8 ms·

Ultimately, when you choose to enter a duress PIN that will wipe your device, you have to recognize that choice may have legal consequences. I don't like the am

Ultimately, when you choose to enter a duress PIN that will wipe your device, you have to recognize that choice may have legal consequences. I don't like the amount of power our government has at the national border when it comes to detaining and pressuring citizens, but our Constitution explicitly grants it at least some of the power it now exercises in that context. If your threat model includes US state actors at the national border, then your security practices need to account for the confiscation of your device at that border without requiring you to willfully wipe the phone and (in the eyes of police and prosecutors) destroy evidence. That means: 1. Don't travel with anything you can't afford to lose on device. This means setting up travel-specific password managers and hardware keys for a subset of your accounts that you absolutely need to access while abroad, and being prepared to reset those passwords and disable those hardware keys very quickly once home. 2. Review past legal cases against travelers and identify what behaviors the government considers worthy of prosecution or harassment. Your secure setup must function without needing you to engage in those behaviors, even if it is less convenient as a result. This isn't perfect, as the government may decide some new behavior is prosecutable. 3. Consult with a lawyer and review your security procedures from a legal standpoint. All of the above is technical and practical advice, not legal counsel and no substitute for it. We Americans are fortunate to carry powerful passports and enjoy relatively easy international travel but, for better or worse, that velvet glove covers an iron fist we would be foolish to forget or ignore.

