4 ms·
Because this "kill switch" might as well be something your iPhone has. You can lock it remotely at a moments notice as well and it'll remain encrypted against
by izacus 4y ago
Because this "kill switch" might as well be something your iPhone has.
You can lock it remotely at a moments notice as well and it'll remain encrypted against law enforcement attempts to unlock it.
Should you be held accountable for owning such a device?
MDM managed Windows, macOS laptops are such devices as well.
See how easy is it to reframe a feature in a nefarious way?
- malka 4y agoyou should be, if using it when being raided by the police.
- willnonya 4y agoNot necessarily. The police don't automatically have access to everything when they kick down a door. The warrant needs to state explicitly what they're after. If the data specified by the warrant is suddenly and intentionally encrypted then they still have to provide that data or argue the obstruction angle in front of a judge. Just because a company is incorporated doesn't mean they lose all rights.
- capableweb 4y agoIs it even possible that the police has a warrant against a company like Uber that doesn't include data found in the very office they are raiding? If it's not stated that they are raiding the office to grab data, what could the raid even be for?
- s1artibartfast 4y agoYes, warrants are often specific. You can comply with a warrant with encrypted data
- capableweb 4y agoSo warrant say "Uber should hand over data about transfers in/out from the companies bank account" and Uber can then hand them over a password protected CSV and say "You didn't ask for data you could read" and the police should just be like "Hah, you got us! We'll come back with another one!"?
- s1artibartfast 4y agono, you are missing my point. Im saying uber can encrypt all their data, decrypt what is asked for, and hand it over what was specifically asked for. They don't have to hand over their entire database, and as a customer, I wouldn't want them to. They don't have to let them grab whatever the want and root around in data not covered in the warrant.
- capableweb 4y agoShould there maybe be a difference between a huge incorporated company operating for profits (no matter what the consequences are) VS a private individual just wanting to go on with their day?
- bgroins 4y agoSo one has a right to privacy and the other doesn't? Are companies not allowed to secure their data?
- capableweb 4y agoThey have the right to privacy when they are following the law. On the other hand, if police enforcement have a legal warrant to read internal documents about how you run your business, to prevent employees from being exploited, they absolute should get access to it. I understand having a process in place to be able to hide data from criminals stealing your data, that's not a problem. The problem becomes when companies start to hide data from legal requests, which is what Uber is in the hot for here.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
- capableweb 4y agoThat means everyone should just stop complying to lawful warrants? Or that laws in general don't work? Or that you'd rather have companies maintaining laws? We can pick & chose what laws to follow? I'm not sure I understand the reasoning nor conclusion of your comment.
- Consultant32452 4y agoYes. Yes. That is the status quo. That is the status quo.
- 4y ago
- titzer 4y ago> See how easy is it to reframe a feature in a nefarious way? Turns out, there are laws and the above would be 100% illegal.