this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2026
488 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

86633 readers
4031 users here now

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


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Murse@slrpnk.net 7 points 45 minutes ago

Idr if this was a feature that made it into a real OS or just a concept that never came to be, but...

I recall reading about a duress pin that instead of deleting stuff, just booted up normally... but to basically a separate user profile. From the non-duress profile you could choose features that would be shared between the two, like texts or call history of specific people, browser history, photo albums, etc.

So "sure officer, it's 5224" would open up a phone profile that looks convincingly used, with nice long trails of cat memes and chatter with your gaming buddies about your favorite franchise enshittifying, and so on.

Punch in your real pin to unlock it though, and it's got full access to everything, including data you want to keep private.

...and, uh, if any of you are designing a mobile OS right now, here's your feature suggestion!

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 38 minutes ago

Prosecuted for what, exactly? If push comes to shove, it's a fifth amendment issue.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I didn't know android could do that. I wanna turn one on! But, I can't find it. I've looked under Security and Privacy. I have a pattern to get in (they can physically force you to unlock your phone with fingerprints), no facial recognition, and my security and privacy is all green checkmarks. I've tried to find it under my Samsung account's security stuff. Its not there. It doesn't even show up when I search for it on the settings search bar. What am I missing?

I use Android 16 and have OneUI 8.5.

[–] Joelk111@lemmy.world 12 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

This is a GrapheneOS feature.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Oh, so its a different operating system or something?

[–] Joelk111@lemmy.world 5 points 59 minutes ago* (last edited 54 minutes ago)

Yes, it's a different Android based OS. It's privacy focused, hence having this feature, and only supports Google Pixel devices.

Android is just a version of Linux, so anyone can make a fork of it. Most Android device manufacturers do this, including your device having Samsung's rendition of Android and my OnePlus having OxygenOS (soon to be ColorOS), but anyone can do the same if they'd like. LineageOS is another super cool Android project.

[–] EonNShadow@pawb.social 4 points 1 hour ago

GrapheneOS is a custom fork(? Correct me if I'm wrong) of Android that retains most of the features but has a private and de-googled experience.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 29 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

The charge treats the alleged wipe as destruction of property intended to prevent a government seizure.

He is being charged with destroying "evidence" but he was never charged with anything in the first place. That is like saying deleting any files at home is a crime. I'd think forcing you to present evidence necessary to charge you with something would fall under the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 19 points 6 hours ago

I'm half-expecting for it to turn out that he was being wholly compliant, and he's being accused of destruction of evidence because they were looking for something that never existed to begin with.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 11 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
  1. get a phone with a removable battery and wireless charging
  2. break the USB port
  3. pull out the battery before crossing the border

sorry, my phone is dead and won't hold a charge.

  • nothing untrue about that statement
  • state of the phone was a preexisting condition and cannot be used to apply obstruction charges
[–] IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world 13 points 4 hours ago

I mean, sure, but then they seize the phone and still get all the data. In this case he wiped the data so it couldn't be seized.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 60 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Write the duress PIN on a piece of paper in your wallet. Someone searching your phone is probably also searching your wallet and may try the PIN.

[–] Folstar@lemmus.org 47 points 9 hours ago (8 children)

Genius. Flips the script. In the process of conducting an illegal search, you deleted my phone causing considerable financial and emotional damage. Lawsuit time.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] arc99@lemmy.world 22 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

If the duress pin makes obvious it's the duress pin then it's not really doing its job. It should instead open a profile with not much in it while erasing the other profile and files in the background.

[–] tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

They asked to unlock his phone, he entered the wipe instead personal pin, and the wipe starts, with no possible reversal.

I mean yeah they discover it when he hands them the phone and it shows something other than an unlocked screen... But he is still in detention? Making a fake homescreen will fool them for like 30 secs tops until they open literally any app and sees it's either completely empty or that it doesn't work.

