Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australians who won't unlock their phones could face ten years in jail

nakedsecurity.sophos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 167 posts

Re: Australians who won't unlock their phones could face ten years in jail

#81

Post by kazinator »

jpindar wrote: post #63
kazinator wrote: post #46

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.

I'd pay extra for Android apps that have an option to force me to enter a password EVERY SINGLE TIME. Or at least provide a way to log out. There are a few that do, but not many.

Doesn't help if you're asked for the password, or else face prison.

Re: Australians who won't unlock their phones could face ten years in jail

#82

Post by caconym_ »

cryptonector wrote: post #69
squarefoot wrote: post #55

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…

LEO are not stupid. If you are using tech with this feature then they'll ask for both passwords.

If it's impossible to prove that you've set up the second password, they can't reasonably demand that you provide it if you deny that it exists.

They could unreasonably demand a working second password and incarcerate/torture you until you either provide one or die, but that's the next level.

Re: Australians who won't unlock their phones could face ten years in jail

#83

Post by remoteorbust »

ShorsHammer wrote: post #53
kodablah wrote: post #6

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…

> 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

Holy shit. Maybe I'll stop complaining about the US plastering the names of the accused all over if this is the alternative.

Re: Australians who won't unlock their phones could face ten years in jail

#84

Post by NSAID »

jpindar wrote: post #63
kazinator wrote: post #46

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.

I'd pay extra for Android apps that have an option to force me to enter a password EVERY SINGLE TIME. Or at least provide a way to log out. There are a few that do, but not many.

OnePlus includes a nice, simple Android setting to require your security PIN/figerprint/etc for any app.

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-use-the-oneplus-...

Re: Australians who won't unlock their phones could face ten years in jail

#85

Post by refurb »

kulahan wrote: post #59
refurb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the court would never figure that one out and charge with destruction of evidence!

"Why did you destroy your phone?" "I was angry at losing a game of Pocket Tanks and I have anger management issues"

Court’s have never seen an excuse like that before. They’ll never figure it out!

Re: Australians who won't unlock their phones could face ten years in jail

#86

Post by logfromblammo »

marnett wrote: post #43
abraham_lincoln wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dump it in a bottle of Gatorade or coconut water.

will the electrolytes aid in the destruction?

It's what electronics crave!

Yes, the conductivity of electrolytes in solution will tend to short out conductive pathways in the short term, and contribute to corrosion of exposed metals later on.

Re: Australians who won't unlock their phones could face ten years in jail

#87

Post by crooked-v »

cryptonector wrote: post #74
ransom1538 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US: Life sentence. If a judge orders you to unlock your laptop/phone and you don't -- it could be a life sentence. IMHO, they go around the constitution with "Contempt of court". https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-indef...

Contempt of court is not a life sentence. It ends the moment the defendant complies. Whereas a sentence for a "10 years in jail for not revealing password" charge would not be vacated when you decide to reveal the password.

What if the defendant has genuinely forgotten the password?

Re: Australians who won't unlock their phones could face ten years in jail

#88

Post by mirimir »

remoteorbust wrote: post #83
ShorsHammer wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Holy shit. Maybe I'll stop complaining about the US…

Indeed, that reminds me of the former Soviet Union :(

Re: Australians who won't unlock their phones could face ten years in jail

#89

Post by crooked-v »

grosjona wrote: post #9

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…

> If you did nothing wrong

Everyone has done something wrong, often to the point of theoretically being felonies.

https://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-fe...

Re: Australians who won't unlock their phones could face ten years in jail

#90

Post by mirimir »

peeters wrote: post #68
ransom1538 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US: Life sentence. If a judge orders you to unlock your laptop/phone and you don't -- it could be a life sentence. IMHO, they go around the constitution with "Contempt of court". https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-indef...

Granted my source for this is The Newsroom , but IIRC contempt of court is a tool that can only be used coercively, and not punitively. In other words, if you refuse to give your password, you could be detained indefinitely for contempt. But if you forget your password, you should be released immediately. Obviously that's open to interpretation and abuse, I'm just saying contempt would only be correctly applied here…

Well, that ex cop in Philadelphia claims that he forgot his macOS FDE password, but he's still in jail.
Post reply on HN