I'm not even sure how much practical difference there is between 5 and indefinite in practice, 5 years is a long time. I imagine it is pretty life-destroying. Especially for the crime of having something on your phone that you want to keep private.
> If it’s not about nation security or CSAM, it’s two.
I am sure we all get what you mean, but there is a comic interpretation in vaguely-Soviet style here where if someone hasn't done anything wrong they only get 2 years. I'm going to spend some time this weekend making sure my encryption is plausibly deniable where possible.
The police must obtain appropriate permission from a judge to obtain a s.49 RIPA notice.
Before a judge grants the notice, they must be satisfied that:
The key to the protected information is in the possession of the person given notice.
Disclosure is necessary in the interest of national security, in preventing or detecting crime or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK.
Disclosure is proportionate.
If the protected information cannot be obtained by reasonable means.
Feature request: Make it default behavior on phones that you can have multiple passwords, connected to different profiles. With no way to determine how many profiles a phone have.
I'm sure there's some people here working on mobile operating systems, might be worth considering?
"This profile doesn't have anything on it. Give us the password for the real profile."
Or even worse, you did give them the real password, but because your phone supports the feature and your profile is kind of barren, they don't believe you. Now you are in a very bad lose-lose situation.
You do use your "fake" profile regularly, just for "sanitized" activities. Check in on official sanctioned news sources, do your "legit" banking and financial stuff, etc.
As others have pointed out this would likely not save you in this case, but there are some phones which do support this, and I know people in Brazil that use these features in order to be able to comply when getting mugged without giving away access to your bank etc.
Android has a "Private Space" feature. As far as I can tell it's only a single extra profile you can create, but I think you can keep it "hidden" (at least in as much as you can't tell if it's been created without unlocking it).
Software isn't going to save you in this scenario. If you're worried about local laws violating your privacy then buy a burner and only put data on there that's necessary for your travels.
I think everyone's glossing over that this extends to anyone who knows the password. Your sysadmin, your business partner, your spouse. Hong Kong just turned your company's entire key management chain into a legal liability.
It would be nice if phones had a feature where you can define more than one pin, but only one is for your actual phone contents - the other ones leave you to a completely harmless but otherwise indistinguishable looking smartphone interface that contains no or only completely bogus data.
Funny how it's a horrible misrepresentation slurring the honor of the United Kingdom to exaggerate the penalty of not unlocking your phone for His Majesty's Law Enforcement, but US border cops being allowed to ask foreigners for the same thing upon pain of not being allowed to enter the country (something that no one seems to care about other nations doing?) is totally the same thing.
> Of all the issues with the US justice system, being compelled to disclose passwords isn't one of them.
This is not totally true. It is also a US issue: CBP has been asking for passwords (or to unlock the device) for phones and computers for more than a year now. Last year, multiple people got turned around because they disagreed with US policies and political views that differ from those of the US's current president.
You don't have the protections of U.S. law at the border.
CBP is also asking, not compelling. You don't have to give them your password. If you don't, and you're a foreigner, you may be turned away. If you're a citizen, and I remember correctly, they can seize your device for up to two days if they want.
But they're not going to put you in prison for refusing like the U.K. and Hong Kong will.
CBP has absolutely put me in jail (not prison) for refusing to answer questions (including the strip search and being put in chains and handcuffs). As well as threatening to revoke my passport (though they could not). On another occasion they threatened to deport me even though I'm a US citizen. On yet another, they faked a drug dog hit then dragged me to multiple hospitals, racking up bills in my name while claiming I was packing drugs up my ass. I am still being chased by debt collectors for the last one.
I've contacted multiple lawyers and the answer got was they've tried cases like these before and they always lose so they don't take them anymore. Though this was pre-Trump, now it's suddenly in vogue to take up longshot border or immigration cases.
