132
Surveillance State. NSW Police to seize mobile phone data without a warrant (michaelwest.com.au)
submitted 3 weeks ago* by to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

So this is super sucky and likely to spread. Alternate source. Key points, at roadside stops etc, people are required to give access to their phones using Cellebrite Israeli phone crackers, likely to download a complete image. No limits placed on data retention, no noted protection against Cellebrite having unfettered access.

Has it gotten to the point where we should be striving to keep only a minimum viable configuration on phones and have some sort of searchable backup on a home server, or even an out of country VPS? Anyone got any suggestions on how to achieve this?

Having GrapheneOS doesn't help much when it's a ten year felony to refuse access. AFAIK it's still a warrant to get access to your home computer, for now.

This may get shot down in the courts, but that won't help much if it happens to you in the meantime, this stuff is forever. The right to digital privacy has the price of eternal vigilence, but they just keep raising the bar on how onerous that vigilence is.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

If an authoritarian regime doesn't like you, it doesn't matter what you say. You can "be careful" all you like, and they will find other spurious reasons to abuse you (such as accent, parentage, skin color, sexual orientation, etc.). It might change who they go after first, but operating within their guidelines is not some guarantee of safety.

No, your best bet is to be loud, proud, and to join with others and tear down the system that enables this kind of abuse. We do not need to accept this as inevitable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child)

    I get where you're coming from, and that it's no guarantee of safety, but less obvious resistance like malicious compliance, strategic incompetence, 'accidents', and 'everyday resistance' can be a very effective strategy.

    As you yourself say, it may change who they go after first, allowing you to fly under the radar longer and fight longer while undetected. Then again, letting people know they're not alone, is also important. So being loud also has its merits.

    Of course, I would never be too concrete about all this on the internet, for obvious reasons. I'm also not stopping anyone who wants to take a more brazen route. In some cases, when some campaigns go viral, it has also been effective.

    Put simply, there are advantages to appearing unthreatening, stupid, and boring.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Put simply, there are advantages to appearing unthreatening, stupid, and boring.

    I agree, but anyone with the same notion should ask themselves: are you appearing to be all those things, or are you just trying to convince yourself that you're more than that? Because unless you're actually doing something useful in secret, I submit that you're actually just unthreatening, stupid, and/or boring.

    And to be clear, I'm using a royal "you," not directing that at any one person.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    Agreed.

    Of course, being openly critical online without actually doing much else, is also not necessarily particularly productive.

    For example, those who openly oppose the Russian government, are often managed or controlled. Whether knowingly or unwittingly, they help further the ruling regime's political aims. Even abroad, supposed enemies of the Kremlin happily advocate the annexation of neighbouring countries or espouse Russian cultural superiority. Their loud pronouncements to the contrary mean nothing.

    A lot of of people protesting loudly are doing so to appear as if (or convince themselves) they're doing something.

    For example:

    • going on social media and calling Vladimir Putin names, is far less effective than donating to the Ukrainian army and suggesting others do so too.

    • complaining about the erosion of freedoms and privacy on a social medium owned by a literal fascist, is far less effective than sharing alternatives to google, inviting them to the fediverse, helping people switch to linux, sharing DIY tips on how to use a buzzsaw or angle grinder, etc.

    • complaining about capitalism online or watching anti-capitalist tiktoks interspersed with ads, is arguably far less damaging to oligarchy than giving people tips on how to use a VPN or torrent a linux distro.

    In any case, as I mentioned in my earlier comment, I was simply referring to my being careful how I say things online, without necessarily censoring what I say. I think it's fair to say we rely far too much on corporate owned and/or surveilled media. Far better to join a local group or organise in your community. There it's far safer to be open than on a public and surveilled internet forum

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent