191–200 of 565 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android phones are multi-user, so if they can do it then Apple should be able to.
And how do you explain your 1TB phone that has 2GB of data, but only 700GB free?
It seems unfortunate that enhanced protection against physically attached devices requires enabling a mode that is much broader, and sounds like it has a noticeable impact on device functionality. I never attach my iPhone to anything that's not a power source. I would totally enable an "enhanced protection for external accessories" mode. But I'm not going to enable a general "Lockdown mode" that Apple tells me means…
GrapheneOS does this by default - only power delivery when locked. Also it's a hardware block, not software. Seems to be completely immune to these USB exploit tools.
Note that it behaves subtly differently to how you described in case it was connected to something before being locked. In that case data access will remain -- even though the phone is now locked -- until the device is disconnected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the US descending more and more into fascism (as this case highlights yet again), I wonder what will happen to these features in the future. Especially now that the tech moguls of silicon valley stopped standing up to Trump and instead started kissing his ass. Tim Cook in particular seems to be the kind of person that rather is on the rich side of history than the right side. What if the administration realizes…
How is it turning into fascism?
This article goes through point by point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm saying what does that have to do with a valid search warrant being executed?
There's a fair bit of dispute about whether this is valid. The active criminalization of journalism is worrisome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does "go to prison for not showing" work when a lot of constitutions have a clause for a suspect not needing to participate in their own conviction / right to remain silent? A detective can have a warrant to search someone's home or car, but that doesn't mean the owner needs to give them the key as far as I know.
It does mean that. You can't be forced to divulge information in your head, as that would be testimonial. But if there are papers, records, or other evidentiary materials that are e.g. locked in a safe you can be compelled to open it with a warrant, and refusal would be contempt.
It's not really that useful for a safe since they aren't _that_ difficult to open and, if you haven't committed a crime, it's probably better to open your safe for them than have them destroy it so you need a new one. For a mathematically impossible to break cipher though, very useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does "go to prison for not showing" work when a lot of constitutions have a clause for a suspect not needing to participate in their own conviction / right to remain silent? A detective can have a warrant to search someone's home or car, but that doesn't mean the owner needs to give them the key as far as I know.
It does mean that. You can't be forced to divulge information in your head, as that would be testimonial. But if there are papers, records, or other evidentiary materials that are e.g. locked in a safe you can be compelled to open it with a warrant, and refusal would be contempt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She has to have set it up before. There is no way to divine a fingerprint any other way. I guess the only other way would be a faulty fingerprint sensor but that should default to a non-entry.
Could be a parallel construction type thing. They already have access but they need to document a legal action by which they could have acquired it so it doesn't get thrown out of court. I think this is pretty unlikely here but it's within the realm of possibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still go to prison for not showing. So until devices have multiple pins for plausible deniability we are still screwed. What’s so hard to make 2-3 pins and each to access different logged in apps and files. If Apple/android was serious about it would implement it, but from my research seems to be someone that it’s against it, as it’s too good. I don’t want to remove my Banking apps when I go travel or in “dangerous”…
Absolutely every aspect of it? What’s so hard about adding a feature that effectively makes a single-user device multi-user? Which needs the ability to have plausible deniability for the existence of those other users? Which means that significant amounts of otherwise usable space needs to be inaccessibly set aside for those others users on every device—to retain plausible deniability—despite an insignificant fractio…
This could even be a developer feature accidentally left enabled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still go to prison for not showing. So until devices have multiple pins for plausible deniability we are still screwed. What’s so hard to make 2-3 pins and each to access different logged in apps and files. If Apple/android was serious about it would implement it, but from my research seems to be someone that it’s against it, as it’s too good. I don’t want to remove my Banking apps when I go travel or in “dangerous”…
Absolutely every aspect of it? What’s so hard about adding a feature that effectively makes a single-user device multi-user? Which needs the ability to have plausible deniability for the existence of those other users? Which means that significant amounts of otherwise usable space needs to be inaccessibly set aside for those others users on every device—to retain plausible deniability—despite an insignificant fractio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does "go to prison for not showing" work when a lot of constitutions have a clause for a suspect not needing to participate in their own conviction / right to remain silent? A detective can have a warrant to search someone's home or car, but that doesn't mean the owner needs to give them the key as far as I know.
It does mean that. You can't be forced to divulge information in your head, as that would be testimonial. But if there are papers, records, or other evidentiary materials that are e.g. locked in a safe you can be compelled to open it with a warrant, and refusal would be contempt.