• Sign in
  • Sign up
Elektrine
EN
Log in Register
Modes
Overview Chat Timeline Communities Gallery Lists Friends Email Vault DNS VPN
Back to Timeline !technology @BreadstickNinja
In reply to 4 earlier posts
@InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world on lemmy.world Open parent
www.404media.co/man-charged-for-wiping-phone-befo… A man in Atlanta has been arrested and charged for allegedly deleting data from a Google Pixel phone before a member of a secretive Customs and Border Protection (CBP) unit was able to search it, according to court records and social media posts reviewed by 404 Media. The man, Samuel Tunick, is described as a local Atlanta activist in Instagram and other posts discussing the case. The exact circumstances around the search—such as why CBP wanted to search the phone in the first place—are not known. But it is uncommon to see someone charged specifically for wiping a phone, a feature that is easily accessible in some privacy and security-focused devices. 💡 Do you know anything else about this case? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at joseph.404 or send me an email at joseph@404media.co. The indictment says on January 24, Tunick “did knowingly destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, and otherwise take any action to delete the digital contents of a Google Pixel cellular phone, for the purpose of preventing and impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take said property into its custody and control.” The indictment itself was filed in mid-November. Tunick was arrested earlier this month, according to a post on a crowd-funding site and court records. “Samuel Tunick, an Atlanta-based activist, Oberlin graduate, and beloved musician, was arrested by the DHS and FBI yesterday around 6pm EST. Tunick’s friends describe him as an approachable, empathetic person who is always finding ways to improve the lives of the people around him,” the site says. Various activists have since shared news of Tunick’s arrest on social media. The indictment says the phone search was supposed to be performed by a supervisory officer from a CBP Tactical Terrorism Response Team. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote in 2023 these are “highly secretive units deployed at U.S. ports of entry, which target, detain, search, and interrogate innocent travelers.” “These units, which may target travelers on the basis of officer ‘instincts.’ raise the risk that CBP is engaging in unlawful profiling or interfering with the First Amendment-protected activity of travelers,” the ACLU added. The Intercept previously covered the case of a sculptor and installation artist who was detained at San Francisco International Airport and had his phone searched. The report said Gach did not know why, even years later. Court records show authorities have since released Tunick, and that he is restricted from leaving the Northern District of Georgia as the case continues. The prosecutor listed on the docket did not respond to a request for comment. The docket did not list a lawyer representing Tunick.
Open parent Original URL
382
0
87
@LodeMike@lemmy.today on lemmy.today Open parent
The indictment does not say anything more than what is quoted. I am wondering if this is because he deleted the contents after being told it would be searched or something
Open parent Original URL
0
0
0
@Chulk@lemmy.ml on lemmy.ml Open parent
Given that it says the phone was a Google Pixel, I’m guessing it was GrapheneOS and the activist entered their duress PIN before handing over the phone.
Open parent Original URL
0
0
0
@mkwt@lemmy.world on lemmy.world Open parent
If he’s a US citizen, he’s better off refusing to enter any PIN. That’s protected by the 5th amendment. If not a citizen and this was in a port of entry context, then he would still have the 5th amendment protection. But customs can simply choose to refuse entry on discretion. So that’s a potentially serious consequence.
Open parent Original URL
0
0
0
0
BreadstickNinja in !technology
@BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world · Dec 10
It depends on port of entry. The ninth circuit, which covers San Francisco, has upheld that non-citizen entrants can refuse to provide a phone pin, but other circuits have found differently. So odd that this happened in California because there’s a pretty powerful set of protections in place in the ninth circuit specifically - not that the current admin gives a shit about the law.
View on lemmy.world
0
0
0
Sign in to interact

Loading comments...

About Community

technology
Technology
!technology@lemmy.world

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules
  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots
  • @L4s@lemmy.world
  • @autotldr@lemmings.world
  • @PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks
  • @wikibot@lemmy.world
83896
Members
18814
Posts
Created: June 11, 2023
View All Posts
313k7r1n3

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • FAQ

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • VPN Policy

Email Settings

IMAP: mail.elektrine.com:993

POP3: pop3.elektrine.com:995

SMTP: mail.elektrine.com:465

SSL/TLS required

Support

  • support@elektrine.com
  • Report Security Issue

Connect

Tor Hidden Service

khav7sdajxu6om3arvglevskg2vwuy7luyjcwfwg6xnkd7qtskr2vhad.onion
© 2026 Elektrine. All rights reserved. • Server: 00:36:54 UTC