanding every door remain unlocked is.
#Privacy #Encryption #GrapheneOS #DigitalRights #FourthAmendment #CivilLiberties #CyberSecurity #Surveillance #Freedom #Technology #Imgur
GrimleyGraves
I want a duress passcode that short circuits the battery so it explodes in the cops hands.
torokunai
ugh Chat-GPT written but I guess we'll allow it
trippingthelightfantastic
NickRivieraMD
He had stated as much before she said it, and he's done it. Fuck the people who voted for him (again).
Ein0r
Thanks George Washington.
makesense
Couple things to always remember: 1) They ask for your phone when you are entering the country. PER COURTS, 2) They can 'ask' you to unlock it. PER COURTS, 3) If it is locked with biometrics, and request you unlock it, they can jail you if you don't. PER COURTS, 4) If it is locked with a pass code, they CANNOT jail you for it. PER COURTS, and 5) they can always just simply refuse to allow you to enter the country. And on that one, many people will just give in.
eetsumkaus
oh wow, Libertarians that actually stick by libertarian (small l) principles. That's a shock.
walnutbreath
As I said on a previous post, the idea that encryption is evidence of criminality is like saying a lock on your door is proof your home contains contraband. It's a ludicrous argument that you'd have to be a fucking moron to believe.
This is why we need to band together and withdraw our consent from this farcical justice system. No more indictments and no more convictions for any person regardless of what crimes they're accused of or the evidence presented until we're all equally protected by
walnutbreath
and bound by the law. If necessary, we collapse the entire goddamn criminal justice system.
This is our penultimate box of liberty and we damn well better use it because none of us want to use the last one.
cgt9803
The libertarians, like the NRA, did jack shit at best and were and are mostly cheerleaders for Trump's authoritarian tyranny because it was initially directed at people they didn't like
GreatOdinsTaint
It's rich that the Libertarians are concerned all of a sudden. Y'all voted for this. And y'all will undoubtedly vote for this again.
ChipWallace
Most people recommend not using face ID to lock your phone, because they could just hold your phone up to your face and unlock it to gain access. But if you feel you can't live without it, here's a tip for using face ID to unlock your phone.
Expressions throw off the face ID. Arch an eyebrow with a big maniacal grin and use that as your face ID. It will not read your normal resting face as the same so it won't unlock.
Best practice, no biometrics, keypad codes only.
zuken
Better practice: if you're just vacationing, take a burner phone and don't log in to socials on it. If you want to upload pictures and videos wait until you're back. You can have calls forwarded to it and don't have to keep all your personal info all over it.
But yes, even if you decide you want biometrics on in general at least remove them when crossing the border. You can always set them up again later. Shouldn't, but can.
FuManLu
Hillary Clinton's staff did the same thing AFTER being subpoenaed. Nothing happened to them.
Dracology
So no warrant, wasn't being charged with any crime, but destroying the data is destruction of evidence?
aahsesebes
if the cops failed the unlock and it wiped, isnt that their fault for wiping it? the guy did nothing and the state of the device isnt something cops can dictate.
psyanara
Someone else in this comment thread (TyrannusEquus) has experience working in phones and evidence, and basically explains how evidence is handled, which as should be expected, is completely and utterly different from how it was handled in this case.
zuken
They didn't fail the unlock, he gave them a code that specifically triggered the wipe. It wasn't that they tried ten random pins and the phone locked down.
The issue is that the warrantless border searches were conceived in an era where you weren't constantly carrying such a vast amount of private data on you at all times and now that you are the government doesn't want to put reasonable restrictions on border control. One thing to check luggage, another to check my wireless banking device.
ThisIsNotTheBestUsername
This opens the way for the law to charge you with destruction of evidence if they can't find anything to charge you with and they assume you're guilty anyway. Isn't that fun.
Jarjarthejedi
"If you have no guilt of your own, some will be provided to you" isn't anything new, just the methodology and openness of this method.
