173
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? .
Well it didn’t wipe itself, which is a big and likely legally important distinction. He wiped it.
Both arguments make sense, it being protecting privacy and it destroying evidence, so it will be fascinating to see what the ruling is and the reasoning behind it.
So i need a service that wipes my phone automatically when law enforcement tries to break in lol
Yes, like iPhones etc already have. They don’t wipe it, but they make it completely locked and unrecoverable.
Yes. Like the 10/attempts phones have ie had not sure if it still exists. Then you never sis anything.
The argument could be made that they wiped it, given they entered the password he gave them. I know at least with regular police they can't force you to give them your password without a warrant, which is the whole don't use biometrics/face id argument, but I don't know if that holds true for border patrol or whatever department these ones belong to.
If he told them the code to enter then for all that matters, he wiped it.