What would that solve? It just drags out the procedure

[–] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 hours ago

Empty apps or no apps aren't necessarily a sign of guilt, but they will look at you like you are because its not normal.

Companies often have travel laptops which are a clean install and no private corporate info exposed.

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

From reading up on the laws and if what this article says is true, even if they unlocked his phone and found evidence of crimes on it, gods case would be kicked to the curb as it was all an illegal search and correct procedures weren’t followed.

[–] StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

ngl, in his position I would have wiped it too. Not because I had anything illegal, but because I have a signal chat with the bros where we sometimes bitch about politics and I don't need this administration's FBI arresting me as a terrorist for stupid memes about socialism and queer jokes.

[–] CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

Border guards do not need a search warrant to search you and your property at a crossing or point of entry. The search was perfectly legal.

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (3 children)

They can’t search your property without a warrant, probable cause, or your permission.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

  • An immigration officer also cannot search you or your belongings without either “probable cause” or your consent. If an agent asks you if they can search your belongings, you have the right to say no.
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

That Probable Cause standard requires a reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrong doing to exist too. Crossing a boarder alone doesn't give rise to that.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Of course they just deny you entry at that point...

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

They can’t deny a US citizen entry to the US.

I doubt it would be grounds for turning away a legal visitor, though you would have to have a way to challenge it.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

"At a crossing" means with 100 miles of any border or port of entry. Which is about 67% of the country. It is complete bullshit of a policy.

[–] CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

I'm not an expert, but I don't believe that applies to airport points of entry. Regardless, if you're going to something as suspicious as wiping your phone while at a point of entry, consulting a lawyer beforehand is just a reasonable thing to do.

You may think some laws are bullshit, (ie: sovereign citizens) but you are still governed by those laws.

All I am saying is be informed.

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah it’s like having never had a single sip of alcohol but doing a u-turn and driving off when you see police doing mobile breathalysers. It looks suspicious as fuck, and the police will treat it as such until they’ve investigated and found you didn’t do anything wrong. You’re basically giving them “probably cause”.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

You mean probable cause, not "probably cause". And what you described, evading a sobriety checkpoint, gives them reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Reasonable suspicion amounts to reasonable articulable facts of observation that lead them to suspect you may be committing/have committed/were about to commit a crime (like apparently fleeing from a police breathalyzer check). It grants them the power to detain you for a reasonable time for the purposes of investigating to confirm or assuage their suspicion.

Probable cause requires actual evidence that a specific crime has been committed, that you committed it, and that evidence is secured. It is the standard needed to A) arrest you or issue a warrant for your arrest, and B) issue a search warrant for your property if evidence connects it to the crime in question in order to gather more evidence. (Note: They may do an inventory search of your person if arrested, and an inventory search of your vehicle if towed due to your arrest. This is limited in scope. A full search requires a warrant.)

Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard than probable cause.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children)

The 100 miles extends inward from the exterior border, not around every airport. But every international airport is a port of entry over which they have jurisdiction and can perform warrantless searches. And, in my opinion, warrantless searches for everyone by virtue of simply entering into the country is a violation of the 4th amendment. Which is why it's bullshit and shouldn't be allowed. It can and often is abused, especially when tied to another equally (should be) unconstitutional "law", civil forfeiture, even before the bullshit policies Trump and the SCOTUS have deemed reasonable suspicion for illegal status (i.e. appearing Hispanic, speaking Spanish, displaying a flag from another nation, etc.) I'm aware of the laws, but that doesn't make them just or even constitutional.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] khepri@lemmy.world 12 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

My understanding is you can't actually be forced (legally) to give up your phone's PIN or password as part of a police search, because it violates the 5th amendment against self-incrimination, even at the border. Now will they still find a way to fuck up your day if you refuse to unlock your phone, sure, but I feel like saying "I have a right under the 5th Amendment to not reveal my password" is going to be a lot easier to defend than "I intentionally wiped/locked/bricked my phone when you asked to look through it."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›