154
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? .
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.
It'll get dropped, but the poor bastard they're persecuting won't get a settlement. The government will have immunity.
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
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.