Daily Tech Briefing
AI 科技速览
每天 5 分钟内学习 AI。获取最新的人工智能新闻,理解其重要性,并学习如何将其应用于您的工作。
The Verge AI · 2026/7/28 19:35:00

Is it illegal to trick the US government into wiping your phone during a questionably legal search?
AI 中文解读
核心亮点:一位旅行者在边境被要求搜查手机时,疑似使用“紧急密码”一键清空数据,这究竟是合法的自我保护还是妨碍执法,美国法律至今没给个准话。
通俗解读:简单说,就是有个人过海关时,执法人员想查他手机里有没有违法内容,但他觉得对方其实是借机翻他通讯录,想查他跟抗议活动有没有关联。他先是不愿意配合,后来被迫给了密码,结果手机一输密码就重启清空了。检方认为他用了手机系统里的“紧急密码”功能,故意销毁证据。但这个功能本来是给用户遭遇危险时保命用的,现在用在跟政府周旋上,法律上到底算不算违法,连法院自己都没统一意见。
实际影响:这事儿跟每个经常出国或坐飞机的人都有关。在美国机场和边境,执法部门至今可以无证搜查你的手机,而你的权利到底有多大,法庭都没说清楚。这意味着你手机里的隐私随时可能被翻个底朝天,而如果你想保护自己,比如用紧急密码功能,又可能被指控妨碍司法。这个灰色地带让普通旅行者非常被动,尤其是有意见表达活跃的人,更容易成为被针对的目标。
ReportCloseReportPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ReportPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyTechCloseTechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All TechIs it illegal to trick the US government into wiping your phone during a questionably legal search?The case of a traveler who allegedly entered a ‘duress password’ to wipe his phone raises a legal question with no easy answers.The case of a traveler who allegedly entered a ‘duress password’ to wipe his phone raises a legal question with no easy answers.by Gaby Del ValleCloseGaby Del VallePolicy ReporterPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Gaby Del ValleJul 28, 2026, 7:35 PM UTCLinkShareGiftCath Virginia / The Verge | Photo from Getty ImagesGaby Del ValleCloseGaby Del VallePosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Gaby Del Valle is a policy reporter at The Verge covering surveillance, the Department of Homeland Security, and the tech-right.A Georgia man was charged with a felony for allegedly wiping his phone while being questioned by Customs and Border Protection. Samuel Tunick had something in common with others who have had their devices searched at airports: He was an activist.Unlike others who have had their phones seized with no explanation, Tunick was told that CBP needed to search his device to determine whether it contained child sexual abuse material, according to court filings. But Tunick’s attorneys argue that the search “was a pretext for a fishing expedition” into his connections with the Stop Cop City protests in Atlanta, in which dozens of people were charged under state RICO laws, which were later dismissed. A few protesters are still facing domestic terrorism and arson cases.According to a motion to suppress evidence filed in March, Tunick didn’t consent to a search and repeatedly asked to speak to his attorney, but CBP officers told him they didn’t need a warrant to search his phone. Tunick ultimately gave the agents the password to his phone, but when they entered it, “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart,” court records say. Prosecutors allege that Tunick used the GrapheneOS “duress password” to wipe his phone, therefore deleting evidence.Travelers’ devices have come under increased scrutiny since Donald Trump’s return to office — and the courts don’t agree on the legality of these warrantless searches. As a result, travelers have little clarity about how their rights apply at airports and other ports of entry. This gray area has allowed the Department of Homeland Security to target people perceived to be criticizing the president or the policies of his administration.The confusion comes from a patchwork of federal rulings. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in United States v. Payne that law enforcement can forcibly unlock a person’s device with their fingerprint, facial recognition, or other biometric markers without running afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. But people can’t be forced to provide or enter their passcode, since it’s a form of “testimonial” evidence — information that requires a person to reveal their thoughts.Those rulings, however, weren’t issued with airports in mind, and CBP claims that the Constitution doesn’t apply at ports of entry. Judicial opinion is mixed on that, too. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit — which oversees federal courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia — recently ruled that border agents don’t need a warrant to manually search travelers’ phones. (More advanced forensic searches, however, do require a warrant.) A sep
分享
阅读原文 ↗