Post #4048114

Replies (1)

• @DaveMWilburn@infosec.exchange 2026-07-23 23:57

  @adamshostack@infosec.exchange Gosh, this I-am-not-a-lawyer armchair sure is comfy... There seems to be some spin here, suggesting he is being charged for using GrapheneOS. That doesn't seem to be true. Rather, he's being charged for using deception to induce law enforcement to activate a specific feature of GrapheneOS, likely via a duress PIN, to wipe his device while he was being detained. The statute he's charged with makes reference to the defendant "knowing" rather than possessing some specific criminal intent. In other words, the government doesn't need to prove he had the specific intent of destroying evidence, merely that he knew that would be the likely outcome of his actions. Still, I don't know how this is going to play out in front of a judge or jury. It's a really terrible idea to actively trigger a data wipe of a device seized by law enforcement (e.g., by providing law enforcement with a duress PIN code that he knew would trigger a wipe when entered), especially while being lawfully detained at an international airport. The smart move would've been to invoke the right to remain silent, demand a lawyer, refuse to answer any questions, refuse consent to searches, decline to unlock the device or provide any PIN whatsoever, and then shut the fuck up. I'm under the impression that CBP can detain you at the border (including international airports), interrogate you, and seize your possessions without a warrant. I don't think that detention of a US citizen at the border can be indefinite, and they can't deny you entry. But they can try to intimidate and inconvenience the hell out of you for hours. The best he can probably hope for now is that his testimony, offered only after being denied a request to speak with a lawyer, and without being Mirandized, can be suppressed at trial. That testimony would presumably include the duress PIN that triggered the device wipe. Without that, the case goes nowhere. Much might depend upon whether the judge decides to allow the testimony anyway. I'm unclear whether you have a right to a lawyer during a border detention and interrogation, or whether there's an expectation that you should be Mirandized prior. The lesson here isn't that the government is going after people using GrapheneOS (although it wouldn't surprise me if they keep an eye out for it), but rather that in the event you're detained, you need to remain calm, refuse consent to searches, demand a lawyer, invoke your right to remain silent, and then (and this is probably the most important thing) shut the fuck up.

  Open ##4049464