this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2026
581 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
86646 readers
3283 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While I am not entirely disagreeing, I have to a bit for anyone that can't bring themselves to say it (all sides should be heard).
I may have misread but I don't think he typed the PIN, as far as I understood they had already taken the phone and were insisting he give them the PIN without any access to a lawyer. Not only did he not wipe it, he only gave them the 'I'm in duress' PIN because he felt he was, if I'm on the jury it's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't think the difference between him physically triggering the wipe and him giving them the code that triggered the wipe would have much effect from a legal point of view. In both cases he deliberately took an action he knew would lead to the destruction of the data. I think his defense's approach of challenging the legality of the stop is probably much safer.
I suspect that the prosecution would like to set precedent that you can't claim to be under duress when a lawful authority is performing a search, so the defence staying away from that area is probably a good idea.