Burying the lede on what? The individual in question was being targeted in part because he was exercising his First Amendment right to protest environmental destruction and the militarization of police. I think if anything this makes it more disturbing. The US government has a long history of criminalizing movements they don't like as "terrorism".
You're agreeing with the person you responded to (bdcravens). Burying the lede means that bdcravens thinks the true headline should have been about being put on a terrorist watch list for protesting a police training camp, not about the phone.
It's sad how much everyone saw this coming. We've been warned since the very beginning that this arbitrary expansion of punishments you can do to anyone labelled a "terrorist" (previous "communist") will inevitably come back to bite us. We saw it with the Red Scares and now we have the Black Scare. FFS, even citizens are getting arrested for moving zines around
Btw, here's a list of the zines for which people got charged as terrorists and sentenced for decades in prison for https://pnppl.cc/prairieland/
This whole thing highlights how insane US border law is.
Sam was physically in the US, but because he was on an international flight, he was arrested in a manner that would be unconstitutional anywhere else in the US. He was denied a lawyer, questioned for I presume hours, had his phone stolen without a warrant, and then was released because there was no crime CBP could figure out how to charge him with then and there.
Months later, he gets charged by a federal statute even though where he committed the crime was a place that federal law does? doesn't? extend. Apparently it's a very convenient place where the constitution is void but federal laws still matter.
Cops can't arrest or detain you without some articulable suspicion of a crime being committed. They can't steal your stuff to try and find a crime you committed. They can't search your phone without a warrant in which they provide a judge with enough evidence to reasonably suspect a crime has been committed.
Yet Sam apparently had no rights because he was put on a watchlist for exercising first amendment rights.
Very despicable behavior by the government and the federal prosecutors pursuing this case.
The technical problem here seems to be that GrapheneOS apparently doesn't support logging in to a partitioned empty OS for scanning purposes, also that it doesn't support such partitions at all, only one of which would be the real one.
That would be a bad idea. GrapheneOS operates under the assumption that every attacker has encyclopedic knowledge of GOS at all times. This is by far not an unreasonable assumption. GrapheneOS does not add features relying on ignorance that they exist.
The duress wipe feature shuts the device down to let RAM discharge, this is an important step to remove any components of decryption before they can be lifted.
What about a duress timer working as the reboot timer but it wipes if you don't unlock within the time period. Would that have any advantages for destruction of evidence or deniability?
That would not be viable because the hardware does not support it. It cannot be implemented in the OS because the OS can be turned off or exploited endlessly.
For GOS to consider it, it would likely need to be backed by the secure element.
Duress PIN is deemed acceptable to implement in the OS because it is expected that the user is the one to enter it, so it has not fallen into the hands of attackers who may bypass it. Once attackers have it, you are effectively gambling. Account for that in your threat model and do not let it get to that point.
I don’t think a judge would be impressed by this. If anything it actually makes the legal case easier: there’s a legitimate use for a wiping feature on a phone (e.g. for theft or tampering), but actively producing false information demonstrates an intent to deceive or mislead.
GrapheneOS already has an auto-reboot feature that can be set to time intervals ranging from 10 minutes to 72 hours. Rebooting puts the device back in before first unlock (BFU) state. This wipes all memory contents, including the encryption keys. Any unlock attempt will have to go through the secure element, which is basically impossible to tamper with (no successful attacks on the Titan M2 so far, or the Apple SEP for that matter), and includes substantial security mechanisms, such as throttling key derivations (through the Weaver API), or insider attack resistance (requiring user authentication before new firmware can be flashed to the secure element).
There's a problem with that too: it would often force the owner of the phone to input the code when outside a secure environment, so a simple video surveillance could obtain the code.
Deadmans-switch, nice. I always had a weird fascination for that kind of mechanism, because it inverts the whole situation. Where before you have to actively wipe a phone, now them taking your phone may be the mechanism that triggers the wipe.
Is it legally better? Absolutely. But all they have to do is say "they did this as a legal workaround for that" and you're no better off, at least not without spending the same amount on lawyers. You can't out-tech your way around a corrupt system, they will find a way to get you.
Any argument can be made, and accepted by a judge, in a sufficiently corrupt system. Like the parent said, you can't out tech this because logic ceases to be applied to laws. It instead become heads I win, tails you lose.
Yes sure, given a sufficiently corrupt system nothing helps. Even being innocent and revealing everything won't help.
