pull down to refresh

There's some more discussion where @itsrealfake shared some additional digging on this one at #1331825

fwiw... use a burner if you truly have something to hide. Preventive measures > reactive measures.

reply

The motion said that the border agents claimed they did not need a warrant to search Tunick’s phone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border.

If this is true why is he charged with a crime in the US for wiping his phone?

reply

According to the Guardian article, it was at Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta, so I guess it was before he'd gone through customs. So I guess on US soil but they believe some different version of US law applies there for reasons that make no sense to me.

reply
429 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 24 Jul

US customs is some sort of purgatory where US law applies to you but not the US gov. Haha

reply

Pretty sure that's all of the US, actually.

reply

I didn't realize that was illegal, but this was from the article:

Prosecutors later charged Tunick under a federal statute that makes it unlawful to knowingly destroy or damage property to prevent authorities from seizing it. Tunick has pleaded not guilty.
reply

Some sort of obstruction of justice, I suppose. It seems like the 5th Amendment would apply here. @siggy47, any insights for us?

Either way, depending on what's on the device, you could definitely be better off with this wiping charge.

reply

yea, lesser of two evils in some cases. why these clowns gotta inspect my shit!

reply
74 sats \ 0 replies \ @Fenix 24 Jul

Even in their jurisdiction this is not sustainable allegation

reply
3 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 25 Jul

Hope he wins.

reply

order-following bitches be crying harder;

note that the elite ped0vores do not have their devices searched or seized ever; whereas the ped0vores have media on their mobile devices for enjoyment, the ped0vore bounty hunters likewise have evidence on their electronic devices for reference; gotta know whose heads shud get chopped off and why;

#1532056

reply