Seems like in this particular overreach the victim has experienced adverse economic effects that they could recover. A job offer they had was rescinded and it
has come to light this was a ploy. Not an expert, but seems like this may be costly.
Regardless of the validity of the terrorism charge, it seems pretty reasonable to call what he did destruction of evidence.
Now, if he had taped "pass:1234" on to the inside of his phone case, and the CBP official had typed that in I'd argue it wasn't his action. But the act of giving false information that led to the auto-destruct is 100% equivalent to him typing it in himself.
The lesson imo, is to have something similar to trucrypt / veracrypt, in which multiple passcodes can unlock different sections of an encrypted drive (and the empty space is encrypted as well with a random key). That way, you have much more plausible deniability ("I gave you the key"), and it's not actively destroying evidence.
Not to defend this, but don't the police lie to suspects all the time during interrogations? The article doesn't seem to assert that DHS lied to anyone except the suspect (at the time of the detainment), which AFAIK isn't illegal and might even be routine.
I remember watching a video about the interrogation of Stephanie Lazarus, who police suspected of a decades-old murder. They initially misrepresented how much evidence they had on her to get her to talk more, which ultimately worked and helped to gather evidence that assisted in securing the conviction. The point being that our society currently allows the police to lie to suspects (but NOT to the courts/public at large), in theory for the greater good (catching criminals).
Now whether or not this person was fairly targeted in the first place, and whether or not they should be in trouble for wiping their phone is a whole different question, but the premise of the article kind of implies there was some sort of new "gotcha" in the case, which doesn't appear to be so.
This is most likely gonna end up on the Supreme Court docket. The defense is hoping that instead of making a judgment, they just punt it on a technicality such as this.
_OR_ instead of a "gotcha" it is just summarizing the linked legal document. It doesn't claim that lying to him was illegal but certainly seems a phishing tactic like the document asserts. Which is pretty gross for someone not even under any suspicion of a crime. The title certainly is grandiose, but the article doesn't seem to be doing much more than summarizing the document and recounting his interrogation (sans Miranda, btw).
Seems like in this particular overreach the victim has experienced adverse economic effects that they could recover. A job offer they had was rescinded and it has come to light this was a ploy. Not an expert, but seems like this may be costly.
Regardless of the validity of the terrorism charge, it seems pretty reasonable to call what he did destruction of evidence.
Now, if he had taped "pass:1234" on to the inside of his phone case, and the CBP official had typed that in I'd argue it wasn't his action. But the act of giving false information that led to the auto-destruct is 100% equivalent to him typing it in himself.
The lesson imo, is to have something similar to trucrypt / veracrypt, in which multiple passcodes can unlock different sections of an encrypted drive (and the empty space is encrypted as well with a random key). That way, you have much more plausible deniability ("I gave you the key"), and it's not actively destroying evidence.
Why? If you point in the wrong direction that's still obstruction.
You won't believe this one little trick to get around the legal system, lawyers hate it. Just unlock multiple sections...
Not to defend this, but don't the police lie to suspects all the time during interrogations? The article doesn't seem to assert that DHS lied to anyone except the suspect (at the time of the detainment), which AFAIK isn't illegal and might even be routine.
I remember watching a video about the interrogation of Stephanie Lazarus, who police suspected of a decades-old murder. They initially misrepresented how much evidence they had on her to get her to talk more, which ultimately worked and helped to gather evidence that assisted in securing the conviction. The point being that our society currently allows the police to lie to suspects (but NOT to the courts/public at large), in theory for the greater good (catching criminals).
Now whether or not this person was fairly targeted in the first place, and whether or not they should be in trouble for wiping their phone is a whole different question, but the premise of the article kind of implies there was some sort of new "gotcha" in the case, which doesn't appear to be so.
This is most likely gonna end up on the Supreme Court docket. The defense is hoping that instead of making a judgment, they just punt it on a technicality such as this.
Society thanks you for defending this routine practice!
_OR_ instead of a "gotcha" it is just summarizing the linked legal document. It doesn't claim that lying to him was illegal but certainly seems a phishing tactic like the document asserts. Which is pretty gross for someone not even under any suspicion of a crime. The title certainly is grandiose, but the article doesn't seem to be doing much more than summarizing the document and recounting his interrogation (sans Miranda, btw).
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28825074-tunick-phot...
Yeah, I see nothing to indicate that anyone else was lied to. But I also see no indication that they had any reason to believe wrongdoing on his part.
What a waste of tax dollars
[dead]
[dead]