© Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times
One of the unfortunate quirks of the American system is that you can't lie to the government, but the government can lie to you. Samuel Tunick found himself on the receiving end of this setup last year at Atlanta International Airport. When agents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked for his phone password, he allegedly gave them a self-destruct code that wiped his data. Tunick now faces five years in prison for destroying evidence.
It turns out that the feds were lying to Tunick the entire time. A new court filing, first reported by 404 Media, shows that the DHS had sent out an order to seize Tunick's phone over his involvement in environmentalist protests in Atlanta. When he landed at the airport, however, agents told Tunick that they were looking for "kiddie porn" and he would be allowed to leave with his phone if he cooperated. They also repeatedly denied him access to his lawyer when he asked.
"There can be no real debate that if law enforcement had acted similarly elsewhere in Atlanta, their actions would be unconstitutional. But the government says it was entitled to act this way because Mr. Tunick was returning from an international vacation" in the Dominican Republic, his lawyers wrote in the filing, which includes internal DHS communications and excerpts from his interrogation video.
U.S. law recognizes a "border exception" to Fourth Amendment privacy rights, allowing federal agents to search incoming travelers for contraband. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) claims that this exemption also allows them to hold travelers for questioning and search their electronic data. Tunick's case reveals just how widely the agency stretches this loophole.
A few hours before Tunick landed, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent Travis Mcghie emailed the CBP station in Atlanta with his photo and information, stating that he is under investigation for "suspected terrorist activities." (Tunick is involved in Save the Atlanta Forest, also known as Stop Cop City, a protest movement against a local police training center.) The email asked CBP to "conduct a 100% baggage exam, retain all electronics and collect passcodes," stating that the HSI will be at the airport to conduct an interrogation.
Pulled into the secondary screening room, Tunick "almost immediately" told CBP officers that "I don't really want to speak without a lawyer any more," according to the filing, which cites the interrogation tape. He would ask for a lawyer multiple times.
The agents asked Tunick if he had "kiddie porn" on his phone and stated that "because you're refusing to talk, we have the authority to go through your phone to see what we're looking for." One of them, Latoya Castro, told Tunick that "either you can give us your password so that we can go through it no problem, or you can refuse to do that, unfortunately, we will have to seize your phone."
Both of those statements were a lie, of course. The HSI's email had asked CBP to take Tunick's phone, whether or not he cooperated.
The lie about child porn may not only have been meant to intimidate Tunick. While there are contradictory lower court rulings about the border search exemption, some courts have ruled that the CBP can only search electronics for "digital contraband," or files that are themselves illegal. A search for child sex abuse material would be on stronger legal ground than a search for mere evidence of other crimes.
Tunick was using GrapheneOS, a secure phone system that allows users to set both a real password and a "duress password" that wipes out all data when entered. The interrogation tape shows his phone appearing to reset after he gave the officers a passcode. HSI agent Nathan Burnham and FBI agent Andrea Coble then entered the room.
"You are not under arrest. Once these gentlemen are done with you, pursuant to your entry into the country, you're free to leave," Burnham said, referring to the CBP officers.
Tunick's lawyers argue that the judge should throw out the phone password Tunick provided and everything that resulted from entering it as an "involuntary" response made under "unlawful interrogation," because the CBP agents did not read Tunick his Fifth Amendment rights and ignored his multiple requests to consult with his lawyer before answering their questions.
The CBP claims that secondary screening at the border doesn't count as a criminal investigation, so detainees don't have the same rights as criminal suspects. "Since the international arrivals inspection is an administrative function, CBP policy and federal regs do not permit the presence of lawyers during secondary examinations," a spokesman told Reason earlier this year.
But Tunick's lawyers insist that his experience was "far outside" a normal border crossing: He was accused of a serious crime to his face, faced an investigation for a different serious crime he didn't know about, and clearly could not leave the situation until he gave information to government agents.
"I hope people understand that the charges against me are meant to intimidate people against protecting their data and their privacy, and the government hopes to set a precedent that no one has the right to privacy," Tunick told 404 Media.
Defend the Atlanta Forest, the movement that Tunick is involved with, has been a major nuisance for authorities in Georgia. Protesters attacked and burned construction equipment throughout 2022, and police shot a protester in 2023 under unclear circumstances, claiming that they were fired at during a raid.
The Trump administration has brought down the federal government against the movement. In June 2026, the Department of Justice brought federal charges against two alleged arsonists, citing National Security Presidential Memo 7, which directs the feds to go after left-wing domestic terrorism.
But beyond the email line about "suspected terrorist activities," there is no indication of what specific crimes the feds suspected Tunick of, or why they suspected him. And the whole setup of the interrogation was designed to hide those answers. In fact, instead of charging Tunick under typical obstruction or evidence-destruction laws, federal prosecutors chose a rarely-used statute that doesn't require them to disclose what the underlying investigation was about.
"Many times the government wants to highlight what it was trying to investigate because that ups the stakes on what the defendant was doing," former prosecutor Daniel Richman told The New York Times. "This is a case where I think they're trying to avoid exactly that by focusing only on the destruction, and not what the investigation was about."
The post Homeland Security Lied About Child Porn To Search Activist's Phone appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Your phone buzzes. Another political text. This time, it's an urgent fundraising appeal claiming a campaign desperately needs your help before midnight. You delete it, block the number and get on with your day. Then tomorrow, another one arrives from a completely different number. Sound familiar? I've been there, and frankly, I'm fed up with it.
On The CyberGuy Report podcast, I sat down with George Weiner, founder of PACspam.org and head of the digital agency Whole Whale. George got so frustrated with the relentless political texts that he created a free tool to help people figure out who's sending them. Our conversation revealed why blocking numbers often gets you nowhere, how political fundraising has become a lucrative business and what you can do to fight back.
FIVE DATA BROKER OPT-OUT MYTHS THAT LEAVE RETIREES EXPOSED
Join our upcoming CyberGuy LIVE class: 5 Ways to Travel Smarter and Save Money
In this free live online class, Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson will share five practical ways to protect your trip and your wallet this holiday travel season. You’ll learn how to secure your phone and personal information, find better travel deals, avoid common scams, save money on bookings and use technology to make your travels easier and less stressful. No technical experience is needed.
Join us Saturday, October 31, at 11 AM ET / 8 AM PT. Register free now at CyberGuyLive.com.
You would think blocking a phone number would send a pretty clear message. Apparently, political texting operations don't always take the hint. I asked George why texts from the same political groups kept showing up after I blocked their numbers. "Well, you block one number and you've only blocked one number," Weiner explained.
He introduced me to a technique called snowshoeing, which allows an organization to spread its messages across multiple phone numbers. A single campaign or political action committee (PAC) may use many different numbers to reach the same people. So, even after you block one sender, another number can deliver the next fundraising appeal.
For George, this frustration became personal. As a father of three, he worries about missing an important call from his children's school. "That could be the school, right? That could be an emergency," he explained. Instead, his phone often interrupts him with another fundraising appeal. He tried replying STOP, reporting messages and registering for the National Do Not Call Registry. Yet the interruptions continued. "I have done it all and I still get these messages," Weiner said. That raises a question I've been asking for years. How did these organizations get our phone numbers in the first place?
You might assume a campaign needs your permission before adding your number to its texting list. Unfortunately, political outreach operates under rules that leave plenty of room for unsolicited messages. Weiner explained how phone numbers can circulate through political donor and voter databases. Campaigns may also combine registration information with commercially available data to identify potential supporters. Furthermore, organizations can purchase or exchange contact lists, allowing your information to reach groups you've never heard of.
Voter registration records vary by state, and phone numbers aren't necessarily public in those records. However, organizations can match voter information with other databases to build detailed contact profiles. Political donations can create additional exposure. As we've previously reported, federal political contribution records can reveal personal information, including your name and address when disclosure requirements apply. Once your number enters this fundraising network, tracking every organization that holds it becomes extremely difficult.
