81–90 of 565 posts
[flagged]
Takeaway is to not enable biometric unlock if you are concerned about your data being accessed by authorities.
Can a hacked phone (such as one that was not in Lockdown Mode at one point in time) persist in a hacked state? Obviously, the theoretical answer is yes, given an advanced-enough exploit. But let's say Apple is unaware of a specific rootkit. If each OS update is a wave, is the installed exploit more like a rowboat or a frigate? Will it likely be defeated accidentally by minor OS changes, or is it likely to endure? Thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So in america, they can force you to use a biometric but they can't compel you to reveal your password? I mean, i agree with you, but its a really weird line in the sand to draw
Pretty much. Something you are: can be legally compelled Something you have: can be legally compelled Something you know: cannot be legally compelled
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The better rational counter argument is that "privacy is a human right enshrined in international law". Society has zero business knowing anyone's private communications, whether or not that person is a terrorist. There is nothing natural about being unable to talk to people privately without your speech being recorded for millions of people to view forever. Moreover, giving society absolute access to private communi…
Who decided absolute privacy in all circumstances is a fundamental human right? I don’t think any government endorses that position. I don’t know what international law you speak of. You’re basing your argument on an axiom that I don’t think everyone would agree with. This sounds like a Tim Cook aphorism (right before he hands the iCloud keys to the CCP) — not anything with any real legal basis.
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy [...]
which has later been affirmed to include digital privacy.
> I don’t think any government endorses that position.
Many governments are in flagrant violation of even their own privacy laws, but that does not make those laws any less real.
The UN's notion of human rights were an "axiom" founded from learned experience and the horrors that were committed in the years preceding their formation. Discarding them is to discard the wisdom we gained from the loss of tens of millions of people. And while you claim that society has a vested interest in violating a terrorist's privacy, you can only come to that conclusion if you engage in short-term thinking that terminates at exactly the step you violate the terrorist's rights and do not consider the consequences of anything beyond that; if you do consider the consequences it becomes clear that society collectively has a bigger vested interest in protecting the existence of human rights.
I trust 404 media more than most sources, but I can’t help but reflexively read every story prominently showcasing the FBI’s supposed surveillance gaps as attempted watering hole attacks. The NSA almost certainly has hardware backdoors in Apple silicon, as disclosed a couple of years ago by the excellent researchers at Kaspersky. That being the case, Lockdown Mode is not even in play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some platforms will side-load anything the telecom carrier sends. It is naive to assume iOS can be trusted much more than Android. =3
Let's assume for the sake of argument you're making a valid point. What does that have to do with my question?
A 3rd party locked down system can't protect people from what the law should. =3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So in america, they can force you to use a biometric but they can't compel you to reveal your password? I don't get it, touching finger is easy, but how do you compel someone to reveal their password?
The UK simply puts you in jail for not doing so.
Samsung phones have the Secure Folder which can have a different, more secure password and be encrypted when the phone is on.