532
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
532 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
87774 readers
3196 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here is my problem with this interpretation...
Is data property? Sure, ideas, concepts, photos, etc can be trademarked/copy-write protected and have some degree of ownership, but I'm talking at a much lower level here... Is the particular configuration of memory on your phone a piece of property? If no, then no property was destroyed by wiping the phone. All of the storage and memory is still intact and functional. If yes, then we must look further...is the position (not the switch itself) of a binary switch (like a light switch) a physical thing that you can own? Would you consider it destroyed if it was switched away from it's original position?
I don't think you could charge him with destroying property... Destruction of evidence maybe, but the property is undamaged and functioning normally.
Other arguments. The cop actually destroyed the data. Or, defendant claims he did not know the cops would use the pin to wipe the phone, and that they just wanted to know what the PIN was.
I wouldn't say there is enough evidence here to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy destroyed any property in response to a search. He didn't destroy anything, what was destroyed is arguably not property, and he may not be aware that his duress pin was going to be used on the device in the first place.
the light switch is not something intended to store data, but the memory in your phone is. wiping the data destroys all the photos, media, logins, configuration on your phone, making them permanently and irreversibly inaccessible. and all of that is my property.
Light switches can store data. You can have open equal 1, and closed equal 0. Tada! You're storing data on a light switch. All you need to do, is allow an electrical signal to control the position of the switch, and you essentially have 1bit of data storage right there.
anything can store data in some abstract sense, I don't think that is a valid argument here
besides, most light switches cannot do that
You know that hard drives don't literally store the number 1 or 0 right? We arbitrarily assign a value to a specific configuration of a material or circuit.
Most hunks of silicon can't do that either.
that's besides the point. hard drives are very commonly used for large scale data storage. that is its intended use, and people are storing legible data on it, in practice. light switches? who the hack stores data on light switches, bit by bit?
this discussion is not productive. you have already decided that destroying user data is a nothingburger.
It's not besides the point. It exactly is the point. Functionally, computer storage is a stable binary state circuit, just like a light switch. When we wire billions of them together and automate the switching process, and throw in a few layers of abstraction, you get functional data. Changing the state of those switches does not destroy them, therefore changing the state of those switches is not destruction of property, unless by extension, flipping a light switch counts as destruction of property. It may be destruction of evidence, as the state of that memory or the position of the switch could be considered evidence, but it is a far cry from actual destruction of property.
This is exactly how early computer programs were stored/written.
Correction: I am arguing that the alteration of computer storage is not destruction of property as written in the law that prevents you from destroying property to in response to or as the result of a lawful search.
good. get back to me once people are using light switches to store data.
This uses 7 services to store a base-10 numeric value on a 7 segment display.
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/blog/7-segment-display-tutorial.html
Here is a picture of a power switch for a power strip
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Socket_5.jpg/500px-Socket_5.jpg
It's can store any two data values people assign to it. In this case, power on, or power off.
We're using binary switches (literal just different types of light switches) to store data all the time. That's the whole fucking point. You're having trouble differentiating between the two because the data they store the same fucking thing just at different scales.
sure, people are storing images and passwords on light switches and power strips. you have lost your fucking mind.
You absolutely can though. A 16x7 grid of light switches can store any 16 character password that uses the ASCII character set. Images would require many more switches (depending on the color quality and resolution) but it's the same thing. Like I said, earlier, you are having an issue making a point to differentiate between the position of a binary switch and a single bit of data because there is no fucking difference in the first place.
You make it sound ridiculous, but we've stored data as a magnetic polarity for decades at this point, we've stored data on rocks, laser etched as dots and dashes at a microscopic level on thin bits of foil. Whole programs have been written and stored on stacks of cards. Heck, the programs to get a spacecraft to the moon were written on paper and then literally knitted into the onboard computers. Regardless of the medium chosen, (almost) all computer memory and storage is simply the representation of an array of binary states, something that can be done, and has been done with a simple array of light switches.
like I said,
in practice. on the daily.
you are trolling. I'm out.
Exactly!
Maybe you finally get it. The premise that altering the position of a switch is legally destruction of property is patently ridiculous. Altering the position of a 16x7 array of switches and calling it destruction of property is also ridiculous. So why is altering the position of an array of billions of tiny switches suddenly destruction of property?
lets demonstrate why. Because I would alter the structure of your atoms, and that would not be criminal, because why would it be. I would alter the structure in a very specific way, but that's not a crime.
On it's bacsic premise, no, you're allowed to move my arms or person (to the extent that it is not assault, kidnapping, etc) but say, altering the state of my atoms in a way that ends my life or does me physical harm is criminal.
So your point is not explicitly correct there, more detail is needed. You've also (either knowingly or unknowingly) built and argued against a strawman. My claim is that altering the position of a switch is not destruction of property, and that as the law as written explicitly criminalizes the destruction of property in response to a lawful search. Altering the position of a switch could be considered destruction of evidence, and by extension so would wiping the phone. I don't know if there is a law that explicitly bans the destruction of evidence during a lawful border search though. So it could still be criminal, but there is significant reasonable doubt that any property was actually destroyed.
see! there's nuance! not everything is a useless sea of light switches. there is no problem with squishing a grape, but there is a problem with causing similar physical harm to living beings
switches are like grapes. digital storage in your phone is like living beings. something that is not easy or possible to reproduce the same way it was before the damage.
No, digital storage in your phone is like ghosts playing a interdimenional clarinet when you look at the quantum tunneling aspects of an infinite universal wrap-up around rejected improbabilities of unstable bilateral states.
The video I provided covers this. There are plenty of statutes and precedents. There's a tiny little bit of unsettled case law to be decided here that will, at best, lower his sentence a bit.
I strongly suspect an imminent plea bargain, unless they want to use him as an example.
None of that would hold up in court.
Bucees just successfully argued in court that a beaver and an alligator are visually indistinguishable to the common man...
So far, every time I've been outraged about Buckees, they've sued a small business that's trying to file their own trademark. And while I don't like it one bit, trademark law is more or less designed for that exact purpose. Logos don't have to be close, they could just vaguely remind you of another established trademark. The barrier to winning is extremely low, and the fault lies with the shitty, overly vague trademark law that attempts to make trademark owners fight any possible contender.
I don't know if these guys were or were not trying to file a trademark, but I do know the three I looked at so far were begridgingly acceptable by trademark standards.