I don't approve of CBP's approach here, but being denied entry to the country isn't punishment, even if it might feel like it at the time. And that only applies to non-citizens, where entry is fairly reasonably at the government's discretion. Citizens must be admitted regardless.
Rules at the border tend to be pretty restrictive almost everywhere. You can literally get in trouble for having a sandwich in your bag. I'd wager Hong Kong border control was also empowered to request phone passwords and turn away refusers long before this change.
Depends, you can get NSL'd to disclose passwords. Good luck running that one up to the supreme court. And biometrics aren't as well-protected. Though, yes, in the UK it's a much more routine affair.
The above probably meant a point that current democracies are increasingly sliding into the same hole as authoritarian governments. Amount on encroachment of governments and big corporations on personal freedoms and democracy in "democratic" countries is quickly becoming intolerable under a guise of safety and "save the children" mantras
No one likes when I say this but it's really past time to stop doing anything interesting on your phone. Delete all your apps, set it as minimally as possible. Leave it home when you go for walks, and power it off when you go driving or to the store, or whatever.
how? whatsapp, wechat, telegram, even signal, all require a phone to be used.
if i didn't need any of those apps then sure, but unfortunately there is no way around these apps if i want to keep in touch with certain people that are important to me.
If you need to use these, set the history retention to like no time. That would help a lot. They could still get the contents from the person you are communicating with, but it would require more work on their part. Humans are generally fairly lazy. If you can get the people you communicate iwth to also turn off message retention, that would help. Then they could tell you talked with Tootie, but not what you talked about, at least from the device(s) themselves.
If you “must” use those then keep a phone off in a drawer and turn it on once a day to keep in touch.
If those people won’t allow you to be offline from time to time and aren’t willing to switch communication methods as an alternative, maybe it’s not a symmetrical relationship.
I'm starting to believe this is [a] way forward. Or maybe an approach which is on a spectrum between <everything I have is on a phone behind a fingerprint and a four digit pin> and <I don't own a smartphone>.
Unfortunately, it's pretty common to only have a smartphone as your sole compute device, and increasingly onerous not to own one at all.
>Or maybe an approach which is on a spectrum between
>increasingly onerous not to own one at all.
Yes, and I think this unfortunately demands a grey area. I'm starting to treat my smartphone more like a work device, and there are a few things I do on it:
- My work's authenticator app is there.
- Unfortunately Signal is tied to smartphone usage.
- Practically speaking, people will expect to be able to send you text messages.
- It's still useful for taking pictures.
- My banking app is on there.
Outside of rare occasions, that's really all I use my phone for. I don't carry it around the house. If I go somewhere with my wife, I don't even bring my phone most of the time. I'm "required" to have it, but in principle it's not even mine. It shouldn't be trusted or enjoyed.
Now we just have to wait N years for Android and iOS to get approval from the government to build something similar, that they can market yet somehow screw up enough to not actually help.
Nobody claimed Europe was worse than China, only that if you wouldn't visit China for this reason then you shouldn't visit Europe (or the US) for the same reason.
Speaking of being disingenuous, when you say "Police can search phones to counteract human traffickers", did you think critically about that at all before writing it? Given one of the stated justifications is "preventing terrorism", and the UK has been illegally arresting Palestine Action supporters as terrorists for over a year, this seems a little naive at least.
> Nobody claimed Europe was worse than China, only that if you wouldn't visit China for this reason then you shouldn't visit Europe (or the US) for the same reason.
That would be nonsensical. If you have anti-Xi propaganda on your phone (which could be the reasons you mention), you have nothing to fear in Europe or in the US and a lot to fear in China.
The US is actually worse than both China and Europe because it's 18th century amendments protect human traffickers. Although they do what they can to not have to adhere to those, especially in border control.
> What about Palestine Action...
I'll limit myself to the LARP about "oppressive Europe invigilating your phone".
