This is why my unlock is not tied to biometrics. Once I realized the government can compel you to unlock your phone without a warrant using your fingerprint it became a much less compelling feature. The same for facial recognition.
Your GPS location data is another good one. Hypothetically speaking, would you really want the public, which contains some seedy characters mixed in with the "normal" people, to see the route you take to drop off/pick up your daughter at school, making her easy pickings for a kidnapping?
There's more than just the websites you browse and the people you talk to on your phone. It's a digital vault of every move you make, every question you ponder, every person you've interacted with, every store you shop at. Your banking data is there, your stocks, your hobbies, your bursts of anger, your outlook on life, your loved ones' and associates' addresses and contact information.
In short, you hurt more than yourself by exposing your private data, whether to the public at large, the government, or commercial entities seeking to hoover it up for advertising revenue. It's your responsibility to keep it private.
Depending on who is in power in your area, that could change very quickly. If you're of the wrong race, someone like Donald Trump might use three-letter agency-collected data to move you out of the country. Foreign states might want to use your identity to get cheap health care for their citizens.
Immigration policies, substance legal statuses and acceptable social practices and attitudes change overnight. Someone could spam with you child pornography and border officials could find it in your phone at the border.
Furthermore, you don't know what you're going to do with the rest of your life and how the decisions you make now could be perceived in the future.
Maybe someone's watching your house, keeping track of when you're not home. Or maybe they're using your phone patterns to do the same: Checking your phone when you're in the gym, in the bathroom at a restaurant.
And any of these scenarios could be used to threaten you or someone you care about. Did a neighbor ask if you could babysit their children when they're away? Did your aunt admit she has a mental disorder that could get her fired? Did a friend reveal he has a substance abuse problem? Did your elderly parents send you copies of official financial documents to review? Ever looked for a "questionable" book on Amazon?
Furthermore, if you're not following proper safety practices, you could be a liability for future business partners. Who wants to risk sharing data with someone who's loosey-goosey about the info on their systems?
In conclusion, it's not just you, right now that bears thinking about. It's everyone in your social circle over the long-term future.
The police asks you to surrender you phone. Telling "you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind" and you respond with "It is not up to decide if I have something to hide"
Or, your friend is arguing for letting the police see their phone because your friend has nothing to hide. Your friend says "I have nothing to hide". But you respond with "It is not up to you if you have nothing to hide, so you shouldn't have that attitude".
Assuming you meant the second, what is the reasoning behind it?
It's not implausible.
I'm not saying I personally agree, I'm saying I can respect it.
At least, if they can't unlock the phone, then they even have to worry about the evidence they fabricate as you might have something that counters it on the phone.
If the authorities are seeking to blame or frame or shame... suddenly you have everything to hide.
I do not carry a phone though.
These reference what can be requested/forced during court proceedings. Do you have any examples that support the statement you made?
Sadly, I disagree. If I'm in a foreign country and I want legal advice I'll ask the local bar (or equivalent) about my rights. I'm simply not going to unlock my phone or incriminate myself just on the word of law enforcement.
I don't do anything criminal, this is about respect. If they feel I have done something wrong it's for them to prove it. I'm not going to do it for them.
How will you contact the local bar equivalent in this situation?
Even without the time pressure of a connecting flight, you're not exactly going to tell the police "hang on, wait until I google to see who I should contact, and then let me give them a call. Then I will see if I will comply with your order or not"
"Cao told Quartz that the spoof worked on the iPhone during an earlier attempt, but it didn’t work when he tried to replicate the result for the technical report. “We unlocked it at the start of the project, but when we prepared the report, I could not unlock the iPhone. I used the same protocol and method. I’m not sure why it didn’t unlock,” Cao said."
I wouldn't exactly say this was a slam dunk then, eh? Seriously I'd like to know if someone can reproduce the exploit on film using non-exotic materials or process (ie, no latex glue or pre-existing high-resolution images). Of note, if feds can get fingerprints through existing paperwork, why do they need a seek a warrant for this?
It's less work if the judge will approve it.
I know it's a snarky question because there is no way to phrase it without being so; but I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind 'convenience features are worthless/I turn them off because they're not 100% secure against [some powerful actor] that might hypothetically want to look at my phone'. I mean, they can get comms metadata from carriers; speech comms content from wiretaps; email content through subpoenas (minus those you encrypt with client-side tools, a major pain to do on a phone anyway). If you're going to run a coke line from South America or plan to overthrow the government or conspire to bomb immigrants, you're better off not using any such obvious electronic communication tools in the first place. So what's your reasoning?
He may not be someone the government is interested in right now, but as is clear in the case we all are discussing, the government is on a fishing expedition, seeking to unlock a non-suspect's phone in the hopes of making a suspect out of them. That's some 1980s USSR shit right there, and it's disheartening that our government is trying to become what they once fought against. They can get a warrant first, or they can get bent.
To put it another way, you don't want your neighbor poking around in your garage looking for something she can report to the fire marshal "just because", even though you're pretty sure there's nothing she can call out, so you keep your garage locked.
"If you've got nothing to hide..." - right?
> I mean, they can get comms metadata from carriers; speech comms content from wiretaps; email content through subpoenas (minus those you encrypt with client-side tools, a major pain to do on a phone anyway).
All of those things need to have their case present in front of a judge. And that is infact a major difference.