top | item 46783607

(no title)

nimbius | 1 month ago

i suppose what he means is that the phones of protestors which have signal chat will be investigated.

Assuming they dont have disappearing messages activated, and assuming any protestors willingly unlock their phones.

discuss

order

craftkiller|1 month ago

> willingly unlock their phones

Or they are running any mainstream iPhone or Android phone, they've unlocked the phone at least once since their last reboot, and the police have access to graykey. Not sure what the current state of things is, since we rely on leaked documents, but my take-away from the 2024 leaks was GrapheneOS Before First Unlock (BFU) is the only defense.

nosuchthing|1 month ago

Where has there been any allegations iPhone before first unlock has been bypassed?

GrapheneOS isn't quite as secure in the real world. Pixels continue to have baseband and OOBConfig exploits that allow pushing zero interaction updates, or system memory access.

dvtkrlbs|1 month ago

Isn't latest iPhones also have similar security profile on BFU. The latest support table I saw from one of the vendors was also confirming this.

ActorNightly|1 month ago

>is the only defense.

Or you know, the 2nd amendment.

Id be willing to bet that ICE would have a much smaller impact if they would be met with bullets instead of cameras. In the end, what ICE is doing doesn't really matter to Trump, as long as MAGA believes that things are being done, even if nothing is being done, he doesn't care.

spiderice|1 month ago

There are already people on X who have infiltrated chats and posted screen captures. Getting the full content of the chats isn't going to be difficult. They have way to many people in them.

servercobra|1 month ago

Or has biometric login turned on and didn't lock their phone behind a passcode before being arrested.

mrtesthah|1 month ago

Unfortunately not everyone in a group chat may be fully vetted, in which case they could be feds collecting "evidence". Some chats may have publicly circulating invite links.

But any judge that doesn't immediately reject such cases on a first-amendment basis is doing the business of an authoritarian dictator. This is fully protected speech and assembly.

JumpCrisscross|1 month ago

> any judge that doesn't immediately reject such cases on a first-amendment basis

If you say something illegal in a chat with a cop in it, or say it in public, I don’t think there are Constitutional issues with the police using that as evidence. (If you didn’t say anything illegal, you have a valid defence.)

dylan604|1 month ago

> Unfortunately not everyone in a group chat may be fully vetted,

Curious how many group chats have unknowingly allowed a well known journalist into their groups.