Privacy

4003 readers

21 users here now

A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy

Rules:

Be civil
No spam posting
Keep posts on-topic
No trolling

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

454

[USA] Appeals court rules that cops can physically make you unlock your phone (reason.com)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

221 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You claim so and yet have no example article, video, blog post, or any form of proof of it ever being done. Everything is possible in theory, even on iOS (with a jailbreak).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

bro i use linux, i have literally configured a fingerprint scanner to work before, do you think i'm just making up PAM?

There is quite literally a section on the arch wiki about this being a thing.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Fingerprint_GUI#Password there are probably a handful of other methods of doing this notably any additional form of 2FA. (like this one is)

although realistically, there are better ways of doing this than using biometrics, physical security keys for example.

Also you say this like the OP actually verified that this was a thing that was impossible and couldn't be done. You're also acting like i claimed that this was explicitly the case, which i did not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

bro i use linux, i have literally configured a fingerprint scanner to work before

So did I, can confirm it's easy, and it doesn't matter because we are not talking about configuring a fingerprint scanner to work, we are talking about having a phone lock screen that asks for both a fingerprint and a password, something that would require, at the very least, UI that I don't think exists in any Linux phone project. That there is underlying functionality in PAM to make it happen is irrelevant, because that's only part of such a solution.

do you think i’m just making up PAM?

No, why? I'm saying that there is no Linux phone where "you can just do this out of the box" like you say.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

i wasn't talking about phones, you are retconning my own thoughts lmao.

No, why? I’m saying that there is no Linux phone where “you can just do this out of the box” like you say.

i did not say that, not once, please show me where on the doll it says "linux phone"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The topic is about phones, and you said:

Gotta love android and IOS being utter dogshit.

If you are saying you started an offtopic conversation about Linux that had nothing to do with phones, and then, unrelated to your own comment, complained about Android and iOS even though your comment had nothing to do with phones, then... that sure is interesting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

no, we were talking about basic cybersecurity, or i suppose physical device security, which just happens to be relevant to phones because it turns out phones are dogshit at physical security. So i left a comment about how this is basically a solved problem on linux, because it's not actually that hard to just implement proper security.

I was complaining about android, because both me and the commenter i was responding to were talking about how awful security is on these devices, for no reason other than utter incompetence or forced inaction.

This isn't interesting, it's a basic conversational pattern, if you haven't spoken with enough people to realize that conversations just, shift sometimes, i feel bad for you.