cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/49853131

Feels to me like GrapheneOS did exactly what it should, passing the US border test with flying colours!

Funny part about this lawsuit: “With a little planning ahead of time, you can always download the data you need once you get to where you’re going,”

  • mazzilius_marsti@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    GrapheneOS - the only OS that i just installed and forget about it. Sure i spend time to tweak things like profiles but thats it.

    And I am a distro and rom hopper.

    The security model is that good: duress pin, scrambled pin, separate profiles with their own passwords, usb c restriction (you can set it charge only, charge while phone is off (most secure state).

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    He would have had a lot better legal leg to stand on I think if he had just refused to give them any passcode. Now instead of a potential case of being forced to compel speech, he is facing what will be argued is an attempt to destroy evidence. His defense is probably a lot stronger with the former than the latter.

  • badbytes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Would be cool to have your device partitioned by separate passwords, so you could unlock a dummy system.

    • mazzilius_marsti@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      yes you can. On Graphene you can set the main profile as just there with nothing except to control wifi/add esim/etc. Then you can create many profiles with their own passwords. You can store your work stuff in 1 profile, private stuff in another. You can even create a dummy profile with fake Google. .

      The downside currently is that the OS autoboot to main profile. Then you switch to your other profiles.

  • billwashere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    That’s it. I’m getting a burner phone if I leave the country.

    Edit: Serious question… what if you just wiped your phone and then restored it when you got wherever you were going?

  • itisileclerk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    What? US police can ask you for the phone password? No way! That is 100% police state. Stalin was amateur comparing to present day USA.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I don’t believe you can be compelled to provide a password. That does after all (at the very least) constitute speech. And freedom of speech is also freedom of non-speech, they can’t make you say something.

      They will however try to make you do that… In many situations authorities are allowed to lie to you. So that’s sucks. They can tell you that you’re required to unlock your phone, you just have to know that your not actually.

      Also they can’t make you say anything, but they can make you do things, like for instance “put your finger here” or “look into this camera”, which is why biometric unlock is unsafe around cops.

      • BlackAura@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        There’s that one guy who is being held in contempt of the court (to be clear this is not the police asking for his password, but a judge in a court of law) because he won’t give a password to decrypt a hard drive.

        They believe it is highly likely that the drive contains sexually explicit material of children, which is why he’s being held in prison until he gives up the password.

  • jas [they/any]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    23 hours ago

    this was a streisand effect for me because i didn’t have duress password set up on my grapheneos phone (security & privacy => device unlock) before but i do now! :D

    • obvs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      On GrapheneOS, you can also set a “second factor PIN” in the unlock settings under “Fingerprint Unlock”, so that to unlock your screen you need to first use the fingerprint unlock and then separately enter your PIN. This means BOTH are required every time you unlock. Your phone can’t be unlocked unless it’s your finger AND unless you enter the PIN that only you know.

      And under the Screen Lock settings you can also enable “Scramble PIN input layout”, so that the number buttons on your unlock screen will be out of order, so people watching you or recording you can’t just make note of the shape your index finger is making when touching the numbers to unlock your phone(like people looking over your shoulder or recording on store security cameras).

      • Justifier@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        What I find foolish is there’s no pin only to unlock (no biometrics), but biometrics available when unlocked

        Plenty of my apps have biometric verification I’d love to take advantage of, but I don’t need or want one to unlock the phone itself

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Perfectly legal. Unless they were legally charged and ordered by a court to preserve data considered to be used in a crime, they can’t be charged with shit. Cops don’t dictate this, courts do, AND that scope only applies to an active prosecution anyway.

    • Sinax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Legality seems to be a fairytale concept in the USA, except for oligarchs. They get full legal coverage.

    • Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      22 hours ago

      It depends. If the police suspect the owner has evidence of some sort on the phone, destroying it can lead to a tampering with evidence charge from the police.

      A tampering charge doesn’t have to be from a court order. If someone eats or dumps out drugs where the police can’t collect the physical drug, it will stick.

      But in the story’s case, it falls within the 100 miles of the US boarder (called a boarder search exception) a warrant, probable cause, or RAS aren’t needed here. It’s considered a reasonable search so the 4th amendment is limited here.

      There is a lot to it and really don’t think this is the best format for it here.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 hours ago

        It does not depend. 4th amendment is superceded by any state law, and it’s SUPER clear that unless a crime has been committed and prosecutorial procedures are in place, no search or seizure is legal.

        That’s the whole point.

        • Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          It’s a federal law. It’s been legal since the constitution was written. There have been numerous court hearings stating it’s legal.

          You might want to reread the 4th again. The supreme court has ruled international boarder crossing as a reaonable search, thus no warrant, RAS, or PC needed.

          • just_another_person@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Again…you can SEARCH all you want. Whether you find anything is not mandated.

            I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about this.

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Good. Annoying to rebuild his phone, but better than handing it to fascists who don’t even have a lawful court order for it.

    • ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Surely he was also using the built in backup feature, if he was he would have been able to grab another used Pixel, install GOS, then just recover from his backup (I haven’t tried the restore yet just because I’m lazy, fingers crossed it works).

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      23 hours ago

      In all likelihood they kept his phone and will retain possession until charges are dismissed. Get a burner phone and wipe it before going through security. I assume if they see your phone is “fresh” they’ll take it on suspicion anyway.

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Would you want the phone back after it’s been in their hands? I wouldn’t trust them to leave it alone.