41–50 of 173 posts
No one likes when I say this but it's really past time to stop doing anything interesting on your phone. Delete all your apps, set it as minimally as possible. Leave it home when you go for walks, and power it off when you go driving or to the store, or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>in the US and UK ??? Of all the issues with the US justice system, being compelled to disclose passwords isn't one of them. It is an issue for UK, though.
> Of all the issues with the US justice system, being compelled to disclose passwords isn't one of them. This is not totally true. It is also a US issue: CBP has been asking for passwords (or to unlock the device) for phones and computers for more than a year now. Last year, multiple people got turned around because they disagreed with US policies and political views that differ from those of the US's current preside…
so they were not in US technically?
It would be nice if phones had a feature where you can define more than one pin, but only one is for your actual phone contents - the other ones leave you to a completely harmless but otherwise indistinguishable looking smartphone interface that contains no or only completely bogus data.
Feature request: Make it default behavior on phones that you can have multiple passwords, connected to different profiles. With no way to determine how many profiles a phone have. I'm sure there's some people here working on mobile operating systems, might be worth considering?
"This profile doesn't have anything on it. Give us the password for the real profile." Or even worse, you did give them the real password, but because your phone supports the feature and your profile is kind of barren, they don't believe you. Now you are in a very bad lose-lose situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>in the US and UK ??? Of all the issues with the US justice system, being compelled to disclose passwords isn't one of them. It is an issue for UK, though.
You have never crossed the border into the Great US of A then
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you misrepresenting about UK law? Yes, it can be a criminal offence. But the maximum tariff for this under RIPA 2000 is five years. If it’s not about nation security or CSAM, it’s two. (Incidentally, the USA is a real outlier in this topic)
Are we damning the UK with faint praise now? I'm not even sure how much practical difference there is between 5 and indefinite in practice, 5 years is a long time. I imagine it is pretty life-destroying. Especially for the crime of having something on your phone that you want to keep private. > If it’s not about nation security or CSAM, it’s two. I am sure we all get what you mean, but there is a comic interpretation…
It would be nice if phones had a feature where you can define more than one pin, but only one is for your actual phone contents - the other ones leave you to a completely harmless but otherwise indistinguishable looking smartphone interface that contains no or only completely bogus data.
It would be nice if I didn't get beaten with a hose in a vain attempt to prove that I unlocked the "real" one.
No one likes when I say this but it's really past time to stop doing anything interesting on your phone. Delete all your apps, set it as minimally as possible. Leave it home when you go for walks, and power it off when you go driving or to the store, or whatever.
For many people, their phone is their primary, if not only, computing and communications device.
Wow, what a free society! In the UK if you refuse to unlock your device you can be imprisoned indefinitely! In HK it's just one year!
The police must obtain appropriate permission from a judge to obtain a s.49 RIPA notice. Before a judge grants the notice, they must be satisfied that: The key to the protected information is in the possession of the person given notice. Disclosure is necessary in the interest of national security, in preventing or detecting crime or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK. Disclosure is proportionate. I…
I'm sure China could find some judges to rule in the name of national security if it would give everyone warm fuzzies.
Judicial checks and balances only function when they're independent of the executive and parliament