US Government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system

ppastemato about 3 hours ago 21 commentsRead Article on theguardian.com

DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 574 words in the discussion.

Discussion (21 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

bdcravens•about 1 hour ago

"federal authorities had put him on a terrorism watchlist because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City"

Talk about burying the lede

RetroTechie•about 2 hours ago

Sounds like a good reason to use alternatives like GrapheneOS. It doesn't take a big % of users to let the "using it is suspicious by itself" nonsense wear off.

Cider9986•about 2 hours ago

It's already supported by Roblox:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48994716

2 days ago 87 comments

delfinom•about 2 hours ago

Not to worry, but big tech and government are slowly crafting laws that make non-big-tech operating systems illegal in the name of protecting children.

Cider9986•10 minutes ago

Iirc some state made exceptions for Linux from age verification.

On the other hand, Google Play Integrity is one antitrust lawsuit away.

ImJamal•about 2 hours ago

It looks like there are a lot of issues here on the government side, but it also appears like the protestor intentionally gave them a password that, when used, wipes the phone? That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence.

JumpCrisscross•about 2 hours ago

> That seems like a clear example of destruction of evidence

If he was under arrest, sure. The cops claiming this was a routine airport inspection would seem to muddy the waters, at least.

bootlooped•about 2 hours ago

I don't think the crime of destroying evidence / tampering with evidence depends on what your status in custody is. If the police knock on your front door and you start shredding documents, that's still a crime.

Now, could that get tossed about because they denied him access to a lawyer? Maybe, I don't know about that part.

JumpCrisscross•about 1 hour ago

> If the police knock on your front door and you start shredding documents, that's still a crime

Isn’t the relevant bit whether you think you’re doing crimes and/or being investigated?

If I’m shredding while the cops knock on my door because they’re looking for a missing cat, that’s obviously not criminal. (I guess the more-pertinent comparison would be they knock on my door and then I put stuff in the shredder while I check around my home.)

ImJamal•42 minutes ago

Under Georgia law (16-10-94) you do not have to be under arrest.

> A person commits the offense of tampering with evidence when, with the intent to prevent the apprehension or cause the wrongful apprehension of any person or to obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or disguises physical evidence or makes, devises, prepares, or plants false evidence

woodruffw•25 minutes ago

This would be under federal law, not Georgia law I believe. But even assuming it was under Georgia law: it hasn’t been entered into public evidence that the person in question knowingly destroyed anything. It’s entirely possible the phone had nothing of value on it; the prosecution is required to demonstrate that evidence was in fact destroyed or falsified.

kmoser•about 1 hour ago

It's too bad GrapheneOS doesn't support hidden volumes.

Cider9986•9 minutes ago

It can't because it runs on phones which only have SSDs which leave forensic traces. They would like to improve deniability but it must be robust, whatever they implement.

snypher•about 2 hours ago

Why do you think reporters would rather eat a contempt charge vs throwing their sources to the wolves?

kelseyfrog•about 1 hour ago

Technically that means the cops destroyed the evidence. Their investigatory department should be savvy enough to avoid destroying evidence.

ImJamal•about 1 hour ago

That is not how the law works. Under Georgia law (GA Code § 16-2-20) it says

> (a) Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime

>(b) A person is concerned in the commission of a crime only if he: (1) Directly commits the crime; (2) Intentionally causes some other person to commit the crime under such circumstances that the other person is not guilty of any crime either in fact or because of legal incapacity; (3) Intentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime; or (4) Intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime

Seems like this is a clear case to me.

verdverm•about 2 hours ago

You do not have to give them your pin, by law. They can use biometrics to open your device, which is why you should not use biometrics for device unlocking.

GraphenOS has a couple of settings, a distress pin that wipes the device, and a number of failed attempts that will wipe the device. If the person handed over their "pin", they didn't need to

1attice•about 2 hours ago

Quick reminder to my fellows that if you discuss this story here, it will end up immutable and available to law enforcement and, e.g., H1B eligibility deciders.

Dark forest