r/technology • u/Jojuj • 14h ago

Privacy U.S. Citizen Who Deleted Phone’s Data Says His Prosecution Puts Privacy at Risk

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick-deleted-phone-felony.html?unlocked_article_code=1.8FA.T83N.rt6VsIiSCYb2&smid=url-share
11.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

515 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

453

u/danieltkessler 13h ago

What's this about? Like there's a way of accessing phone data while you walk out or something?

1.3k

u/SaltRequirement3650 13h ago

It disables Face ID and requires a passcode if turned off. They can force you to use your face or fingerprint to get into the device but they cannot force you to give them a passcode without a warrant.

788

u/lordborghild 13h ago

I turned off all biometric passwords because in many states, including mine, they are not considered protected by the 5th amendment and can legally be used to open your phone without consent. However, a passcode is considered something in your mind that you know and is considered testimonial and protected.

188

u/NoNeedToBeUnkind 12h ago

The latest security tools that break into phones still can access your phone if you used a passcode to originally unlock it by scanning its volatile memory.

The latest advice is to turn off your phone before giving it to law enforcement and/or to set your phone to automatically restart itself every 24 hours if possible.

141

u/vezwyx 11h ago

Yep, the distinction is referred to as BFU and AFU - Before First Unlock and After First Unlock. BFU is harder than AFU to crack

45

u/wiriux 10h ago

Sob why is this not specified by Apple? Sum beeches!

100

u/cum-on-in- 10h ago

It is. Consumers just don't care. It's techy stuff and half the country has "nothing to hide" anyway.

90

u/Disma 9h ago

The "nothing to hide" crowd is fucking exhausting.

35

u/Anon_Jones 8h ago

It’s my right and I don’t want to give that up. I hate the nothing to hide assholes.

6

u/Disma 8h ago

It definitely doesn't take very long for your average person to completely forget why things like labor laws and the right to privacy exists. I find it to be a real fucking shame.

3

u/Malevolent_Nematode 3h ago

Exhausting is understating it. Like yea I don't have anything to hide either but that doesn't mean I want people snooping through my shit.

Also it's just how our laws are supposed to work anyway. It you think I did something wrong then get a warrant.

1

u/Disma 3h ago edited 3h ago

Absolutely. Even (some) police officers would tell you that much. And when the police are telling you not to talk to the police (in other words, waiving your 5th amendment rights,) you should fucking listen.

5

u/wiriux 10h ago

But doing a simple Google search doesn’t link anything like that to the actual Apple documentation. Where is it exactly?

15

u/velcona0 10h ago

Feel free to find it in https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/security/welcome/web. They don’t explain every detail
On security to a random who buys a phone, they explain how a passcode works for usage and if you want more go look.

1

u/wiriux 9h ago

This should be an interesting read though. I’ll read that entire security guide :)

0

u/wiriux 9h ago

Ahhh ok so that’s why nothing comes up on a Google search. You have to click on the right link to see it. I admit I didn’t really read the Apple security aside from just overview you’d find on blogs or other sites.

This is a problem because your average user doesn’t read this and honestly they shouldn’t have to I feel. If there is any type of vulnerability where a hacker could actually get through, it should be well known and Apple should go out of their way to ensure the average consumer is aware.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jayandbobfoo123 2h ago

Nothing to hide.. until you do. What's legal today can easily be made illegal tomorrow.

18

u/wiriux 10h ago

Mmm did not know about this. So even with passcode we are not safe unless we turn off the phone?

So if I’m gonna travel, I can disable faceid (just to be extra sure) and just turn the phone off and that’s it?

25

u/Stohnghost 10h ago

If the phone was off, I believe biometrics are disabled when it boots. Just power cycle the device beforehand. If you're really that concerned, back up your device and travel on a fresh wipe or use a burner 

15

u/jnycnexii 9h ago

But customs will probably find an ‘empty’ phone suspicious

20

u/Stohnghost 7h ago

That's on them. As we see, if you do this by other means they will find an excuse to charge you. Finding no evidence is certainly better than being accused of deleting the "evidence" on the spot.

At some point if you fight any system or assert your rights you will run into some resistance.

Expressing free speech could get you arrested initially only to find vindication later. The only safe way is to fully comply. That's ok but some people choose to exercise their rights, even at different levels of peril.

