digitalescapetools

164 readers

162 users here now

A hub for discovering and sharing privacy-respecting, open-source, and self-hosted digital tools that improve productivity, creativity, and digital independence.

founded 3 months ago

MODERATORS

Digitalescapetools@sh.itjust.works

154

If a phone wipes itself under duress, is that protecting privacy or destroying evidence? (lemmy.nz)

submitted 1 day ago by Digitalescapetools@sh.itjust.works to c/digitalescapetooks@sh.itjust.works

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A recent case involving GrapheneOS's duress feature has sparked a debate about the balance between privacy and law enforcement. If someone is forced to unlock their phone, should they have the right to protect their personal data with an emergency wipe feature?

At the same time, critics argue that the same feature could be used by criminals to destroy evidence during an investigation, making it harder for law enforcement to do their job.

Where do you stand? Should operating systems include features like this, or do the risks outweigh the privacy benefits? .

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 52 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's scare tactics. This particular case will get thrown out because you simply can't have "evidence" with being a part of an official investigation.

So they'll make a big stink about it. The poor bastard will be dragged through the legal system to great fanfare. The case will be tossed SILENTLY...with or without a counter suit and settlement for the victim.

No one will report on the settlement or the case being tossed because the purpose was never to prosecute, it's to normalize the idea in people's minds that the authorities can do whatever they want, so don't fight.

[–] BlueberryWalnut@sopuli.xyz 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I heard it wasn't even the guy that wiped it - the cops allegedly tried to type in a code and hit the duress code. Idk if the dude was verbally saying the code or what but still

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 8 hours ago

The boarder agents didn't guess the duress code. He told them the duress code, and they entered it. This was only after the agents refused his request for a layer three times and admitted they did not have a search warrant.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I mean that isn't true. They could have investigated someone know they have something know it's there and now want it. Maybe not this guy but it is possible.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 hours ago

if that were the case they would have had an actual warrant.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

It'll get dropped, but the poor bastard they're persecuting won't get a settlement. The government will have immunity.