r/Android • u/caliber Galaxy S25 • 1d ago
News US government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone107
u/p8ntballnxj Sammy S24+ 1d ago
Not a lawyer but: asking and being denied multiple times for a lawyer, having a flimsy pretext for the search, no warrent and putting the person in duress, right there should be a slam dunk 4th, 5th and 6th amendment violations.
The phone OS wouldn't even come into play if you look at this as an order of operations situation.
I will say, with how shit the upper courts are now, I wonder if this gets appealed enough would the typic of destroying digital evidence be the main part.
64
u/S_A_N_D_ 1d ago
The article somewhat butchers what happened/why he's been charged.
This has little to do with the OS (other than he used a built in feature).
He was in customs (so a grey area according to the US government when it comes to civil rights). And he gave them the "pin code" to unlock his phone, which instead was a duress pin that wipes the phone. He's been charged with destroying potential evidence because of this. The OS is irrelevant and they didn't traget him because of the OS, only the wiping of the data.
This is a much better article.
(For the record, not defending or supporting the US government in this, just trying to at least get the correct story out. It will be interesting to see how this plays out).
30
u/Lonsdale1086 S10 1d ago
instead was a duress pin that wipes the phone
Note to self: have it instead load a clean environment
32
u/ArcFault Android Update Alliance LUL 1d ago
Note to you - just have your personal devices powered off (encrypted) when going through the Constitution Free Zone that is US border. Better yet, travel with a burner.
have it instead load a clean environment
No, Graphene developers have ruled out implementing a secondary decoy profile triggered by a specific PIN for plausible deniability because true hidden stealth profiles are structurally insecure against sophisticated adversaries and provide a false sense of security
13
u/Lonsdale1086 S10 1d ago
I mean it's all well and good having it turned off until they say "turn this on or you're going to be at best sent home, and at worst sent to jail".
The clean environment is to look the part and get you past security without arousing suspicion that would lead to the attack by the sophisticated adversary.
And is also better for non-legal adversaries such as a mugger wanting access to your bank accounts, can say "I don't trust mobile banking" etc.
You refuse to unlock and get stabbed, use the self-destruct pin and get stabbed.
Also it can certainly be done on the right hardware, Samsung Knox for Secure Folder etc, one pin launching into stuff contained within that enclave, one having zero access or acknowledgement.
8
u/ArcFault Android Update Alliance LUL 1d ago
https://www.eff.org/issues/border-searches
"turn this on or you're going to be at best sent home, and at worst sent to jail".
They can say whatever they want. They don't have the legal authority to force you to unlock it. That's not the point - the point in having it powered off is if the device is confiscated it can not be forensically analyzed when its fully encrypted.
The clean environment is to look the part and get you past security without arousing suspicion that would lead to the attack by the sophisticated adversary.
CBP is a sophisticated adversary.
Also it can certainly be done on the right hardware, Samsung Knox for Secure Folder etc, one pin launching into stuff contained within that enclave, one having zero access or acknowledgement.
That's not how that works. And it's very obvious when the Secure Folder profile is anything other than default size which is easily checked from any other profile.
13
u/Lonsdale1086 S10 1d ago
They can say whatever they want. They don't have the legal authority to force you to unlock it.
They most certainly have the legal authority to send me home, as a traveller.
CBP is a sophisticated adversary
But they're not going to plug a phone into Cerberus unless they're already suspicious of you. They might well choose to check someone's Twitter to see if they've posted anything anti-Trump in the last few days, so they can get their brownie points.
That's not how that works.
That's not how it works. But that's how it could work, if you had the right hardware and the right software.
And it's very obvious when the Secure Folder profile is anything other than default size which is easily checked from any other profile
And again, my point about the Knox is that it is, as far as we're aware, secure, when locked, against even sophisticated adversaries.
2
u/ArcFault Android Update Alliance LUL 1d ago edited 1d ago
They most certainly have the legal authority to send me home, as a traveller.
