- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
His attorneys say border agents repeatedly demanded access to his phone and told him they did not need a warrant.
Tunick’s legal team is now trying to have the evidence thrown out. It argues that he was questioned without being read his Miranda rights, that agents repeatedly refused his requests to speak with a lawyer, and that the phone search was an unreasonable seizure. His lawyers also say questions about child sexual abuse material were used as a pretext to investigate his alleged links to the movement opposing Atlanta’s police training center, commonly known as Cop City.
And that’s why you always use a burner when going in or out of Nazi country, even if you live there.
I’ll probably bring my wiped old graphene phone when I go through any border. Maybe just factory reset everything back to old android to not arouse any suspicion
I will avoid any country that need to go through my devices to allow me to pass.
“Being prosecuted” is not the same as “being charged” or “being convicted.” It could lead to prison time, but if he’s a US citizen, the fifth amendment applies (which means you do not have to divulge passwords or information). The prosecution part is a fear and intimidation tactic being used by the fascist government, but whether it even goes to trial is another matter.
It’s possible they’ll get him on some obstruction charge, and while I suspect this will ultimately amount to nothing, it is nonetheless scary that a hostile government exists with this much global hegemony and is still allowed to use a paramilitary extrajudicial group with virtual impunity.
the fifth amendment applies (which means you do not have to divulge passwords or information)
That’s not really true but it’s also not what is happening here. The duress pin wipes the device so this is destruction of evidence.
That’s not really true
It is absolutely true. The fifth amendment means US citizens have a right to silence. It has already been ruled that neither the government nor the courts can compel someone to divulge a password under those fifth amendment protections, which is why former mayor Eric Adams was able to avoid having his phone searched by the FBI.
Whether this is destruction of evidence or not will be a decision made by the courts (it’s a question at the heart of the matter in the first place), and the facts that he was allegedly repeatedly denied access to a lawyer and not read his Miranda rights are both things that are decidedly in his favor for getting the case tossed before that question is even addressed.
It is absolutely true
It isn’t. Check out United States v. Apple MacPro Computer and NJ v. Andrews.
Whether this is destruction of evidence or not will be a decision made by the courts
Regardless, the point remains that the subject at hand is destruction of evidence and not password compulsion.
Check out United States v. Apple MacPro Computer and NJ v. Andrews.
I did. To be perfectly frank, I think they are wrong. They even said that divulging the contents of your mind is protected by the fifth amendment, but they also say that noncommunicative actions (like entering a password) are not. So you can’t be compelled to say what your password is verbally, but you can be compelled to essentially write it? Absolute horseshit.
Anyway, you are correct that this is more about alleged destruction of evidence. Hopefully the court isn’t able to rule on that at all due to the case being tossed.
That phone wasn’t evidence of anything, and all he did was give them a password when they asked for one. Not under oath
all he did was give them a password when they asked for one
Which…promptly destroyed any evidence?
evidence of what?
No one knows, because it was destroyed…
It is not the Graphene OS’s feature that could land a man in prison, but a fascist government.
It’s still better to have a duress PIN/password. You can still decide, if you actually want to use it.
In non-shitty countries no one is allowed to search your stuff without a warrant.
Oh… and “warrantless” is an euphemism for “blanket warrant”. So be careful.
I’m more concerned about this case setting horrific precedence for violating the privacy of a citizen.
We basically don’t have rights anymore as it is.
