Hacker News Reader

Comment by DaveSchmindel | Hacker News Reader

That's been my understanding until now as well... the latest on the case against Samuel Tunick has me worried and second guessing that blanket statement though...

https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/2026/08/03/giving-police-a...

View on HN

That case has the specific, very important, wrinkle that he provided a _destructive_ duress code, he could have continued to refuse to provide the unlock code just fine legally. It's the use of the duress code that is likely going to be getting him in trouble and that falls outside of the existing defined protections about being compelled to unlock safes/computers etc containing possible evidence against yourself.

We'll have to see how that case goes but ultimately the reason he's getting in trouble is only tangentially related to his phone being encrypted. It's more correct to think of it like he smashed the phone to pieces (and imagine this definitively destroys the data for the sake of the metaphor) instead of it being about the encryption itself.

He didn't smash the phone to pieces, he gave LE a hammer and they smashed the phone to pieces. It's entirely LE's own fault this happened -- they shouldn't have been trying to get into that phone, and it's their own fault it went wrong.

Though I would expect courts to consider that he knew LE planned to enter the provided PIN, and that the duress PIN would then result in the phone being wiped, and therefore accuse him of doing the wiping anyway.

But I don't think it's this guy's fault at all. LE is the one who asked him under duress, he easily could've feared for his life, and he did no direct harm. It was self-defense at worst.

> He didn't smash the phone to pieces, he gave LE a hammer and they smashed the phone to pieces. It's entirely LE's own fault this happened -- they shouldn't have been trying to get into that phone, and it's their own fault it went wrong.

Setting a booby trap to destroy evidence that then gets destroyed when that trap is triggered is the same as destroying evidence. This is common sense, but also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_(criminal_law)

That's too cute by half for the law, this kind of "I'm not touching you" argument comes up each time and it just doesn't work. The guy intentionally provided the code knowing it would destroy the "evidence"/contents of his phone if they entered it, it's clear what his intent was and the data would not have been destroyed if he did not take that action. The minor separation that he did not enter the code himself is highly unlikely to protect him in this case.

It's been a weakness in destructive duress codes since their inception.

Yeah, if you use it as a way to destroy data that gives them a whole new and powerful attack vector. 18 U.S.C. § 2232 is very broad.

What's more infuriating than laws like that is that there's a class of people completely immune to those laws.

That's completely different. Pleading the 5th and not testifying is completely different from giving false testimony - which is never protected. Even in a trial, if you are asked under oath if you handled the body, you are allowed to say that you invoke your 5th amendment rights not to respond; but you are not allowed to say "no, I didn't" if in fact you did (you can later be accused of perjury in addition to your conviction).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com