4 ms·
Using GrapheneOS makes you a terrorist now. I'm a terrorist.
by inigyou 3mo ago
Using GrapheneOS makes you a terrorist now. I'm a terrorist.
- matheusmoreira 3mo agoWe're all terrorists here. Own a general purpose computer you can run arbitrary software on, not just corporation and government approved software? You're clearly a money laundering drug trafficking child molesting terrorist.
- Gud 3mo agoLet’s be real, it’s an important topic.
- xnzakg 3mo agoDon't worry, the arbitrary software is probably running under Intel's ME or AMD's PSP.
- Noaidi 3mo agoThis is why we should all be stopping, or at least minimizing, the use of our phones. The point is it’ll make the corporations more mad and that will get the government to change. money changes everything
- Alive-in-2025 3mo agoSince the courts decided you have to use your fingerprint to unlock your phone (because they decided that's not giving up your password and they can't compel you to give up your password), what if you use your fingerprint to wipe your phone? But you don't tell anyone ahead of time when they force you to use it. I'm sure you'd be arrested at the least. I can't be the only person who has thought of this.
- amelius 3mo agoBest approach is to shadow-ban the user when they do a secret gesture before logging in. No wiping necessary. Easiest implementation is to just log them into a shadow account.
- inigyou 3mo agoGrapheneOS rejected the shadow account idea because it would be very obvious to everyone that it was a shadow account.
- BoppreH 3mo agoIANAL, but I would bet that's still destruction of evidence. Judges are human, for better or worse, and can see the intention behind cute tricks like this. It might work if your fingerprint was used while you were unconscious, but any solution that starts with "setup a trigger that wipes a device" is already on shaky grounds.
- inigyou 3mo agoAFAIK it's legal to set up a trigger that wipes a device. It isn't legal to choose to wipe your device after you know the government wants the data. Tricking the government into wiping it is still allowed, especially if you tell them not to do that.
- BoppreH 3mo agoThat matches my understanding too. Unfortunately it sounds like the poster was suggesting to wipe the device after the government requests access, and was probably not planning on telling the officers about the trigger.
- inigyou 3mo agoWith fingerprint unlock it's not your choice. That's what makes it clever. The cop can grab your finger and hold it to the scanner while you tell him not to do that.
- lukan 3mo agoWell, guess what happens: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/28/us/duress-password-phone-wipe-charge.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/28/us/duress-password-phone-...
- inigyou 3mo agoThat happened because he chose to give the duress PIN. Cops are allowed to just grab your finger and scan it against your protest. You can say "don't do that, it'll wipe my phone" and they'll do it anyway and it'll wipe your phone, and now it certainly isn't your fault.
- nisegami 3mo agoWhat does it matter? The state certainly isn't going to throw up its hands and say "you got us". They're still going to try to make it out to be your fault and even if you do successfully argue it wasn't of your volition, they've still robbed you of years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees.
- close04 3mo ago> they've still robbed you of years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees. Intentionally giving a duress PIN which you know will wipe evidence - information you were just asked for by some law enforcement - just robs you of more of years and money. The law is lopsided and gives some more power than others. There's no point debating why it's like that, try to change the law before you break it or find ways to not need to break it at all.
- inigyou 3mo agoWell that applies to anything you do that the state doesn't like, so may as well just give up and kill yourself? Or what's your plan?
- nisegami 3mo agoMy plan is to live a reasonable life and treat the state like I treat violent weather. If I happen to have the misfortune of drawing the attention of the state, then yes, your suggestion may be relevant.
- inigyou 3mo agoFingerprint and PIN unlock, but only PIN unlocks it and fingerprint is always duress? That's a good idea.
- stronglikedan 3mo agoAt that point, just don't have biometrics configured at all. It would be waaay to easy to accidentally wipe your phone. Just have an unlock PIN and a duress PIN. You're going to be charged with destroying evidence either way if you use the duress method, so you may as well use the method that won't accidentally wipe your phone with a single misplaced finger.
- inigyou 3mo agoThe point is that you don't wipe your finger. The police wipes your finger against your will.
- reedf1 3mo agoThis would still be destruction of evidence - virtually your only defense against that would be if it was not triggered by you.
- bloak 3mo agoSince you seem to know about this, what are the actual rules about "destruction of evidence" in your jurisdiction? What does the accused need to have known for a crime to have been committed? (Common sense tells me that the accusation might make sense both in cases in which the accused knows about a crime and in cases in which the accused knows about a police investigation, even in the absence of a crime, but deleting nude photographs to stop a customs officer from seeing them, for a random example, would that be a crime?)
- reedf1 3mo agoGenerally any material you intentionally delete after you are told to hand over evidence is considered to be the most incriminating version of that material in a court of law.
- bloak 3mo agoThat rule wouldn't work very well if the person who destroyed the evidence isn't the person suspected of the crime and it is unclear whether the person who destroyed the evidence is a friend or an enemy of the suspect. So I think a sane legal system would want to punish the person who destroyed the evidence rather than jeopardise the fair trial of the suspect.