How about the US? What I'm going to write smells of "whataboutism", but it's tragic how more and more of the world is becoming police states. Going to the USA, they want your social media accounts. Regardless of that, the border thugs can probably demand you unlock your devices or they'll detain you for weeks on end, without any repercussions, because that sort of lawlessness is government policy now.
> In the US, not disclosing a password is explicitly protected (5th amndmnt),
That's great but of exactly zero help if you're trying to travel to the US and CBP (or ICE) are staring you down. Even if they don't gulag you, they can always just reject entry for any non-citizen (and these days even some citizens it seems.)
Any country can reject non-citizen entry, for any reason or no reason at all. In fact, part of a definition of a country is ability to practice control over its territory and who is and is not there.
They have? What was the relevant case? It was my understanding that some lower courts have ruled one way, others the opposite. There are also many nuances in particular cases (e.g., the police wanting a broad search of a device for something that may or may not be there versus them knowing for a fact a device has certain information they want).
Federal agents couldn't possibly have been aware that executing people on the streets is a violation of those people's rights, so they are covered by QI.
At least 225 judges have ruled in more than 700 cases that the administration's mandatory immigration detention policy likely violates the right to due process[1] The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause generally requires those having federal funds cut off to receive notice and an opportunity for a hearing, which was not provided in many of DOGE's spending freezes[2]
Wow, what a free society! In the UK if you refuse to unlock your device you can be imprisoned indefinitely! In HK it's just one year!
In UK you can be imprisoned for liking a post on Facebook that is considered "hate speech".
Why are you misrepresenting about UK law?
Yes, it can be a criminal offence. But the maximum tariff for this under RIPA 2000 is five years. If it’s not about nation security or CSAM, it’s two.
(Incidentally, the USA is a real outlier in this topic)
Oh just 5 years, that's OK then.
Are we damning the UK with faint praise now?
I'm not even sure how much practical difference there is between 5 and indefinite in practice, 5 years is a long time. I imagine it is pretty life-destroying. Especially for the crime of having something on your phone that you want to keep private.
> If it’s not about nation security or CSAM, it’s two.
I am sure we all get what you mean, but there is a comic interpretation in vaguely-Soviet style here where if someone hasn't done anything wrong they only get 2 years. I'm going to spend some time this weekend making sure my encryption is plausibly deniable where possible.
You're unsure of the difference between 5 and infinity?
5 years in prison can destroy your life easily, so yeah, what's the difference?
Easily something like 45 years of difference. It is really not necessary to lie, no matter how much you hate UK or Europe.
The police must obtain appropriate permission from a judge to obtain a s.49 RIPA notice.
Before a judge grants the notice, they must be satisfied that:
The key to the protected information is in the possession of the person given notice. Disclosure is necessary in the interest of national security, in preventing or detecting crime or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK. Disclosure is proportionate. If the protected information cannot be obtained by reasonable means.
So you're saying it's still at the discretion of a single magistrate?
I'm sure China could find some judges to rule in the name of national security if it would give everyone warm fuzzies.
Judicial checks and balances only function when they're independent of the executive and parliament
Not addressing your main point, magistrates and judges are not the same thing. It would be much worse if it were at the discretion of a magistrate.
Feature request: Make it default behavior on phones that you can have multiple passwords, connected to different profiles. With no way to determine how many profiles a phone have.
I'm sure there's some people here working on mobile operating systems, might be worth considering?
"This profile doesn't have anything on it. Give us the password for the real profile."
Or even worse, you did give them the real password, but because your phone supports the feature and your profile is kind of barren, they don't believe you. Now you are in a very bad lose-lose situation.
With LLMs, it should be easier than ever to fake generate text messages, notes, emails, etc.
I suppose that you could have the phone listening in real time and generating profiles that are hidden and embarrassing but not illegal.
So when they ask for the real profile it shows in the next unlock a profile that makes it very clear you have a deeply embarrassing ASMR addiction.
It could cross reference your local laws to ensure to not spill the beans on something locally illegal.