dathinab 3mo ago
the funny part is he didn't enter the pin he gave it to them and they entered it..., not sure if it makes any difference but there is a certain irony to it that it was the non warrant based search actions (which might be legal at the border) which lead to the erasure of data
- sfRattan 3mo ago
  Edit for the confused and misinformed: 18 USC 1001. Also, is ≠ ought. Lying to a federal officer is a crime, IIRC, and if the lie results in destruction of evidence, the person who told the lie is probably accountable for both crimes. This isn't a lie with plausible deniability: you have to set a duress PIN, understanding what it does, and then communicate that PIN instead of the unlock PIN. A duress PIN to wipe the device don't exist to absolve the owner of liability... It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome. It is an extreme solution for extreme scenarios. People need to be sober in weighing its use.
  - malcolmgreaves 3mo ago
    I’m quite unfamiliar with this notion. What law says it’s illegal to lie when you’re not under oath during a court proceeding?
    - sfRattan 3mo ago
      18 U.S. Code § 1001 [1] [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
      - hinata08 3mo ago
        does this apply to defendant ? the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying"
        sfRattan 3mo ago
        In America, the defendant generally has the right not to testify against himself by remaining silent, both in court and when questioned by agents of the state out of court. Not a right to lie. This is why criminal defense attorneys advise everyone to shut up, shut up, SHUT UP without a lawyer present. Police can and will attempt to catch you in a provable lie. > the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying" What on Earth is this second part of your comment supposed to mean? Do you expect to be able to lie to the government in an authoritarian country? And not be arrested if they catch you in the lie there? And not be charged or worse if they consider the lie serious?
        hinata08 3mo ago
        Alright. Most places would investigate crimes and charge you for them before they look at your defense itself, so I had several worries about that One of which is self indications (even of things that cops didn't know about or couldn't prove) that would allow them to just question anyone into admitting even a parking offense, but I guess you can shut up indeed I was worried that they could use any crime in a broad area and just force everyone to say with who they were and what they were doing, but you can also shut up I was also worried than on investigations with no real crime involved, they could just go play jeopardy and ask you what you were doing minute by minute, and get you to talk until something gets inaccurate (while they have cctv but you have no vcr in your brain). But again, you can shut up. When I'll be in America, I'll remember not to talk to cops. Not even to 911 as emergency calls are error prone : You said someone was attacked by a suv and knife when it was a pickup truck and machete, you go to jail
- Frost1x 3mo ago
  I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour and there’s a whole lot of linking intent to action where you can be liable if a court can prove it. Not that an LLM is legal gold but it’s the best thing I have to pass ideas around with. The entire situation is sort of nonsensical and boils down to lots of minutia in law that no normal person would know about. For example having normal widely known security features like wiping the device after N failed PIN attempts is fine. Even having long standing security practices that can’t be related are fine, like having a timed touch point where if you don’t enter the PIN every… 15 days or whatever the device wipes, perfectly fine if it can’t be connected towards the crime and you’re not compelled to tell officers you have such a security mechanism. Even if you were to set a trap where you use the same PIN for your bank, your laptop, and some other security devices in repetition then decide to set your duress PIN to that by assuming it would be discovered as a probable option they’d use, you’d be ok but it could be questionable if that was by design… It’s so obscure really as to how and how you’re not allowed to protect your data, even if you’re not the one performing the action to clear destroy the potential evidence yourself. The entire thing seems pretty absurd a frankly arbitrary to me, and I don’t know how people could know which cases are and aren’t legal. I know not to destroy evidence myself but I wouldn’t know to tell someone to not use the duress pin or that even giving them my duress pin could somehow be my liability. It’s madness if you ask me.
  - sumeno 3mo ago
    > I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour One of the most depressing things I've read on here
    - Frost1x 3mo ago
      Well I don’t have any legal need to hire a lawyer or anything I would need a lawyer for. It’s a rather fast way to surface legal information and precedent. I don’t see how it’s any more depressing than Google diving on a topic you’re interested in for an hour..
    - vips7L 3mo ago
      Welcome to moltnews. Everyone here is addicted.
bubblethink 3mo ago
>destroy evidence Who said it was evidence? Did a judge authorize or issue a warrant to collect said evidence? Absent that, it's just your property, and you can do with it as you please.
- theturtletalks 3mo ago
  Yes this is different than when law enforcement serve a warrant and the defendant wipes his computer before the agents can get a hold of it. In that case the warrant covers what you destroyed as evidence. Though during traffic stops, if a defendant disposes of his drugs while on the run, that can also carry a charge of destroying evidence even though no warrant was issued. IANAL
  - stemlord 3mo ago
    Hm but the drugs are only evidence because they're illegal? So the phone owner only destroyed evidence if the phone contained something illegal, but innocent until proben guilty?
    - kube-system 3mo ago
      No, destroying evidence is a crime even if possession of that evidence is legal.
      - amrit3128 3mo ago
        Who decided that it's evidence?
        __MatrixMan__ 3mo ago
