4 ms·

IANAL, but I would bet that's still destruction of evidence. Judges are human, for better or worse, and can see the intention behind cute tricks like this. It

by BoppreH 2mo ago

IANAL, but I would bet that's still destruction of evidence. Judges are human, for better or worse, and can see the intention behind cute tricks like this. It might work if your fingerprint was used while you were unconscious, but any solution that starts with "setup a trigger that wipes a device" is already on shaky grounds.

inigyou 2mo ago
AFAIK it's legal to set up a trigger that wipes a device. It isn't legal to choose to wipe your device after you know the government wants the data. Tricking the government into wiping it is still allowed, especially if you tell them not to do that.
- BoppreH 2mo ago
  That matches my understanding too. Unfortunately it sounds like the poster was suggesting to wipe the device after the government requests access, and was probably not planning on telling the officers about the trigger.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    With fingerprint unlock it's not your choice. That's what makes it clever. The cop can grab your finger and hold it to the scanner while you tell him not to do that.
    - Nextgrid 2mo ago
      Presumably you must disclose that "doing that" would wipe the device... and you better hope this is caught on some neutral party's camera so there is a record of you saying that.
      - pamcake 2mo ago
        False presumption. You are just making that up, right?
        Nextgrid 2mo ago
        I am not a lawyer, I am just "making up" what exculpatory evidence I would prefer to have on my side when potentially confronted with a charge of destruction of evidence after pulling a stunt like this.
  - sejje 2mo ago
    It's not unfortunate. It's the whole point.
  - Alive-in-2025 2mo ago
    The theoretical scenario was the government seized your device, they don't give it back to you. You decline to give them they password. You don't say anything else, you have the right to remain silent. You aren't not telling the government to do anything. You don't suggest they scan your fingerprint. They are in charge, you are cooperating with lawful orders ("provide your fingerprint"). There are videos on youtube where the lawyers tell you what your rights are at traffic stops, also there are ones that talk about the different rules when coming through immigration. These can be painful to see when they show the ones where cops ignore limits. So at the border, they tell you that you are legally required to provide your finger print, you do that, and don't say a word. I'm sure it will be a bad day for you, regardless of how it works out after years of litigation on whether it is your duty to tell them how NOT to unlock your device.
- kelvinjps10 2mo ago
  isn't this what that guy did and he got in trouble for it? I'm talking about the one when asked for the pin gave the pin that would wipe the data from his graphene os phone
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    No he gave the duress PIN while implying it was the correct PIN. That was the crime. Also they only caught him because he bragged that it was the duress PIN after the wipe.
    - Alive-in-2025 2mo ago
      Yes, the difference is you do exactly what they say, you follow legal orders to give your fingerprint, or also it could be "take a picture of you to unlock". I'm sure eventually the govt will make a new rule and a judge will say "you have to tell us in detail if we give you legal orders and it won't do what we think" or something like that.
mdp2021 2mo ago
> "setup a trigger that wipes a device" is already on shaky grounds It isn't on shaky grounds: you protect your private device from everyone, not just from some "law enforcement". If you want to protect your private device from any party (e.g. thieves, trivially), it will also be protected against law enforcement agents as a side effect.
- BoppreH 2mo ago
  What trigger would you setup to protect against thieves? I can't think of any that has the right sensitivity (not triggering if I start running to catch the bus), and won't escalate the violence (like my fingerprint wiping the phone in front of an armed robber). And remember that the context here is you explaining your digital booby trap to a judge who thinks you might have deliberately destroyed evidence.
  - mdp2021 2mo ago
    > What trigger would you setup to protect against thieves? "Wipe the data after a number of failed logon attempts". I understand that this does not fit completely with the "in front of law enforcement" idea, but it opposes your «any solution that starts with "setup a trigger that wipes a device" [would be] already on shaky grounds»: we can very legitimately setup triggers that wipe devices in the possibility that the device falls into random hands.

by BoppreH 2mo ago

inigyou 2mo ago

AFAIK it's legal to set up a trigger that wipes a device. It isn't legal to choose to wipe your device after you know the government wants the data. Tricking the government into wiping it is still allowed, especially if you tell them not to do that.

BoppreH 2mo ago
That matches my understanding too. Unfortunately it sounds like the poster was suggesting to wipe the device after the government requests access, and was probably not planning on telling the officers about the trigger.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  With fingerprint unlock it's not your choice. That's what makes it clever. The cop can grab your finger and hold it to the scanner while you tell him not to do that.
  - Nextgrid 2mo ago
    Presumably you must disclose that "doing that" would wipe the device... and you better hope this is caught on some neutral party's camera so there is a record of you saying that.
    - pamcake 2mo ago
      False presumption. You are just making that up, right?
      - Nextgrid 2mo ago
        I am not a lawyer, I am just "making up" what exculpatory evidence I would prefer to have on my side when potentially confronted with a charge of destruction of evidence after pulling a stunt like this.
- sejje 2mo ago
  It's not unfortunate. It's the whole point.
- Alive-in-2025 2mo ago
  The theoretical scenario was the government seized your device, they don't give it back to you. You decline to give them they password. You don't say anything else, you have the right to remain silent. You aren't not telling the government to do anything. You don't suggest they scan your fingerprint. They are in charge, you are cooperating with lawful orders ("provide your fingerprint"). There are videos on youtube where the lawyers tell you what your rights are at traffic stops, also there are ones that talk about the different rules when coming through immigration. These can be painful to see when they show the ones where cops ignore limits. So at the border, they tell you that you are legally required to provide your finger print, you do that, and don't say a word. I'm sure it will be a bad day for you, regardless of how it works out after years of litigation on whether it is your duty to tell them how NOT to unlock your device.
kelvinjps10 2mo ago
isn't this what that guy did and he got in trouble for it? I'm talking about the one when asked for the pin gave the pin that would wipe the data from his graphene os phone
- inigyou 2mo ago
  No he gave the duress PIN while implying it was the correct PIN. That was the crime. Also they only caught him because he bragged that it was the duress PIN after the wipe.
  - Alive-in-2025 2mo ago
    Yes, the difference is you do exactly what they say, you follow legal orders to give your fingerprint, or also it could be "take a picture of you to unlock". I'm sure eventually the govt will make a new rule and a judge will say "you have to tell us in detail if we give you legal orders and it won't do what we think" or something like that.

mdp2021 2mo ago

> "setup a trigger that wipes a device" is already on shaky grounds It isn't on shaky grounds: you protect your private device from everyone, not just from some "law enforcement". If you want to protect your private device from any party (e.g. thieves, trivially), it will also be protected against law enforcement agents as a side effect.

BoppreH 2mo ago
What trigger would you setup to protect against thieves? I can't think of any that has the right sensitivity (not triggering if I start running to catch the bus), and won't escalate the violence (like my fingerprint wiping the phone in front of an armed robber). And remember that the context here is you explaining your digital booby trap to a judge who thinks you might have deliberately destroyed evidence.
- mdp2021 2mo ago
  > What trigger would you setup to protect against thieves? "Wipe the data after a number of failed logon attempts". I understand that this does not fit completely with the "in front of law enforcement" idea, but it opposes your «any solution that starts with "setup a trigger that wipes a device" [would be] already on shaky grounds»: we can very legitimately setup triggers that wipe devices in the possibility that the device falls into random hands.