Here's something from my conversation with George that really caught my attention. There's a substantial amount of money flowing through the political texting business, and the people sending these messages have financial reasons to keep doing it. Weiner pointed to approximately $65 million spent on political texting services during the 2024 election cycle, based on his analysis of Federal Election Commission records. He also believes 2026 spending could exceed that amount, although a final election-cycle total isn't yet available.
George also highlighted how much money individual political messaging vendors receive. According to PACspam's analysis of FEC records covering December 2008 through May 2026, reported payments totaled $17 million for Switchboard, $14.4 million for Mothership Strategies and $10.6 million for Message Digital. These figures span multiple election cycles and reflect reported payments to political messaging vendors, which may include services beyond texting.
"There is money to be made," Weiner told me. He explained that fundraising operations can keep paying to send messages as long as the donations they generate justify the expense. Even a small percentage of people responding with money can make another round of texts financially worthwhile. Some appeals claim a donation deadline is approaching or suggest a candidate faces an immediate financial emergency. Others use provocative headlines designed to make you react before thinking.
Weiner also raised concerns about how much money some PACs actually direct toward candidates. He pointed to investigations suggesting that certain organizations spend heavily on fundraising while relatively little reaches the candidate being promoted. PACs operate under different rules, however, and not all are established to make direct candidate contributions. That's why it's important to investigate where your donation will go. And this problem crosses political lines. Weiner stressed that organizations associated with different political parties use these tactics. The repeated pleas for money, he believes, can end up alienating the very voters campaigns want to reach. That brings us to an interesting way to investigate who's behind the messages.
George created PACspam.org to give people more information about the organizations filling their phones with unsolicited political messages. "Our phones don't have to live like this," Weiner said while explaining why he built the tool. The free service analyzes political fundraising texts and attempts to identify the committee behind them. It can examine fundraising links and use public campaign finance information to help trace the organization responsible. PACspam also helps document complaints and tracks repeat offenders using information connected to FEC-registered committees. Its public leaderboard focuses on texting behavior rather than political affiliation. Meanwhile, its FEC Texting-Spend Explorer lets visitors investigate campaign spending on texting services. In some cases, PACspam can also help identify the texting technology provider that delivered the message. That last part is particularly interesting because those technology companies may serve multiple political organizations.
Rather than contacting only the committee asking for money, Weiner suggests contacting the texting platform when it can be identified. "They do answer," Weiner told me when I asked whether these companies respond to complaints. He described receiving a response from the legal department of a texting provider. That company explained how he could request placement on its own do-not-contact list. The approach could be more useful than blocking one phone number because it targets a provider that may handle messages for multiple political organizations. Still, one company's removal list won't necessarily apply to competing platforms. Of course, results can vary. An organization may use another platform, and some messages don't contain enough information to identify the sender. Still, contacting a texting provider offers another avenue to pursue.
DEM FUNDRAISING GIANT ACTBLUE ACCUSED OF FRAUDULENT DONATION 'COVER-UP' IN EXPLOSIVE REPORT
Getting started requires only a political text you've received. Here's what to do.
PACspam can prepare complaint information and help document unwanted political messages, but it doesn't automatically send those complaints on your behalf. It also cannot guarantee that your number will disappear from political texting lists. I also asked George an important privacy question. What happens to the information people submit? "We're not collecting your number. I just want that message," he said. According to Weiner, you don't need an account to use PACspam. Whole Whale also says uploaded screenshots are processed and discarded, while personal messages aren't displayed publicly. Those are the service's stated privacy practices, so I still recommend removing identifying details before submitting anything.
Here's where things get frustrating. The Federal Communications Commission treats political texts differently depending on how they're sent. Political messages sent through an automatic telephone dialing system generally require prior express consent before reaching your cellphone. However, messages sent manually through peer-to-peer texting systems can fall outside those restrictions. That helps explain why so many campaign texts can reach people who never specifically requested them.
The National Do Not Call Registry generally doesn't cover political outreach either. So, registering your number may reduce some telemarketing calls without stopping political fundraising appeals. The FCC also says political campaigns should honor opt-out requests when recipients reply STOP. For robotexts covered by federal consent rules, revocation requests must generally be honored within 10 business days. However, an opt-out from one sender won't necessarily remove your number from other political organizations' databases.
