103
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? .
The risk absolutely pales in comparison to the privacy benefits (and the risk of abuses by law enforcement, that were already seeing bear out).
In the USA you supposedly have a right against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment.
I don't see how being asked to provide your private unlock code or password so that the pigs can trawl your phone just fishing for anything incriminating (or just add something incriminating) would be anything other than "self-incrimination". You should have a right to tell them to fuck off, and this has never been tested by the supreme court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Combinations_and_passwords
However, the conservative Roberts SC has already indicated their pleasure in weakening this protection - there's a good chance they'd weaken it more, so long as it's for a conservative cause.
This country is just insane, china is literally a communist dictatorship and they have a fraction of people in prison that we do, per capita the disparity is even crazier.
I just will never understand how we can pretend to be a free country and we literally have more citizens imprisoned than any other country, by far. By every objective measure we are the policiest police state to have ever existed. You're just a much freer human being in any other country in the world except maybe el salvador i think is the only country with a higher imprisonment rate.