4 ms·

Even if the feature warned users, Apple and Google would not be off the hook. It’s entirely possible a prosecutor will go after them for implementing a feature

Even if the feature warned users, Apple and Google would not be off the hook. It’s entirely possible a prosecutor will go after them for implementing a feature designed to evade police and destroy evidence. Us programmers tend to thing the law is black and white and a legal disclaimer solves all issues, but it’s not. The law can be (and is) a gray area determined by the courts on an individual basis. Judges don’t look fondly on technicalities for skirting the law. After all, they are humans, too. Not computers.

LinuxBender 5y ago
I would actually prefer that Apple and Google do not implement this. Even if they accept the risk, it would create an arms race between the phone developers and forensics developers assuming they don't put a back door in this feature. I would prefer this only be implemented by the alternate phone OS developers or by someone maintaining an open source add-on. I should also add this is only a legal risk if you are using this against the courts AND select the options to wipe data. AFAIK you can disavow knowledge to cops all day long in most first world countries with little risk. Again, not a lawyer but it seems this is true based on cases I have followed. And this feature would not just be to protect from police. It could be to protect from phone thieves getting sensitive financial information which arguably should not be on the phone. It could also be used to alert people if people and/or their kids are being robbed. Actually the more I think about it, this feature could save the lives of some police officers. Some people may in poor judgement have data that could carry a longer sentence than killing a police officer. I recall a case where a professional thief killed all the guards because the punishment for the information they were stealing was more detrimental legally than homicide, but this is a bit of a rare tangent. I also have to factor in that some locations there is a very thin gray line between law enforcement and outlaws. Maybe pushing the system to follow due process and maybe even prevent cops from planting data on the phone could be useful. That could be a logging feature of the sandbox. What data was added after duress was activated

LinuxBender 5y ago

I would actually prefer that Apple and Google do not implement this. Even if they accept the risk, it would create an arms race between the phone developers and forensics developers assuming they don't put a back door in this feature. I would prefer this only be implemented by the alternate phone OS developers or by someone maintaining an open source add-on. I should also add this is only a legal risk if you are using this against the courts AND select the options to wipe data. AFAIK you can disavow knowledge to cops all day long in most first world countries with little risk. Again, not a lawyer but it seems this is true based on cases I have followed. And this feature would not just be to protect from police. It could be to protect from phone thieves getting sensitive financial information which arguably should not be on the phone. It could also be used to alert people if people and/or their kids are being robbed. Actually the more I think about it, this feature could save the lives of some police officers. Some people may in poor judgement have data that could carry a longer sentence than killing a police officer. I recall a case where a professional thief killed all the guards because the punishment for the information they were stealing was more detrimental legally than homicide, but this is a bit of a rare tangent. I also have to factor in that some locations there is a very thin gray line between law enforcement and outlaws. Maybe pushing the system to follow due process and maybe even prevent cops from planting data on the phone could be useful. That could be a logging feature of the sandbox. What data was added after duress was activated