DHS Claimed It Searched GrapheneOS Phone Wiper for Child Abuse Material. It Lied
cdrnsf
44 points
9 comments
October 20, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 242.5ms across 10,084 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- An Interview with the Man Charged for Allegedly Wiping His GrapheneOS Phone tomatopepper · 23 pts · July 28, 2026 · 70% similar
- US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search eecc · 473 pts · July 26, 2026 · 68% similar
- GrapheneOS Defends Data-Wiping Function That Blocked US Border Search pseudolus · 155 pts · July 28, 2026 · 67% similar
- GrapheneOS recommended for domestic abuse victims aussieguy1234 · 62 pts · July 17, 2026 · 59% similar
- A Journalist had his mobile phone seized. Did using GrapheneOS protect his data? rzk · 11 pts · July 23, 2026 · 59% similar
Discussion Highlights (4 comments)
cmuguythrow
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.
hex4def6
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.
iAMkenough
What a waste of tax dollars
4d4m
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.