When Privacy Becomes a Crime

The federal prosecution of Samuel Tunick should concern every American, regardless of political beliefs. On January 24, 2025, Tunick was detained at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport while returning to the United States from the Dominican Republic. During a border inspection, federal agents sought access to his Google Pixel smartphone. Prosecutors allege that instead of entering his normal unlock code, Tunick entered a duress passcode that securely erased the phone using a built-in GrapheneOS security feature.

Before anyone assumes that sounds sinister, it's important to understand why duress passcodes exist in the first place.

A duress passcode is not designed to help criminals destroy evidence. It is a security feature created to protect innocent users who are forced to unlock their phones under coercion. Imagine someone being robbed at gunpoint, kidnapped, assaulted by an abusive spouse, held hostage, or forced by a corrupt government official or criminal organization to surrender their phone. Rather than simply unlocking the device and exposing years of personal information, the owner can enter a separate emergency PIN that immediately wipes the phone, protecting sensitive personal data from falling into the wrong hands.

These features were developed because smartphones have become digital vaults. They contain our financial records, medical information, passwords, private conversations, business documents, family photographs, location history, and often access to our bank accounts and online identities. In many ways, a smartphone reveals more about a person than a search of their home ever could.

The government has charged Tunick under a federal law that prohibits destroying property to prevent it from being lawfully seized. But this case raises a much larger question: Should using a legitimate privacy feature on your own device become a federal crime?

Privacy is not evidence of guilt. Millions of law-abiding Americans encrypt their devices, use secure messaging apps, enable two-factor authentication, and install privacy-focused operating systems because they want protection from hackers, identity thieves, stalkers, abusive partners, foreign governments, or unauthorized surveillance. A duress passcode is simply another layer of that protection.

If the government succeeds in arguing that using a built-in security feature is itself criminal, what comes next? Will encrypted phones become suspicious? Will deleting personal information before boarding an international flight be viewed as obstruction? Will citizens eventually be expected to weaken their own digital security simply because the government may someday want access?

Tunick's attorneys argue that federal agents questioned him without a warrant, denied his requests to speak with an attorney, and used the inspection as a pretext for a broader investigation unrelated to routine border screening. Those allegations deserve careful judicial review because constitutional protections should not disappear simply because someone is standing at an international airport.

This case also raises profound Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns. The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment protects citizens from being compelled to incriminate themselves. As our lives become increasingly digital, those constitutional protections should become more important—not less.

None of this means law enforcement should be powerless. When investigators have probable cause, they should pursue lawful warrants and follow constitutional procedures. Our legal system has always tried to balance public safety with individual liberty. That balance should not disappear simply because technology has changed.

Samuel Tunick may ultimately be found guilty or innocent of the charges against him. That decision belongs to the courts. But every American should be concerned if exercising legitimate digital privacy tools becomes grounds for criminal prosecution. The purpose of a duress passcode is to protect innocent people from coercion and abuse—not to make privacy itself a crime. Once the government begins treating ordinary security features as suspicious, every citizen's digital freedom is at risk.

Sources:

Boing Boing. “Border Agents Entered His Password. His Phone Erased Itself.” Boing Boing, 25 July 2026, .

CourtListener. United States v. Tunick, No. 1:25-cr-00499, . Accessed 26 July 2026. 

Lomas, Natasha. “The US Is Charging an American Citizen for Wiping His Phone at the Border.” The Verge, 24 July 2026, 

SC Media. “Man Charged for Using Phone's ‘Duress’ Password to Wipe Data.” SC Media, 25 July 2026, .