АНУ-ын Холбооны прокурорууд хилийн шалгалтын үеэр утасныхаа нууц кодыг ашиглан доторх өгөгдлийг бүрмөсөн устгасан хэрэгт Сэмюэл Туникийг буруутган шүүх ажиллагааг эхлүүлжээ.
Атланта хотын оршин суугч Сэмюэл Туник нь 2025 оны нэгдүгээр сарын 24-нд хилийн шалгалтаар орохдоо GrapheneOS үйлдлийн системтэй утасныхаа нууц кодыг албаныханд өгсөн байна. Тус үйлдлийн систем нь хэрэглэгчийн хүсэлтээр төхөөрөмж дэх бүх мэдээллийг автоматаар устгах “дарамт шахалтын үеийн нууц үг” (duress password) гэх функцтэй бөгөөд албаныхан кодыг оруулахад утасны мэдээлэл устгагдаж, төхөөрөмж дахин ачаалжээ.
Хууль зүйн яамнаас Сэмюэл Туникийг төрийн байгууллага эд хөрөнгийг хураан авахыг завдах үед санаатайгаар устгасан эсвэл гэмтээсэн хэмээн холбооны хуулийн дагуу буруутгаж байна. Тус улсын түүхэнд “дарамт шахалтын үеийн нууц үг” ашигласан гэх үндэслэлээр эрүүгийн хэрэг үүсгэсэн анхны тохиолдол энэ байж магадгүй гэж шинжээчид үзэж байна.
Сэмюэл Туникийн өмгөөлөгчид уг нотлох баримтыг хэрэгсэхгүй болгох хүсэлт гаргаж, хилийн албаныхан түүнийг хууль бусаар саатуулж, өмгөөлөгчтэй уулзах эрхийг нь зөрчсөн гэж мэдэгдлээ. Тэдний зүгээс эрх баригчид хүүхдийн садар самууныг хайх нэрийдлээр утсыг нь хураан авсан ч бодит байдал дээр “Cop City” хэмээх байгаль орчныг хамгаалах хөдөлгөөнтэй холбоотой нь мөрдөн шалгах зорилготой байсан гэж үзэж байна.
АНУ-ын засгийн газар хилийн бүсэд нэвтрэх зөвшөөрөл аваагүй хүмүүсийн төхөөрөмжийг шүүхийн зөвшөөрөлгүйгээр шалгах, хураан авах эрхтэй гэж үздэг. Энэхүү хэргийн хүрээнд Атлантагийн холбооны шүүх нотлох баримтыг хэрэгсэхгүй болгох эсэх шийдвэрээ энэ онд багтаан гаргах төлөвтэй байна.
Дэлгэрэнгүйг эх сурвалжаас харах
↓Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
The U.S. Justice Department is prosecuting an American for allegedly providing U.S. border authorities with a passcode that wiped the contents of his phone, according to an indictment and media reports.
This is thought to be the first known case in the United States where federal prosecutors have charged someone for the alleged destruction of data using a so-called “duress” password built into a phone’s software.
According to The Guardian, which covered the story earlier this week following the court’s first hearing on Monday, Atlanta resident Samuel Tunick is fighting the charges. Tunick’s attorneys said that it was unlawful for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to seize his phone as he arrived back in the U.S. last year, and that any evidence — including the alleged wiping of his phone — should be thrown out.
The case centers on a feature included in GrapheneOS, a custom Android operating system that runs in place of the software on most modern Google Pixel devices. Tunick’s attorneys confirmed GrapheneOS was running on his phone.
The software feature allows the device owner to set a passcode that deliberately wipes the contents of that device if entered instead of the user’s unlock passcode.
Tunick’s case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter.
The government’s indictment, which contains a typo (“Untied States Code”), accuses Tunick of allegedly providing a passcode to border agents that caused the phone to “delete the digital contents,” prior to the device being seized.
Tunick’s attorneys filed a motion to suppress the evidence, claiming that the detention and seizure were unlawful. The motion said U.S. border authorities took Tunick into a secondary inspection at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport as he returned from overseas on January 24, 2025, but that he was repeatedly denied access to an attorney and was not informed of his legal rights.
Tunick’s attorneys accused the government of demanding access to his phone under the pretext of searching for child exploitation imagery, but without providing evidence to justify its suspicion. His motion to suppress argued that the government was instead investigating him over his association with a long-running environmental movement called Defend the Atlanta Forest, which opposes the development of a sprawling training campus for law enforcement in Atlanta dubbed “Cop City.”
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. The U.S. government has long claimed it can search and seize people’s devices without a search warrant or court order until they are permitted entry to the United States.
When Tunick provided his passcode and the authorities entered it, “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart.” The authorities seized his phone anyway, before telling him that he was free to go and could enter the United States.
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.
Matthew Dodge, an assistant federal public defender on Tunick’s legal team, told TechCrunch that it was incredibly rare to see the federal statute used in an indictment.
Security experts also said they had not seen charges brought in this way before.
Bill Buddington, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Runa Sandvik, a digital security expert who works to protect at-risk people as the founder of security consultancy firm Granitt, told TechCrunch that they had not seen similar cases involving the use of duress passwords.
“I have not seen this before, though I’ve discussed the potential scenario with activists and journalists over the years,” said Sandvik. “I think this case serves as a reminder that authorities may argue you knowingly destroyed data, so it’s better to not have that data on you when you cross certain borders.”
“With a little planning ahead of time, you can always download the data you need once you get to where you’re going,” said Sandvik.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has guides on how to protect your data and security at the U.S. border, and explaining what rights you have.
The Atlanta federal court overseeing the case is expected to rule on Tunick’s motion to suppress later this year. A Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