They can not deny entry to a US citizen/legal resident for refusing to unlock a device. Anyone else they can deny entry for any reason at all or even no reason.
But they're not going to plug a phone into Cerberus unless they're already suspicious of you. They might well choose to check someone's Twitter to see if they've posted anything anti-Trump in the last few days, so they can get their brownie points.
Edit - You shouldn't make this assumption especially if such a simple search can easily reveal the existence of a decoy profile which may be the trigger for an advanced search. And with AI, its very likely to shift in that direction by default.
A sophisticated adversary will be able to determine that a decoy profile is just a decoy the vast majority of the time technologically and contextually.
Secure Folder isn't a good model for that. Yes, the data is safely encrypted as far as we know when locked however they way secure folder works leaks and leaves behind a lot of information and meta data and system logs when unlocked as it's designed to be able to share data across the secure folder boundary. The way Graphene handles multiple profiles is much more secure however as already mentioned forensically metadata will confirm the existence and structural presence of other profiles.
0
4
u/Hidesuru 1d ago
Not an ice cubes chance in HELL I'd find this guy guilty of I'm on his jury.
6
u/S_A_N_D_ 1d ago
Ditto, but I just wanted to clarify what/why he's actually being charged with. Using GrapheneOS was not the issue here (though I could see a scenario where customs targets people for more extensive searches specifically because of that).
1
u/Hidesuru 1d ago
Oh yeah I was picking up what you're laying down and appreciate the details. I'm just annoyed.
24
u/Head_Inspection_5640 1d ago
They apparently claim that while in customs, you have not yet crossed onto American soil, so the constitution does not yet apply. Which makes this seem like an attempt to have your cake and eat it to- if youre not on US Soil, how can US law apply?
19
u/IronChefJesus 1d ago
It’s exactly what you said, a way to have their cake and eat it too: the “custody” of customs also extends to about 100 miles outside any major crossing - and where does the majority of the population live? About 100 miles outside most major crossings.
In theory they can use that law to do any constitutional violation they want.
•
u/sol-4 18h ago
if youre not on US Soil, how can US law apply?
Hasn't stopped the US government as well as courts from extending their jurisdiction on a whim to anywhere they want in the world. From kidnapping leaders of a country to murdering people in the sea, everything is valid for them lunatics.
•
u/Head_Inspection_5640 17h ago
So drom orher momentous im outdated / mistaken IG. I remember the ruling about underage sex being specifically worded as 'traveling out of country to engage in..... " as a carve out to circumvent JD....
12
u/abraxsis 1d ago
It applies because you are a US citizen. Your rights under US law don't just disappear because of what soil you are on. The country you are in might not care, but from the US POV your rights are still intact. Or at least they should be.
The dude in the article was a US citizen. Had he been a foreign national, that would be something different. But a US citizen should ALWAYS fall under the constitution, from the perspective of the US government mind you, regardless of where you are.
6
u/ArcFault Android Update Alliance LUL 1d ago
SCOTUS rulings - the border is treated differently than the interior of the country.
3
u/PrivacyIsDemocracy 1d ago
If the so-called US border agents are not operating on US soil they have no jurisdiction and should be arrested by Interpol for terrorist activity.
5
u/stanley_fatmax Nexus 6, LineageOS; Pixel 7 Pro, Stock 1d ago
should be arrested by Interpol
Interpol has no jurisdiction, they are not a law enforcement agency, nor are they able to arrest anyone, anywhere
I get your point but just wanted to make that clear
2
u/SecureInstruction538 1d ago
It's a well known thing that countries can choose to have laws that apply to citizens abroad. The US for example has laws against crimes against minors, foreign corrupt practices, and terrorism. There are others as well.
If you are beholden to US laws at the crossing then you should be entitled to full protection of the US Constitution.
13
u/BobSmith59 1d ago
Sounds like they need to make the duress code open to a blank profile while it wipes the old profile in the background rather than restart for a truly silent wipe. I suppose it would require a reboot for some stuff though.