Infinias
"He got a knife!".
NM156
Can they call it destruction if you have it backed up somewhere?
ThisIsNotTheBestUsername
Probably. The change is coming quickly now. Keep bitching about your distractions though.
hipifreq
If you don't make guilt of your own at home, State bought is just fine /s
Snooj
Hopefully that'll be a jury case, though, because if they can't show me evidence of what was on the phone then nothing was on the phone.
TyrannusEquus
Okay so, having worked in the law and done a bit with the sex crimes area, you do not ask for a pin in order to immediately unlock a phone. Not when you're claiming there is evidence on it that you want to preserve. If possible airplane mode. If not, turn it off. Otherwise this exact incident can occur. I had to either get an electronic device consent to search form filled or have a search warrant to search specific electronic devices. These guys are full of shit bastards.
JustSomePersonThere
Yes, but what recourse does one have?
TyrannusEquus
Depending on how far the gov goes, fat lawsuit.
RetrogradeLlama
Maybe those Libertarians should study their own alleged beliefs and stop backing a Fascist Authoritarian regime.
Tolocamp
The american public should have risen in an outcry in 2001 when the patriot act was passed. You did not not, you did not any day after that. The patriot act took this away from you and it took 25 years for you to finally notice.
You are living in a fantasy, the country you believe to be living in was buried exactly a quarter of a century ago, it is rotten away by now. Only one thing has changed, you have the ruthless asshole in charge everyone warned will be coming one day now.
diemajorthrilldie
Not that I plan to get within a thousand miles of the US until maybe two reincarnations down the line but - private data aside, I wouldn't trust those knucklefuckers not to steal my card info and go on a Bad Dragon spending spree in the name of national security.
psmith00
lookup the 100 mile Constitution Free Zone. no rights in that zone except what the guy with the gun is willing to grant you in that moment and moments change.
Bohrdumb
And you know most of these 'TX Libertarians' voted for Trump all the same. And probably still would.
Necrothean
And MeidasTouch was run by lifelong republicans, Imgur still embraced the grift.
You guys understand "the enemy of my enemy", you use their money, parrot their talking points, and gladhand with any of them. You elect Fetterman while screaming "ANY D WILL DO!"
But if the Libertarians of Texas agree with you: "THEY'RE LIBERTARIANS THAT VOTED FOR TRUMP! STOP AGREEING WITH THEM! WE MUST BE OBSTINATE AND REFUSE THEIR HELP!"
Every
Damn
Time
Y'all deserve what happens to you. You deserve DINOs.
Necrothean
MeidasTouch Youtube channel right now makes almost 6 figures in revenue per month from all of you morons. Meanwhile, their average video title? Same as Adam Mockler:
THE REGIME IS DYING!
REPUBLICAN VOTERS ANGRY AT TRUMP!
WE'RE BEATING THEM BACK BUT WE NEED MORE MONEY!
But the moment a group that is very clearly in favor of the current regime's party, just not their current endeavors, suggests they agree with you, suddenly it's time to care about the providence and history of the group. GTFOH
JustDriftingAboutTheInterWebs
MajorNikon
There’s better sources for the same story https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone
jackpkmn
I do wonder if you set your duress pin to something like your birth year which is very likely the first thing a cop would try would work.
jackpkmn
Cus you didn't tell them to enter your birth year into the phone, they just did it.
whyforetho
This post feels off to me. Framing it as an encryption issue feels misguided when the issue is your right to make choices about your property and privacy. "A duress PIN is a lock" feels weird too. Locks unlock things, not destroy them. "Refusing to open a lock" would be refusing to give up the key, not handing over a fake key that activates your trap card.
Also you don't need to attach an AI generated image to literally. every. single. post. you make.