You do use your "fake" profile regularly, just for "sanitized" activities. Check in on official sanctioned news sources, do your "legit" banking and financial stuff, etc.
So put stuff on it, duh
"This isn't what we expected to find. Give us the real password."
So your approach instead is...?
xkcd 538
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/security.png
Veracrypt e.g. has had this for a long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
As others have pointed out this would likely not save you in this case, but there are some phones which do support this, and I know people in Brazil that use these features in order to be able to comply when getting mugged without giving away access to your bank etc.
Android has a "Private Space" feature. As far as I can tell it's only a single extra profile you can create, but I think you can keep it "hidden" (at least in as much as you can't tell if it's been created without unlocking it).
https://source.android.com/docs/security/features/private-sp...
Software isn't going to save you in this scenario. If you're worried about local laws violating your privacy then buy a burner and only put data on there that's necessary for your travels.
Genius.
> Provide fake credentials? Three years behind bars.
They would be real credentials, just to a separate profile. Are they going to make multiple profiles illegal?
I think everyone's glossing over that this extends to anyone who knows the password. Your sysadmin, your business partner, your spouse. Hong Kong just turned your company's entire key management chain into a legal liability.
It would be nice if phones had a feature where you can define more than one pin, but only one is for your actual phone contents - the other ones leave you to a completely harmless but otherwise indistinguishable looking smartphone interface that contains no or only completely bogus data.
It would be nice if I didn't get beaten with a hose in a vain attempt to prove that I unlocked the "real" one.
If your country has this problem, you’re way past worrying about phones, and you need to be acquiring arms and training.
It's illegal to have any decently good arms in Canada.
I maintain that the series "24" back in the day did us all a great disservice by promoting the value of torture to "save the world".
I'm hard pressed to find any reason for any citizen to be compelled to share their secrets with the police because the police had "suspicions".
The 4th and 5th are paramount for a free society.
> with a hose
You mean wrench? https://xkcd.com/538/
If you've read Applied Cryptography, you'd know it is definitely a hose.
Almost every chinese android variant has that. On Oppo it’s called clone system
My Oppo Find N6 allows multiple user accounts
Ah, finally catching up to ... The UK, Australia, Ireland, France, the Netherlands, and probably a lot more.
The horrible bastion of despotism that is China-run Hong Kong has now caught up to the rule of law utopias of enlightened thought in the US and UK.
>in the US and UK
???
Of all the issues with the US justice system, being compelled to disclose passwords isn't one of them. It is an issue for UK, though.
Funny how it's a horrible misrepresentation slurring the honor of the United Kingdom to exaggerate the penalty of not unlocking your phone for His Majesty's Law Enforcement, but US border cops being allowed to ask foreigners for the same thing upon pain of not being allowed to enter the country (something that no one seems to care about other nations doing?) is totally the same thing.
> Of all the issues with the US justice system, being compelled to disclose passwords isn't one of them.
This is not totally true. It is also a US issue: CBP has been asking for passwords (or to unlock the device) for phones and computers for more than a year now. Last year, multiple people got turned around because they disagreed with US policies and political views that differ from those of the US's current president.
You don't have the protections of U.S. law at the border.
CBP is also asking, not compelling. You don't have to give them your password. If you don't, and you're a foreigner, you may be turned away. If you're a citizen, and I remember correctly, they can seize your device for up to two days if they want.
But they're not going to put you in prison for refusing like the U.K. and Hong Kong will.
CBP has absolutely put me in jail (not prison) for refusing to answer questions (including the strip search and being put in chains and handcuffs). As well as threatening to revoke my passport (though they could not). On another occasion they threatened to deport me even though I'm a US citizen. On yet another, they faked a drug dog hit then dragged me to multiple hospitals, racking up bills in my name while claiming I was packing drugs up my ass. I am still being chased by debt collectors for the last one.
