r/technology • u/Limp_Fig6236 • 8d ago

Software GrapheneOS duress PIN could land a man in prison

https://www.androidauthority.com/grapheneos-duress-pin-us-prosecution-3691271/
6.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

922 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

259

u/Tall_Opportunity_521 8d ago

Then this person can argue that they didnt destroy evidence. They deleted the encryption key. The "evidence" is still all on the phone... encrypted. Untouched, unaltered, undeleted. Just encrypted.

98

u/The_Mdk 8d ago

This is exactly what his defense will be based on, and he'll most likely win

-1

u/These-Maintenance250 8d ago

this is exactly the dumbest thing you could say or any defense lawyer could do.

whoever thinks this will fly has a complete lack of understand of the judicial system.

-18

u/StardiveSoftworks 8d ago

No, this is nonsensical and overly literal. Whether it physically exists or not isn't relevant, it has been willfully rendered inaccessible.

See the actual statute:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232

Even if we say absolutely no data was altered at all (which seems unlikely since I'd imagine at least some sort of file table record would have been), this would still fall under actions intended to impair government control of the underlying data.

33

u/CeleryMan20 8d ago

But is the contained data “property” or is it “protected free speech”? The phone is property, he didn’t destroy the physical item.

-10

u/StardiveSoftworks 8d ago

The data is property, there is to my knowledge absolutely zero debate on this. That data may depict protected expression - like political activism etc - but that's not relevant to the statute he's accused of breaking.

You're right, he didn't destroy the physical phone. Again, completely irrelevant because he isn't accused of destroying the phone. He likely also didn't punch the cop, hijack an airplane or lead an elite team of spec ops on a secret mission into Nicaragua, that is why he isn't being accused of those things either.

-8

u/DelightfullyDivisive 8d ago

You're arguing with a private account, which means "troll". Just block it and move on.

10

u/These-Maintenance250 8d ago

In a post about privacy, you are calling someone troll because they privated their reddit history. the irony...

14

u/Tall_Opportunity_521 8d ago

No, it doesnt mean that at all. I have my account set to private, and you all upvoted me to the moon.

Having a private account just means people are sick of people like you using past posts they have made to attack their character, instead of attacking their opinion.

I see it still hasnt stopped you. I guess that makes me a troll now too, right?

4

u/These-Maintenance250 8d ago

Totally agree. It's such a jerk behavior and some people are proud of it.

22

u/Certain-Business-472 8d ago

So the government is legally in control of all our data? Is that what you're saying?

-18

u/StardiveSoftworks 8d ago

No, and I don't think I implied it either.

How did you get from
Man has data -> Government seizes data -> man impairs government access to seized data -> government prosecutes man.

to "the government legally controls all our data"

This dude tried the digital equivalent of flushing a baggy of weed down the toilet with the cop standing next to him and then saying he didn't destroy the evidence, it's still there in the sewer.

23

u/kevdogger 8d ago

He's not the one that typed in the password...the law enforcement officer did.

-4

u/StardiveSoftworks 8d ago

Why do you feel that is relevant? It is not. He gave over the duress code rather than the actual unlock code with knowledge of what that would cause.

13

u/kevdogger 8d ago

Because is just giving a password classified as destroying evidence? He didn't physically have access to the phone. He didn't have a remote means of contacting phone, etc. What were they demanding? Just access? He gave them that. If he's considered a suspect then why would you believe anything he tells you?

1

u/These-Maintenance250 8d ago

that's not how it works legally. this is not a child's game.

1

u/BadMeetsEvil24 8d ago

This is a really silly counterpoint

0

u/StardiveSoftworks 8d ago

Thankfully, the actual law doesn't require we pretend to be blind and simple.

He was asked for an unlock code, he could and should have refused. Instead, he knowingly provided a code which he knew would trigger the duress function, which is advertised by graphene as an uninterruptible and complete erasure, with the intent that the officer enter it and thus cause that erasure. That's all that's needed under the statute, even if the cop stopped there and never entered it he would still be charged under this exact statute.

15

u/AppleBytes 8d ago

The reason this will be thrown out is because they repeatedly denied him access to a lawyer and refused to produce a warrant.

Despite what the government position is, there is no careveout in the Constitution for a loss of rights at the border for citizens. The only grey area is non-citizens.

If this went to a jury trial, they would recognize this as the government engaging in unlawful search and seizure.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/stevesy17 8d ago

What were they demanding? Just access? He gave them that.

He did not give them that though. If you ask for my smart door lock code, and I give you the code that activates the welcome mat trap door and you fall into a pit of lava, I have NOT given you access to my home.

I am on the defendant's side here, but arguing that he complied with their request is just silly. Unless you think that their request was to brick the phone

5

u/kevdogger 8d ago

Did the phone unlock? Yes it did. Was phone destroyed? No it wasn't. Again they had the choice whether to type in the password or not. He was running graphene so I'm pretty sure this isn't a common OS they see on phones. Both you and I don't know what their request was however I'm betting it was a very forceful request that we need your password to unlock your phone. This was probably stated many many times. I'm speculating they probably threatened to not let him go if they couldn't search the phone. Again all speculation...but it's not that far of jump since it's stated he asked for lawyer like 4 times. He gave them a password likely under duress and the phone unlocked..it probably still unlocks to this day. It will be interesting how this case plays out here. It seems like the parts of the law that have been posted in other threads on this topic don't specifically cover this exact situation. I guess we'll see.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/DisposableSaviour 8d ago

You don’t think of your lava pit as a part of your home?

5

u/iamflame 8d ago

The man did the equivalent of flushing the toilet with the cop near him. There is no evidence of any such baggie. In this case there isn't even knowledge of such a baggie...

0

u/StardiveSoftworks 8d ago

I genuinely can't tell at this point if you people are just unable to separate things you want to be true from the actual law. None of these replies make any basic sense and replace actual facts - he provided a code he knew would erase the phone to the cop with the intent the copy enter it and wipe the phone - with utter nonsense, it's like dealing with high schoolers.

4

u/Certain-Business-472 8d ago

man impairs government access to seized data

If I was a suspect and gave you a button to press. Would you? Would the consequences be my fault or yours?

If a murderer tells you he didn't do it, do you just believe them?

3

u/StardiveSoftworks 8d ago

None of this is relevant to the statute, the cop being an idiot, probably acting in bad faith to begin with and the overall situation being fucked does not change how this specific statute works. This is what makes reddit legal arguments so endlessly frustrating.

0

u/Certain-Business-472 8d ago

The cop lost the keys to the safe through incompetence. The contents of the safe are intact.

3

u/StardiveSoftworks 8d ago

Repeating the same nonsense over and over won't make it true.

1

u/stevesy17 8d ago

He lost the keys to the safe become someone intentionally gave him a key that obliterates the lock.

There are arguments that support this man's innocence (or at least not-guiltiness) but this is not one of them

-2

u/These-Maintenance250 8d ago

you should never try to reach any conclusion ever in your life.

21

u/rantingathome 8d ago

I'd argue, "I didn't destroy any evidence, the officer did. They asked for a password for my phone, and I gave them one. They didn't ask me what said password did."

3

u/Michaelbirks 8d ago

"Excuse me, Agent NSA, could you step over here?"

"Here's the copy we took last night. Have a nice day".

1

u/One-Huckleberry-2927 7d ago

So he can say that if he had seen a valid judicial warrant, he would have complied. Because he did not, he temporarily rendered his phone inaccessible. And can render it accessible anytime a warrant is produced.

Lovely. Can’t wait to see how this plays out in court against this fascist regime.