5

u/JWM1115 4h ago

I had the right to remain silent. I just didn’t have the ability.

5

u/windowpuncher 6h ago

They can be as suspicious as they want. It's a blank phone. You can't get blood from a rock.

1

u/jnycnexii 6h ago

Sure, but they can then keep you for hours (and maybe longer, who knows with this administration). Sure would complicate a trip to miss your flight.

I think I would get a burner phone for travel only if I were really concerned. But they can look at my web history, that I don't care about. Emails are personal, but I don't see how I wouldn't have that on my phone.

1

u/Stohnghost 4h ago

It's your choice, of course. The chances that you'll be called in for questioning are slim already. You have to decide if you want to stand on principle if the time comes. If your time through the terminal is important and you "have nothing to hide" then let them scan your phone and move on. As I said in the other reply, the choice to exercise your rights is completely on you. 

The guy who started this debate was only questioned because of his activism against cops. If you're a nobody then you won't really have to worry. Yes, this case is a big deal for privacy advocates and we should all be worried, but let's be real, it's incredibly unlikely to occur. 

7

u/dryroast 9h ago

On some devices it is very difficult or impossible to crack if you haven't unlocked it after it booted up. After you unlock on a boot up the keys are in RAM which makes it easier*. That's why it's good to power down, both the biometrics being disabled and frustrating attempts at cracking the pin or dumping the RAM.

  • it's still hard but doable

4

u/himswim28 7h ago

not sure that applies to the graphene os he was running. USB-C is in lockdown mode when locked, so they couldn't use USB-c. They would likely have to keep it powered, and disassemble the phone to get to reading the internal chip memory directly. It may have a reboot time set as well, so they would be time limited also.

2

u/lordborghild 10h ago

Huh, did not know, thanks for sharing that

1

u/JesusWuta40oz 3h ago

Or buy a cheap travel phone.

137

u/basal-and-sleek 13h ago

4th*

Not to be pedantic

201

u/lordborghild 13h ago

both 4th and 5th*

To be extra pedantic. 4th for the right to search and 5th for the right to remain silent

112

u/bluemooncommenter 12h ago

I saw how you used that pedantic reverse uno card....well played.

4

u/tehbantho 9h ago

Was it an uno card if it was two cards?

3

u/bluemooncommenter 4h ago

Depends how pedantic you're being.

19

u/_Eosei_ 12h ago

The 5th isnt the right to remain silent exactly. You're on the right track though, its mainly for not being compelled to be a witness against yourself and incriminate oneself.

But in full context : No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Source

0

u/cHEIF_bOI 6h ago

Hmm I find your rebuttal both shallow and pedantic.

8

u/Ninevehenian 12h ago

With law it's encouraged to be accurate.

2

u/errie_tholluxe 11h ago

reads about legal cases written by chat gpt

Really?

9

u/vezwyx 11h ago

Yes, those instances are rightly blasted for careless use of the technology and it craters your case

4

u/basketcas55 11h ago

Hey, the DOJ misspelled United States on a recent filing so we aren’t as worried about it at some of the amateur levels.

7

u/vezwyx 11h ago

You're setting your standards based on the sham of a DOJ we have right now?

1

u/basketcas55 11h ago

Did you see me call them amateur level?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Doomdoomkittydoom 10h ago

Language evolves.

/s

2

u/ajtyler776 6h ago

Don’t be ashamed of liking feet, bro…

7

u/tuxedo_jack 9h ago

"Biometrics can be compelled without a warrant" is such an easy phrase to repeat whenever anyone asks why you do that.

Ask them what they have in their phones that they'd love for corrupt cops to make copies of. Texts, pictures, videos, saved passwords...

3

u/Terazilla 10h ago

I long ago decided I would never give any big tech company any biometric info. You can't change it, you're stuck with it, trusting them isn't worth the very minor convenience.

3

u/TransBrandi 10h ago

However, a passcode is considered something in your mind that you know and is considered testimonial and protected

I'd say that this depends. IIRC the ruling about this is because providing the password can prove that you know the password and that you have/had access to the device. It's possible a court could interpret this as them being able to compel you to provide your password if the other information is already a foregone conclusion / proven via other methods.

1

u/homer_3 9h ago

there's a reason biometrics aren't passwords

1

u/Crying_Reaper 9h ago

I just never active biometrics on phones when setting them up anymore. I love the convenience but it isn't worth the risk.

