551–560 of 565 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no, thats why i was asking, as i was not fully sure what you meant
what im saying is that i dont want to type in a long ass password all the time and biometrics have "legal problems" as stated above a pin or allowing touchid to automatically be disabled after a period of time or computer movement ("please enter password to login") would be greatly appreciated as it stands now, i have biometrics disabled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It took 4 years. What is your point?
That you don't want to be in jail for 4 years for not providing the key? I personally don't want to say "oh but my liberty", in a jail cell. Whatever floats your boat though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's relatively well know that the NSO Group / Pegasus is what governments use to access locked phones.
The nso group is on the entity list, so no western govt is using it. And it was never used to gain access to devices that they already had physical control over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on if parallel reconstruction can be used to provide deniability.
Even a parallel construction has limited uses, since you can't use the same excuse every time. The NSA probably doesn't trust the FBI to come up with something plausible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really wish Apple would offer a pin option on macos. For this reason, precisely. Either that, or an option to automatically disable touchid after a short amount of time (eg an hour or if my phone doesn't connect to the laptop)
I often see people use a "pin" on Windows and I never got it. What is the purpose of a pin makes it different from a password?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if the government is not above breaking the law and using rubber hose decryption. The current administration’s justice department has been caught lying left and right
Plausible deniability still works. You enter your duress code and your system boots to a secondary partition with Facebook and Snapchat. No such OS exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyer here - let me try to help. This is an area that seems to confuse a lot of people because of what the 5th amendment says and doesn't say. The reason they can't force you to unlock your phone is not because your phone contains evidence of stuff. They have a warrant to get that evidence. You do not have a right to prevent them from getting it just because it's yours. Most evidence is self-incriminating in this wa…
> excluding being forced to disclose the contents of your mind for a second This seems like a key point though. What's the legal distinction between compelling someone to unlock a phone using information in their mind, and compelling them to speak what's in their mind? If I had incriminating info on my phone at one point, and I memorized it and then deleted it from the phone, now that information is legally protected…
You can actually eliminate phones entirely from your second example.
If you had incriminating info on paper at one point, and memorized it and deleted it, it would now be legally protected from being accessed.
One reason society is okay with this is because most people can't memorize vast troves of information.
Otherwise, the view here would probably change.
These rules exist to serve various goals as best they can. If they no longer serve those goals well, because of technology or whatever else, the rules will change. Being completely logical and self-consistent is not one of these goals, nor would it make sense as a primary goal for rules meant to try to balance societal vs personal rights.
This is, for various reasons, often frustrating to the average HN'er :)
Remember...they can make you use touch id...they can't make you give them your password. https://x.com/runasand/status/2017659019251343763?s=20 The FBI was able to access Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Signal messages because she used Signal on her work laptop. The laptop accepted Touch ID for authentication, meaning the agents were allowed to require her to unlock it.
I don't get why I can be forced to use my biometrics to unlock but I cannot be forced to give a pin. Doesn't jive in my brain.
Imagine it's 1926 and none of this tech is an issue yet. The police can fingerprint and photograph you at intake, they can't compel speech or violate the 5th.
That's exactly what's being applied here. It's not that the police can do more or less than they could in 1926, it's that your biometrics can do more than they did in 1926. They're just fingerprinting you / photographing you .. using your phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even a parallel construction has limited uses, since you can't use the same excuse every time. The NSA probably doesn't trust the FBI to come up with something plausible.
That depends on how apathetic people are. Most of the time they will accept a completely garbage story and you can create infinitely many of those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> excluding being forced to disclose the contents of your mind for a second This seems like a key point though. What's the legal distinction between compelling someone to unlock a phone using information in their mind, and compelling them to speak what's in their mind? If I had incriminating info on my phone at one point, and I memorized it and then deleted it from the phone, now that information is legally protected…
There are practical differences - phones store a lot more information that you will keep in your mind at once. You can actually eliminate phones entirely from your second example. If you had incriminating info on paper at one point, and memorized it and deleted it, it would now be legally protected from being accessed. One reason society is okay with this is because most people can't memorize vast troves of informati…
With that in mind...
> Being completely logical and self-consistent is not one of these goals, nor would it make sense as a primary goal for rules meant to try to balance societal vs personal rights.
Do we really know that it wouldn't make sense, or is that just an assumption because the existing system doesn't do it? (Alternatively, perhaps a consistent logical theory simply hasn't been identified and articulated.)
This reminds me of how "sovereign citizens" argue their position. Their logic isn't consistent, it’s built around rhetorical escape hatches. They'll claim that their vehicle is registered with the federal DOT, which is a commercial registration, but then they'll also claim to be a non-commercial "traveler". They're optimizing for coverage of objections, not global consistency.
What you seem to be telling me is that the prevailing legal system is the same, just perhaps with more of the obvious rough edges smoothed out over the centuries.
brb, going to try encoding the USC in Rocq.