alt Hacker NewsStill go to prison for not showing. So until devices have multiple pins for plausible deniability we are still screwed.
What’s so hard to make 2-3 pins and each to access different logged in apps and files.
If Apple/android was serious about it would implement it, but from my research seems to be someone that it’s against it, as it’s too good.
I don’t want to remove my Banking apps when I go travel or in “dangerous” places. If you re kidnapped you will be forced to send out all your money.
Replies
> Still go to prison for not showing. So until devices have multiple pins for plausible deniability we are still screwed.
> What’s so hard to make 2-3 pins and each to access different logged in apps and files.
Besides the technical challenges, I think there's a pretty killer human challenge: it's going to be really hard for the user to create an alternate account that looks real to someone who's paying attention. Sure, you can probably fool some bored agent in customs line who knows nothing about you, but not a trained investigator who's focused on you and knows a lot about you.
It's more a policy problem than a phone problem. Apple could add as many pins as they want but until there are proper legal based privacy protections, law enforcement will still just be like "well how do we know you don't have a secret pin that unlocks 40TB of illegal content? Better disappear you just to be sure"
For as long as law enforcement treats protection of privacy as implicit guilt, the best a phone can really do is lock down and hope for the best.
Even if there was a phone that existed that perfectly protected your privacy and was impossible to crack or was easy to spoof content on, law enforcement would just move the goal post of guilt so that owning the phone itself is incriminating.
Edit: I wanna be clear that I'm not saying any phone based privacy protections are a waste of time. They're important. I'm saying that there is no perfect solution with the existing policy being enforced, which is "guilty until proven dead"
How does "go to prison for not showing" work when a lot of constitutions have a clause for a suspect not needing to participate in their own conviction / right to remain silent?
A detective can have a warrant to search someone's home or car, but that doesn't mean the owner needs to give them the key as far as I know.
Hannah Natanson is not in prison though.
Assuming the rule of law is still functioning, there are multiple protections for journalists who refuse to divulge passwords in the USA. A journalist can challenge any such order in court and usually won't be detained during the process as long as they show up in court when required and haven't tried to destroy evidence.
Deceiving investigators by using an alternate password, or destroying evidence by using a duress code on the other hand is almost always a felony. It's a very bad idea for a journalist to do that, as long as the rule of law is intact.
They are willing to kill people and then justify it by calling them terrorists. Plausible deniability is pointless.
There is no plausible deniability here, that's only relevant in a rule-of-law type of situation, but then you wouldn't need it as you can't be legally compelled to do that anyway. "We don't see any secret source communication on your work device = you entered the wrong pin = go think about what your behavior in jail"
Even if this worked (which would be massively expensive to implement) the misconfiguration possibilities are endless. It wouldn't be customer-centric to actually release this capability.
Better for the foreseeable future to have separate devices and separate accounts (i.e. not in the same iCloud family for instance)
“Plausible deniability” is a public relations concept. It doesn’t confer any actual legal protection.
I always wondered if this was the feature of TrueCrypt that made it such a big target. LUKS is fine, I guess, but TrueCrypt felt like actual secrecy.
Yep, you need an emergency mode that completely resets the phone to factory settings, maybe triggered with a decoy pin. Or a mode that physically destroys the chip storing the keys
You do not. We have this thing in our constitution called the 5th amendment. You cannot be forced to divulge the contents of your mind, including your pin or passwords. Case law supports this. For US citizens at least. Hopefully the constitution is still worth something.
Completely separate decision with a higher legal bar for doing that.
It's one thing to allow police to search a phone. Another to compel someone to unlock the device.
We live in a world of grays and nuance and an "all or nothing" outlook on security discourages people from taking meaningful steps to protect themselves.
Why are you on a website for programmers and software developers if you arent a software developer and you know nothing of the subject?
> What’s so hard to make 2-3 pins and each to access different logged in apps and files.
I've been advocating for this under-duress-PIN feature for years, as evidenced by this HN comment I made about 9 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13631653
Maybe someday.
Absolutely every aspect of it?
What’s so hard about adding a feature that effectively makes a single-user device multi-user? Which needs the ability to have plausible deniability for the existence of those other users? Which means that significant amounts of otherwise usable space needs to be inaccessibly set aside for those others users on every device—to retain plausible deniability—despite an insignificant fraction of customers using such a feature?
What could be hard about that?