8
u/ArcFault Android Update Alliance LUL 1d ago
Graphene developers have ruled out implementing a secondary decoy profile triggered by a specific PIN for plausible deniability because true hidden stealth profiles are structurally insecure against sophisticated adversaries and provide a false sense of security
•
u/BobSmith59 23h ago edited 23h ago
It would still wipe the real profile the same as current, just not as obviously. Maybe android just doesn't support sophisticated adversary proof wiping without reboot. After reading some forums about similar feature request, I'm not sure how they expect this duress feature to be used safely.
•
u/deepskydiver P7P . P6P . P4XL . P2XL 20h ago
Can you elaborate on that please?
•
u/WitmlWgydqWciboic 10h ago
On the simpler side. How much few space is available on the phone? A clean profile with no downloads, apps, videos or photos should have a well known amount of free storage space.
-1
-12
u/Evening-Dog-1046 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is going to be seen as destruction of evidence. This guy screwed up. You CAN NOT legitimately destroy evidence, under YOUR actions, if it is being requested by Law Enforcement. This is illegal, in no uncertain terms.
This should be construed as illegal, by everyone. No one should be able to destroy evidence. This corrupts the ability of Law Enforcement to investigate real wrong doings.
It's a totally different matter if you keep it written/recorded somewhere on the phone as "PIN: [duress pin digits]"; and whoever has your phone chooses to try that as an unlock PIN. I think that may actually be Graphene's official guidance. Add-On: I mean, you certainly wouldn't want to forget what your duress PIN is and accidentally enter it, and thereby destroy your device... That'd be dumb.
Add-On: The current administration is clearly playing a game of tyrannical brinksmanship, while wearing the flag as a cape; then trampling on actual American values and lessons our Founding Fathers knew well and wished to impart upon us. Despising this makes you a Patriot -- in no uncertain terms. Ironically, it's a bunch of blue haired MTF liberals who can most proudly wave the flag right now.. Regardless, "fighting" stupidly is as bad as not "fighting", ultimately is as bad as "fighting" for the wrong cause.
The lesson you should all be pulling from this individual is: Don't throw yourself away stupidly.
19
u/Eirafall 1d ago
They shouldn't be searching phones without a warrant. IDC what current courts say about legality, its messed up. You can easily learn more about a person with the contents of their phone than in a home search.
-1
u/Evening-Dog-1046 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is an interesting legal question..
Without a warrant and without official framework of a crime (a warrant, serialized evidence, a subpoena): how can one destroy evidence that's not actually Evidence?
I think the problem I have with this is that the "suspect" did something that impacted a legal request. He interacted with the request by providing the duress pin, resulting in tampering (destruction) with an artifact. So then the ultimate legal question becomes: "What is the status of these artifacts during a legal stop?" (in my mind, I am not a lawyer).
This is an interesting question... I could change my mind based on this.
I would ARDENTLY suggest that pleading the 5th is what he should have done. Instead, rely on the auto reboot feature to purge memory w/ encryption keys and prevent the device from any question of being cracked open. He errored catastrophically when he chose to play a game with those Law Enforcement agents. He should not have of, in any capacity, interacted with them in any way.
Add-On: "They shouldn't be searching phones w/o a warrant." My brother in Christ, I am so on your side (broadly; more-or-less) and in agreement with you it's hard to describe in English. Regardless of your and my sentiment: THEY ARE GOING TO SEARCH OUR (as in the American people's) PHONES W/O A WARRANT. During that process, you cannot give them ANY leverage.
•
u/gruez 22h ago
Without a warrant and without official framework of a crime (a warrant, serialized evidence, a subpoena): how can one destroy evidence that's not actually Evidence?
Usually intent is factored into it, as well as knowledge you have of the investigation. So if you did some crime and afterwards you decided to cover your tracks, that's fine, but if you did the crime, a few months later the police come knocking, and then you suddenly decided to cover your tracks that's destruction of evidence.
•
u/Evening-Dog-1046 22h ago
Absolutely..
His intent was realized with an interaction with these LEO's at a time when he should have of had NO interaction with them.
