Did Australia Poke a Hole in Your Phone’s Security?

Re:Did Australia Poke a Hole in Your Phone’s Security? by dan-robertson on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @06:36PM (#18973962)

These things are quite obviously very different and I can’t find a way to read this in good faith (except perhaps from an extreme libertarian point of view), let alone in a good light.

One is a law requiring phones to try to alert people whose privacy is being invaded in some circumstances.

The other is a law requiring phones to invade people’s privacy in some circumstances.

I think it is quite reasonable to follow the former, just as it could be reasonable for laws to require phones to broadcast tsunami warnings or meet various antitrust requirements.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Did Australia Poke a Hole in Your Phone’s Security? by AnaniasAnanas on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @07:43PM (#18974544)

> One is a law requiring phones to try to alert people whose privacy is being invaded in some circumstances.

A law that restricts my freedom to customize my device. Plus their privacy was being invaded from the moment that I looked at them, taking a photo would not change anything.

> just as it could be reasonable for laws to require phones to broadcast tsunami warnings

As long as it is configurable, sure.

[ Parent | on HN ]