        Law enforcement. That's like, their job.
        bubblethink 3mo ago
reenorap 3mo ago
Have the duress PIN on sticker on your phone. Maybe put it backwards and don’t say anything to border patrol. Have them try it out and erase the phone and then you can legitimately say you didn’t do anything and they did it themselves.
- koolba 3mo ago
  Be funnier if you even write “do not enter 123456”.
  - president_zippy 3mo ago
    That might have actually been legal. I'm not a lawyer, but it's definitely better for the accused than what happened in reality. "I told you not to. You're the ones who wiped my phone. You owe me money for destroying my personal property." I'm not saying you would get a check courtesy of Uncle Sam for your troubles, but the argument that you deceived authorities into destroying evidence is a lot weaker. I might go with "do not enter 696969" instead because the stranger fiddling with your phone probably expects a your phone to do something funny, like load a shock site.
- nkrisc 3mo ago
  But if the prosecutors can make a convincing argument that your intent was exactly that all along, then you may end up convicted anyway. Intent matters. It might be hard to prove, but it matters. It may not even be that hard; what other possible explanation is there for someone putting a PIN visible on their phone that wipes it while crossing a border?
  - ww520 3mo ago
    As a speech.
  - IncreasePosts 3mo ago
    "it would be funny if the border police typed it in to my phone"
SubiculumCode 3mo ago
Not a lawyer, but destruction of evidence would only be valid if there was first some reasonable suspicion of a crime? Is that right?
- 3eb7988a1663 3mo ago
  This is my core question as well. At what point do you have to maintain property so the government can use it to testify against yourself? If I have a dash-cam, and I wipe the SD card, can the government imply that because I erased the card, it must prove that I was speeding? The dash-cam automatically over-writes old footage - perpetually destroying evidence. Given nebulous cases such as "hacking" a site by looking at the HTML[0], am I destroying evidence of crimes whenever I format my PC? I hope the government requires specific charges and more proof of a crime other than missing evidence. Say I destroy my diary - can the government claim that is the key evidence where I confessed to being the gunman on the grassy knoll? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28992667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28992667
  - lelanthran 3mo ago
    > If I have a dash-cam, and I wipe the SD card, can the government imply that because I erased the card, it must prove that I was speeding? If the erasure was a non-automated result of them asking you, and you alone, what conclusion do you think is possible? Probable?
  - 8note 3mo ago
    the government might not, but your insurance company definitely will
  - whats_a_quasar 3mo ago
    "At what point do you have to maintain property so the government can use it to testify against yourself?" For the duration of the border search. This guy is at risk because he caused the data to be deleted during a border search, when CBP asserts they can legally look. He would have been fine if he deleted data on the plane or after leaving the airport. (This is my understanding of the government's position; personally I don't think this prosecution is constitutional)
8note 3mo ago
this means: put a good government in charge of the border that respects your rights
mihaaly 3mo ago
It is so sad and worrying when the already oppressed population argue for paranoid practices constraining their own practices considerably and with great efforts, eroding the other thing that constitution was so famous about, freedom, so some officers supposed to serve the population can do things easily to anyone. If they please and want it easy for themselves.
aucisson_masque 3mo ago
> 1. Don't travel with anything you can't afford to lose on device. This means setting up travel-specific password managers and hardware keys for a subset of your accounts that you absolutely need to access while abroad, and being prepared to reset those passwords and disable those hardware keys very quickly once home. > 2. Review past legal cases against travelers and identify what behaviors the government considers worthy of prosecution or harassment. Your secure setup must function without needing you to engage in those behaviors, even if it is less convenient as a result. This isn't perfect, as the government may decide some new behavior is prosecutable. > 3. Consult with a lawyer and review your security procedures from a legal standpoint. All of the above is technical and practical advice, not legal counsel and no substitute for it. Just don't go to the usa and if it's for professional reason, don't bring your personal phone.
- sfRattan 3mo ago
  You've left out the important qualifier I put at the outset of those three points: > If your threat model includes US state actors It was not advice for everyone, nor even most people. I have plenty of friends abroad, and a few of them have even traveled to my country for the World Cup and had a grand time. I roll my eyes at this kind of overreaction, the same way I imagine Europeans rolling their eyes to hear Americans worried about migrant crime news stories not wanting to travel to Europe. Or maybe they used to roll their eyes at that... I'm less sure now.
- drop_star 3mo ago
  > Just don't go to the usa As a Canadian. I won't be going there for a long time
  - pageandrew 3mo ago
    Canadian border control has the legal authority to search your phone and you are obligated to provide a password.
    - 9935c101ab17a66 3mo ago
atoav 3mo ago
Well I prefer simply to stay out of countries that haven't got their ducks in a row when it comes to freedom. Saves a lot of hassle.
account42 3mo ago
> We Americans are fortunate to carry powerful passports and enjoy relatively easy international travel but, for better or worse There actually not that special, requiring a visa in 35 countries compared to 25/26 for most European passports: https://www.passportindex.org/byRank.php https://www.passportindex.org/byRank.php Unrestricted access to the US is probably the bigger advantage you get.

