this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
465 points (99.8% liked)

News

38486 readers
1829 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Ain't that some BS

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 26 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Everyone is cheering but the case was not thrown out yet. For now we just know this is technically possible which we knew already. Now we will find out if you can do this and not go to jail. I will cheer when this guy walks free.

[–] Kintarian@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago

I like this guy. Oh, you wanna see my phone? Fine, here ya go asshole.

[–] tigermountain@lemmy.world 18 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

What a great idea. If I was able to I'd create a free Android and iOS app that did this exact same thing.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago

I doubt either OS would allow a simple app to wipe the whole device.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 50 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

Guy was innocent until they had proof of a crime. They didnt have any proof so boohoo for them. And they charged him of damaging property. Its his property, and its not damaged.

[–] Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The intent of the law was to have something to charge corporate fraudsters with if they destroyed the accounting records with proof of their fraud when served a warrant. Or illegal drug manufacturers destroying their chemlab. Ownership of the property doesn't come into it.

The envisioned cases were always domestic crime investigations where there was already enough evidence to get a warrant. The application at customs where they don't need a warrant is the novelty, and I really hope the government loses its case.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago

That isn't their property. That belongs to the company.

Case should be thrown out and the prosecutors charged with something.

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 10 points 14 hours ago

Shit, if he set his phone on fire, that's still just his property.

[–] CoolSouthpaw@lemmy.world 46 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Good. We all need to set this up. Fuck ICE and TSA.

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 31 points 21 hours ago

It exists for a reason, they couldn’t have shown better why if they’d been paid to film a commercial.

[–] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 186 points 1 day ago (40 children)

Friendly reminder that, per the fifth amendment, you are not required to disclose your passwords to the authorities under any circumstances. This protection does not apply to biometric authentication, so don't enable those methods.

[–] SalmonTractor@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Cute that you think the Constitution still exists.

[–] Eh_I@lemmy.world 9 points 13 hours ago

It is actually harder to torture a password out of someone than hold the phone up to their face.

Constitution ain't got shit to do with that one way or another.

load more comments (39 replies)
[–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 105 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 52 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

It's not. Authoritarians want it to be.

I was kind of flabbergasted when a police office interviewed in this video just straight up said you have a right to privacy in your home, but as soon as you step out, gone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3MQLlMbS-Y

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 hours ago

to be fair there's a flip side to that too. I don't want to be charged with invasion of privacy because I took a photo of my friend at a party and someone is in the background who sues me.

[–] phoenixarise@lemmy.world 46 points 1 day ago

Even if he did, so what? His phone, his property, his business. He should be able to do what he wants.

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 169 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

SECURE IN YOUR PERSONAL EFFECTS AND DOCUMENTS

-Bill of Suggestions

[–] dreamkeeper@literature.cafe 10 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

"except within 100 miles of the border where you have no rights at all, because that's convenient for me so I made it the fuck up"

--SCOTUS, defender of FREEDOM

load more comments
view more: next ›