I haven't entered the U.S. in some years now and I don't plan to any more. Unlike going to any other country, it just feels icky to go there and dehumanizing to go through any airport in the U.S.
It's rather sad too because I like lots of places there and there's lots of cool stuff but with what's happening, I'm making an active effort to avoid it.
I read the article on "The Signal Chats That Cost OpenAI Researchers Their Jobs" [0] and the (former) employees were asked for their phone password.
Accessing Signal, OpenAI discovered (the absence of) disappearing messages to an external researcher.
So, if an application is password protected either by the OS or another app which demands a password to launch another app, would the official just ask for the application's launch password, or is that beyond whatever overly generous powers granted to them? Perhaps this is rhetorical, because what we called laws are merely ignored these days.
Laws for which there is no charge, no prosecution, and no consequence (I can give 34 examples) are merely suggestions.
CBP believes it has the right to files saved locally on your device itself. However explicitly cloud-hosted data (that is not stored on the device) is supposed to be off-limits, as I understand it.
And keep in mind that American citizens cannot be denied entry to the country for refusing to unlock or hand over their devices. They might hold you for a little while, but they cannot stop you.
You can already do this with built in android features, on any phone. It only works against cursory examination and not against your phone being plugged in to forensic devices.
GrapheneOS has repeatedly turned down this idea because it gives a wider area of attack (signed in vs in a locked state) and would be easily detectable.
I haven't entered the U.S. in some years now and I don't plan to any more. Unlike going to any other country, it just feels icky to go there and dehumanizing to go through any airport in the U.S.
It's rather sad too because I like lots of places there and there's lots of cool stuff but with what's happening, I'm making an active effort to avoid it.
I read the article on "The Signal Chats That Cost OpenAI Researchers Their Jobs" [0] and the (former) employees were asked for their phone password.
Accessing Signal, OpenAI discovered (the absence of) disappearing messages to an external researcher.
So, if an application is password protected either by the OS or another app which demands a password to launch another app, would the official just ask for the application's launch password, or is that beyond whatever overly generous powers granted to them? Perhaps this is rhetorical, because what we called laws are merely ignored these days.
Laws for which there is no charge, no prosecution, and no consequence (I can give 34 examples) are merely suggestions.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50210481
CBP believes it has the right to files saved locally on your device itself. However explicitly cloud-hosted data (that is not stored on the device) is supposed to be off-limits, as I understand it.
And keep in mind that American citizens cannot be denied entry to the country for refusing to unlock or hand over their devices. They might hold you for a little while, but they cannot stop you.
They can arrest you the second you are admitted into the country.
For what, the ambiguous phrasing is misleading
There needs to be a decoy passphrase for laptops or mobiles etc. Allow access to a decoy enclave.
Instead of a killphrass/killcode, give them access to playground of `dummy` data.
You can already do this with built in android features, on any phone. It only works against cursory examination and not against your phone being plugged in to forensic devices.
GrapheneOS has repeatedly turned down this idea because it gives a wider area of attack (signed in vs in a locked state) and would be easily detectable.
US
It’s either that, or in mice.