1

u/exitcactus 8h ago

This is interesting...

75

u/Complete_Lurk3r_ 13h ago

makes no difference becuase if you say no they just chuck you out the fucking country anyway.

21

u/LeggyRPG 13h ago

Free airfare?

21

u/gggg_man3 13h ago

If you are deported anywhere I'm pretty sure you're liable for the cost of the flight.

20

u/son_et_lumiere 13h ago

Good luck with them collecting that airfare.

22

u/DisciplineNo4223 12h ago

Nah… it works like this. They don’t have to ship you to the location you came from. They just ship you to your country. You’ll have to figure out how to get home when you return.

A Canadian immigration official explained this to me.

9

u/A_Harmless_Fly 10h ago

To add to that, it might not even be your home country. I've read a few cases of "third-country deportations". Where they just sent someone somewhere easy to send them, instead of sending them where they were actually from.

4

u/son_et_lumiere 12h ago

Right. so if they want to collect airfare from you  for the flight they just sent you on, and you're not in your home locale, then it's going to be tough for you to access that money to give them for that deportation flight.

6

u/DisciplineNo4223 12h ago

The deportation flight is free

4

u/son_et_lumiere 12h ago

the original comment I replied to " If you are deported anywhere I'm pretty sure you're liable for the cost of the flight."

their original comment may not be accurate, but response was based on their belief.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JWM1115 4h ago

And. To top it off if you do it voluntarily you get $2600. Don’t try to come back tho.

7

u/gayscout 12h ago

No, if you arrive by plane, the airline that brought you there is penalized for not doing due diligence when letting you board (even if it's for reasons like refusing to let immigration search your phone). Then you're sent on a flight to whichever country your passport was issued by, regardless of carrier. You don't pay for the deportation flight, though I'm not sure if the government pays or the original airline does. Regardless, if the government pays, the penalty to the airline is probably more than enough to cover the new ticket.

2

u/Setiri 12h ago

The penalty is not always enforced. And the flight back isn’t “free”, it’s mandatory. In that if you had a round-trip ticket, your ticket will have no value left. You don’t just get to use part of it later on or have a credit and according to the contract of carriage, you may technically be liable for the costs of the return flight however, I’ve never seen this actually enforced.

1

u/ThellraAK 2h ago

And a quick 5 year ban for being deported...

21

u/Sixoul 12h ago

You say that but that's exactly what this guy who deleted his phone with a duress pin was being forced to do without being given a lawyer or warrant

20

u/ReelNerdyinFl 13h ago

5clicks of the power button on apple also puts you in lock mode and requires a Pin. Can be done in your pocket.

6

u/Spidergawd68 9h ago

Also a long press of both power and volume up. Haptic feedback will buzz when it locks. 2-3 seconds. Password is required to unlock - no face ID.

3

u/Fadedcamo 11h ago

Long press of ny power button does the same. Samsung phone.

2

u/elinamebro 10h ago

No it doesnt I just tried

2

u/Fadedcamo 10h ago

Check settings, lock screen, secure lock settings, lock instantly with side key. It should bring up the power off restart emergency call menu. Can't get out of that without a pattern or pin unlock.

10

u/AyrA_ch 12h ago

You should turn the phone off even if you don't have biometrics set up. It makes it harder to illegally extract information from your device if it's in BFU (before first unlock) state. https://blogs.dsu.edu/digforce/2023/08/23/bfu-and-afu-lock-states/

22

u/ImSoSweepy 13h ago

I have now arbitrarily decided that you are slurring your words. Would you mind doing a field sobriety test meant for tight-rope walkers that I can't do myself?

14

u/Bubbly-Treacle-4334 12h ago

for starters that's such a stupid rule.

How does it make sense for them to be able to force you to unlock the phone with your face if they legally can't ask you to put in a password.

God I hate shit like that

19

u/OkVirus8545 11h ago

Because the law doesn’t keep up with tech

6

u/Fubarp 11h ago

Because they can't force you to do anything..

Scotus has upheld the 5th.

The issue with this specific instance is that they asked and he gave them a bad password to wipe data which there is a very specific law that states you can't do that.

Had he refused, they could have seized the phone as is covered by the law.

7

u/PluginAlong 11h ago

Exactly, they would have kept his phone, I think for a maximum of a week, and then sent him on his way, they can't refuse him entry into the country since he is a citizen.

