4 ms·

In theory, I agree. But it is somewhat akin to saying - why use strong encryption since a three letter agency can just brute force your device. If you're in tha

In theory, I agree. But it is somewhat akin to saying - why use strong encryption since a three letter agency can just brute force your device. If you're in that deep, maybe it won't help. But for the average reporter in a hostile zone, keeping the local police from snooping on their machine would be preferential.

Ensorceled 5y ago
We actually agree completely. This thing may be useful, and certainly something to think about if you live or travel to places where electronic devices are often snatched and, like you said, prevents casual snooping since the local police WILL have to escalate to violence. I just don't think it's going to prevent a Silk Road incident and could make it worse for the suspect.
- SamBam 5y ago
  I disagree. I this this sounds a little too much like a TV show like 24. The idea that you could completely immobilize someone at a public library so rapidly and without their awareness that they could not even move their arm 20 cm or so during a struggle seems ludicrous to me. Particularly as the kind of person who would buy this device would be setting themselves up with their back to the wall to prevent captures from behind. I am fairly strong and have wrestled and grappled for over a decade, and I would not put my faith in an operation that required me (even with another agent) to completely immobilize even a weak person enough that I could guarantee they could not trigger this. This takes a flick of a finger to trigger, or moving your arm a small distance away from the laptop.
  - tata71 5y ago
    > The idea that you could completely immobilize someone at a public library so rapidly and without their awareness that they could not even move their arm 20 cm or so during a struggle seems ludicrous to me. Well, they did — and without even touching him.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      They didn't "completely immobilize" him, though, as apparently "Ulbricht stood up sharply"[0] after his laptop was seized. However, he did make the mistake of not sitting with his back to a wall, since the agents "walked up behind" him. I guess we'll never know how he would have reacted if they had instead walked up in front of him and tried to grab his arms. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/ross-ulbricht-will-be-sentenced-soon--heres-how-he-was-arrested-2015-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/ross-ulbricht-will-be-senten...
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    I think you have way too much faith in the reasonableness of law enforcement. There are 20K no-knock raids in the US every year, a significant percentage at the wrong address or clearly innocent people.
    - SamBam 5y ago
      Did you reply to the wrong comment? This device is indeed clearly designed for a no-knock raid situation, or other surprise grab. I'm simply saying that, if you're attached to your laptop by a 50cm cable, which of you separate your arm further than that from will lock your computer, it will be very difficult for the agents to guarantee you won't be able to lock your computer.

Ensorceled 5y ago

We actually agree completely. This thing may be useful, and certainly something to think about if you live or travel to places where electronic devices are often snatched and, like you said, prevents casual snooping since the local police WILL have to escalate to violence. I just don't think it's going to prevent a Silk Road incident and could make it worse for the suspect.

SamBam 5y ago
I disagree. I this this sounds a little too much like a TV show like 24. The idea that you could completely immobilize someone at a public library so rapidly and without their awareness that they could not even move their arm 20 cm or so during a struggle seems ludicrous to me. Particularly as the kind of person who would buy this device would be setting themselves up with their back to the wall to prevent captures from behind. I am fairly strong and have wrestled and grappled for over a decade, and I would not put my faith in an operation that required me (even with another agent) to completely immobilize even a weak person enough that I could guarantee they could not trigger this. This takes a flick of a finger to trigger, or moving your arm a small distance away from the laptop.
- tata71 5y ago
  > The idea that you could completely immobilize someone at a public library so rapidly and without their awareness that they could not even move their arm 20 cm or so during a struggle seems ludicrous to me. Well, they did — and without even touching him.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    They didn't "completely immobilize" him, though, as apparently "Ulbricht stood up sharply"[0] after his laptop was seized. However, he did make the mistake of not sitting with his back to a wall, since the agents "walked up behind" him. I guess we'll never know how he would have reacted if they had instead walked up in front of him and tried to grab his arms. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/ross-ulbricht-will-be-sentenced-soon--heres-how-he-was-arrested-2015-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/ross-ulbricht-will-be-senten...
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  I think you have way too much faith in the reasonableness of law enforcement. There are 20K no-knock raids in the US every year, a significant percentage at the wrong address or clearly innocent people.
  - SamBam 5y ago
    Did you reply to the wrong comment? This device is indeed clearly designed for a no-knock raid situation, or other surprise grab. I'm simply saying that, if you're attached to your laptop by a 50cm cable, which of you separate your arm further than that from will lock your computer, it will be very difficult for the agents to guarantee you won't be able to lock your computer.