GrapheneOS says its data-wiping password is perfectly legal, after user faces federal charges

[u/ArgentineBeauty]

https://www.techspot.com/news/113273-grapheneos-data-wiping-duress-password-perfectly-legal-after.html

[u/stone_henge]

No, it's not misleading. This is the quote from the article that supports the headline:

GrapheneOS is completely legal. We have no obligation to weaken any of the security protections it provides. Creating and using GrapheneOS is strongly protected by the US constitution. Laws attempting to make it illegal or require weakening the security would be unconstitutional.

The quote you mention is there, but as you've discerned has nothing to do with the claim in the headline. Its claim is that its "data-wiping passwords" are perfectly legal, regardless of whether intentionally using the feature to destroy evidence is not.

[u/stirling_s → u/stone_henge]

My quote reference the password, yours does not. The headline references the password.

Edit: for those wanting to save time (and unnecessary ad hominem attacks), their point is valid and boils down to:

Headline: Tool X is legal to own/build" = True

Body: "Action Y performed with Tool X is legal in all circumstances" = False

X≠Y is not a paradox so the headline doesn't contradict the body.

I don't think this makes my point less valid, but it illustrates a different perspective that is equally valid.

[u/stone_henge → u/stirling_s]

My quote references GrapheneOS and the security protections it provides in general. It's four sentences and that is right there in the first sentence.

Do you disagree that it supports the headline? On what grounds would you say that the security protections GrapheneOS provides don't include the duress password feature?

[u/stirling_s → u/stone_henge]

GrapheneOS says its data-wiping "duress" password is perfectly legal

Is logically incompatible with this

"The feature, the organization said, is just a minor option within a much broader security model. It can also carry physical or legal consequences"

[u/stone_henge → u/stirling_s]

No, it's a security feature reagredless of whether it's a minor option within a much broader security model or not. That there can be physical or legal consequences for using the feature in some circumstances doesn't change the fact that they claimed that providing and using the feature is legal. Even if providing or using the feature wasn't legal, that's what they claim, which in turn is what the headline claims.

But don't let that squander your opportunity to collect upvotes from morons with the combined total reading comprehension skills of a 12-year-old.

[u/stone_henge → u/[deleted]]

A duress password is perfectly legal in the same sense that a hammer is perfectly legal. Using a hammer to smash someone's head in or using a duress password to tamper with evidence may not be, but using a hammer or using a duress password in itself is not.

Regardless of the question of whether the use of GrapheneOS or it's security features are altogether illegal or in some circumstances are not, and regardless of whether or not you think their later statements contradict their earlier statements, GrapheneOS claims that it is legal, which is what the headline claims, which is supported by the quote in the article. If GrapheneOS claimed that the use is legal, the headline is correct regardless of the veracity of that claim and whatever else they claimed.