Not providing device access under duress is now a crime

[lionheart78]

You guys have probably heard of that traveller dude in Atlanta who was stopped by federal security who then demanded the passcode to his Graphene OS phone, so he then provided the duress passcode, they entered it and it wiped his phone using built-in data wipe feature.

Now they are prosecuting him with charges of destroying property during an investigation (even though they are the ones who destroyed it, but that's not the point).

My concern is with hardware wallets. What's stopping them from pressing charges if they try to force us to provide hardware wallet PINs under duress and we refuse?

I recently came across a reel where it said that cops or authorities have the right to confiscate our gadgets, but to skim through it, they need a legal paper that says so.  I think cops can press charges, but it is up to us whether to give them the pins, which we should not.  After all charges are only charges until it became a verdict.  Unless proven, the person stays innocent.

[Churchillvv]

Now we are entering a new phase where having hardware wallet is going to become a threat to the security and government agencies, for the case above if the system was transparent enough someone’s personal finance shouldn’t be tempered with Nk the first place the dude is commonly right for deleting through duress pin but however it’s not going to be considered an excuse for the federal agents. I’d like forcing someone to hand over their finance to you and only kidnappers and robbers does that, so does that mean the feds are now robbers in this case. I just hope he wins this case.

[Rubuchi]

I recently came across a reel where it said that cops or authorities have the right to confiscate our gadgets, but to skim through it, they need a legal paper that says so.  I think cops can press charges, but it is up to us whether to give them the pins, which we should not.  After all charges are only charges until it became a verdict.  Unless proven, the person stays innocent.

sometimes we also don’t know about our rights that’s why it gets violated all the time. The authorities are using guns to intimidate people who do not know their rights and cannot fight for it. Why will somebody collect your phone and begin to ransack it in the name of looking for evidence when they don’t have the right to do so. You can’t treat me like a criminal. I am not praying for that to happen to me but when I have an encounter with them, I won’t hand over my properties to them and even when I do, I cannot allow you to ransack my phone for no reason or without any explanation whatsoever.

[X-ray]

As long as the authorities are operating within a just law, they should not be resisted.. You can't even hide the total number of bitcoins you own from them in this case.

We should obey as long as they are operating within a just law but how about the several cases that have happened where police leaked seed phrase accidentally ? like the case where South korean tax service raided someone and accidentally leaked seed phrases and the nevada police incident as well.

Not saying seed phrase can get leaked easily but it's always possible. Duress mode is important at times like these.

[Publictalk792]

Here the legal situation is truly unclear in the US. Fifth Amendment prevents self blame, but there has been some confusion about whether forcing a person to enter a PIN is considered evidence. Some courts say yes it is protected, others say no if the existence of the wallet is already known. The Supreme Court has yet to clear this up.

Graphene OS case is crazy because the force wipe feature did precisely what it was supposed to, the guy did not destroy anything, security system did. Extreme attempt prosecutors are taking in going after him for that is one that most lawyers believe will not hold up on appeal.

In the case of hardware wallets, passphrase over your PIN is the best useful protection. You can give a real PIN to unlock a fake wallet that contains little money. Believable excuse without lying, the PIN you gave is real, but it is not for the wallet they are looking for.

[TokenTikas]

A hardware wallet is designed to protect private keys, but whether someone can be legally compelled to reveal a PIN or passphrase depends on the laws of the jurisdiction and the circumstances of the investigation.

Yes.. Actually security of the hardware wallet and legal matters are two separate things. A wallet's (PIN or Passphrase) is used to protect the assets but whether someone can be legally required to reveal it in any situation depends on the law of the relevant country and the circumstances, which is normal matter.

So, having strong security features alone does not solve every problem. Especially before travelling with a wallet, it is important to consider the possible risks and the legal situation. In my opinion, besides security, knowing your own rights and the local laws is equally important.

[EarnOnVictor]

You guys have probably heard of that traveller dude in Atlanta who was stopped by federal security who then demanded the passcode to his Graphene OS phone, so he then provided the duress passcode, they entered it and it wiped his phone using built-in data wipe feature.

"Sharp guy," this one is good! I wonder if we still have privacy in this world with the excessive nature of the law enforcements who do not know their boundaries. Unless that guy is under investigation prior to the incident, I support his action 100%. Shame on those federal security agents.