- shevy-java 3mo agoHow can they reason that evidence was destroyed when they can not prove it ever existed in the first place?
- inigyou 3mo agoHow can they in the GrapheneOS duress pin case?
- Tangurena2 3mo agoA password is considered (by courts) to be testimony. Face, gesture or fingerprints are considered things like keys which you can be forced/compelled to turn over when commanded by law enforcement. Therefore, only passwords, which will require a court order to unlock, are secure enough for now.
- petesergeant 3mo ago> A password is considered (by courts) to be testimony For now. It doesn't seem like an especially natural fit. Regardless of the merits of being able to compelled to turn over your password, relying on labored interpretation of laws is not a good idea: 14th amendment was always a very shaky basis for abortion rights, as the 2nd is a very shaky one for personal gun rights.
- graceful6800 3mo agoUsing a duress PIN or other duress feature is now considered destroying evidence so YMMV
- ern_ave 3mo agoWrite your duress PIN on the back of the phone. I guarantee you the first cop that sees it will go, "LOLOL!!!! HIS PASSWORD IS RIGHT THERE!!! LOLOL" and immediately enter it.
- inigyou 3mo agoI heard for this reason police are now trained not to try any code that you can't go to jail for if it turns out to be a duress code. That means anything you didn't tell them was the unlock code.
- stronglikedan 3mo ago> you have to use your fingerprint to unlock your phone Nitpick, but that's only if you have biometric authentication configured in the first place, which you aren't compelled to do.
- Alive-in-2025 3mo agoYes. But I apparently didn't make the point I wanted to. If you set your phone to delete everything when you scan your fingerprint, is that a crime? No password need be provided. You cannot avoid giving them your fingerprint to unlock a phone, already established in the US as a legal rule. I'm sure they will claim its a crime if you set it up that way, but is it? They can already legally compel you to provide your fingerprint. You can't avoid that, you'll get put in jail. Do you have to tell them "don't do that with my phone, it will reset everything if you do that".
- mdp2021 3mo ago> Using GrapheneOS makes you a According to?
- brazzy 3mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49063022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49063022
- Hoodedcrow 3mo agoStatements like this are a stretch. This was not the fact of using the OS, but specifically the fact of wiping it. The situation is atrocious enough as is, no need to make up additions.
- inigyou 3mo agohttps://www.androidauthority.com/why-i-use-grapheneos-on-pixel-3575477/ https://www.androidauthority.com/why-i-use-grapheneos-on-pix...
- mdp2021 3mo agoThank you, I will devour it, but it seems to misrepresent a naïve point: simple Bayes. Id est, > Law enforcement officials in Catalonia say they associate Pixels with crime because drug traffickers are increasingly turning to these phones And that is correct behaviour under frequentistic reasoning (and still abysmal behaviour in the non-expressed potential case that it be done indiscriminately): if in a population a tool is related to many criminals and the very few sane people, that tool is a justified element for suspicion. But for suspicion only, in the coldest terms: the Sane use it, and using it is a sign of sanity: for that reason, of course you do not /assume/ that those who use that tools are criminals. To have a knife raises suspect in the land of the stabbers and raises little suspect in the land of the scouts. Only the bad tail of the curve mixes "suspect" and "assumption"; and only the worse tail of the curve thinks that since stabbers use knives we should do without them. Especially in this dire case in which obviously for reasons of Dignity, we will not, all capitals, ___will not___, keep spying devices on us. It is difficult to find examples and similes stronger than the actual case. The article in fact fumbles into a very bad sentence: > You might be wondering: if I don’t have anything to hide, why should I bother using GrapheneOS? That[!!!] a fair question No, that is a very stupid question: Dignity imposes privacy, and we have ___everything___ to hide to the zombie apocalypse of cretins.
- dwedge 3mo agoI used GrapheneOS without a sim card for 4 months and the battery life was great. I put a sim card in, and since then (2 months) the battery dies twice as fast no matter which profile it's in, and dies faster even on airplane mode. I left it at 80% the other day and went out, came back 6 hours later and it was dead and red hot. Maybe it's just a dodgy phone, maybe it's not doing something on the less-trackable sim connection, but I realised I can never really know.
- NewJazz 3mo agoWhat model do you have? The pixel 6a does terribly when it is in 5g mode, something abput the hardware is broken or bugged. My friend who has a 6a has to keep it in 4g only mode or sacrifice battrry life.
- dwedge 3mo agoPixel 9 but it could be another obscure bug that only shows up with that Sim
- red-iron-pine 3mo agolasts for days with a pixel 9. literally don't need to plug it in for a couple days at a stretch might just be an older phone and older battery
- dwedge 3mo agoIt's a 9 and I had exactly the same experience until I put the Sim in. Maybe I should try first taking the Sim back out and second reinstalling it
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- toolman62 3mo agoYes you can. Open settings and search "log". View log and see EVERYTHING your phone does without your input. Expect to spend hours just going back thru that day.