5 ms·

Honestly, as a non-American this scares me. I am absolutely not at all important and a fairly mediocre programmer as well, I don't store compromising data about

Honestly, as a non-American this scares me. I am absolutely not at all important and a fairly mediocre programmer as well, I don't store compromising data about anyone, never stole code or company data in my life (and never will), etc., you get it. A normal law-abiding citizen. I still don't want to get my phone taken on an US airport and returned an hour later with God knows how many viruses that even Apple wouldn't be able to detect on my iPhone. It's not about having something to hide. It's about not liking it when people poke their noses in your business without you being a criminal. And no I don't think installing backdoors on each device "to catch the criminals more easily" is a solution at all.

Tijdreiziger 4y ago
Also, I'm sure the US isn't the only country that does this. So if you travel internationally at all, you're essentially boned when it comes to personal privacy.
- pdimitar 4y ago
  That's absolutely true, we were just discussing USA at the time. I have heard plenty of stories where security randomly pulls somebody from the crowd and straight up orders them to unlock their phone, or else.
Bakary 4y ago
The elephant in the room in this case is that at a most basic level a State is an entity that maintains a (near) monopoly of violence in a given area. Being a normal law-abiding citizen just means that you are currently functioning in an area where the State's goals somewhat coincide with you living with some degree of freedom and comfort. Or at least they have no current incentive to mess with your life. But the whole system of laws we see as normal is just an abstraction that masks the balance of power which is in itself not that different from gang warfare at a higher scale. When you are disturbed by having your phone searched, what is happening is that the balance has shifted a bit against your favor, and you subconsciously realize that your position is not as safe as it once was. But it was never truly safe, just stable in a certain point and time. The fact that you are not a criminal is irrelevant, because respecting or not respecting the law is very relative. The mental separation between the criminal and the law-abider is fictional in that both are just on a spectrum of usefulness and loyalty to the State.
- toss1 4y ago
  True OTOH, without the state, you have anarchy, which is inevitably and quickly filled by warlords or criminal gangs controlling whatever geographic and/or economic territory they can. The security situation in relation tho them is even less good, and you don't get nearly as much good infrastructure. So, it's important to keep in mind the broader context and what really is a lesser of evils. Unless, of course, you can point me to the magical stable stateless advanced society where I can go live... (srsly, it'd be great)
- pdimitar 4y ago
  > When you are disturbed by having your phone searched, what is happening is that the balance has shifted a bit against your favor Oh yeah, I am painfully aware of the power imbalance and that we're left alone simply because the powers that be don't have the resources to pick bones with each and every one of us. No other reason. If these things can get automated -- robot/AI security personnel -- then I am sure they'll start searching everyone's devices because it'll be practical and quick for them. As mentioned above, I am a fairly average citizen and like 99% of people I just want to go about my business without being disturbed. I am social, easy to put a smile on my face, and fairly casual in my demeanor. I discovered this works really well with figures of authority -- they automatically write you off as harmless and leave you alone. Still, I dread the thought of having to divulge that I have a collection of erotic pictures and even some copyrighted material in my photo gallery (e.g. small snippets from movies). If somebody wishes me harm they can absolutely do it -- sadly. And that's the part that's not OK. The rulers want us always guilty of something by default. Sigh.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California P. p. 54. <https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...> There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
vlod 4y ago
This is a good opportunity to test your backup/restore from the cloud functionality.
nobody9999 4y ago
>It's not about having something to hide. It's about not liking it when people poke their noses in your business without you being a criminal. And no I don't think installing backdoors on each device "to catch the criminals more easily" is a solution at all. As an American, I couldn't agree more. It's been a while since I've been outside the US, but given how so many (not least of which is the US) countries are doing intrusive things with mobile devices at the border, I will most certainly back up (nandroid, which I do anyway for backups) my phone and flash a stock ROM before leaving the US. Upon my return, I'll restore my backup and pick up where I left off. Not because I have anything very interesting (to law "enforcement", or anyone other than me for that matter), but rather because my business is my business and no one else's.

Tijdreiziger 4y ago

Also, I'm sure the US isn't the only country that does this. So if you travel internationally at all, you're essentially boned when it comes to personal privacy.

pdimitar 4y ago
That's absolutely true, we were just discussing USA at the time. I have heard plenty of stories where security randomly pulls somebody from the crowd and straight up orders them to unlock their phone, or else.

Bakary 4y ago

The elephant in the room in this case is that at a most basic level a State is an entity that maintains a (near) monopoly of violence in a given area. Being a normal law-abiding citizen just means that you are currently functioning in an area where the State's goals somewhat coincide with you living with some degree of freedom and comfort. Or at least they have no current incentive to mess with your life. But the whole system of laws we see as normal is just an abstraction that masks the balance of power which is in itself not that different from gang warfare at a higher scale. When you are disturbed by having your phone searched, what is happening is that the balance has shifted a bit against your favor, and you subconsciously realize that your position is not as safe as it once was. But it was never truly safe, just stable in a certain point and time. The fact that you are not a criminal is irrelevant, because respecting or not respecting the law is very relative. The mental separation between the criminal and the law-abider is fictional in that both are just on a spectrum of usefulness and loyalty to the State.

toss1 4y ago
True OTOH, without the state, you have anarchy, which is inevitably and quickly filled by warlords or criminal gangs controlling whatever geographic and/or economic territory they can. The security situation in relation tho them is even less good, and you don't get nearly as much good infrastructure. So, it's important to keep in mind the broader context and what really is a lesser of evils. Unless, of course, you can point me to the magical stable stateless advanced society where I can go live... (srsly, it'd be great)
pdimitar 4y ago
> When you are disturbed by having your phone searched, what is happening is that the balance has shifted a bit against your favor Oh yeah, I am painfully aware of the power imbalance and that we're left alone simply because the powers that be don't have the resources to pick bones with each and every one of us. No other reason. If these things can get automated -- robot/AI security personnel -- then I am sure they'll start searching everyone's devices because it'll be practical and quick for them. As mentioned above, I am a fairly average citizen and like 99% of people I just want to go about my business without being disturbed. I am social, easy to put a smile on my face, and fairly casual in my demeanor. I discovered this works really well with figures of authority -- they automatically write you off as harmless and leave you alone. Still, I dread the thought of having to divulge that I have a collection of erotic pictures and even some copyrighted material in my photo gallery (e.g. small snippets from movies). If somebody wishes me harm they can absolutely do it -- sadly. And that's the part that's not OK. The rulers want us always guilty of something by default. Sigh.
dredmorbius 4y ago
The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California P. p. 54. <https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...> There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.

vlod 4y ago

This is a good opportunity to test your backup/restore from the cloud functionality.

nobody9999 4y ago

>It's not about having something to hide. It's about not liking it when people poke their noses in your business without you being a criminal. And no I don't think installing backdoors on each device "to catch the criminals more easily" is a solution at all. As an American, I couldn't agree more. It's been a while since I've been outside the US, but given how so many (not least of which is the US) countries are doing intrusive things with mobile devices at the border, I will most certainly back up (nandroid, which I do anyway for backups) my phone and flash a stock ROM before leaving the US. Upon my return, I'll restore my backup and pick up where I left off. Not because I have anything very interesting (to law "enforcement", or anyone other than me for that matter), but rather because my business is my business and no one else's.