this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
980 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59352 readers
6426 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They usually do have a warrant or it was seized lawfully.
This is about keeping them out even when it's lawful.
Lawyer. Not true.
Example: An officer pulls someone over and suspects them of something arrestable. Then says "Do you want me to get your personal belongings from your car?"
Any person agreeing to this allows them to hold your phone as evidence indefinitely in the US now.
That's all lawful.
They can search you and the area when arrested. They can search the car if they have probable cause that evidence will be in the vehicle
I said have a warrant or seized lawfully, not nust have a warrant.
Edit: I didn't even write what I said I said correctly. Corrected it lol.
Seized or not, they can not force you to unlock your phone via pin without a warrant. They can only force you to use biometrics.
Right, but this is about them bypassing you entirely.
They don't need your fingerprint or pass code if they can bypass it themselves. This feature protects you when they've seized it lawfully which can be for many reasons.
Or even if they've seized it unlawfully. Or if it's been stolen by a regular thief, a cybercriminal, the mafia, or a cartel.
I'm not sure how much it would actually help for a regular thief.
This is about protecting it against more sophisticated attacks. But the rest probably have those means if wanted.
It is their job to find evidences, not my resposibility to provide them.
I've never said otherwise.
It's their job to find a way to hack into the phone.
This feature makes that even harder.
Other people answered, but to your point, in some cases THEY CAN compel without a court order.
Biometrics don't conform to certain laws, and it gets even more complicated if you're entering the US through customs. They can practically hold you indefinitely if you don't comply. Whether you have legal representation is sort of an after thought.
The police can engage in rubber-hose cryptanalysis. In many countries, it's legal to keep a suspect in prison indefinitely until they comply with a warrant requiring them to divulge encryption keys. And that's not to mention the countries where they'll do more than keep you in a decently-clean cell with three meals a day to, ahem, encourage you to divulge the password.
That's what you need distress codes for.
Destruction of evidence is a much different crime.
I would suspect it'd no longer be legal to hold them indefinitely and instead at best get the max prison sentence for that crime instead.
A us law website says that's no more than 20y as the absolute max, and getting max would probably be hard if they don't have anything else on you.
You'd have to weigh that against what's on the device.
Also, even better if the distress code nukes the bad content, and then has a real 2nd profile that looks real, which makes it even harder to prove you used a distress code.
In most cases, destroying evidence will result in an adverse inference being drawn against the accused. It means that the court will assume that the evidence was incriminating which is why you destroyed it.