gruez

16 ms·

421.
by gruez 3mo ago
They said they don't bother because it's non-trivial to implement convincingly, so they don't bother, lest it gives people a false sense of security. For instance, if you do this, and the adb logs aren't scrubbed, then t
422.
by gruez 3mo ago
Knowingly obstructing investigations is illegal even if there isn't an active search warrant >During the fall of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Enron's accounting firm, instructed its employees to destroy documents relating to Enron a
423.
by gruez 3mo ago
Hindsight is 20/20 right? Sure, the duress pin feature was around for years, but so was the technology to set up a thermite boobytrap in a safe. Maybe now CBP officers should be more careful about entering random pins people gave them,
424.
by gruez 3mo ago
>Don't they send narcotics back to a lab? 1. They do field tests before sending to a lab 2. They're sending it to a lab to ensure the results are accurate, not to guard against an off chance something is boobytrapped.
425.
by gruez 3mo ago
That's probably safer because you can plausibly argue you're protecting your workstation, not unlike corporate security policies that require you to lock your workstation when you get up. Where they get into trouble is when they s
426.
by gruez 3mo ago
Even if the prompt was vague like "what's the pin for the phone", you'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that a duress pin (to wipe the phone) is a reasonable person[1] interpretation. [1] https://en.wikipe
427.
by gruez 3mo ago
The point isn't that giving a duress pin is the same as physical assault, or that the duress pin feature is a "booby trap". It's that for the purposes of ascertaining guilt, you don't get a pass just because you&#x2
428.
by gruez 3mo ago
Should we take the same approach for physical searches? If the cops are executing a search warrant on a house, and there's a safe, should they send in a safe cracker on the off chance the safe is wired with a "duress pin" (eg
429.
by gruez 3mo ago
>Trump paid about $750 in taxes in 2016 while still claiming to be a billionaire Right, because the tax system (generally) taxes income, not wealth. Not taking this into account is like asking "you're millionaire, yet you don&#
430.
by gruez 3mo ago
I don't get it, what's the contradiction supposed to be?
431.
by gruez 3mo ago
>Most people do. Why?
432.
by gruez 3mo ago
I spot checked a few people in their media directory and this is most certainly false. Maybe around a third of people have bios that could imply they're "kids fresh out of the LSE" (even ignoring the LSE part). What's su
433.
by gruez 3mo ago
>Full-time self-employment rose to its highest level this century in 2025, reaching 16.8m, according to the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, a trade group. A common refrain is that all the "entrepreneurs" are just
434.
by gruez 3mo ago
The point isn't that it's fine for smartphone car keys to randomly fail, it's that there's plenty of other reasons they can fail that you're already living on the edge if all you're carrying is your phone. Ther
435.
by gruez 3mo ago
>The reason for this is that if the car gives people the ability to start a trip with a phone, it's dangerous to assume they'll always carry a keyfob as a backup. How's this any different than say, not bringing your wallet
436.
by gruez 3mo ago
>On holiday a guests BMW didn’t want to “start” anymore because it couldn’t phone home because of lack of phone reception. They had to contact the dealer at home and move heaven and earth to get some dealer code to allow the car to start
437.
by gruez 3mo ago
Obligatory: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in... >Add up all US spending on candidates, PACs, lobbying, think tanks, and advocacy organizations – liberal and conservative combine
438.
by gruez 3mo ago
> it's that people stop caring to install Firefox because there's no clear reason to keep using it. Who's going to switch to chrome (or not install firefox, next time they install a browser), even though that also has DRM,
439.
by gruez 3mo ago
>So the main/hidden volumes really works like a duress: you might destroy your hidden volume while using the main one under duress, but that does not apply when using the main volume while able to additionally unlock the hidden volu
440.
by gruez 3mo ago
A trucker passes a weigh station and is signaled to pull in. As he's pulling in, he's seen dumping the contents of a bottle onto the ground. Is this destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice? He's not under any invest
441.
by gruez 3mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property Not to mention it fails a basic sniff test. You seriously think a judge is going to rule "well even though you deleted all your emails, since those are technical
442.
by gruez 3mo ago
>and provide a button to open Netflix either through a Netflix app or the pre-installed OS browser (Edge or Safari). Educate your users rather than treating everyone as dumb. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume the overwhelming
443.
by gruez 3mo ago
>Maybe the next Mozilla will understand that having principles is not optional. But what does "having principles" translate to? Focusing on the EME issue, how many people are going to be like "humpf, firefox added EME so I
444.
by gruez 3mo ago
>>It’s been determined that training on lawfully acquired works is fair use >You don’t know what “Fair Use” is. This isn't the opinion of some armchair HN commenter. Actual judges have affirmed this, as other commenters in thi
445.
by gruez 3mo ago
>I think this is because simply chasing Chrome didn't have the desired effect anyway. By doing so, Mozilla hurt Firefox by gradually reducing what differentiated it from Chrome in the first place, relegating it to be kind of just a
446.
by gruez 3mo ago
>"The USB port may have died" might be one possible response. (Not technically a lie, and hence defensible in court.) Or just silence. That's about as convincing as "wow this phone just decided to experience catastrop
447.
by gruez 3mo ago
>its anti consumer and approving the standard was I think a really foolish mistake. The alternative is that Netflix et. al can't be played on firefox and you need to install chrome just to watch it, which weakens firefox's mark
448.
by gruez 3mo ago
>We could just as easily say having any passcode on your phone at all is obstruction of justice, since the feds could want to look on your phone for whatever made up reason, and if they can't because its encrypted, well why did you
449.
by gruez 3mo ago
That's what judges are for, so cute hacks like "putting everyone in the US under "investigation" won't work. That said, if I was under investigation, you bet your ass I'd be extra diligent in ensuring I'm
450.
by gruez 3mo ago
>Note this isn't the same as banning burning documents or microwaving computers, only doing so after you're aware there's an ongoing investigation.

More ›