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? .
What investigation? What evidence were they looking for?
I saw somewhere that there was a claim that he had CSAM which was the initial reason for them to stop him (I believe this was mentioned on the Philip DeFranco show). If true, fuck that guy, but if that was just a claim they made to justify targeting a journalist who spoke out against them, then fully on his side here.
Note that CSAM is almost always the excuse governments use to go after personal privacy. For a recent example, the chat control bills in Europe.