New, by me: The Justice Department is prosecuting an American for allegedly providing U.S. border agents with a "duress" passcode that wiped the contents of his phone when they entered it.

[zackwhittaker@mastodon.social]

The person's attorney said feds are using a rarely used federal statute, and security experts said they hadn't heard of similar cases. This raises fresh questions about constitutional rights and device searches at the U.S. border.

Also: the DOJ's indictment had a notable typo. Read on for more.

https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/24/us-accuses-american-of-allegedly-wiping-his-phone-using-a-duress-password-during-border-search

[frequencyfault@mastodon.social]

@zackwhittaker I use GrapheneOS, will continue using GrapheneOS for this reason, and once the data has been wiped detaining me indefinitely or charging me with obstruction or being a threat to national security won't ever bring it back.

In the future maybe they'll be able to recover the data or hack Graphene, but currently, their best countertech can't, and I'm cool with that. Call me a criminal. Lol

[burnoutqueen@todon.nl]

@frequencyfault @zackwhittaker

I want data privacy, not because I'm a criminal, but because I am ruled by criminals

[worldtravelerall7@mastodon.world]

@zackwhittaker

this is excellent. good for grapheneOS

i had an idea where a person could select a finger, which if used to open the phone, would lock it down or delete the contents

my thought was to use the middle finger so you could flip off the cops while wiping the phone

[cy@fedicy.us.to]

Haha surely he simply had just purchased it and forgot about it in the closet on factory settings for the past 6 years perfectly sensible explanation.

[siguza@infosec.space]

@zackwhittaker the "Untied States" omg I'm wheezing

[cy@fedicy.us.to]

Or you could go with the prosecutor's much more reasonable claims. That he put child pornography on his phone and then carried it across the border so that when they demanded his passcode, he would give them the passcode to erase the child pornography. And they didn't need a warrant to demand it because he was like 6 inches on the other side of the border so it's OK.

[felis_catus_domesticus@toot.community]

@zackwhittaker

[iaintshootinmis@digitaldarkage.cc]

@zackwhittaker
CPB:you're under arrest.
Tunick: For what?
Destroying evidence.
What evidence?
The evidence on your phone.
But you didn't see any evidence on my phone.
Well we would've.
But you didn't.
Your honor, we'd like a warrant for this man.
For why?
We have reasonable suspicion that if searched he might have evidence justifying our suspicion.

What in the Monty Python is happening here.

[swisstxlady@sfba.social]

@siguza @zackwhittaker Priceless.

[rl_dane@polymaths.social]

@zackwhittaker

Funny how they think they can prosecute him under US law while simultaneously denying him his constitutional rights.

At this point, I'm decided. If I ever leave the U.S. while these jackals are in power, it will be a one-way trip.

[praxiscode@mastodon.online]

If they did not need a warrant to search Tunick’s phone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border, then wouldn't that also mean that U.S Federal law would not apply?

@zackwhittaker

[axomamma@mastodon.online]

@zackwhittaker omfg.

[cheryla@universeodon.com]

@siguza @zackwhittaker

That was the tip-off - Untied States.

[petterofcats@mastodon.world]

@zackwhittaker

“The motion said that the border agents claimed they did not need a warrant to search Tunick’s phone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border. The U.S. government has long claimed it can search and seize people’s devices without a search warrant or court order until they are permitted entry to the United States.”
Had not crossed the border yet… so outside the jurisdiction of the border agents…
Seems like they admitted they had no jurisdiction.