172
If a phone wipes itself under duress, is that protecting privacy or destroying evidence?
(sh.itjust.works)
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? .
For me, it's privacy.
But, two things are true: a. they shouldn’t be compelled to unlock their phone, even with a warrant. Like, unlock it yourself, you lazy, cowardly fascist and b. customs officials have legally been given the authority to confiscate and go through your shit whether or not we agree or like it.
It's a strained legal analogy to the pre-digital world. A hundred years ago, cops were able to seize a key to a keylocked vault as seizing property, but they couldn't force you to tell them the combination to a combolocked vault as that would violate fifth amedment right from self-incrimination. I agree in the modern digital era that doesn't make any sense, but originally that's how the distinction was made.