| ▲ | softwaredoug a day ago |
| In the US we have tech companies complying with sketchy DHS subpoenas that don’t require warrants. We have DoJ targeting political enemies. We have FISA mass surveillance. It’s naive to think politically motivated surveillance can’t happen in the UK and elsewhere. Or to assume that only the “right people” will be the ones able to break encryption. |
|
| ▲ | Eddy_Viscosity2 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > It’s naive to think politically motivated surveillance can’t happen in the UK and elsewhere. It's naive to think it isn't already happening in the UK and elsewhere and has for a long time. The only thing technology is changing is to increase the depth and scope of what they surveil. |
| |
| ▲ | iso1631 a day ago | parent [-] | | Technology has the scale. The billionaire giants have unprecedented amounts of data -- Soviet Russia, Nazi germany, they'd have loved this level of insight. But worse that that, they have a population that thinks its fine as long as it's not the government, its just the free market doing its thing, and it's all about freedom for the most powerful |
|
|
| ▲ | smilespray a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People with the "wrong" political opinion have been surveilled for decades. It just took more work. |
| |
| ▲ | graemep a day ago | parent [-] | | Which is protective in itself. Expensive surveillance will have to be more limited. Maybe of leaders of organisations rather than every supporter. |
|
|
| ▲ | trollbridge a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In the US we also have tech companies going out of their way to make their devices have strong encryption and be unbreakable. |
| |
| ▲ | derwiki a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe I’m naive: I can believe the e2e encryption happens, but it takes a lot of faith to believe there’s no front-end telemetry that would render that ineffective. | | | |
| ▲ | enoint a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Wired has reported that ongoing DHS surveillance tracks “anti-tech” and anti-AI sentiment. So the tech firms have concerns on both sides. | |
| ▲ | lioeters a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And the marketing to make people believe it! | |
| ▲ | lazide a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sometimes, with likely exceptions. | |
| ▲ | softwaredoug a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes hashtag “Not all tech companies” | |
| ▲ | ethagnawl a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | One. Most of the time. Supposedly. |
|
|
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > In the US we have tech companies complying with sketchy DHS subpoenas that don’t require warrants. We have DoJ targeting political enemies. We have FISA mass surveillance. You also have a president who has just said he will "report" a journalist to the FCC for "rebuke or punishment". I regret to inform people that fear over people cracking your encryption is quite niche, at this point; you have a looming fascist regime and should be more afraid of the $5 wrench. |
| |
| ▲ | semiquaver a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ll have you know that due to inflation $5 is no longer a reasonable price even for a very cheap wrench! | | |
| ▲ | dofm a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Tariffs on imported steel products. Perhaps the most ironic adversary of the $5 wrench strategy. | |
| ▲ | iso1631 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's the government, I'm sure the wrench will cost $50,000 and some oligarch will be taking 99% of that as a back hander. |
| |
| ▲ | hn_submit a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Trump will be gone in two years and may even become a lame duck in two months. I'd be more worried about European democracies which don't put a limit on the tenure of a president or prime minister. It was a close call in Hungary and Poland. If Orban had won the elections he could've manipulated Hungarian institutions to such a degree that he'd be president for life with unlimited powers. The same has already occurred in Turkiye. I chuckle at the Turks protesting against Erdogan. That ship sailed about 15 years ago, there's no way to remove him from power. The only thing they can do is wait until he passes. | |
| ▲ | tetris11 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > $5 wrench Ref for anyone looking: https://xkcd.com/538/ | | |
| ▲ | SOLAR_FIELDS a day ago | parent [-] | | $5 wrench already in play, US citizen was detained at the border recently for simply wiping their phone | | |
| ▲ | mc32 a day ago | parent [-] | | "What, like with a cloth or something?" Destruction of potential evidence of a crime is a crime. Obviously here there is nuance and the courts can determine if this is the right interpretation or not. If he had compromising information and he reasonable suspicion he’d be asked to unlock his phone he should have “wiped” it way before he got to the border. | | |
| ▲ | warrantisall 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The person was not charged with destruction of evidence, rather destruction of property to prevent a seizure. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.35... To be charged with destruction of evidence, the data contained in the device has to be justified as such. It appears this was not the case, note this person was not indicted or accused of anything else too. | |
| ▲ | parineum a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Destruction of evidence is a crime. They'd have to prove there was evidence. | | |
| ▲ | mc32 a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes, they would have to prove that there was incriminating data on the phone. However, destroying potential evidence before there is suspicion of a crime is also a crime if done with intent to undermine a future investigation. It's quite unadvisable to destroy data in front of any sort of law enforcement. Last ditch effort? Sure, you better your odds but it's not ideal. If you have evidence of a crime, you know, wipe it way before you need to hand things over for examination and be in the position of having to destroy data as they knock on your door. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake a day ago | parent [-] | | You keep saying "potential evidence." What does that even mean? If I factory reset my phone right now, am I guilty of destroying "potential evidence?" Do you have "potential evidence" on any of your devices? Let's not make up phrases to help justify what they were doing. There was either an actual crime committed, and wiping the phone destroyed real evidence. Or there was not. You can't just consider all data everywhere to be "potential evidence" while you look around for some kind of crime that it's evidence of. If it was evidence, what was the crime? | | |
| ▲ | parineum a day ago | parent [-] | | The implication they are making is that the person _intended_ to destroy potential evidence on the phone. That the person felt there was evidence on it that needed to be destroyed to hide a crime. IMO, even if that's actually illegal, there's zero way to prove it that the fifth amendment doesn't address. | | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The 5th has been distorted by the courts so much, that I wouldn't assume any novel interpretation would stand (and wiping data to avoid self-implicating is novel). For instance, apparently answering questions up until a point at which you don't severely threatens your legal ability to invoke the 5th. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