dathinab 3mo ago

the funny part is he didn't enter the pin he gave it to them and they entered it..., not sure if it makes any difference but there is a certain irony to it that it was the non warrant based search actions (which might be legal at the border) which lead to the erasure of data

sfRattan 3mo ago
Edit for the confused and misinformed: 18 USC 1001. Also, is ≠ ought. Lying to a federal officer is a crime, IIRC, and if the lie results in destruction of evidence, the person who told the lie is probably accountable for both crimes. This isn't a lie with plausible deniability: you have to set a duress PIN, understanding what it does, and then communicate that PIN instead of the unlock PIN. A duress PIN to wipe the device don't exist to absolve the owner of liability... It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome. It is an extreme solution for extreme scenarios. People need to be sober in weighing its use.
- malcolmgreaves 3mo ago
  I’m quite unfamiliar with this notion. What law says it’s illegal to lie when you’re not under oath during a court proceeding?
  - sfRattan 3mo ago
    18 U.S. Code § 1001 [1] [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
    - hinata08 3mo ago
      does this apply to defendant ? the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying"
      - sfRattan 3mo ago
        In America, the defendant generally has the right not to testify against himself by remaining silent, both in court and when questioned by agents of the state out of court. Not a right to lie. This is why criminal defense attorneys advise everyone to shut up, shut up, SHUT UP without a lawyer present. Police can and will attempt to catch you in a provable lie. > the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying" What on Earth is this second part of your comment supposed to mean? Do you expect to be able to lie to the government in an authoritarian country? And not be arrested if they catch you in the lie there? And not be charged or worse if they consider the lie serious?
        hinata08 3mo ago
        Alright. Most places would investigate crimes and charge you for them before they look at your defense itself, so I had several worries about that One of which is self indications (even of things that cops didn't know about or couldn't prove) that would allow them to just question anyone into admitting even a parking offense, but I guess you can shut up indeed I was worried that they could use any crime in a broad area and just force everyone to say with who they were and what they were doing, but you can also shut up I was also worried than on investigations with no real crime involved, they could just go play jeopardy and ask you what you were doing minute by minute, and get you to talk until something gets inaccurate (while they have cctv but you have no vcr in your brain). But again, you can shut up. When I'll be in America, I'll remember not to talk to cops. Not even to 911 as emergency calls are error prone : You said someone was attacked by a suv and knife when it was a pickup truck and machete, you go to jail
Frost1x 3mo ago
I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour and there’s a whole lot of linking intent to action where you can be liable if a court can prove it. Not that an LLM is legal gold but it’s the best thing I have to pass ideas around with. The entire situation is sort of nonsensical and boils down to lots of minutia in law that no normal person would know about. For example having normal widely known security features like wiping the device after N failed PIN attempts is fine. Even having long standing security practices that can’t be related are fine, like having a timed touch point where if you don’t enter the PIN every… 15 days or whatever the device wipes, perfectly fine if it can’t be connected towards the crime and you’re not compelled to tell officers you have such a security mechanism. Even if you were to set a trap where you use the same PIN for your bank, your laptop, and some other security devices in repetition then decide to set your duress PIN to that by assuming it would be discovered as a probable option they’d use, you’d be ok but it could be questionable if that was by design… It’s so obscure really as to how and how you’re not allowed to protect your data, even if you’re not the one performing the action to clear destroy the potential evidence yourself. The entire thing seems pretty absurd a frankly arbitrary to me, and I don’t know how people could know which cases are and aren’t legal. I know not to destroy evidence myself but I wouldn’t know to tell someone to not use the duress pin or that even giving them my duress pin could somehow be my liability. It’s madness if you ask me.
- sumeno 3mo ago
  > I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour One of the most depressing things I've read on here
  - Frost1x 3mo ago
    Well I don’t have any legal need to hire a lawyer or anything I would need a lawyer for. It’s a rather fast way to surface legal information and precedent. I don’t see how it’s any more depressing than Google diving on a topic you’re interested in for an hour..
  - vips7L 3mo ago
    Welcome to moltnews. Everyone here is addicted.

bubblethink 3mo ago

>destroy evidence Who said it was evidence? Did a judge authorize or issue a warrant to collect said evidence? Absent that, it's just your property, and you can do with it as you please.

theturtletalks 3mo ago
Yes this is different than when law enforcement serve a warrant and the defendant wipes his computer before the agents can get a hold of it. In that case the warrant covers what you destroyed as evidence. Though during traffic stops, if a defendant disposes of his drugs while on the run, that can also carry a charge of destroying evidence even though no warrant was issued. IANAL
- stemlord 3mo ago
  Hm but the drugs are only evidence because they're illegal? So the phone owner only destroyed evidence if the phone contained something illegal, but innocent until proben guilty?
  - kube-system 3mo ago
    No, destroying evidence is a crime even if possession of that evidence is legal.
    - amrit3128 3mo ago
      Who decided that it's evidence?
      - __MatrixMan__ 3mo ago
        Law enforcement. That's like, their job.
        bubblethink 3mo ago

reenorap 3mo ago

Have the duress PIN on sticker on your phone. Maybe put it backwards and don’t say anything to border patrol. Have them try it out and erase the phone and then you can legitimately say you didn’t do anything and they did it themselves.