But this stance amounts to giving up. Within the wiggle room a system gives us there are still ways to widen cracks or attach a lever, however small they may be.
Or turn your phone off while transiting airports. Not a catch-all solution in life, but considering the extra-lack of rights we have there, it makes sense. No need for them if you write down your confirmation number before arriving for departure, in order to get your ticket printed. On landing, have it off until you clear TSA and Customs.
And fully disable the USB port (GrapheneOS-exclusive feature). This will make it impossible to extract data with mobile forensics software/devices (such as the Cellebrite UFED).
This is a good article, and it brings much-needed attention to this case, which so far has not received the level of public awareness that is consummate with seriousness with which the federal government intends to weaken or undermine the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights of every American in prosecuting these bogus charges against Sam.
However, it makes an erroneous equivocation that, I believe, has profound technical and legal implications. In the article's first paragraph, it claims that GrapheneOS "enables users to enter a passcode and wipe a phone clean". What the author of the article is referring to is GrapheneOS's duress password/PIN feature[1], which does not (contrary to what it may seem on first glance) delete or modify the data on the persistent flash storage phone in any way. What it does is zero the key slots in the phone's Secure Element, which stores the disk encryption keys necessary to decrypt the data on persistent storage (technically, these disk encryption keys are not themselves stored in the secure element, but are first encrypted with a key encryption key/KEK derived from a user-entered passcode/PIN and then stored in the secure element[2]. If an adversary were able to break the secure element and extract the contents of the key slots, they would still need to brute-force the KEK in order to obtain the actual disk encryption keys).
To my knowledge, US law does not explicitly say whether deleting the key necessary to decrypt a given ciphertext is equivalent to deleting the ciphertext itself. Technically speaking, they are not equivalent, even if it would take an exorbitant amount of time to recover a deleted key using a brute-force search or some forensic method. If the federal government wants to claim, using this case to set a legal precedent, that it is equivalent, then I would argue that this in effect makes encryption as a concept illegal (as encryption is nothing without the ability of the person using encryption to control access to the encryption key(s)). Reading about the recent Prairieland trial, in which (among other blatant injustices) an activist was convicted by a kangaroo court of "destroying evidence" because they merely removed someone from a Signal group[3], it's clear to me that Prairieland along with Sam's case is part of a coordinated strategy under the NSPM-7 "Antifa Memorandum"[4]: the federal government is using lawfare to establish that it has a right to arbitrarily access the data of its citizens in order to crush political dissent.
Yeah I saw that. What do you mean 30 years in prison solely for the so called
"Corrupting and concealing documents, interfering with their ability to be used in grand jury and criminal proceedings;
Conspiracy to conceal documents that would implicate Maricela Rueda"
I don’t think courts care about technicality here. They’re going to simply ask “why didn’t it unlock like a normal phone does” -> aka you’re deliberately hiding evidence from us.
I’m sure this case will be dropped because it will open bigger can of worms and may jeopardize the current practice of warrantless invasive searches at the entry points. Secretly I hope this goes to Supreme Court and once and for all they clarify on “constitution doesn’t apply at the border” piece of thinking
Sounds like a good reason to use alternatives like GrapheneOS. It doesn't take a big % of users to let the "using it is suspicious by itself" nonsense wear off.
Not to worry, but big tech and government are slowly crafting laws that make non-big-tech operating systems illegal in the name of protecting children.
Quick reminder to my fellows that if you discuss this story here, it will end up immutable and available to law enforcement and, e.g., H1B eligibility deciders.
Some of us are on visa and have our online presence routinely scanned these days. Asymmetric vuln. If that's not you, why are you upset when it is acknowledged?
It looks like there are a lot of issues here on the government side, but it also appears like the protestor intentionally gave them a password that, when used, wipes the phone? That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence.
I don't think the crime of destroying evidence / tampering with evidence depends on what your status in custody is. If the police knock on your front door and you start shredding documents, that's still a crime.
Now, could that get tossed about because they denied him access to a lawyer? Maybe, I don't know about that part.
> If the police knock on your front door and you start shredding documents, that's still a crime
Isn’t the relevant bit whether you think you’re doing crimes and/or being investigated?
If I’m shredding while the cops knock on my door because they’re looking for a missing cat, that’s obviously not criminal. (I guess the more-pertinent comparison would be they knock on my door and then I put stuff in the shredder while I check around my home.)
