this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
291 points (99.3% liked)

Privacy

45174 readers
535 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The recent federal raid on the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson isn’t merely an attack by the Trump administration on the free press. It’s also a warning to anyone with a smartphone.

Included in the search and seizure warrant for the raid on Natanson’s home is a section titled “Biometric Unlock,” which explicitly authorized law enforcement personnel to obtain Natanson’s phone and both hold the device in front of her face and to forcibly use her fingers to unlock it. In other words, a judge gave the FBI permission to attempt to bypass biometrics: the convenient shortcuts that let you unlock your phone by scanning your fingerprint or face.-

It is not clear if Natanson used biometric authentication on her devices, or if the law enforcement personnel attempted to use her face or fingers to unlock her devices. Natanson and the Washington Post did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The FBI declined to comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JoeMontayna@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The only safe phone is a phone with a strong password thats in a powered down state. Otherwise there are tools to gain full access.

[–] lavander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 9 minutes ago) (2 children)

The only safe phone is a phone with no data.

Otherwise there will be tools to gain full access.

Without forgetting the good old rubber hose attack

FWIW I think the only way to keep confidential information is hosted in another country, encrypted, with no credentials (or even the name of the server) cached, all on open sources stacks, with the infrastructure provider different from the operating system provider different from the application provider and encryption provider

Is this convenient? No Is this accessible to the average user? No

I just think something at certain point went extremely wrong in history. We accepted control in exchange of convenience

[–] ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

We accepted control at expense of convenience

I would have thought it would be more accurate to say we accepted convenience at the expense of privacy and security...

[–] lavander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Yes, of course, it was a mistake, I reworded that sentece