the claim they are making is that the user inputted a duress pin at the port, i was under the assumption that they actually need to have evidence that something was there in order to claim destruction of evidence, I'll be curious to see where that case goes. It sounds like it was a routine search with no objective.
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
49 points (100.0% liked)
Pulse of Truth
1806 readers
77 users here now
Cyber Security news and links to cyber security stories that could make you go hmmm. The content is exactly as it is consumed through RSS feeds and wont be edited (except for the occasional encoding errors).
This community is automagically fed by an instance of Dittybopper.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hmm. May have to investigate that wipe pin script for a friend.
What law is this breaking?
they are claiming the man is in violation of title 18 section 2232 for inputting what seems to be a duress pin that initiated a wipe on the device when they tried to seize it.
said section does not talk about reasoning for searches though, it uses the terms "lawful authority" which in my eyes indicates that the search as a whole was lawful in the first place. It happend at a port authority though and those generally have weaker protections for citizen rights.
Obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence or something like that I'd imagine. Realistically "He got in the way of us charging him with something before we could prove anything".
Yeah well I charge the CBP with being complete and total fuckwits because apparently we can just charge anybody with any old bullshit now. I've got a feeling my charges have a better shot at sticking.
Oliver North was charged for shredding files related to Iran contra... Guns 4 cocaine