If you shred any evidence of a crime you are guilty of a crime regardless if the police ever knock at your door or you think you are being investigated if you have the intent "to prevent the apprehension or cause the wrongful apprehension of any person or to obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or disguises physical evidence or makes, devises, prepares, or plants false evidence"
If that was his intent he shouldn't have handed over any pin. This looks like he was hiding evidence of wrongdoing and he will probably be charged with it. I am guessing his only hope will be that they denied his request for a lawyer.
His rights were already being violated. He was falsely arrested and denied his rights to an attorney.
They can prosecute him (and probably will) but he's got a pretty strong civil rights claim against the federal government for a false arrest and illegal search and seizure.
You can't arrest someone without a warrant or a reasonable suspicion of a crime. These thugs had neither when they arrested him, just that he's "a terrorist". That's why they were trying to get him to confess or commit a crime. That's why they didn't want a lawyer to get involved.
Under Georgia law (16-10-94) you do not have to be under arrest.
> A person commits the offense of tampering with evidence when, with the intent to prevent the apprehension or cause the wrongful apprehension of any person or to obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or disguises physical evidence or makes, devises, prepares, or plants false evidence
This would be under federal law, not Georgia law I believe. But even assuming it was under Georgia law: it hasn’t been entered into public evidence that the person in question knowingly destroyed anything. It’s entirely possible the phone had nothing of value on it; the prosecution is required to demonstrate that evidence was in fact destroyed or falsified.
I thought the standard for obtaining adverse/negative inference in a criminal case was higher than in a civil one, i.e. a judge will typically need more than just evidence that information was destroyed. But IANAL!
He was in Atlanta so he can be charged with a Georgia law even if it was the feds are involved. The federal law is quite similar though so it doesn't really matter.
> Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the federal law might be more damning since the law clearly doesn't state that there has to actually be anything of value on the device as long as there was "intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation". Wiping a phone that they want to look at will impede the investigation.
Perhaps It had a message involving client-attorney communications? Is there any carve out for that case? Is that still intact or has a jack boot been applied to its throat?
It can't because it runs on phones which only have SSDs which leave forensic traces. They would like to improve deniability but it must be robust, whatever they implement.
That is not how the law works. Under Georgia law (GA Code § 16-2-20) it says
> (a) Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime
>(b) A person is concerned in the commission of a crime only if he:
(1) Directly commits the crime;
(2) Intentionally causes some other person to commit the crime under such circumstances that the other person is not guilty of any crime either in fact or because of legal incapacity;
(3) Intentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime; or
(4) Intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime
You do not have to give them your pin, by law. They can use biometrics to open your device, which is why you should not use biometrics for device unlocking.
GraphenOS has a couple of settings, a distress pin that wipes the device, and a number of failed attempts that will wipe the device. If the person handed over their "pin", they didn't need to
"federal authorities had put him on a terrorism watchlist because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City"
Talk about burying the lede
Burying the lede on what? The individual in question was being targeted in part because he was exercising his First Amendment right to protest environmental destruction and the militarization of police. I think if anything this makes it more disturbing. The US government has a long history of criminalizing movements they don't like as "terrorism".
You're agreeing with the person you responded to (bdcravens). Burying the lede means that bdcravens thinks the true headline should have been about being put on a terrorist watch list for protesting a police training camp, not about the phone.
Note that "antifa" is now recognized as a terrorist organization by the current federal government. It will get much worse if they aren't stopped.
which they are you referring to? Antifa or the gov't?
It's sad how much everyone saw this coming. We've been warned since the very beginning that this arbitrary expansion of punishments you can do to anyone labelled a "terrorist" (previous "communist") will inevitably come back to bite us. We saw it with the Red Scares and now we have the Black Scare. FFS, even citizens are getting arrested for moving zines around
Btw, here's a list of the zines for which people got charged as terrorists and sentenced for decades in prison for https://pnppl.cc/prairieland/
This whole thing highlights how insane US border law is.
Sam was physically in the US, but because he was on an international flight, he was arrested in a manner that would be unconstitutional anywhere else in the US. He was denied a lawyer, questioned for I presume hours, had his phone stolen without a warrant, and then was released because there was no crime CBP could figure out how to charge him with then and there.
Months later, he gets charged by a federal statute even though where he committed the crime was a place that federal law does? doesn't? extend. Apparently it's a very convenient place where the constitution is void but federal laws still matter.