koolba 3mo ago
Be funnier if you even write “do not enter 123456”.
- president_zippy 3mo ago
  That might have actually been legal. I'm not a lawyer, but it's definitely better for the accused than what happened in reality. "I told you not to. You're the ones who wiped my phone. You owe me money for destroying my personal property." I'm not saying you would get a check courtesy of Uncle Sam for your troubles, but the argument that you deceived authorities into destroying evidence is a lot weaker. I might go with "do not enter 696969" instead because the stranger fiddling with your phone probably expects a your phone to do something funny, like load a shock site.
nkrisc 3mo ago
But if the prosecutors can make a convincing argument that your intent was exactly that all along, then you may end up convicted anyway. Intent matters. It might be hard to prove, but it matters. It may not even be that hard; what other possible explanation is there for someone putting a PIN visible on their phone that wipes it while crossing a border?
- ww520 3mo ago
  As a speech.
- IncreasePosts 3mo ago
  "it would be funny if the border police typed it in to my phone"

SubiculumCode 3mo ago

Not a lawyer, but destruction of evidence would only be valid if there was first some reasonable suspicion of a crime? Is that right?

3eb7988a1663 3mo ago
This is my core question as well. At what point do you have to maintain property so the government can use it to testify against yourself? If I have a dash-cam, and I wipe the SD card, can the government imply that because I erased the card, it must prove that I was speeding? The dash-cam automatically over-writes old footage - perpetually destroying evidence. Given nebulous cases such as "hacking" a site by looking at the HTML[0], am I destroying evidence of crimes whenever I format my PC? I hope the government requires specific charges and more proof of a crime other than missing evidence. Say I destroy my diary - can the government claim that is the key evidence where I confessed to being the gunman on the grassy knoll? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28992667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28992667
- lelanthran 3mo ago
  > If I have a dash-cam, and I wipe the SD card, can the government imply that because I erased the card, it must prove that I was speeding? If the erasure was a non-automated result of them asking you, and you alone, what conclusion do you think is possible? Probable?
- 8note 3mo ago
  the government might not, but your insurance company definitely will
- whats_a_quasar 3mo ago
  "At what point do you have to maintain property so the government can use it to testify against yourself?" For the duration of the border search. This guy is at risk because he caused the data to be deleted during a border search, when CBP asserts they can legally look. He would have been fine if he deleted data on the plane or after leaving the airport. (This is my understanding of the government's position; personally I don't think this prosecution is constitutional)

8note 3mo ago

this means: put a good government in charge of the border that respects your rights

mihaaly 3mo ago

It is so sad and worrying when the already oppressed population argue for paranoid practices constraining their own practices considerably and with great efforts, eroding the other thing that constitution was so famous about, freedom, so some officers supposed to serve the population can do things easily to anyone. If they please and want it easy for themselves.

aucisson_masque 3mo ago

> 1. Don't travel with anything you can't afford to lose on device. This means setting up travel-specific password managers and hardware keys for a subset of your accounts that you absolutely need to access while abroad, and being prepared to reset those passwords and disable those hardware keys very quickly once home. > 2. Review past legal cases against travelers and identify what behaviors the government considers worthy of prosecution or harassment. Your secure setup must function without needing you to engage in those behaviors, even if it is less convenient as a result. This isn't perfect, as the government may decide some new behavior is prosecutable. > 3. Consult with a lawyer and review your security procedures from a legal standpoint. All of the above is technical and practical advice, not legal counsel and no substitute for it. Just don't go to the usa and if it's for professional reason, don't bring your personal phone.

sfRattan 3mo ago
You've left out the important qualifier I put at the outset of those three points: > If your threat model includes US state actors It was not advice for everyone, nor even most people. I have plenty of friends abroad, and a few of them have even traveled to my country for the World Cup and had a grand time. I roll my eyes at this kind of overreaction, the same way I imagine Europeans rolling their eyes to hear Americans worried about migrant crime news stories not wanting to travel to Europe. Or maybe they used to roll their eyes at that... I'm less sure now.
drop_star 3mo ago
> Just don't go to the usa As a Canadian. I won't be going there for a long time
- pageandrew 3mo ago
  Canadian border control has the legal authority to search your phone and you are obligated to provide a password.
  - 9935c101ab17a66 3mo ago

atoav 3mo ago

Well I prefer simply to stay out of countries that haven't got their ducks in a row when it comes to freedom. Saves a lot of hassle.

account42 3mo ago

> We Americans are fortunate to carry powerful passports and enjoy relatively easy international travel but, for better or worse There actually not that special, requiring a visa in 35 countries compared to 25/26 for most European passports: https://www.passportindex.org/byRank.php https://www.passportindex.org/byRank.php Unrestricted access to the US is probably the bigger advantage you get.