archive.ph
archive.ph

https://www.404media.co/man-charged-for-wiping-phone-before-cbp-could-search-it/

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.

  • toiletobserver@lemmy.worldEnglish
    852·
    20 days ago

    We should all have a digital self detonation button in case of overreaching small dicked incel fascists.

  • favoredponcho@lemmy.zipEnglish
    81·
    20 days ago

    If it’s GrapheneOS, he may have given them the wipe code. You enter a passcode and it deletes everything. So, CBP may have done this. In any case, fuck em.

    • Kokesh@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      19 days ago

      Yes! What if they would find something in my history? That would be horrible! Something like Fuck you tRump, you orange clown. Pedophile president. Does he also paint his dick orange? Does he fuck bag of cheetos every morning? Charlie kirk was fucking racist. Something like this could popup in my social media history! Oh no!

      • 1984@lemmy.todayEnglish
        11·
        19 days ago

        I think they are not even interested in any of that. Its just a method of control. Continuing to apply pressure to people, reminding them to bow down to authority.

        They can already get the social media history from any big tech company. :)

        • itisileclerk@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          19 days ago

          They are getting everything since always. That is why tech companies are getting so much money from government. Social media is a dream come true for US government.

          • 1984@lemmy.todayEnglish
            5·
            19 days ago

            I think they are all going further and further into madness. Us government and big tech together.

            They dont seem to understand that themselves. The consciousness of wanting to control by force, in combination with big tech dystopian dreams of raising humans with Ai, and watching everybody in real time… Its a very strong difference in that kind of consciousness compared to a good person on this planet.

            Ive lost interest in building technology solutions myself. Because its just about ads and control now. Its just the wrong kind of consciousness in charge of humanity. Tech isnt helping us, its making us more and more helpless and depressed.

        • phutatorius@lemmy.zipEnglish
          2·
          17 days ago

          They don’t want foreigners in the US, looking healthy and fit and spending money while Americans are struggling to get by. And they don’t want Americans visiting European countries where the standards of living are much higher than in the US. Americans might start getting the idea that they are getting the shit end of the stick.

    • Spaniard@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      19 days ago

      to show their social media history

      For visa I think they already do, well not exactly show their social media history but the background check includes social media because people from the Philippines trying to get a visa remove pictures with Americans when they apply for visa.

      Since most of the popular social networks are Americans I don’t think there is a limitation, probably even if you remove things…

    • llama@lemmy.zipEnglish
      2·
      18 days ago

      And what if people don’t, are they going to look you up anyway to prove you lied? So if they can do that then what’s the point?

    • frongt@lemmy.zipEnglish
      5·
      20 days ago

      Not really, no. You have the right to not give testimony against yourself, including by not providing evidence that would hurt you, but that doesn’t mean you can actively destroy evidence.

      • PancakesCantKillMe@lemmy.worldEnglish
        17·
        20 days ago

        Evidence of what exactly? Was a crime previously committed? Was it the officer’s “instincts” that told them so? This is the fun part of authoritarianism, there may have been zero evidence deleted (we don’t know), but now the act of wiping it creates a crime they can charge someone with. Bake him away, toys!

        • frongt@lemmy.zipEnglish
          61·
          20 days ago

          It’s CBP, probably at the airport, so I don’t think you’d find a court saying they exceeded their authority in seizing the phone for search. They have very broad authority.

          It’s not ethical at all, of course, but it’s been perfectly legal for decades, under multiple administrations.

      • village604@adultswim.fanEnglish
        9·
        20 days ago

        The real question is when the wipe happened. If it happened after he was informed they were taking the phone as evidence, then that’s bad for him.

        But otherwise they’d have to convince a jury that he could see the future.

    • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      3·
      20 days ago

      I think things are also a bit dicey when CBP is doing it. As they are a fed agency and pretty much all they do is national security.

  • Kairos@lemmy.todayEnglish
    15·
    20 days ago

    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

    • Chulk@lemmy.mlEnglish
      25·
      20 days ago

      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.

      • mkwt@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        20 days ago

        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.

        • RunningInRVA@lemmy.worldEnglish
          20·
          20 days ago

          At least on an iPhone, if the device has been unlocked since powering on, then forensic tools such as Cellebrite’s can extract information from the phone. The absolute safest bet is to perform a wipe. If this person is an activist then he’s an easy target and likely knew to be prepared for such an interrogation with our current fascist administration.

          • Ludicrous0251@piefed.zipEnglish
            81·
            20 days ago

            Absolute safest is a wipe but just powering off the phone means they won’t be able to access anything without a PIN (protected by the 5th amendment). There’s no laws against turning your phone off.

          • mkwt@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            20 days ago

            The absolute safest bet is to perform a wipe.

            This may be effective at preventing the government from accessing the data. But as we see, the law, including the 5th amendment, doesn’t protect from legal exposure to obstruction-type charges. Or lying to the cops type charges if you say you’ll unlock the phone, but then you actually wipe the phone.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
              5·
              19 days ago

              Sure, but nothing protects you from Fascists if they want to go after you. There’s so many laws that are malleable enough that they can always come up with some excuse. You should be legally protected for doing what this person did, but they’ll still try. We’ll see if their bullshit holds up in court I guess.

        • BreadstickNinja@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          20 days ago

          It depends on port of entry. The ninth circuit, which covers San Francisco, has upheld that 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.

  • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    19 days ago

    Ya’ll have phones?

    Maybe I should not, if it can be taken with no articulable reason given.