Technology

43468 readers

475 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

remington@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

U.S. Citizen Who Deleted Phone’s Data Says His Prosecution Puts Privacy at Risk (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 2 days ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/technology@beehaw.org

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] colournoun@beehaw.org 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

My understanding is that he is not the person who deleted the data, the agent did it by entering the pin. That’s an interesting wrinkle. Is that materially different than entering the wrong pin 10 times which often also wipes the device?

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Nah, it doesn't change anything. The statute says

Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

It's clear that if he intended to wipe the phone and told the officer a password which would erase the contents, he "knowingly took an action for the purpose of preventing the Government's lawful authority to take such property into its custody".

[–] slauraure@beehaw.org 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's why you write the duress pin on a note and "hide" it poorly inside the phone case.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Honestly yeah, that's the best solution if you want to do something like this.

[–] tracelr402@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But it getting wiped didn't impede them from taking the property into custody

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Data contained on the phone is very much the property which they wanted to take into custody or control, and it was wiped.

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like the best workaround for this is to have a deadman switch to delete all data if the phone hasn't been unlocked in a 24 hour period? Then it is your inaction that results in the destruction of the data, and you'd still be complying with the statute.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

That sounds awful. What if I don't want to use my phone for 24 hours? Besides, if the government has tech to unlock your phone they will probably be able to use it pretty much immediately, so a time delay doesn't really matter.

[–] furrowsofar@beehaw.org 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The problem. You cannot lie to an agent, but you can remain silent. Your also taking an action with a known consequence and an action that is not allowed.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 2 points 2 days ago

I want to see the agent's proof that he entered the pin correctly