Post
Activist charged with felony after giving border agent "duress code" that wiped his phone
The government says destroying his own data during an airport interrogation was illegal.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/07/activist-charged-with-felony-after-giving-border-agent-duress-code-that-wiped-his-phone/?utm_brand=arstechnica&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social
@arstechnica I do think this person was targeted for being an activist, but, and I hate to be << that person >>, but he made his detainment worse by providing the duress code.
The Guardian article referenced by Ars Technica provides a link to 18 U.S.C. § 2232, which is a federal statute that criminalizes destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure.
Seizure, as in any act or attempt of destruction or damage during a search:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2232/
They didn't need a warrant, he was already put on a terrorist watchlist for his alleged association with the movement against Cop City.
He could have just not handed any code at all, it might have been better.
It's embarrassing to read (mainly on reddit) replies claiming that 'he didn't do anything, the officer deleted the data' that's not how it works, it's embarrassing that this would even be a suggestion.
The activist knowingly provided the duress PIN, which would trigger GrapheneOS to format the device during the inspection.
He was already asked several times by Agent Finley and several others to unlock his phone, or it will be seized.
Even according to the Supreme Court, "searches at the border are "qualitatively different"", which means the Fourth Amendment is less likely to be applied because there's a vague definition of suspicion for it to apply (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46601).
And then, any functional point of entry into the US apply this border search exception, which explicitly includes international airports.
Even if the activist can prove that he was incorrectly put on this terrorist list, the search was still lawful and valid, and if the prosecutors can conclude the intent was malicious, then 18 U.S.C. § 2232 would apply.
He should have just let the agents confiscate the phone without providing the PIN, and he may have been let go.
(I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Just my ramblings based on my limited understanding of laws)
@arstechnica let's be honest here - handing over your phone is equivalent to a mind scan and should never be legal anywhere for any reason.
The government is wrong.
@arstechnica but isn't that a couple human rights and even a few amendments? (5th)
@arstechnica He didn't delete anything, the agent did that.
Maybe dipshits like that shouldn't be running the security operations.
@arstechnica ah white folk finding out now what it is like for coloured folks to travel to any white country. Not sure why anyone who can afford to travel can't afford to spend a little more to get a cheap blank phone to travel with or backup/wipe/restore before going through so border agents can go to town looking through a blank phones.
@arstechnica alt text for image: hand holding a Google phone
@arstechnica There is no liberty in the USA. Sorry, but this shows it clearly.
What if you had wiped the phone before leaving your point of origin?
@arstechnica from my point of view not he but they formatted the phone.
It's their doing that triggered the kill switch.
@arstechnica
My data, my choice.
I need this on a t-shirt!
@arstechnica Why is that illegal? Your phone Your rules.
@arstechnica If one cannot exercise one's #5A then the #USA is a #fascist #PoliceState!
Anyone treating that place any better than #Russia, "P.R." #China or #NorthKorea is just dellusional.
- If it didn't happen to a #US #citizen they would've either deported & #NoFlyList|ed, jailed indefinitely or tortured & forcibly disappeared said person instead.
@arstechnica lol ok then, fucj you, I DONT OWN a smart phone. Just this damn rinky dink flip phone.. that only has my LAWYER on speed dial.
ANYTHING ELSE?!?
@arstechnica This case relies very heavily on some of the most deranged precedent in US law, that is the result of deliberate attempts to turn international borders into rights-free zones. It doesn't even hold up to common sense, much less intense lawyering.
It mostly rests upon the idea that customs cannot work effectively if they cannot search at will. But so what? Fuck'em. They're worse than the smugglers. Sit a magistrate there to sign warrants, if it's justified.
If they didn't have a warrant.....
@arstechnica There should be a feature where a separate code would unlock an alternative phone with safe mundane content.
@arstechnica That's exactly what we're supposed to do to protect ourselves when traveling through problematic authoritarian ports like China, Russia or the USA.
The only alternative is that nobody ever travels to these places.
@arstechnica I doubt that a sane and sensible federal court would agree that that's any kind of crime, even if federal law says so. Generally, 4A provisions may allow them to require you to demonstrate that a device is what you say it is, by turning it on, so that they can be assured it's not a bomb. That's reasonable, and should not offend 4A provisions. But the CONTENT of a proven phone is almost certainly guarded under 4A, and should require a warrant. Congress cannot amend Amendments.
How do you set that up?
Thats cool.
A minimalist social node dedicated to high-fidelity exchange and digital autonomy. CoreSignal strips away the noise of the modern web to provide a clean, functional space for meaningful connection within the Fediverse
