• 0 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2025

help-circle


  • I don’t think the difference between him physically triggering the wipe and him giving them the code that triggered the wipe would have much effect from a legal point of view. In both cases he deliberately took an action he knew would lead to the destruction of the data. I think his defense’s approach of challenging the legality of the stop is probably much safer.

    I suspect that the prosecution would like to set precedent that you can’t claim to be under duress when a lawful authority is performing a search, so the defence staying away from that area is probably a good idea.


  • Pretty much. A compketely blank phone is a clear sign that it’s wiped, and why would you do that, unless you have sonething to hide, hmm? A phone with a couple of weeks of boring use, maybe a few photos of nice sunsets, a few messages, a take-out ordering app, some boring history in the web browser, and maybe a login to a social media account that follows some celebs and an old school friends or two who don’t seem to post any more, just says you got a new phone a while back and you’re fairly boring.

    Obviously, if they actually have something on you, or they want to pin something on you, those precautions won’t actually help much.


  • US border patrol are considered a lawful authority as they are granted their powers by the federal government and are federal law enforcement officers. They are charged with enforcing US laws, including immigration laws, at the border and in any US state or territory.

    From their point of view, they are well within their rights to seize and search his phone, and he interfered with their duties by destroying the data on the phone. Whether that should be the case is a different matter.






  • The charge wasn’t destruction of evidence, but destruction of property, probably for exactly the reason you mention. He could certainly have arguwd with the agent, but he certainly wouldn’t be getting on the flight if he did, and I suspect he’d be lucky to walk out of the airport without being arrested. As I said in another comment, this isn’t something you can beat at the point of application, it needs to be cut off at the root.



  • Whilst, yes, he probably did feel under duress, he had a choice to make; hand over the phone, or wipe it and face the repercussions from doing so. Bear in mind, that from the agent’s point of view, they had the lawful right to search his phone, so arguing duress will be tricky at best. In his position, I’d like to think I was comfortable handing over the phone because I’d wiped it before travelling.

    Having said all that, yes, I agree that his defense has some strong arguments. However, if they decide to make an exame of him, those arguments wont do him much good.




  • To be fair, a duress pin is definitely a good thing to have if you’re being mugged, but using it to deliberately destroy data when it’s been seized by a lawful authority is guaranteed to land you in serious trouble pretty much anywhere. Whether the border agents were, in fact, a lawful authority, and whether they had a lawful reason to seize his phone are very different questions.

    The much more sensible approach is to either have a separate phobe for travelling, that has nothing you care about on it, or wipe your phone before you travel, and spend a little time building up an innocuous history on it, without putting anything you care about on it. Anything you absolutely must have access to while you’re away can be stored, encrypted, online, and you can remember the details to retrieve it.



  • While that has to be tough to take for those impacted, I do appreciate that the CEO takes personal responsibility for the decision to fire people, and the severance package seems like it gives people a little breathing room. Keeping them on payroll until after their shares vest is a lot better than many companies would do.

    I’m curious about what the big changes in their market over the last six months are though. People are still creating, and he talks about how much they’re routing to creators, so I assume it must be a new competitor starting to muscle in on their market.



  • There’s no point being in the role if you are not being listened to, so she’s sacrificed her job to make a point. It’s also soul crushing to be ridden over roughshod like that, so she’s registered her disgust at that too. In many workplaces you’d probably have a case for “constructive dismissal” too.

    You’re right that it leaves the position open for someone who’s ok with it, but given that her position on an environmental issue was ignored, even though she is the environment minister, and that the vote wasn’t even close, it wont change matters much.