6 ms·

Why you should always encrypt your smartphone (2011)

15 points by gordon_freeman 12y ago

gwillen 12y ago
This story is from 2011, and the title should be changed to reflect that; it's missing VAST changes that have happened since then.
- untothebreach 12y ago
  Yea, I missed the byline and did a double take when I saw the line about Motorala's upcoming upcoming Android devices, the "Droid Pro" and "Droid Bionic."
- psykovsky 12y ago
  Just like you would change a printed article?
ecopoesis 12y ago
This is from 2011. This year, in Riley[1], the Supreme Court ruled that phones can't be searched without a warrant. That said, you still should encrypt your phone. It's easy and has little to no downside. [1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/riley-v-california/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/riley-v-californi...
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  >That said, you still should encrypt your phone. // Is there a generic guide for Android phones, please?
  - gordon_freeman 12y ago
    https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/2844831?hl=en https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/2844831?hl=en This help guide works best on stock Android phones but should also work on all generic Android phones such as Samsung,HTC,etc.
- Istof 12y ago
  the biggest downside is probably that if you tend to forget passwords, then if you do forget that one, you will not be able to recover your data.
jrochkind1 12y ago
This article is from 2011 and outdated. > Last week, California's Supreme Court reached a controversial 5-2 decision in People v. Diaz (PDF), I stopped reading there; since then, the U.S Supreme Court has made a different determination in Riley v. California. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphone...). It may still be a great idea to encrypt your smart phone, but for an analysis of U.S. law at the present time, go somewhere else than this article.
bvk 12y ago
This story does not take into account the recent supreme court ruling in Riley v. California that the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not apply to the information carried in cell phones. Even if your cell phone is on your person and unlocked when you are arrested, police need a search warrant to look at the data it contains. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf I'd recommend that anyone with an interest in civil rights read Supreme Court decisions - they tend to be written in a much more understandable style than you'd expect.
- dTal 12y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if the good news has somehow missed the ears of many a police department.

This story is from 2011, and the title should be changed to reflect that; it's missing VAST changes that have happened since then.

untothebreach 12y ago
Yea, I missed the byline and did a double take when I saw the line about Motorala's upcoming upcoming Android devices, the "Droid Pro" and "Droid Bionic."
psykovsky 12y ago
Just like you would change a printed article?

ecopoesis 12y ago

This is from 2011. This year, in Riley[1], the Supreme Court ruled that phones can't be searched without a warrant. That said, you still should encrypt your phone. It's easy and has little to no downside. [1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/riley-v-california/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/riley-v-californi...

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
>That said, you still should encrypt your phone. // Is there a generic guide for Android phones, please?
- gordon_freeman 12y ago
  https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/2844831?hl=en https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/2844831?hl=en This help guide works best on stock Android phones but should also work on all generic Android phones such as Samsung,HTC,etc.
Istof 12y ago
the biggest downside is probably that if you tend to forget passwords, then if you do forget that one, you will not be able to recover your data.

jrochkind1 12y ago

This article is from 2011 and outdated. > Last week, California's Supreme Court reached a controversial 5-2 decision in People v. Diaz (PDF), I stopped reading there; since then, the U.S Supreme Court has made a different determination in Riley v. California. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphone...). It may still be a great idea to encrypt your smart phone, but for an analysis of U.S. law at the present time, go somewhere else than this article.

bvk 12y ago

This story does not take into account the recent supreme court ruling in Riley v. California that the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not apply to the information carried in cell phones. Even if your cell phone is on your person and unlocked when you are arrested, police need a search warrant to look at the data it contains. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf I'd recommend that anyone with an interest in civil rights read Supreme Court decisions - they tend to be written in a much more understandable style than you'd expect.

dTal 12y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the good news has somehow missed the ears of many a police department.