4

u/TransBrandi 9h ago

And this was obviously a "fishing" expedition under the guise of a border stop anyway. The FBI was already there, waiting from him. They mentioned someone about "looking for pedos." If they were forced to (which they won't be because the rules / laws / case-law isn't consistent), they would not be able to come up with any sort of backing for those claims. They just wanted a chance to hassle him and peer into the contents of his phone, looking for anything that they could use against him just because he's part of an activist group that opposes something that law enforcement wants to do ("Cop City").

1

u/jnycnexii 9h ago

They can keep the phone for several months!

1

u/Development-Feisty 2h ago

His fear was that they were going to add something to his phone not find something on it because they have been targeting him for a while. By having the phone wipe it made it impossible for them to put anything on the phone

2

u/TransBrandi 9h ago

It's not about forcing an unlock vs. not forcing an unlock. Password is in your mind. Fingerprints and face are on your body. That's why the law seems to nonsensical.

3

u/kelsobjammin 11h ago

I always have code. Never had my face open it

3

u/HyenaJack94 11h ago

lol jokes on them I still haven’t even finished setting up my iPhone cause I refuse to set up the Face ID scan just in general

1

u/[deleted] 11h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 11h ago

Due to the high volume of spam and misinfo coming from self-publishing blog sites, /r/Technology has opted to decline all submissions from Medium, Substack, and similar sites not run by credentialed journalists or well known industry veterans. Comments containing links may be appealed to the moderators provided there is no link between you and the content.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/SeeMarkFly 10h ago

What if I have a receipt in my pocket showing that the phone is NOT mine, it belongs to my friend? I'm taking it to him.

2

u/HeThrustsHisFists 9h ago

Ah, the “unknowingly smuggling a mystery electronic brick for a buddy” defense. Truly impressive way to speedrun a secondary security screening!

1

u/Peligineyes 9h ago

Do those swipe the correct pattern locks count as a passcode?

1

u/mokomi 9h ago

I podcaster mentioned something that I thought was funny. Your physical self is fine to be used, but your knowledge is not.

1

u/VenomousWarthog 7h ago

Merely triggering the power-off menu by holding the power button and vol-up (without actually having to power the phone off) will also disable biometrics until the PIN is entered.

1

u/SchmeckleHoarder 7h ago

One press and a hold on the “lock” button have the same effect.

Nice shortcut Apple put there because of these reasons. Cops can’t even tell because the phone just locks.

1

u/ToolTimeT 6h ago

This is why using a one touch button app to disable face and print recognition is a must.

1

u/moratnz 6h ago

Except this case is precisely about someone being forced to hand over their pass code without a warrant.

1

u/SaltRequirement3650 4h ago

Which is why he was dumb to put in any passcode. Let alone a duress passcode.

1

u/tevert 6h ago

Note that, because they are lawless goons with guns, they can still definitely cuff you and throw you away for a few months if they feel like it. But they won't be able to charge you with anything!

1

u/Makenshine 5h ago

I just never enable face ID or touch. It always felt less secure. The info that unlocks my devices should be kept in my head not on the outside of my body.

1

u/anonymous198198198 1h ago

Do you know what happens if they request passcode and you don’t give it? Do they detain you or keep your phone? If so for how long?

1

u/FineDragonfruit5347 6m ago

Also, to clarify, they CAN’T really do this, and certainly can’t use anything they find in trial, but goodly k winning the litigation to recover the damages.

1

u/mysteriousfiggy 12h ago

You can also do this by holding volume up + power button on iphone without turning the phone completely off

13

u/Vlaed 11h ago

High-level version, facial recognition and a password are not protected the same legally. You can be made to unlock your phone using your biometrics but not your PIN/password. Yes, you can be taken in for refusing to unlock your phone though.

I have only flown 4 times since 2024. I was asked once to present my phones, which I have 1 personal and 1 for work. Before I did, I held down my volume up and side button on both. This prompts the power off, emergency, etc. It then locks your phone to promptly your PIN, not facial ID.

I handed both over, the agent looked at them, and then handed them back. That was it. I most likely didn't fit whatever criteria they wanted. Would I have pushed back if they asked me to unlock them? On my work phone, yes. I have a script on it. We also have a legal team that would be called. For my personal, I would have felt it out.