3 ms·

From a glance at your profile, you hardly seem to be a person a government would be interested in (maybe you're a drug king pin in your off hours, don't tell me

by roel_v 10y ago

From a glance at your profile, you hardly seem to be a person a government would be interested in (maybe you're a drug king pin in your off hours, don't tell me if you are). What is your threat profile? If you loose your phone and some kid racks up a few hundreds $ in whatever one can buy through a phone nowadays, is that threat worth less to you than the convenience of fingerprint phone locking? Why would you give up that convenience out of fear for something that is much less likely to happen than other, realistic threats? I know it's a snarky question because there is no way to phrase it without being so; but I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind 'convenience features are worthless/I turn them off because they're not 100% secure against [some powerful actor] that might hypothetically want to look at my phone'. I mean, they can get comms metadata from carriers; speech comms content from wiretaps; email content through subpoenas (minus those you encrypt with client-side tools, a major pain to do on a phone anyway). If you're going to run a coke line from South America or plan to overthrow the government or conspire to bomb immigrants, you're better off not using any such obvious electronic communication tools in the first place. So what's your reasoning?

morganvachon 10y ago
> From a glance at your profile, you hardly seem to be a person a government would be interested in He may not be someone the government is interested in right now, but as is clear in the case we all are discussing, the government is on a fishing expedition, seeking to unlock a non-suspect's phone in the hopes of making a suspect out of them. That's some 1980s USSR shit right there, and it's disheartening that our government is trying to become what they once fought against. They can get a warrant first, or they can get bent. To put it another way, you don't want your neighbor poking around in your garage looking for something she can report to the fire marshal "just because", even though you're pretty sure there's nothing she can call out, so you keep your garage locked.
delinka 10y ago
"...you hardly seem to be a person a government would be interested in..." "If you've got nothing to hide..." - right?
- carterehsmith 10y ago
  Yes. It actually works.
NhanH 10y ago
Over a set of 100 million American with smartphone, statistically speaking quite a few of them would have to have a run in with the authority somehow. > I mean, they can get comms metadata from carriers; speech comms content from wiretaps; email content through subpoenas (minus those you encrypt with client-side tools, a major pain to do on a phone anyway). All of those things need to have their case present in front of a judge. And that is infact a major difference.
kordless 10y ago
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

by roel_v 10y ago

morganvachon 10y ago

> From a glance at your profile, you hardly seem to be a person a government would be interested in He may not be someone the government is interested in right now, but as is clear in the case we all are discussing, the government is on a fishing expedition, seeking to unlock a non-suspect's phone in the hopes of making a suspect out of them. That's some 1980s USSR shit right there, and it's disheartening that our government is trying to become what they once fought against. They can get a warrant first, or they can get bent. To put it another way, you don't want your neighbor poking around in your garage looking for something she can report to the fire marshal "just because", even though you're pretty sure there's nothing she can call out, so you keep your garage locked.

delinka 10y ago

"...you hardly seem to be a person a government would be interested in..." "If you've got nothing to hide..." - right?

carterehsmith 10y ago
Yes. It actually works.

NhanH 10y ago

Over a set of 100 million American with smartphone, statistically speaking quite a few of them would have to have a run in with the authority somehow. > I mean, they can get comms metadata from carriers; speech comms content from wiretaps; email content through subpoenas (minus those you encrypt with client-side tools, a major pain to do on a phone anyway). All of those things need to have their case present in front of a judge. And that is infact a major difference.

kordless 10y ago

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin