font size on the phone is small, both for preference and for a bit more privacy.
protect most apps with fingerprint app lock, in case the phone is stolen unlocked or someone else tries to open another app.
webcam covers. I don’t use phone camera covers, but android has privacy indicators that work as “snitches” when apps access the camera or mic. I have something similar for my other computers, at least for the camera.
I would like a hardware toggle for camera and mic on my next laptop, but that narrows down the laptop space too much.
I’m sure you’re already aware, but the framework laptop includes toggles for mic and camera. I’m a big fan of the laptops in general because of the upgradability and ease of repair.
I understand the phone owner is not covered by the fifth amendment to prevent authorities from unlocking a device using biometrics, but authorities still need a warrant or probable cause as it falls into search of private property.
Despite username similarities, I’m not Legal Eagle, nor do I have a legal background. Though I would be very much surprised if authorities in the US could search anybody’s phone at will without consent, warrant, or reasonable suspicion.
This very much depends on the state. Some state courts (California) have ruled that one can refuse a request to unlock a phone via biometrics, while others (Minnesota) have ruled that you do not have the right to refuse.
My understanding is that a passcode or PIN can be considered “testimony”, because you have to communicate this information, and testimony can’t be forced.
But biometrics aren’t always considered to be testimony, because it’s something you ARE.
I’m sure you’re already aware, but the framework laptop includes toggles for mic and camera. I’m a big fan of the laptops in general because of the upgradability and ease of repair.
right, I do have framework in my list of candidates for next laptop
If i recall correctly, law enforcement can use biometric information to unlock phones without your consent or a warrant.
PIN codes still by consent or warrant only.
I understand the phone owner is not covered by the fifth amendment to prevent authorities from unlocking a device using biometrics, but authorities still need a warrant or probable cause as it falls into search of private property.
You sure that’s been ruled on? Not arguing, only feel like I’ve seen a lot more instances of police violating that than hearing they couldn’t do it.
Edit: my apologies, you’re right. I was able to check into it and see recent rulings. Warrant levels may vary, but they need a warrant.
Despite username similarities, I’m not Legal Eagle, nor do I have a legal background. Though I would be very much surprised if authorities in the US could search anybody’s phone at will without consent, warrant, or reasonable suspicion.
This very much depends on the state. Some state courts (California) have ruled that one can refuse a request to unlock a phone via biometrics, while others (Minnesota) have ruled that you do not have the right to refuse.
My understanding is that a passcode or PIN can be considered “testimony”, because you have to communicate this information, and testimony can’t be forced.
But biometrics aren’t always considered to be testimony, because it’s something you ARE.
How solid is the android privacy indicator, in terms of if it can be tricked to not appear when the camera is running
unless there’s a way for non-root apps to bypass the Android API to access these sensors, I’d say it’s pretty solid.