Story has already changed. Originally it was him giving border agents the kill code which they entered.
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
227 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
86706 readers
3640 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
If this goes through it sets a precedent for the government declaring someone a criminal for being in a political organisation simply unfavorable to them. He couldn't destroy evidence if he wasn't a criminal could be the take-home-message between the lines they intend to propagate.
The government is a bunch of clowns. What gives them the right to tell him what he can or can't do with his own personal device?
What gives them the right
The monopoly on violence.
To be clear I don't agree with this statement, but the steelman counterargument would be something like: if the president of the United States were to destroy evidence of a crime, shouldn't that also be a crime?
Have to be accused of a crime first for this to apply. The victim here was purely the target of extra customs search due to his support of a politically unfavored cause
He has, and as far as I know he hasn't been held accountable, so I guess this guy's fine, right?