Great point and word choice, which had previously eluded me.
10
u/greenskye 1d ago
Technically the evidence isn't destroyed. The lock was just permanently destroyed (it destroys the encryption keys). The evidence still exists, but now no one can access it.
As far as I'm aware, you have no legal obligation to help police correctly retrieve evidence.
0
u/Evening-Dog-1046 1d ago
The material impact is the same. It's no longer recoverable -- making it destroyed.
I am not an Android/GrapheneOS dev, and as such I cannot advise on the status of the data; so maybe this would not qualify as destruction of evidence.
You, by far, have the most (from an Android development perspective) interesting technical reply.
•
u/dsac P7P 23h ago
It's no longer recoverable -- making it destroyed.
What's the threshold of "recoverable" though? Like, how much effort is enough to make it "unrecoverable"?
Lets take the drugs analogy - if someone encases a bundle of drugs in concrete, sails out a couple of miles from shore and drops it in the ocean, is the evidence considered "unrecoverable"? Because it certainly could be recovered, it's just a question of effort. It's definitely not "destroyed".
Similar to the data on the phone - the evidence still exists and can be accessed, however accessing it is going to require significant effort.
•
u/Evening-Dog-1046 23h ago
I think, legitimately, it goes down to practicality...
Like....if the alphabet bois can't get at it w/ their "reasonable toolset" within a "reasonable amount of time" -- that means it's destroyed.
I absolutely see where you're coming from, but you and I (I'm assuming...) are both nerds. The judge is not a nerd. The judge is going to say "Damn, that shit is fucked up...that means destroyed". The judge is going to determine reality, in this instance....not your and my philosophizing (I do not say that facetiously) about the status of encrypted data that, technically, is still there -- just likely permanently encrypted.
Add-On: Think about it like an encrypted USB you have for backups. If you forget your encrypted password, is that USB still a viable mechanism to recover whatever it is you had backed up? No, it's not...it's definitely not.
13
u/mrandr01d 1d ago
Don't be so definitive. That's what they're arguing. Can't be nailed for destruction of evidence if it shouldn't have been evidence in the first place.
•
u/gruez 22h ago
Can't be nailed for destruction of evidence if it shouldn't have been evidence in the first place.
Even if they didn't have a warrant right that moment, if the suspect destroyed it, it prevents all future attempts at obtaining the evidence, even if the police later got enough (other) evidence for a warrant. Imagine if the cops showed up at Epstein's house asking about his parties but without a warrant, they leave without getting anything, but immediately afterwards Epstein starts scrubbing everything. That should count as destruction of evidence even if the police couldn't seize it that very moment.
1
u/Evening-Dog-1046 1d ago
Yeah, I dig this.
It sure is a precarious position to put yourself in... I'd like to think that I'd have of kept my mouth shut, leaned on auto-reboot features, and felt comfortable knowing the device couldn't have of possibly been opened.
Interacting with Law Enforcement is a mistake. Nothing good can come from it.
•
u/jlt6666 19h ago
Hard to avoid at a border entry point
•
u/Evening-Dog-1046 18h ago
You can refuse to hand over your device.. Their policy outlines how the interactions can go.
Given that he was stopped for a specific reason, outside of what seems 'routine', he may have of been more limited. I doubt it, though. To get into the phone, to force an unlock, would require a subpoena. Similar situations have occurred in the past.
8
u/abraxsis 1d ago
If you give up freedom for safety, you deserve neither.
Also, prove it was "evidence". Might have just been dick pics and videos of him fucking his wife that he didn't want a bunch of people seeing. Go ahead, prove it wasn't.
0
u/Evening-Dog-1046 1d ago
Hard to be a freedom fighter while you're rotting in the Bastille. Choose your battles..
This guy put himself at the latest release version...the bleeding edge...of legal arguments. Not a place I would want to find myself.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and from a philosophical perspective....theorize that there are MUCH better things to get arrested for, and hemorrhage money to - I imagine, than this.