My concern is with hardware wallets. What's stopping them from pressing charges if they try to force us to provide hardware wallet PINs under duress and we refuse?

This people can do and undo, so rights aside. Instead of us even deliberating on this, let ensure that our crypto activities become our serious business. "What's worth doing is worth doing well." Hardware wallets are not for everyday transactions, so it should be kept where they can't suspect, trace or reach, while we use normal wallets for regular activities.

[YellowSwap]

You guys have probably heard of that traveller dude in Atlanta who was stopped by federal security who then demanded the passcode to his Graphene OS phone, so he then provided the duress passcode, they entered it and it wiped his phone using built-in data wipe feature.

Now they are prosecuting him with charges of destroying property during an investigation (even though they are the ones who destroyed it, but that's not the point).

My concern is with hardware wallets. What's stopping them from pressing charges if they try to force us to provide hardware wallet PINs under duress and we refuse?

That's a well build OS there, the Graphene OS should be an example to all hardware wallet companies about what they are missing or leaving out of hardware wallet security, that's the ability of self destruction.

The only hardware wallet that has this build on their devices is Keystone 3, try a wrong password or passwords like three times it will wipe itself, try to bypass using any tools the hardware wallet will automatically stop working and erase every data available.

If your hardware wallet isn't build this way, do not move around with your hardware wallet in the public, I'd do the same thing that this person has done but all thanks to Graphene OS ability..

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

You guys have probably heard of that traveller dude in Atlanta who was stopped by federal security who then demanded the passcode to his Graphene OS phone, so he then provided the duress passcode, they entered it and it wiped his phone using built-in data wipe feature.

Now they are prosecuting him with charges of destroying property during an investigation (even though they are the ones who destroyed it, but that's not the point).

They claim he destroyed evidence meanwhile they did that themselves, how can they force him to give them his phone pin when probably there was no warrant to search his phone and he has not been convicted of any crime.

My concern is with hardware wallets. What's stopping them from pressing charges if they try to force us to provide hardware wallet PINs under duress and we refuse?

This highly depends on the country and how laws relating to matters like this are being handled, it's only when matters like this have legal backings that they can press charges, however refusing to unlock our hardware wallet is not even meant to lead to pressing of charges when the person has not been convicted as a criminal or was not caught committing an offense.

There was a case in 2021 where German prosecutors confiscated $60 million worth of bitcoin from a fraudster and the fraudster refused to give them the pin and so they couldn't access the money, he was sent to jail.


The hardware wallet with this duress pin feature that I have come across is COLDCARD but I guess it's not a top choice for Bitcoiners because it's not fully open source wallet like Trezor.

[Saltysugar99]

Now we are entering a new phase where having hardware wallet is going to become a threat to the security and government agencies, for the case above if the system was transparent enough someone’s personal finance shouldn’t be tempered with Nk the first place the dude is commonly right for deleting through duress pin but however it’s not going to be considered an excuse for the federal agents. I’d like forcing someone to hand over their finance to you and only kidnappers and robbers does that, so does that mean the feds are now robbers in this case. I just hope he wins this case.

If an agent of a government law enforcement agency forcibly asks for someone's wallet password or forces them to open it for the convenience of their investigation, then they cannot be called a robber or a snatcher directly, they may have abused their legal powers. Their actions may be wrong or unconstitutional. But it may not be right to call them robbers. If someone's personal wallet has to be opened, then they can open it accordingly by seeking permission from the court for investigation. A person has a sufficient right to protect his privacy. In that case, if someone does not want to tell the passkey of his wallet to protect the privacy of his wallet, then it will not be considered evidence destruction. In this case, what kind of crime has been committed, how much involvement does the person have in this crime, and if the assets in his wallet or the transaction of his wallet related of crime.  if the person does not want to give access to the wallet for that purpose, then it can be called a crime. However, any person certainly has the right to keep his personal property information secret.

[Nothingtodo]

You guys have probably heard of that traveller dude in Atlanta who was stopped by federal security who then demanded the passcode to his Graphene OS phone, so he then provided the duress passcode, they entered it and it wiped his phone using built-in data wipe feature.

