The article seems to be muddying the water bringing up grapheneOS itself. Or maybe it's the EFF. >Experts said the legal approach is unusual and may be the fir

The article seems to be muddying the water bringing up grapheneOS itself. Or maybe it's the EFF. >Experts said the legal approach is unusual and may be the first time the law has been aimed at an operating system. "It's concerning – and sends the message that [GrapheneOS] is criminal by default," said Christophe Boutry, a cybersecurity and surveillance expert. Boutry and Bill Buddington, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, both said they had not seen a similar case. Is the actual case about banning the OS? Because it seems pretty clear the case is about the result (the phone being wiped with a special passcode). The better defense imo would be one of those 'wipe the phone if you get the password wrong x times' and try and claim you forgot under pressure. At least if you wanted to wipe the phone without being accused of destroying evidence during a search.