Cops can't arrest or detain you without some articulable suspicion of a crime being committed. They can't steal your stuff to try and find a crime you committed. They can't search your phone without a warrant in which they provide a judge with enough evidence to reasonably suspect a crime has been committed.
Yet Sam apparently had no rights because he was put on a watchlist for exercising first amendment rights.
Very despicable behavior by the government and the federal prosecutors pursuing this case.
Indeed. Hopefully the next administration will hold current officials accountable for such abuses of power.
Yeah, and then they’ll give everyone a pony
The technical problem here seems to be that GrapheneOS apparently doesn't support logging in to a partitioned empty OS for scanning purposes, also that it doesn't support such partitions at all, only one of which would be the real one.
This is a technical problem.
Instead of wiping and rebooting, it should wipe while showing a lame spreadsheet application, or possibly a grocery list.
That would be a bad idea. GrapheneOS operates under the assumption that every attacker has encyclopedic knowledge of GOS at all times. This is by far not an unreasonable assumption. GrapheneOS does not add features relying on ignorance that they exist.
The duress wipe feature shuts the device down to let RAM discharge, this is an important step to remove any components of decryption before they can be lifted.
What about a duress timer working as the reboot timer but it wipes if you don't unlock within the time period. Would that have any advantages for destruction of evidence or deniability?
That would not be viable because the hardware does not support it. It cannot be implemented in the OS because the OS can be turned off or exploited endlessly.
For GOS to consider it, it would likely need to be backed by the secure element.
Duress PIN is deemed acceptable to implement in the OS because it is expected that the user is the one to enter it, so it has not fallen into the hands of attackers who may bypass it. Once attackers have it, you are effectively gambling. Account for that in your threat model and do not let it get to that point.
I don’t think a judge would be impressed by this. If anything it actually makes the legal case easier: there’s a legitimate use for a wiping feature on a phone (e.g. for theft or tampering), but actively producing false information demonstrates an intent to deceive or mislead.
Easier solution: phone wipes itself if passcode is not entered every X hours
GrapheneOS already has an auto-reboot feature that can be set to time intervals ranging from 10 minutes to 72 hours. Rebooting puts the device back in before first unlock (BFU) state. This wipes all memory contents, including the encryption keys. Any unlock attempt will have to go through the secure element, which is basically impossible to tamper with (no successful attacks on the Titan M2 so far, or the Apple SEP for that matter), and includes substantial security mechanisms, such as throttling key derivations (through the Weaver API), or insider attack resistance (requiring user authentication before new firmware can be flashed to the secure element).
Leaked documents from mobile forensics companies, such as Cellebrite or XRY confirm this. It's impossible to crack a Pixel with GrapheneOS in BFU state. See https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/112462758257739953 and https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/112826067364945164
There's a problem with that too: it would often force the owner of the phone to input the code when outside a secure environment, so a simple video surveillance could obtain the code.
Deadmans-switch, nice. I always had a weird fascination for that kind of mechanism, because it inverts the whole situation. Where before you have to actively wipe a phone, now them taking your phone may be the mechanism that triggers the wipe.
Is it legally better? Absolutely. But all they have to do is say "they did this as a legal workaround for that" and you're no better off, at least not without spending the same amount on lawyers. You can't out-tech your way around a corrupt system, they will find a way to get you.
if you have it running constantly, i dont think that argument can be made
id expect that youd be ordered to retain the data though, if an investigation is being done
Any argument can be made, and accepted by a judge, in a sufficiently corrupt system. Like the parent said, you can't out tech this because logic ceases to be applied to laws. It instead become heads I win, tails you lose.
Yes sure, given a sufficiently corrupt system nothing helps. Even being innocent and revealing everything won't help.
But this stance amounts to giving up. Within the wiggle room a system gives us there are still ways to widen cracks or attach a lever, however small they may be.
Or just don't wipe your phone and let the reboot timer do its work and bring your phone to BFU state, effectively uncrackable.
The issue here is CBP was (illegally) demanding he give them his passcode (5th amendment violation).
Doesn't really matter if the reboot timer is triggered if the thugs have beaten your code out of you.
There's an XKCD for that: https://xkcd.com/538/
Or turn your phone off while transiting airports. Not a catch-all solution in life, but considering the extra-lack of rights we have there, it makes sense. No need for them if you write down your confirmation number before arriving for departure, in order to get your ticket printed. On landing, have it off until you clear TSA and Customs.