I've contacted multiple lawyers and the answer got was they've tried cases like these before and they always lose so they don't take them anymore. Though this was pre-Trump, now it's suddenly in vogue to take up longshot border or immigration cases.
That sucks. You were wronged, and I hope you get justice.
In the U.K. or Hong Kong, "justice" would entail prison.
I don't approve of CBP's approach here, but being denied entry to the country isn't punishment, even if it might feel like it at the time. And that only applies to non-citizens, where entry is fairly reasonably at the government's discretion. Citizens must be admitted regardless.
Rules at the border tend to be pretty restrictive almost everywhere. You can literally get in trouble for having a sandwich in your bag. I'd wager Hong Kong border control was also empowered to request phone passwords and turn away refusers long before this change.
> Last year, multiple people got turned around because they disagreed with US policies and political views
so they were not in US technically?
> Of all the issues with the US justice system, being compelled to disclose passwords isn't one of them
Under the present administration I wouldn't be surprised if for example ICE tried the $5 wrench method.
Depends, you can get NSL'd to disclose passwords. Good luck running that one up to the supreme court. And biometrics aren't as well-protected. Though, yes, in the UK it's a much more routine affair.
You have never crossed the border into the Great US of A then
It's possible to cross the border many times and not have this happen.
okay, but it is also possible to have it happen.
The above probably meant a point that current democracies are increasingly sliding into the same hole as authoritarian governments. Amount on encroachment of governments and big corporations on personal freedoms and democracy in "democratic" countries is quickly becoming intolerable under a guise of safety and "save the children" mantras
I take it you haven't crossed the border recently?
in china was never a problem for police to detain you for any reason (or no reason) but HK has a different legal system
No one likes when I say this but it's really past time to stop doing anything interesting on your phone. Delete all your apps, set it as minimally as possible. Leave it home when you go for walks, and power it off when you go driving or to the store, or whatever.
For many people, their phone is their primary, if not only, computing and communications device.
Right, which is why they need to start changing their behavior.
how? whatsapp, wechat, telegram, even signal, all require a phone to be used.
if i didn't need any of those apps then sure, but unfortunately there is no way around these apps if i want to keep in touch with certain people that are important to me.
If you need to use these, set the history retention to like no time. That would help a lot. They could still get the contents from the person you are communicating with, but it would require more work on their part. Humans are generally fairly lazy. If you can get the people you communicate iwth to also turn off message retention, that would help. Then they could tell you talked with Tootie, but not what you talked about, at least from the device(s) themselves.
If you “must” use those then keep a phone off in a drawer and turn it on once a day to keep in touch.
If those people won’t allow you to be offline from time to time and aren’t willing to switch communication methods as an alternative, maybe it’s not a symmetrical relationship.
Or use something like Beeper (works on Linux): https://www.beeper.com/
I'm starting to believe this is [a] way forward. Or maybe an approach which is on a spectrum between <everything I have is on a phone behind a fingerprint and a four digit pin> and <I don't own a smartphone>.
Unfortunately, it's pretty common to only have a smartphone as your sole compute device, and increasingly onerous not to own one at all.
>Or maybe an approach which is on a spectrum between >increasingly onerous not to own one at all.
Yes, and I think this unfortunately demands a grey area. I'm starting to treat my smartphone more like a work device, and there are a few things I do on it:
- My work's authenticator app is there.
- Unfortunately Signal is tied to smartphone usage.
- Practically speaking, people will expect to be able to send you text messages.
- It's still useful for taking pictures.
- My banking app is on there.
Outside of rare occasions, that's really all I use my phone for. I don't carry it around the house. If I go somewhere with my wife, I don't even bring my phone most of the time. I'm "required" to have it, but in principle it's not even mine. It shouldn't be trusted or enjoyed.
"Featured" on HN just a week ago, seems GrapheneOS' "Duress pin" would be very helpful in these cases: https://grapheneos.org/features#duress (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47445931).
