121–130 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite. You need those phones to activate service but you can move that sim into other phones later. Once you have service you can also get data-only sims that openly support all devices.
Can you still recieve sms and normal phone calls? Because last time I tried, it didn’t work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I see no reason why a fingerprint authentication should be forced upon someone anymore than a password unlock would be. In Canada, there is a difference. A fingerprint is something you have. A password is something you know. Police can compel you to use your fingerprint to unlock the phone. They can't compel you to disclose the password.
Canada forces people to unlock their phones, when crossing the border, quite frequently - and have for years. They will make you unlock it, or disallow entry and/or detain you. There's a whole series that shows this. It's Canadian Border Guard, or similar. I see it when I cross the border, which I do with some frequency. I just unlock my phone for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is very true, but I find it very sad that, as much as Apple is pro-privacy, it's very anti-freedom. I'd love to switch to a device as private as an iPhone, but at this point you're just renting the device from them.
Unfortunately in the device world you have to pick one over the other. The more open a device is the less it can protect your privacy. We haven't yet seen a device that can do both.
I mean, tha hardware is not open, so developers can't generally implement any proper secure boot schemes (starting from a trusted bootloader), and can't generally control what goes on in the radio modules. Because there are no devices that have those parts open (or I'm unaware of something I want to buy?), there's no security/privacy possible.
Apple can provide privacy there because they're damn huge and they can purchase or design any hardware they want, fully documented to the last every single logic gate. An average free software developer can't.
As for the userland - I believe there are AOSP derivatives + 3rd party apps that result in a reasonably good privacy and security experience.
I have never seen a company both so technically capable and supportive of user privacy as Apple. It stands completely apart from all of the tech giants of today.
I'll trust Google's engineering prowess and rigor before I trust Apple, who couldn't even bother to verify emails before leaking Apple ID attributes towards that email, and who allowed things to "fappen."
But I'll trust none of them to "guard my privates." Please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lying to a federal agent is a crime. Edit: No seriously. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements . Refusing to unlock your device is one thing. Claiming that you did unlock it but in fact just used a "duress passcode" is a lie and can land you in jail.
This makes me wonder something. I know that while they can't force you to enter your passcode, they can force you to unlock with your fingerprint. I've heard people ask for a feature where you basically have a "duress fingerprint," since fingerprint is already different than password, would using a duress fingerprint be acceptable?
On the other hand, a "duress fingerprint" that locks out TouchID wouldn't be misrepresenting anything. But it wouldn't surprise me if they could still get you in trouble some other way for knowingly locking out the device after it's been confiscated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a great capability I hadn't considered. Your passcode isn't just a 3d composite of your face, but instead could be a 3d composite of your face performing a specific gesture over a short amount of time (wink, kiss, tilt, etc). Would be harder to spoof.
"I'm sorry, Bob. You didn't make a stink face. Would you like to try again?"
I have never seen a company both so technically capable and supportive of user privacy as Apple. It stands completely apart from all of the tech giants of today.
I choose to read this as sarcasm, but the fruit fandom here doesn't seem to think so. I'll trust Google's engineering prowess and rigor before I trust Apple, who couldn't even bother to verify emails before leaking Apple ID attributes towards that email, and who allowed things to "fappen." But I'll trust none of them to "guard my privates." Please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I see no reason why a fingerprint authentication should be forced upon someone anymore than a password unlock would be. In Canada, there is a difference. A fingerprint is something you have. A password is something you know. Police can compel you to use your fingerprint to unlock the phone. They can't compel you to disclose the password.
Canada forces people to unlock their phones, when crossing the border, quite frequently - and have for years. They will make you unlock it, or disallow entry and/or detain you. There's a whole series that shows this. It's Canadian Border Guard, or similar. I see it when I cross the border, which I do with some frequency. I just unlock my phone for them.
What I meant was that inside of Canada, there are situations where the police don't need a search warrant for your phone. You can unlock it with your fingerprint, so it's legally "open" and searchable.
If you have a passphrase, then they need to know your mind in order to unlock it, and they can't force you to disclose something you know.
With it being such a closed platform, what are the odds this is actually true? There's no way to verify that they don't have a skeleton key.
