3 ms·
GrapheneOS has built-in encrypted backup and restore. It backs up the same data transferred by Google's device transfer feature for moving to a new phone which
by grapheneos 2mo ago
GrapheneOS has built-in encrypted backup and restore. It backs up the same data transferred by Google's device transfer feature for moving to a new phone which is nearly all app data, the data in the home directory, contacts and a bit more. Certain apps such as Signal encrypt their own data with another layer of encryption using a hardware keystore key. Signal's own backup system needs to be used for that, although it can just be used as a way to get data into the system backup.
It's worth noting wiping a device shortly before an anticipated search could also be considered destruction of evidence in the same way. It doesn't have to be done after a request for the data to be considered that.
> There's no deception required to protect sensitive data or avoid the seizure of an expensive phone. Consent to unlocking the phone, refuse to unlock the drive. The drive gets seized and you go on your way (if you're a US citizen entering the USA).
This was likely the best move for him to take. They could have held him for a while and wasted his time but eventually would have had to give him access to a lawyer and let him go. Unless they had a recording of him entering a PIN/password, they were nearly certainly not going to get his data from it. He very likely didn't gain anything from wiping it.
He did help every GrapheneOS user by spreading awareness of the duress PIN/password. It was designed around an adversary aware of it and therefore not wanting to attempt using a PIN/password obtained via coercion. In the future, we want to integrate the feature into the secure element rate limiting for key derivation so it can't be avoided by exploiting the OS.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- Cider9986 2mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- sfdlkj3jk342a 2mo ago> GrapheneOS has built-in encrypted backup and restore. The backup tool on GrapheneOS doesn't work for a large percentage of app data. And it often silently fails to backup some data, so you don't even know where the gaps are. There have been promises of a better solution for years, but I haven't seen any movement yet.
- thefunnyman 2mo agoThis has gotten much better fairly recently ime. My backups to WebDAV work most of the time and when it fails I get notifications. But it was quite bad for a long time so I sympathize with your point
- rrr_oh_man 2mo ago> My backups to WebDAV work most of the time "My patients survive most of the time and when they don't I get notifications"
- hamburglar 2mo agoNot a fair comparison at all. If you know your backup failed you can simply try again.
- cogman10 2mo ago> It's worth noting wiping a device shortly before an anticipated search could also be considered destruction of evidence in the same way. Look, if we are talking about a warranted search in the US then I'd agree with you. However, the entire point of CPB's unwarranted search authority is to stop contraband from coming in. This would be like arguing that throwing away materials illegal in the US before boarding a plane is destruction of evidence. Like, even if we assume exactly what CBP's claim is true, it was to stop CSAM. And the person had in fact had CSAM. Destroying the CSAM before getting to the US would be legal even though the US doesn't like it. Further, if the data is actually backed up, then you haven't actually destroyed it and CBP or another agency can provide you with a search warrant for what they are looking for. But I'd note that this is far outside of CBP's authority. They are for stopping contraband, not FBI work.
- voxic11 2mo agoAnd this is why he isn't being charged with destruction of evidence. He is being charged with destruction of property subject to a civil seizure. The only reason they can charge him with this is that he destroyed it after being notified that it was being seized. If he has deleted it before then there would be nothing they could charge him with.
- cogman10 2mo agoRight, but I think what makes this interesting is the destruction happened only after violating his civil rights. Had they simply seized the device the data wouldn't have been destroyed. He refused to give them the pass code several times before giving them the wiping code. He asked to leave and see a lawyer multiple times, which they refused to provide him with one. They held him, illegally, until he gave them his phone pass code. And the whole reason they wanted in his phone (the real reason) was to figure out who he worked with in the stop cop city protest. That's why he was really targeted in the first place.