No, he wasn't, what is your point?

Today we see someone being arrested because they used a software feature. Next year we'll see someone being arrested because they played a cutesy trick and got the LEO to enter in the self destruct code.

The engineers and techies involved have so far shown themselves to have poor intuition for understanding how the law is going to react. I think it behooves anyone still listening to their advice to also check in with someone who has a good intuition for how the law will react to this new idea.

▲

zarzavat 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's possible that could be destruction of evidence as well. Why should it matter whose meat sticks type in the decoy pin?

▲

MetaWhirledPeas 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because one is a clear intent to mislead while the other has plausible deniability. "It was there in case of robbery."

	▲	mattstir 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The prosecution would argue that you ought to have warned officers about the duress pin since this wasn't a robbery scenario.

▲

make3 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's harder for them to argue you were actively destroying evidence; you could say that you had written the wipe pin there for a legitimate use case like both your wallet and your phone get stolen

	▲	incompatible 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Makes sense, since you aren't using that pin every day and it would be easy to forget.