It shouldn't be this way, but oh well.
At least disable biometric login.
And fully disable the USB port (GrapheneOS-exclusive feature). This will make it impossible to extract data with mobile forensics software/devices (such as the Cellebrite UFED).
Grapheneos has pin+biometric second factor as secondary unlock so it should be fine if you use that.
This is a good article, and it brings much-needed attention to this case, which so far has not received the level of public awareness that is consummate with seriousness with which the federal government intends to weaken or undermine the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights of every American in prosecuting these bogus charges against Sam.
However, it makes an erroneous equivocation that, I believe, has profound technical and legal implications. In the article's first paragraph, it claims that GrapheneOS "enables users to enter a passcode and wipe a phone clean". What the author of the article is referring to is GrapheneOS's duress password/PIN feature[1], which does not (contrary to what it may seem on first glance) delete or modify the data on the persistent flash storage phone in any way. What it does is zero the key slots in the phone's Secure Element, which stores the disk encryption keys necessary to decrypt the data on persistent storage (technically, these disk encryption keys are not themselves stored in the secure element, but are first encrypted with a key encryption key/KEK derived from a user-entered passcode/PIN and then stored in the secure element[2]. If an adversary were able to break the secure element and extract the contents of the key slots, they would still need to brute-force the KEK in order to obtain the actual disk encryption keys).
To my knowledge, US law does not explicitly say whether deleting the key necessary to decrypt a given ciphertext is equivalent to deleting the ciphertext itself. Technically speaking, they are not equivalent, even if it would take an exorbitant amount of time to recover a deleted key using a brute-force search or some forensic method. If the federal government wants to claim, using this case to set a legal precedent, that it is equivalent, then I would argue that this in effect makes encryption as a concept illegal (as encryption is nothing without the ability of the person using encryption to control access to the encryption key(s)). Reading about the recent Prairieland trial, in which (among other blatant injustices) an activist was convicted by a kangaroo court of "destroying evidence" because they merely removed someone from a Signal group[3], it's clear to me that Prairieland along with Sam's case is part of a coordinated strategy under the NSPM-7 "Antifa Memorandum"[4]: the federal government is using lawfare to establish that it has a right to arbitrarily access the data of its citizens in order to crush political dissent.
[1] https://grapheneos.org/features#duress
[2] https://grapheneos.org/faq#encryption
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jun/...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSPM-7
Yeah I saw that. What do you mean 30 years in prison solely for the so called
"Corrupting and concealing documents, interfering with their ability to be used in grand jury and criminal proceedings; Conspiracy to conceal documents that would implicate Maricela Rueda"
By removing people from the Signal group?
I don’t think courts care about technicality here. They’re going to simply ask “why didn’t it unlock like a normal phone does” -> aka you’re deliberately hiding evidence from us.
I’m sure this case will be dropped because it will open bigger can of worms and may jeopardize the current practice of warrantless invasive searches at the entry points. Secretly I hope this goes to Supreme Court and once and for all they clarify on “constitution doesn’t apply at the border” piece of thinking
Sounds like a good reason to use alternatives like GrapheneOS. It doesn't take a big % of users to let the "using it is suspicious by itself" nonsense wear off.
It's already supported by Roblox:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48994716
2 days ago 87 comments
Not to worry, but big tech and government are slowly crafting laws that make non-big-tech operating systems illegal in the name of protecting children.
Quick reminder to my fellows that if you discuss this story here, it will end up immutable and available to law enforcement and, e.g., H1B eligibility deciders.
Dark forest
Better to die on ones feet than live on ones knees.
You have it backwards.
It is better to live on one's feet, than to die on one's knees.
Some of us are on visa and have our online presence routinely scanned these days. Asymmetric vuln. If that's not you, why are you upset when it is acknowledged?
Have you considered living somewhere the Sword of Damocles does not constantly hang over your head?
Most of the EU is lovely.
In America you can call politicians names. In Germany that's a criminal offense
It looks like there are a lot of issues here on the government side, but it also appears like the protestor intentionally gave them a password that, when used, wipes the phone? That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence.
> That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence
If he was under arrest, sure. The cops claiming this was a routine airport inspection would seem to muddy the waters, at least.
I don't think the crime of destroying evidence / tampering with evidence depends on what your status in custody is. If the police knock on your front door and you start shredding documents, that's still a crime.
