5 ms·
These phones need a kill expression or finger. If you touch a sensor with your left pinky or wink at the camera it nukes the phone.
by robotburrito 8mo ago
These phones need a kill expression or finger. If you touch a sensor with your left pinky or wink at the camera it nukes the phone.
- smashed 8mo agoThat would be destruction of evidence. A solution that can seem like plausible deniability could be interesting.
- ranger_danger 8mo agoUnless one has been ordered to preserve evidence already for a pending court case... proving that someone knew said information was valuable as evidence, and willfully destroyed it knowing so, might be extremely difficult.
- NoImmatureAdHom 8mo agoPerhaps a lawyer can chime in here. My impression is deliberately doing this would be illegal. It would have to be convincingly deniable somehow. Is there a way to do that?
- rolph 8mo agoif something made them decide to force a particular finger into a sensor, what happens next is a result of thier own actions.
- NoImmatureAdHom 8mo agoMaybe, maybe not. I'm sure there's some legal mechanism for punishing you for setting a boobytrap. You'd also have to rely on this unnamed other to force that particular finger, rather than the others...
- rolph 8mo agobrer rabbit: "no brer fox dont throw me in the briar patch!" suspect: "no you cant force me to put my pinky there", attempts to make pinky inaccessible. other: "we will charge you with obstruction if you resist placing the pinky" Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%27er_Rabbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%27er_Rabbit
- ranger_danger 8mo agoThere are very specific rules for proving destruction of evidence. For a criminal case the burden proof in the US at least is "beyond a reasonable doubt", so someone would likely have to prove that you knowingly destroyed valuable evidence before you'd get in big trouble. And if you haven't already been served with something saying you need to preserve evidence, they might not have any claim to information they had no idea existed beforehand, especially if you don't talk.
- 1123581321 8mo agoBelieve this is bad legal advice. They would only need to prove you destroyed information with intent to impede an investigation/case. They would not need to prove something convicting or weighing was destroyed.
- whaleofatw2022 8mo agoI wonder what the threshold is? E.x. if one had a "dead man's switch" phone that required a passkey every x minutes, and each time you did so it set the next threshold...
- happyopossum 8mo agoWhat you seem to be referring to would be obstruction, whereas the entire parent thread was specifically discussing destruction of evidence. Fair to point out that there are other offenses that could be charged, but misleading to imply it’s the same thing.
- 1123581321 8mo agoNo, I am referring to destruction of evidence. It is (very generally) a subset of legal obstruction.
- ranger_danger 8mo ago> They would only need to prove you destroyed information with intent to impede an investigation/case Which requires them to prove they know that device likely contains relevant information. Just being party to a court case doesn't mean you're forbidden from deleting anything ever again... like I said there are very specific rules for evidence, and one cannot begin to claim something relevant is destroyed if you can't even show that you had any idea what might have been destroyed in the first place.
- qingcharles 8mo agoPeople say this on every thread where this comes up. If the phone is in your pocket and somebody puts a gun to your head and tells you not to move, you are not pressing anything on your phone.
- cindyllm 8mo ago[dead]