Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- It looks like there are a lot of issues here on the government side, but it also appears like the protestor intentionally gave them a password that, when used, wipes the phone? That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence.by ImJamal
- Evidence of what?by tehwebguy
- Evidence of what?by abalashov
- It's too bad GrapheneOS doesn't support hidden volumes.by kmoser
- Why do you think reporters would rather eat a contempt charge vs throwing their sources to the wolves?by snypher
- You do not have to give them your pin, by law. They can use biometrics to open your device, which is why you should not use biometrics for device unlocking.
GraphenOS has a couple of settings, a distress pin that wipes the device, and a number of failed attempts that will wipe the device. If the person handed over their "pin", they didn't need to
by verdverm - Technically that means the cops destroyed the evidence. Their investigatory department should be savvy enough to avoid destroying evidence.by kelseyfrog
- > That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence
If he was under arrest, sure. The cops claiming this was a routine airport inspection would seem to muddy the waters, at least.
- Sounds like a good reason to use alternatives like GrapheneOS. It doesn't take a big % of users to let the "using it is suspicious by itself" nonsense wear off.by RetroTechie
- Not to worry, but big tech and government are slowly crafting laws that make non-big-tech operating systems illegal in the name of protecting children.by delfinom
- It's already supported by Roblox:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48994716
2 days ago 87 comments
by Cider9986 - This is a good article, and it brings much-needed attention to this case, which so far has not received the level of public awareness that is consummate with seriousness with which the federal government intends to weaken or undermine the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights of every American in prosecuting these bogus charges against Sam.
However, it makes an erroneous equivocation that, I believe, has profound technical and legal implications. In the article's first paragraph, it claims that GrapheneOS "enables users to enter a passcode and wipe a phone clean". What the author of the article is referring to is GrapheneOS's duress password/PIN feature[1], which does not (contrary to what it may seem on first glance) delete or modify the data on the persistent flash storage phone in any way. What it does is zero the key slots in the phone's Secure Element, which stores the disk encryption keys necessary to decrypt the data on persistent storage (technically, these disk encryption keys are not themselves stored in the secure element, but are first encrypted with a key encryption key/KEK derived from a user-entered passcode/PIN and then stored in the secure element[2]. If an adversary were able to break the secure element and extract the contents of the key slots, they would still need to brute-force the KEK in order to obtain the actual disk encryption keys).
To my knowledge, US law does not explicitly say whether deleting the key necessary to decrypt a given ciphertext is equivalent to deleting the ciphertext itself. Technically speaking, they are not equivalent, even if it would take an exorbitant amount of time to recover a deleted key using a brute-force search or some forensic method. If the federal government wants to claim, using this case to set a legal precedent, that it is equivalent, then I would argue that this in effect makes encryption as a concept illegal (as encryption is nothing without the ability of the person using encryption to control access to the encryption key(s)). Reading about the recent Prairieland trial, in which (among other blatant injustices) an activist was convicted by a kangaroo court of "destroying evidence" because they merely removed someone from a Signal group[3], it's clear to me that Prairieland along with Sam's case is part of a coordinated strategy under the NSPM-7 "Antifa Memorandum"[4]: the federal government is using lawfare to establish that it has a right to arbitrarily access the data of its citizens in order to crush political dissent.
[1] https://grapheneos.org/features#duress
[2] https://grapheneos.org/faq#encryption
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jun/...
by bonkusbingus - Yeah I saw that. What do you mean 30 years in prison solely for the so called
"Corrupting and concealing documents, interfering with their ability to be used in grand jury and criminal proceedings; Conspiracy to conceal documents that would implicate Maricela Rueda"
By removing people from the Signal group?
by x79p12gz - I don’t think courts care about technicality here. They’re going to simply ask “why didn’t it unlock like a normal phone does” -> aka you’re deliberately hiding evidence from us.
I’m sure this case will be dropped because it will open bigger can of worms and may jeopardize the current practice of warrantless invasive searches at the entry points. Secretly I hope this goes to Supreme Court and once and for all they clarify on “constitution doesn’t apply at the border” piece of thinking
- The technical problem here seems to be that GrapheneOS apparently doesn't support logging in to a partitioned empty OS for scanning purposes, also that it doesn't support such partitions at all, only one of which would be the real one.by OutOfHere
- It's not possible to create that feature because GrapheneOS operates under the assumption that an adversary has encyclopedic knowledge of the OS. Currently your suggestion would leave forensic traces so it wouldn't achieve the goal of deniability.by Cider9986
- Quick reminder to my fellows that if you discuss this story here, it will end up immutable and available to law enforcement and, e.g., H1B eligibility deciders.
Dark forest
by 1attice - Better to die on ones feet than live on ones knees.by wbl
- This is a technical problem.
Instead of wiping and rebooting, it should wipe while showing a lame spreadsheet application, or possibly a grocery list.
by m463 - Or just don't wipe your phone and let the reboot timer do its work and bring your phone to BFU state, effectively uncrackable.by Cider9986
- That would be a bad idea. GrapheneOS operates under the assumption that every attacker has encyclopedic knowledge of GOS at all times. This is by far not an unreasonable assumption. GrapheneOS does not add features relying on ignorance that they exist.
The duress wipe feature shuts the device down to let RAM discharge, this is an important step to remove any components of decryption before they can be lifted.
- > This is a technical problem.
Government overreach cannot be solved with technical solutions.
by pavel_lishin - I don’t think a judge would be impressed by this. If anything it actually makes the legal case easier: there’s a legitimate use for a wiping feature on a phone (e.g. for theft or tampering), but actively producing false information demonstrates an intent to deceive or mislead.by woodruffw
- This whole thing highlights how insane US border law is.
Sam was physically in the US, but because he was on an international flight, he was arrested in a manner that would be unconstitutional anywhere else in the US. He was denied a lawyer, questioned for I presume hours, had his phone stolen without a warrant, and then was released because there was no crime CBP could figure out how to charge him with then and there.
Months later, he gets charged by a federal statute even though where he committed the crime was a place that federal law does? doesn't? extend. Apparently it's a very convenient place where the constitution is void but federal laws still matter.
Cops can't arrest or detain you without some articulable suspicion of a crime being committed. They can't steal your stuff to try and find a crime you committed. They can't search your phone without a warrant in which they provide a judge with enough evidence to reasonably suspect a crime has been committed.
Yet Sam apparently had no rights because he was put on a watchlist for exercising first amendment rights.
Very despicable behavior by the government and the federal prosecutors pursuing this case.
by cogman10 - Indeed. Hopefully the next administration will hold current officials accountable for such abuses of power.by goatlover
- "federal authorities had put him on a terrorism watchlist because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City"
Talk about burying the lede
by bdcravens - It's sad how much everyone saw this coming. We've been warned since the very beginning that this arbitrary expansion of punishments you can do to anyone labelled a "terrorist" (previous "communist") will inevitably come back to bite us. We saw it with the Red Scares and now we have the Black Scare. FFS, even citizens are getting arrested for moving zines around
Btw, here's a list of the zines for which people got charged as terrorists and sentenced for decades in prison for https://pnppl.cc/prairieland/
by culi - Note that "antifa" is now recognized as a terrorist organization by the current federal government. It will get much worse if they aren't stopped.by pstuart
- Burying the lede on what? The individual in question was being targeted in part because he was exercising his First Amendment right to protest environmental destruction and the militarization of police. I think if anything this makes it more disturbing. The US government has a long history of criminalizing movements they don't like as "terrorism".by Tyrubias