• deweydecibel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The problem there would be if they have told you to unlock the device and you do something to further lock it down, and they can prove that you did that (like there’s some big letters on the lock screen that say “lockdown initiated” or something), that can be considered obstruction.

    To picture it another way, imagine you had the one key to your vault, they order you to unlock it, and you swallow the key.

    It’s kind of in the same way that you can destroy evidence at any time until an investigation has started or you have a reasonable belief that one is about to start. At that point, destroying the evidence would get you in trouble.

    • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Depends a bit on your threat model I suppose. Journalist protecting a source? Probably helpful. Getting mugged? Helpful for preventing ID theft, but potentially increased risk of physical harm. Political dissident covering up regionally unprotected speech? Obstruction charge may be less harmful than the alternative. Wall Street trader shredding insider trading documents? Obstruction charge may be worse.

      This is a gross oversimplification but shows how it could be helpful even if it isn’t ideal in every situation.