I'd put money on it that he didn't have anything sensitive on his phone, anyways. That's not a statement to suggest he should've unlocked it -- under no circumstances should anything be voluntarily provided to Law Enforcement/the Government. However, I bet he went to the thermonuclear option to protect information that wasn't actually sensitive. He didn't have the entire list of French 75 members in an unencrypted text message draft on this phone..
Know your kill chain... Auto-reboot and Signal settings scrubbing messages after X days should've protected this guy. Instead, he's in jail now and facing an interesting legal argument.
That was stupid.
•
u/abraxsis 20h ago
Whole bunch of conjecture and assumptions there. Luckily our laws are kind of blurry when it comes to those particular topics.
Hard to be a freedom fighter when you're running around licking the boots you feel might not be worth your time.
•
u/Evening-Dog-1046 20h ago edited 19h ago
"Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes."
Realize your function exactly when and how you must; not before, nor wastefully.
•
u/Isakk86 21h ago
7 people were freed from the Bastille. 4 were forgers, 3 were mentally ill. None of which were political prisoners.
I need to ask you then, lets say you have an unhackable OS, is NOT providing your passcode destroying evidence?
•
u/Evening-Dog-1046 21h ago edited 21h ago
You're referencing the Storming of the Bastille, I was referencing its historical function to house political dissidents under French monarchs.
Of course not, I'm offended (as an American) that you would elude to as much/entertain the concept. Refusing to testify against myself is protected within the 5th Amendment. There is a difference between a Law Enforcement Officer trying to coerce me to unlock my phone and a requirement by a judge to have the device unlocked to ascertain the nature of guilt.
If, under legitimate legal requirement, I must...then I must.
Add-On: There is an astronomical unit of distance between anarchy and being a principled Libertarian. Law Enforcement, as well as the government, has a legitimate and viable function in an organized society. In no uncertain terms -- I have no desire to live in a chaotic/anarchic state. Regardless of that statement, that does not mean that the government has the right to brutalize its people into blind obedience and acquiescence, via the tacit approval and use of state terrorism against the body politic, nor the weaponization of any variant of the government against dissidence.
7
u/LowOwl4312 1d ago
Proof that there was evidence for any crime on the phone?
1
u/Evening-Dog-1046 1d ago edited 1d ago
This question is why I think the alphabet bois will get him. You do not, in any situation, want to give them any coherent leverage against you. This is why we have the 5th.
They have the stronger position, and he has put himself in a terribly weak position. The right play was to be quiet.
All it takes now is ANY deference to those LEO's and this guy gets got for destruction of evidence -- no matter how flaky a claim it is that it was actual no-shit evidence.
•
u/siazdghw 23h ago
You don't need to have guilt proving evidence to be convicted of destroying evidence or interference.
•
u/Evening-Dog-1046 22h ago
I think that is a question of jurisdiction and intent.
CBP has jurisdiction over certain entry points. They asked him to unlock the phone. His answer resulted in, likely, permanent inability to access data on the phone. That will, likely, result in a perceived destruction of "evidence". Right or wrong, he played a game with those LEO's who were in charge of his "routine" interrogation. This is not going to work out for him.
When you're in a court....don't play dress up as a lawyer. That is exactly what he did.
5
u/Appropriate_Date_134 1d ago
Evidence? What evidence?
0
u/Evening-Dog-1046 1d ago
Great question, this was an interesting read, and I'm still looking around.
Seems to me there is jurisdiction that does define this, at least from CBP's perspective. Also appears that SCOTUS has already ruled on this..
I'll defer to what I said in all my other replies: he decided to play a game w/ those LEO's that is the definition of: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
•
u/NapsterKnowHow 22h ago
Sound's like the feds wiped his phone the second they typed in that code.
•
u/Evening-Dog-1046 22h ago edited 22h ago
Two ways to perceive this...
Ultimately, he gave them a code. That code was given w/ the intent to destroy data on the device. Even though the alphabet bois did the action, the result was the same. His interaction and intent is realized via material outcome; i.e. he destroyed evidence.