Now we just have to wait N years for Android and iOS to get approval from the government to build something similar, that they can market yet somehow screw up enough to not actually help.
What happens if you just say "I don't know it, only answer calls on it."
Ohh no, so they caught up with US border patrol?
These kinds of laws worry me since I have forgotten several old passwords. Being disorganized shouldn't be a criminal offense.
>The US is evil
>China makes you give phone passwords, China makes Apple give user data
>The US wiretaps 1 person
"OMG THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!"
We forget because a Republikan is in charge how good we have it in the west. We forget how bad it is elsewhere.
The cops from the John Woo HK action flicks I've seen would love this
This shit is why I don't visit China.
This shit is why I build platforms like Safecloud: https://community.safebots.ai/t/safecloud-governance-due-pro...
Wait till you hear about most of europe...
Roleplaying a parallel reallity where "Europe" is an oppressive totalitarian regime will never not be funny.
> Roleplaying a parallel reallity where "Europe" is an oppressive totalitarian regime will never not be funny.
Roleplaying inability to read will never not be funny
UK: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/law-requiring-dis...
France: https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/news/french-court-rules-...
Ireland: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57468750
UK: Police can search phones to counteract human traffickers.
China: Police can search phones of dissidents, and jail them for life for criticising the Party.
You: Europe is worse than China (or will be really soon I promise).
Disingenuous.
Nobody claimed Europe was worse than China, only that if you wouldn't visit China for this reason then you shouldn't visit Europe (or the US) for the same reason.
Speaking of being disingenuous, when you say "Police can search phones to counteract human traffickers", did you think critically about that at all before writing it? Given one of the stated justifications is "preventing terrorism", and the UK has been illegally arresting Palestine Action supporters as terrorists for over a year, this seems a little naive at least.
> Nobody claimed Europe was worse than China, only that if you wouldn't visit China for this reason then you shouldn't visit Europe (or the US) for the same reason.
That would be nonsensical. If you have anti-Xi propaganda on your phone (which could be the reasons you mention), you have nothing to fear in Europe or in the US and a lot to fear in China.
The US is actually worse than both China and Europe because it's 18th century amendments protect human traffickers. Although they do what they can to not have to adhere to those, especially in border control.
> What about Palestine Action...
I'll limit myself to the LARP about "oppressive Europe invigilating your phone".
How about the US? What I'm going to write smells of "whataboutism", but it's tragic how more and more of the world is becoming police states. Going to the USA, they want your social media accounts. Regardless of that, the border thugs can probably demand you unlock your devices or they'll detain you for weeks on end, without any repercussions, because that sort of lawlessness is government policy now.
In the US, not disclosing a password is explicitly protected (5th amndmnt), SCOTUS has been clear. not so for biometrics, but so for PIN/passwd
> In the US, not disclosing a password is explicitly protected (5th amndmnt),
That's great but of exactly zero help if you're trying to travel to the US and CBP (or ICE) are staring you down. Even if they don't gulag you, they can always just reject entry for any non-citizen (and these days even some citizens it seems.)
Any country can reject non-citizen entry, for any reason or no reason at all. In fact, part of a definition of a country is ability to practice control over its territory and who is and is not there.
They have? What was the relevant case? It was my understanding that some lower courts have ruled one way, others the opposite. There are also many nuances in particular cases (e.g., the police wanting a broad search of a device for something that may or may not be there versus them knowing for a fact a device has certain information they want).
The 5th amendment only protects citizens, and we are only talking about visiting (as far as I can tell).
Ah yes, the US government still respects the 5th amendment... like they respect the other amendments as well as the constitution.
The constitution doesn't say shooting citizens is illegal, right?
Federal agents couldn't possibly have been aware that executing people on the streets is a violation of those people's rights, so they are covered by QI.
Haha, here's some random AI generated content:
(there's more but what's the point)1. https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal...
2. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/many-trump-admi...