Now they are prosecuting him with charges of destroying property during an investigation (even though they are the ones who destroyed it, but that's not the point).

My concern is with hardware wallets. What's stopping them from pressing charges if they try to force us to provide hardware wallet PINs under duress and we refuse?

In my country Bangladesh, there was also a similar incident where a man was forcibly asked to give the password of his laptop by two RAB (RAPID ACTION BATTALION) members and when the man initially refused to give the password, he was beaten up a lot. Later, when the man could not bear the torture and gave the password of the laptop, if the Electrum wallet was installed on the laptop, the RAB members forcibly accessed the password of that wallet. In this case, the RAB members stole three Bitcoins from the investor. Although Bitcoin is not legal in Bangladesh, the investor could not take any written complaint or legal action. So, what action can the investor take in the context of my country? Although the investor later filed a legal case, no disciplinary action was taken against the RAB members and they did not return the three Bitcoins to him.

[snowpega]

Graphene OS is a privacy version of Android. You can flash it onto a phone like Google Pixel, and it's like using Linux on a computer.

I checked/research about this when I read the OP. And thanks for making it a bit more clear to me.

About the traveller: I honestly don't remember, and I don't really care anyway. But it seems to be trending on X right now, so you can check there if you want.

Will check it surely if I get some spare time. I use X, but very less maybe this is why I'm still not aware of this incident.

$5 wrench attacks just got upgraded to $0 legal threats.

Whoops, another tension. Scammers are not leaving any single space free for those who struggle and make their portfolio big over time. They are updating the way of scamming crypto users over time. We don't have much space left to safe our self from crypto scammers. A single mistake means you have done/wasted your wallet.

Anyways, thanks, mate, for conveying this message to me.

[Dogedegen]

If I'm not mistaken though no longer open source Coldcard has a similar feature
It has a feature where using a pin would open another wallet and also one that can crash it
And restarting would only be possible through the seedphrase.

That is much better and appropriate for wallets than a feature that does a complete wipe, and a good decoy wallet has a better chance of you being able to continue your journey. People are simply not good with backups, and if you look how the Graphene feature works it will delete everything even if you accidentally enter the PIN once in a screen that requires your PIN. So imagine you put a very simple duress PIN and one day you space out while being on the passcode screen, and you enter this one and everything on your phone is gone.   Advanced users can create their own advanced features and make adaptations, features that don't have accidental complete loss for average users are not good. Backups help, but many don't have good backups or have never even verified that the seed phrase that they backed up actually works.

Now we are entering a new phase where having hardware wallet is going to become a threat to the security and government agencies, for the case above if the system was transparent enough someone’s personal finance shouldn’t be tempered with Nk the first place the dude is commonly right for deleting through duress pin but however it’s not going to be considered an excuse for the federal agents. I’d like forcing someone to hand over their finance to you and only kidnappers and robbers does that, so does that mean the feds are now robbers in this case. I just hope he wins this case.

If an agent of a government law enforcement agency forcibly asks for someone's wallet password or forces them to open it for the convenience of their investigation, then they cannot be called a robber or a snatcher directly, they may have abused their legal powers. Their actions may be wrong or unconstitutional. But it may not be right to call them robbers. If someone's personal wallet has to be opened, then they can open it accordingly by seeking permission from the court for investigation

You are correct, for some reason people want to use the wrong words for many things in this forum instead of being precise. Even if this was an illegal action by the border police which has not been confirmed yet, it would still not be a robbery.

However, any person certainly has the right to keep his personal property information secret.

This is really not true at the border, you need to check how the law works. They have the power to search everything that you posses, and just because the information you posses is hidden inside a device that does not make it a special case. I am not arguing that it should be this way, but I am describing correctly how it is. Take for example a Bitcoin wallet that is stored on a piece of paper and you go to the border. They have a right to search you if they want to and they will find this paper. If you instead don't use a paper but hide the wallet inside of your phone, do you now think they don't have the same right to search you to find it? That would be an easy loophole and way to get into the country with all kinds of dangerous content, it would not make sense. You can refuse depending on the country, but if there is reasonable suspicion then your rights are less in what you can do and what your options are than if you are just a stranger.