JamieGeorge
https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1bWRzdTN2b2FnaTJ1dDNpYm5pcThkYWJzcnVhMGtsMXpucDN4d3YyYiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/yV5xcSTmtVPBS/200w.webp
MoopsyLD
Fuck you, you bitch
DarwinsAgain
You're right about that statement, it's a common tactic used by people trying to argue a point they are passionate about; make a statement as if it is a fact even though it's debatable, then hang your argument on that 'fact'. In this case it's also internally inconsistent. You don't need a duress key (whatever that may be) to unlock a lock. Trump does that sort of shit all the time to fire up his support base and in my view it weakens an argument.
UpNorthAndFreezing
You one of them "you got nothing to hide if you ain't doing nothing wrong" people?
whyforetho
Fuck no. I don't fundamentally disagree, I said it feels off. Like neither OP or the screencap understand what's at play here.
Unencrypted phones can have duress PINs too, so the events depicted here have nothing to do with encryption. If anything, it's about your right over your own data against the police, which the US is really lacking in national precedent for, so this case could be important. Doe v United States (1988) has been stretched thin since the invention of the smartphone.
AdmiralButtStuff
"Privacy isn't about having something to hide. It's about recognizing that freedom disappears the moment the state assumes your entire life should be available on demand." If you read nothing else from @OP's post, read those two sentences as many times as it takes to stick.
Margrave9000
It's not @OP's post. It's AI slop. The precise point when content intended for humans is being created without human involvement—that's marks the point where the consumer is weaned off culture and latched on to the churn of the spiritless machines, ever to lack interaction with another being in his own image. Like an astronaut floating in space, the only human companion being his own visage mirrored in their visor.
;-)
chammey
If there is no right to privacy, then there is no Fifth. Republicans really like pleading the 5th. No, that's not a contradiction, in a fascist world that's a feature. If you're a bro you can plead the Fifth as you please, if you're a ho you have no rights.
doctorId
The "I have nothing to hide because I don't break the law" mfs are gonna find out the hard way how fast legal shit can become illegal if you keep letting the fascists have their way.
morningxafter
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
–Benjamin Franklin
AgentTasmania
And will equally receive neither.
Feralkyn
It's also "it's not x, it's y" AI bot shit so there's that
GasBandit
You didn't just reply, you retorted - and that's engagement. Beep boop.
Feralkyn
oh no
GoodChange
https://grapheneos.org/
Jarodamus
The wipe is not triggered automatically by a sensor, timer, or location. It is triggered specifically when the user manually types that secondary PIN instead of their primary unlock code.
lightfoot2
Thanks! I'll try installing this on an older Pixel. Why not?
CaptainQuarkk
just want to say I use graphene. works just fine after some setup.
2074red2074
Technically a duress PIN doesn't just lock your phone, it deletes the encryption key. The data is still *there*, it's just impossible to access now without a TON of effort. A decent comparison would be if you shredded a bunch of documents in a shitty shredder so the cops can still piece the confetti back together if they REALLY want it. Personally I'd say if they got a warrant to search a pedophile's hard drive and he did that, that's destruction. But in this case, the question is gonna be 1/2
2074red2074
about the search and seizure itself. Do you have the right to preserve your privacy when the cops seize a device illegally? Obviously the courts *shouldn't* be thinking "Well if you're innocent you shouldn't want to hide things" because maybe I don't want the cops to see my daily progress pics of being able to stretch my asshole enough to fit a pineapple in it. Maybe I have consensual nudes of my wife on there. Maybe my phone is HIPAA-compliant and I need to prevent access to patient data. 2/2
DefinitelyNotMadeOfBees
....so can you fit a pineapple in there yet or??
2074red2074
Depends on the size. The hard part is actually getting it out because of the spines.
Mirrormancer
Fuck the Orange Regime.
L0rdinquisit0r
https://www.project2025.observer/en Iits at 55% now
https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
JackingMeHoff
U.S. Supreme Court case Riley v. California, police must obtain a warrant before searching the digital contents of a cell phone seized from someone who has been arrested. Fourth Amendment rights. Besides, he can do whatever he wants to his phone, including bricking it.
