Just wow. This guy is great! Read his statement if you haven't.

The lack of concrete prior suspicion makes a massive difference under EU law.
In the U.S. case involving Samuel Tunick, federal prosecutors relied on the Border Search Exception under the U.S. Fourth Amendment. This doctrine gives U.S. customs agents broad authority to conduct warrantless searches of devices at entry ports without needing reasonable suspicion. The charge about destroying property to prevent a lawful seizure (18 U.S.C. Â 2232(a)) hinges on the governmentâ(TM)s claim that the border search itself was legally valid from the start, even without prior suspicion.

In contrast, if an EU citizen were in the same position (entering an EU country with no individualized suspicion), the outcome would likely be completely different.

1. Border Authorities Lack Initial Authority
Under European Union and national legal frameworks (such as the Schengen Borders Code and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights):
  * EU Citizens Have Right of Entry: An EU citizen returning to their home state or entering another Schengen state cannot be denied entry for refusing to cooperate with an arbitrary device search.
  * No Blanket Digital Search Power: Unlike the U.S. CBP, border officers in EU member states do not have statutory authority to demand passcodes during routine, random, or suspicionless border control.
  * The Threshold for a Legal Demand: For police or customs to legally compel access to a device, they generally must escalate the situation to a formal criminal investigation, which requires articulable, reasonable suspicion or a judicial warrant depending on national law.
Without concrete suspicion, demanding the password in the first place would likely be deemed an unlawful order violating Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life).

2. Can You Destroy "Evidence" If No Crime Is Suspicion-Linked?
In the U.S. case, prosecutors argue that any property border agents attempt to seize under their routine authority counts as property subject to seizure.
In EU legal systems, criminal obstruction and destruction of evidence charges (e.g., under French, German, or Swedish criminal codes) strictly depend on the lawfulness of the initial police action:
  * Unlawful Demand = No Obstruction: If an officer demands your passcode without statutory grounds or suspicion, that demand is unlawful. Wiping a device in response to an unlawful demand rarely sustains an obstruction charge under European criminal law, as there was no lawful seizure in progress.
  * "Evidence" Requires an Underlying Crime: In most Continental civil law systems, you cannot be convicted of "destroying evidence" unless the state proves that actual evidence of a specific, defined criminal offense was being destroyed during a valid judicial inquiry. If agents were merely conducting a random "fishing expedition" with zero suspicion, the wiped data cannot automatically be presumed to be criminal evidence.

3. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Strict Protections
European courts place a much higher constitutional burden on privacy and self-incrimination than U.S. courts:
  * Proportionality Principle: Under Article 8 of the ECHR, any interference with digital privacy by state authorities must be necessary in a democratic society and proportionate. Digging through a citizen's entire digital life at a border without individual suspicion fails the proportionality test.
  * Right Against Self-Incrimination (Article 6 ECHR): While national laws (like in France) penalize refusing to give passcodes during a formal criminal investigation, European case law consistently protects citizens from being forced to actively assist law enforcement when the state has zero underlying probable cause.

The Bottom Line: If border agents in the EU try to search your phone at random without concrete suspicion, you are under no legal obligation to provide a password. If you triggered a duress wipe under those exact circumstances, an EU court would almost certainly rule that the border agents acted outside their authority, invalidating any attempt to charge you with obstruction or evidence destruction.

This is the best comment in this whole thread so far. This is about having skin in the game. Same as the Hammurabi law in ancient Babylon about builders being responsible for the houses they built. If the house collapsed on its owner the builder would be executed.

This is a very American take on the situation. I think most Americans kind of agree with you. The fact is that this idea is bad on a societal, and I would argue also business, level. The vast majority of employees are not in a position to simply quit. That creates a hurdle that makes this shit possible to pull off. And that in turn influences other companies to follow suit, and then suddenly you have a downward spiral. This kind of shit should be regulated away.

Many good comments here from people who see through this kind of narcissistic authoritarianism, but I do so miss the sharp wit and intelligence of people like Christopher Hitchens and David Graeber to deftly and forcefully prick the balloons of these goons. The premature deaths of these two greats to cancer was a devastating blow to our civilizational health. I fear for our future.

GDPR is actually great. I didn't like it when I heard about it in the tech media years ago but since then I've read it and worked with it and it is actually a really good law for EU citizens. I would argue even good for all the world's citizens (see this story for instance).

The main problem with GDPR is only one thing; sloppy implementation but EU member states. It is the local authorities for each EU member state that has jurisdiction and some of them just don't care about the law at all (looking at Ireland and a few others), so tech companies can shop around for the most lenient jurisdiction. Needles to say, Facebook is not compliant based on very clear and straight reading of the law.

Yes, the Sonys have great battery life nowadays. In fact I would argue that they offer the best Android phones these days. But for some mysterious reason U.S. operators are effectively blocking them from the market. When was the last time you saw a high-end Sony at a Verizon or AT&T stand?

This explains the whole conspiracy:
https://youtu.be/Qr2bSL5VQgM

Thank you Dr. Strangelove!

Gary Oldman shows how it's done:
https://youtu.be/1Pb1Voc85ac

I think you are wrong about this. I do think people actually want something like circles from Google+. Google+ failed for other reasons, mainly the fact that everyone is on Facebook and before they get to G+ things will be very quiet there.
 
You need to get past the first hurdle of getting people onto the new social media platform. Then you can improve it.
 
The Facebook lists have failed because it is such a pain to use. Instead people simply don't post stuff other than very banal and general "for-everyone" posts.

This topic and no one mentions Stuart Hameroff or Roger Penrose...

Google it my friends, these guys have a much more fascinating and mathematically rigorous theory than these guys in post seem to have, including a much more convincing definition of what consciousness is.

As a European living in a country with a fairly well working public health system (Sweden), and a tech background, I am amazed that Slashdot and other tech media is behind the curve on this story. Why is NYTimes and other mainstream media the ones running with this and finding the background etc? Damn common sense tech people in the U.S.! Get on top of this to fix it!

General..? General Ripper? :-)