Now, could that get tossed about because they denied him access to a lawyer? Maybe, I don't know about that part.
> If the police knock on your front door and you start shredding documents, that's still a crime
Isn’t the relevant bit whether you think you’re doing crimes and/or being investigated?
If I’m shredding while the cops knock on my door because they’re looking for a missing cat, that’s obviously not criminal. (I guess the more-pertinent comparison would be they knock on my door and then I put stuff in the shredder while I check around my home.)
If you shred any evidence of a crime you are guilty of a crime regardless if the police ever knock at your door or you think you are being investigated if you have the intent "to prevent the apprehension or cause the wrongful apprehension of any person or to obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or disguises physical evidence or makes, devises, prepares, or plants false evidence"
You're jumping to conclusions.
Deletion to protect privacy does not prove deletion to prevent apprehension.
I could believe that everything is wholly innocent, but wish to protect privacy regardless.
If that was his intent he shouldn't have handed over any pin. This looks like he was hiding evidence of wrongdoing and he will probably be charged with it. I am guessing his only hope will be that they denied his request for a lawyer.
His rights were already being violated. He was falsely arrested and denied his rights to an attorney.
They can prosecute him (and probably will) but he's got a pretty strong civil rights claim against the federal government for a false arrest and illegal search and seizure.
You can't arrest someone without a warrant or a reasonable suspicion of a crime. These thugs had neither when they arrested him, just that he's "a terrorist". That's why they were trying to get him to confess or commit a crime. That's why they didn't want a lawyer to get involved.
What if I have a camera/microphone near my front door, that when law enforcement is detected, it auto wipes my data, with no interaction from me?
Under Georgia law (16-10-94) you do not have to be under arrest.
> A person commits the offense of tampering with evidence when, with the intent to prevent the apprehension or cause the wrongful apprehension of any person or to obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or disguises physical evidence or makes, devises, prepares, or plants false evidence
This would be under federal law, not Georgia law I believe. But even assuming it was under Georgia law: it hasn’t been entered into public evidence that the person in question knowingly destroyed anything. It’s entirely possible the phone had nothing of value on it; the prosecution is required to demonstrate that evidence was in fact destroyed or falsified.
> the prosecution is required to demonstrate that evidence was in fact destroyed or falsified
Is this legally true? At least in civil matters, destroying evidence typically causes the worst to be assumed about whatever was destroyed.
I thought the standard for obtaining adverse/negative inference in a criminal case was higher than in a civil one, i.e. a judge will typically need more than just evidence that information was destroyed. But IANAL!
Maybe you just get charged with destroying or tampering with evidence instead of the original charge? (Help us rayiner!)
He was in Atlanta so he can be charged with a Georgia law even if it was the feds are involved. The federal law is quite similar though so it doesn't really matter.
> Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the federal law might be more damning since the law clearly doesn't state that there has to actually be anything of value on the device as long as there was "intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation". Wiping a phone that they want to look at will impede the investigation.
Perhaps It had a message involving client-attorney communications? Is there any carve out for that case? Is that still intact or has a jack boot been applied to its throat?
Why do you think reporters would rather eat a contempt charge vs throwing their sources to the wolves?
It's too bad GrapheneOS doesn't support hidden volumes.
It can't because it runs on phones which only have SSDs which leave forensic traces. They would like to improve deniability but it must be robust, whatever they implement.
Evidence of what?
Technically that means the cops destroyed the evidence. Their investigatory department should be savvy enough to avoid destroying evidence.
That is not how the law works. Under Georgia law (GA Code § 16-2-20) it says
> (a) Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime
>(b) A person is concerned in the commission of a crime only if he: (1) Directly commits the crime; (2) Intentionally causes some other person to commit the crime under such circumstances that the other person is not guilty of any crime either in fact or because of legal incapacity; (3) Intentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime; or (4) Intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime
Seems like this is a clear case to me.
One weird trick to destroy evidence without creating a crime. Cops don't want you to know.
You do not have to give them your pin, by law. They can use biometrics to open your device, which is why you should not use biometrics for device unlocking.
GraphenOS has a couple of settings, a distress pin that wipes the device, and a number of failed attempts that will wipe the device. If the person handed over their "pin", they didn't need to
GrapheneOS does not offer a feature to wipe the device based on failed attempts.
I thought I read about it in their docs, but perhaps I'm hallucinating that from a forum post requesting the feature.