Jarodamus
This only applies to digital contents of a phone seized during a standard criminal arrest. Warrantless border searches have been a thing for decades. United States v. Ramsey, 1977. It allows federal border officers to conduct searches of people and property arriving in the U.S. without a warrant or probable cause.
JackingMeHoff
United States v. Ramsey, 1977 applies to international mail. Customs officials can inspect incoming international letters and envelopes without a search warrant, provided they have "reasonable cause to suspect" contraband or merchandise is inside.
Jarodamus
You are right. I thought the destruction of the outer letter was important. I guess technically it was 19 U.S.C. § 482 which was originally enacted on July 18, 1866 as section 3 of the Anti-Smuggling Act of 1866.
lightfoot2
Well they don't need a warrant at the border as you are not yet inside the US. However if your data vanishes the fuck them; they should have impounded the device and used an ion mill to get the data if they wanted it. Not your problem.
Note you don't have to give them a code. Don't have to say anything.
Smartest move is to keep your data on your server (not the fucking cloud) and have nothing on the device. Burner.
Mitheral
The constitution free zone (no warrants) extends in 100 miles from any border or international entry point EG: Airport
WarThunderLeakedMySpecs
Nah. Smartest move is to never set foot in this cursed shithole in the first place. Paranoia will carry you a long way, but a functional society will take you a LOT further.
lightfoot2
Yeah but these are US citizens returning to the US. Unfortunately no other country wants us so we have to take appropriate steps.
WarThunderLeakedMySpecs
Ha. Fair. My wife wants to go to the UK to see a pair of favorite bands playing. I’m considering sending her alone. If you read my comments you’ll know why.
lightfoot2
Eh, as I mentioned burner device, do not bring a laptop, etc.
barbarian818
It doesn't matter. The authorities are correct. They *DON'T* need a warrant to search you or anything in transit with you at any "international port of entry" Part of the post 9/11 Patriot Act fall out. The Supreme Court ruled that some constitutional protections do not apply at the border. They further defined border as including any "port of entry" and a 100 Mi radius around it.
zuken
This is completely legal. Also this should not be legal and we should be vocally outaged by it and complain and vote in an effort to change it.
With instances in the news of people being turned away at the border for having memes criticizing the government, the ability to check the data on a device should not be maintained. Simply traveling should not open up the vast amount of personal data on their phones to unregulated scrutiny.
Swordguy
...and since they hold that International airports qualify as "ports of entry", and that any airport which services aircraft with enough range to reach another country qualifies as "international", this means that ~99% of the land mass of the US is considered to fall within the area in which constitutional protections no longer apply.
barbarian818
And don't forget train stations and bus stations
AsheLake
Sounds blatantly unconstitutional to me.
psyanara
Unfortunately, The Supreme Court decides what is, and isn't, without much regard for precedent or the actual document.
AsheLake
It pisses me off how they can read the words and say, "Yeah, but it doesn't say that," and get away with it.
It also seems kinda dumb that legislators can write and pass laws that openly contradict the bill of rights and there's no check against it until someone can afford to sue and takes it all the way to the SCOTUS. And everyone whose rights were violated until then get no recourse against the legislators or law enforcement.
Jarodamus
I'm pretty sure it's been a thing since like the 1970s.
barbarian818
Nope. Prior to 9/11, they could search your bags and metal detector your body. Searching and copying paperwork wasn't allowed. Now they can search anything that comes into the US and copy any data. Taking your phone or laptop and cloning the drive is now routine, especially if you have any encrypted data.
Jarodamus
Incorrect. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the border search doctrine in landmark 1970s cases like United States v. Ramsey (1977), confirming that customs authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to inspect mail or physical property entering the country. This was the precedent.
Jarodamus
Technically it was 19 U.S.C. § 482 was originally enacted on July 18, 1866. But the destruction of the envelope or box to get to the contents was important. If you have a locked item who's content is only accessible by destroying that object they can.