this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
541 points (99.6% liked)

News

38524 readers
2648 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Ain't that some BS

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Enkrod@feddit.org 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Tunick’s case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter.

The U.S. government has long claimed it can search and seize people’s devices without a search warrant or court order until they are permitted entry to the United States.

Tough Shit! If you want to argue your laws (rights) don't apply to him, because he is not considered to be on US soil prior to being permitted in, I guess he can argue that he was still outside your jurisdiction.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 45 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Everyone is cheering but the case was not thrown out yet. For now we just know this is technically possible which we knew already. Now we will find out if you can do this and not go to jail. I will cheer when this guy walks free.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

what was the crime committed? I know they claim the guy "suppressed evidence", but evidence must point towards a crime that is at least suspected.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

It's the US. The courts don't have to let you go free just because you're innocent.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 208 points 4 days ago (25 children)

Friendly reminder that, per the fifth amendment, you are not required to disclose your passwords to the authorities under any circumstances. This protection does not apply to biometric authentication, so don't enable those methods.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 42 points 4 days ago (12 children)

Yep.

Biometrics are SUPER unsafe, and insecure, because you can be physically forced to put your finger on a sensor, or to stand still for them to hold a phone infront of your face for faceid. I've literally seen videos of cops holding a guy in a choke hold whole another cop unlocks his phone with his face.

but they can't physically manhandle you into typing in a password.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 46 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (6 children)

That's honestly a curiosity in this for me. You dont have to unlock your phone for them but the fact that he was made to even with a duress pass makes me think that this was more than a standard stop.

He absolutely didnt have to unlock it under the law.

He was within his right to wipe it.

But what led him to doing so?

This isnt a defence of the boarder officers. Im just curious what the other side of the story is.

Edit: ah there it is. They suspected him of having csam and by implication being a sex tourist.

Heavy accusations. So they did have some suspicion (or at least claimed to) to justify the search.

[–] sleepydragn1@lemmy.world 116 points 4 days ago (1 children)

From The Guardian article on the same incident:

The defendant, Sam Tunick, was stopped for interrogation at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport on 24 January last year, after vacationing in the Dominican Republic. Unbeknown to him, federal authorities had put him on a terrorism watchlist because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City.

[–] StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 80 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Ahhhh

thanks!

Once again fascists cry protecting kids to violate rights.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 42 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Every time I hear someone invoking "protect the kids" I know 3 things.

  1. It has nothing to do with protecting kids, they're hiding their intention.
  2. It's probably some outrageous bullshit they absolutely need to hide.
  3. It's probably because they are fucking kids.

Number 3 was added recently because apparently based on the facts we now know... that is MUCH more common with these people than I could even imagine.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 40 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Since they just let him walk after the phone wiped itself, they clearly didn't actually believe he was a risk of any kind. If there was any actual reason for suspicion they would/should have detained him outright.

[–] StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 50 points 4 days ago (1 children)

He was put on a terrorist watchlist because he didnt want his tax dollars funding a cop city. Thats reason enough for the judge to throw this out.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago

Good luck proving a duress password with a wiped phone. The government can claim it. Now let them prove it.

[–] mhague@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

The evidence that he gave a duress password is that the phone flashed and restarted, and then it was empty?

I've used multiple Android phones that freeze and restart out of nowhere, and sometimes when you unlock the phone it "flashes" and restarts.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 66 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Guy was innocent until they had proof of a crime. They didnt have any proof so boohoo for them. And they charged him of damaging property. Its his property, and its not damaged.

[–] Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The intent of the law was to have something to charge corporate fraudsters with if they destroyed the accounting records with proof of their fraud when served a warrant. Or illegal drug manufacturers destroying their chemlab. Ownership of the property doesn't come into it.

The envisioned cases were always domestic crime investigations where there was already enough evidence to get a warrant. The application at customs where they don't need a warrant is the novelty, and I really hope the government loses its case.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 176 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

SECURE IN YOUR PERSONAL EFFECTS AND DOCUMENTS

-Bill of Suggestions

[–] dreamkeeper@literature.cafe 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

"except within 100 miles of the border where you have no rights at all, because that's convenient for me so I made it the fuck up"

--SCOTUS, defender of FREEDOM

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

I will always shake my etch-a-sketch before handing it over to the "authorities". All phones should have this option as it brings ultimate control of your own stuff, the stuff you own, back to you.

[–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 114 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 59 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It's not. Authoritarians want it to be.

I was kind of flabbergasted when a police office interviewed in this video just straight up said you have a right to privacy in your home, but as soon as you step out, gone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3MQLlMbS-Y

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CoolSouthpaw@lemmy.world 51 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Good. We all need to set this up. Fuck ICE and TSA.

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 35 points 3 days ago

It exists for a reason, they couldn’t have shown better why if they’d been paid to film a commercial.

[–] Kintarian@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago

I like this guy. Oh, you wanna see my phone? Fine, here ya go asshole.

[–] phoenixarise@lemmy.world 49 points 4 days ago

Even if he did, so what? His phone, his property, his business. He should be able to do what he wants.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 64 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Unless he was subpoenaed is this a crime?

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 101 points 4 days ago (14 children)

The laws are now made up when needed and justice doesn't matter. So, yes. Anything the authorities don't like is a crime in a fascist regime.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] jontree255@lemmy.world 48 points 4 days ago

“Wiping your phone before an illegal search is now left wing terrorism”

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tigermountain@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago (8 children)

What a great idea. If I was able to I'd create a free Android and iOS app that did this exact same thing.

[–] Luffy879@lemmy.ml 35 points 3 days ago (1 children)

GrapheneOS has this feature. Also ripple

[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago

And the article mentions that it actually was GrapheneOS on his phone.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] bitteroldcoot@piefed.social 62 points 4 days ago (6 children)

a duress password?
What a neat idea.

I wonder if i can set that up on my iphone.

[–] Racoonwithbenefits@lemmy.zip 39 points 4 days ago

There isnt, for iphone

But you can set it up to wipe the phone after 10 attempts

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 52 points 4 days ago

Good don't give those fascist fucks anything.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 39 points 4 days ago

He wasn't being charged with anything at the time.

[–] ZephyrXero@lemmy.world 39 points 4 days ago (5 children)

And....? There's nothing illegal about wiping your phone if not already under indictment of something

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 37 points 4 days ago (10 children)

Prosecutors later charged Tunick under a federal statute that makes it unlawful to knowingly destroy or damage property to prevent authorities from seizing it. Tunick has pleaded not guilty.

Security experts also said they had not seen charges brought in this way before.

“With a little planning ahead of time, you can always download the data you need once you get to where you’re going,” said Sandvik.

Zip it with a password. Upload it a couple of places, download it when you get home. Simple as. Anyone can do it.

[–] n7gifmdn@lemmy.ca 55 points 4 days ago (11 children)

Anyone can do it.

Are you sure? My mom can't tell the difference between posting on Facebook and doing a Google search.

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 48 points 4 days ago (2 children)

This site has an insane amount of people who don't understand how inept the average person is at using technology.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›