• IllNess@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The government is a bunch of clowns. What gives them the right to tell him what he can or can’t do with his own personal device?

    • cadekat@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      To be clear I don’t agree with this statement, but the steelman counterargument would be something like: if the president of the United States were to destroy evidence of a crime, shouldn’t that also be a crime?

      • mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Have to be accused of a crime first for this to apply. The victim here was purely the target of extra customs search due to his support of a politically unfavored cause

      • thejml@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        He has, and as far as I know he hasn’t been held accountable, so I guess this guy’s fine, right?

  • CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Story has already changed. Originally it was him giving border agents the kill code which they entered.

  • GardenGeek@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If this goes through it sets a precedent for the government declaring someone a criminal for being in a political organisation simply unfavorable to them. He couldn’t destroy evidence if he wasn’t a criminal could be the take-home-message between the lines they intend to propagate.