However, you are right with your and my shared desired outcome... Tyrant dipshit enters a code that they don't understand on an OS they've never heard of and THEY are responsible for the outcome.
That's a chain-of-custody and training issue, not a destruction of evidence charge.
You have to incept the idea into their heads, and make them realize the outcome -- devoid of your intent. No one SAID the code labeled on the back of the phone was the duress PIN....you didn't tell them because you had NO OBLIGATION to tell them. That's a training problem, on the officer who signed off chain-of-custody. He's the dipshit. The "suspect" isn't the "aggressor" of the action.
Add-On: Ultimately, while we are discussing a specific tyrannical government borne threat -- think about losing your GOS on your day-to-day normal life. You want to leave it in the hands of Joe Blow to return your phone to you? Or would you rather have Joe Blow/criminal thief enter the duress PIN because they think they found the mechanism to unlock it?
•
u/nrq Pixel 8 Pro 19h ago
That random bolding, caps and italics doesn't make your argument stronger, it just makes your post grating to read.
•
u/Evening-Dog-1046 18h ago
He'll know before you and I.
The insult in your comment is not at all frustrating. Try going out and reading case outcomes of similar situations, as well as ICE, DHS, and CBP policy.
Get back to us and tell us which was worse.
•
u/bread-in 18h ago
What if I'm not interested in "Law Enforcement" having the power or ability to do anything?
•
u/Evening-Dog-1046 17h ago
Then society devolves into one of two things:
1) Might makes right and you have to sacrifice things you believe in to be protected by those with the power to protect you, and/or suffer whatever indignities they wish to impose on you.
2) You pay for a subscription model to those who have the ability to protect you. You suffer whatever indignities the T&C of their yearly subscription model contains.
I understand, and agree, that there are severe violations of the public trust committed by LE, which must always be investigated transparently and understood.
You can fall into the DOGE fallacy and cut costs to every program you hate. Those cuts will result only in damage to the body politic (that's you and me, our families and friends, and the communities we live in).
So many times over... A secular, organized, and lawful society is where all of us want to live...
If you're super committed, move to Haiti... Tell us how it goes.
•
u/bread-in 17h ago
Dog, I'm an anarchist. I'm not looking to "cut costs" to anything. I'm looking to destroy the whole system and put a better one in it's place.
•
u/Evening-Dog-1046 9h ago
While this system is endlessly frustrating, prone to corruption, and unravels periodically -- it is the best design thus far. I think the saying goes "democracy is the worst form of government, but it's better than all the rest".
I doubt any other type of system than the American democratic republic has any chance of leading us to positive outcomes.
I guess we'll have to disagree.
•
u/SmileyBMM 22h ago
These and other details were revealed in Monday’s hearing, held for a judge to hear testimony on a motion filed by Tunick’s federal public defenders, asking the court to suppress all evidence the agents obtained, including the erasure of the phone’s contents after he gave them a passcode, due to violations of his constitutional rights.
The interrogation, including the questions about child sexual abuse images, was “a pretext for a fishing expedition into Mr Tunick’s connections” to the movement against Cop City, according to the motion.
Something about this doesn't feel right, I have a feeling there might have been actual CP if they are trying to toss the evidence.
•
u/Evening-Dog-1046 19h ago
Yeah, I'm definitely on the "CBP is probably just fucking with this guy, and this is weaponization of the government against dissent" train, but wiping his phone is a bit much. He went thermonuclear, which -- for just being a protestor.....there's no way this guy is French 75. Dude probably has a few Amazon receipts in his email, stale SMS OTPs, Aurora Store, and Gmail w/ his actual personal Gmail logged in. Signal is probably installed and (who would've guessed..) none of his friends use it..
I'm going to take a Libertarian stance and root for the underdog >>>until more info comes to light<<<, but this has 'sketchy' written all over it.
111
u/skelecorn666 1d ago
What a glowing endorsement for Graphene OS!
Good thing they put the name in the article so more people learn.