You may not be able to eliminate every political text, but several steps can reduce the interruptions and help protect your information.
If you receive a message from a legitimate political campaign or organization, replying STOP can unsubscribe you from that sender's messages. However, be selective. If the text looks suspicious or contains an unfamiliar fundraising link, avoid responding. Scammers sometimes impersonate political organizations, and engaging with suspicious messages may confirm that your number is active.
Your smartphone already has tools that can help move unwanted messages out of your main inbox. Here's where to find them.
On iPhone running iOS 27:
Unknown senders can move into a separate folder, reducing interruptions. If needed, tap Allow Notifications to choose which categories of unknown messages can still alert you. Availability varies by region.
On Google Pixel or Samsung Galaxy using Google Messages:
Google Messages can flag suspicious texts and move some of them into the Spam & blocked folder. Menu options may vary by device and app version. Remember to review your filtered messages occasionally so important texts don't get overlooked.
FCC ROBOCALL CRACKDOWN COULD CHANGE PHONE PRIVACY
Blocking individual numbers can reduce messages from persistent senders, even though other numbers may still get through.
On an iPhone, open the unwanted conversation, tap the sender's icon, select Info and choose Block Contact. On an iPhone, reporting a message as spam doesn't automatically block the sender. You need to block the contact separately if you want messages from that number stopped.
On Google Messages, touch and hold the unwanted conversation, then tap Block. You can also select Report spam before confirming.
For additional guidance, see our guide to blocking phone numbers and texts.
You can forward unwanted political texts to 7726, which spells SPAM on a telephone keypad. This alerts your wireless carrier and can help its spam detection efforts. For suspected violations of federal calling or texting rules, you can also submit a complaint through the FCC Consumer Complaint Center. If the text appears to be a scam, report it to the Federal Trade Commission at reportfraud.ftc.gov/. Keep a screenshot of the suspicious message if you may need it for your report.
One of George's strongest recommendations involves political donations. If you want to support a candidate, find that candidate's official website yourself rather than following a link in an unsolicited text. During our interview, George warned that donating through unfamiliar political fundraising texts can encourage additional solicitations. He described how a successful donation might lead organizations to think, "we got one, let's send twice as many messages." His recommendation was straightforward: Give through the candidate's official website instead of an unsolicited fundraising link. That helps you verify who is receiving your money. However, even donating directly can lead to additional campaign messages, so review the site's privacy disclosures and contact preferences.
Additionally, consider limiting how widely your phone number appears online. Data brokers can collect and resell personal information, and removing your details from covered sites may reduce future exposure. Check out my top picks for data removal services and get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web by visiting CyberGuy.com.
Keep in mind that commercial data removal services cannot erase legally required public campaign finance records. They also can't guarantee removal from every political organization's contact database.
What struck me most about my conversation with George is how much money is being made from messages that so many of us desperately want to stop. We block numbers and ask to be removed, yet the texts keep coming. And the organizations making money from this system have little incentive to change it. I appreciate that George decided to do something about it. His PACspam tool offers a way to investigate who's behind these messages and push back through official complaint channels. I'd love to see political organizations become more accountable for how they use our personal information. After all, supporting a candidate shouldn't mean giving every fundraising operation unlimited access to your phone. Want to hear exactly how George is fighting back? Listen to my full interview with George Weiner on The CyberGuy Report podcast. We dig deeper into the political texting business, the companies behind it and what you can do when blocking numbers fails. And if you're ready to reduce even more unwanted messages, head to CyberGuyLive.com for my free Sick of Spam? class replay. You'll get practical advice for reducing robocalls, unwanted texts and junk email, along with a free spam-stopping checklist.
Should political campaigns have to get your permission before sending fundraising texts, and should the companies profiting from those messages face consequences when you repeatedly ask them to stop? Let us know by writing to us at CyberGuy.com.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Newsletter
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
Login