51–60 of 167 posts
Has anyone created a mobile OS that has a feature where if a certain password is entered on the unlock screen that it boots up a dummy desktop while silently encrypting or erasing the phone in the background?
Has anyone created a mobile OS that has a feature where if a certain password is entered on the unlock screen that it boots up a dummy desktop while silently encrypting or erasing the phone in the background?
It still seems like a nice idea, but it doesn't really give you plausible deniability.
Also concerning is what they are doing towards companies (pardon the tangent): > It covers [...] device vendors [...] as long as they have "a nexus to Australia" > But what if the suspect stores the keys themselves? In that case, the government would pull out the big guns with a second kind of order called a technical capability notice. It forces communications providers to build new capabilities that would help the…
Another very concerning law is about "fixated persons", which was bought in with big budgets and huge teams of detectives solely dedicated to going after lone wolf terrorists, so far the only person charged is a former mining executive who was a respected lawyer and Head of Compliance at one of Australia's biggest gas companies (One of the largest gas exporters in the world.)
She turned whistleblower on some corrupt deals and environmental coverups involving certain fracking leases and the government. After contacting the Mining Minister about it over the space of a few months, instead of investigating, the Minister referred her to the police, she was then deemed a "fixated person", which involved incarceration without charge, being taken to a mental institution and forcibly injected with anti-psychotic drugs for months. Eventually a judge decided she could go home. All media coverage of it is banned in Australia until the trial is finished, which has been postponed at every hearing for over a year now, time heals all wounds I guess.
It's naive to think that those in power wouldn't abuse such laws. I'm all for giving police the powers they need and perhaps even more as long as there is transparent oversight and it's targeted, but the complete opposite is happening in many places on Earth right now. Monsters flourish in the darkness.
I think it's fine. If you did nothing wrong then you have nothing to lose by unlocking your phone. So if you don't unlock your phone, it's an admission of guilt. People are way too paranoid. Nobody cares about what you do with your phone. Sometimes I feel like the upper classes of society (especially hypocrites who have money and a reputation to protect) are projecting their fears on all other classes. Then like fool…
This is provably not true. In fact, you need to come up with evidence proving that there is NOTHING to lose by unlocking your phone.
Also concerning is what they are doing towards companies (pardon the tangent): > It covers [...] device vendors [...] as long as they have "a nexus to Australia" > But what if the suspect stores the keys themselves? In that case, the government would pull out the big guns with a second kind of order called a technical capability notice. It forces communications providers to build new capabilities that would help the…
The article mentions both child abusers and terrorists yet the laws will rarely be used for that. Mandatory metadata retention was also bought in for the same reasons and has barely appeared as evidence in any subsequent cases, despite >300,000 warrantless metadata requests last year, overseen by a handful of public servants behind closed doors, in a country of 25 million people. Another very concerning law is about…
Plausible deniability. The system should allow two (or more) passwords, one unlocks only the important stuff and one unlocks much less dangerous stuff while destroying any evidence of the first, including the multiple passwords protection layer. To add some credibility, the less dangerous data should contain something one could get in trouble for but not enough to have his life destroyed. As an example, if after bein…
Seems like the only logical solution is to carry a hammer to destroy your phone if necessary. If the heat hasn't told you they want your phone, there's nothing legally stopping you from destroying your own property if you see them coming...
Yeah, the court would never figure that one out and charge with destruction of evidence!
"I was angry at losing a game of Pocket Tanks and I have anger management issues"
Don't keep anything sensitive on your phone, encrypted or otherwise. Keep it on some storage medium whose very existence is secret. They can't accuse you of refusing to unlock something whose whereabouts are unknown and, indeed, whose very existence is only alleged.