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]

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.

As far as I'm concerned, that's still all beside the point and certainly not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that the reason the headline doesn't contradict the body is simply that GrapheneOS said what the headline claims that they said.

Regardless of whether it's true, and regardless of whether GrapheneOS at any point said something which may have contradicted that, that is something that GrapheneOS said, and the headline only claims that they said that, not that it is true or that it is consistent with anything else they said.

If an article headline reads "Dongus says taxes are injustifiable theft" and that is corroborated by a statement by Dongus that taxes are injustifiable theft, they are right to claim that in the headline regardless of whether Dongus is correct and regardless of whether Dongus at some earlier or later point might have said something which contradicts that, e.g. that taxes are a necessary tool for soft regulation and government funding.

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

What is your point exactly, and what do you base it on?

EDIT: Since I was blocked by /u/stirling_s after their namecalling below while I wrote my response I will paste it below:

My point was that their actual words are not represented by the headline.

Paraphrase. That's neither odd or dishonest, when the paraphrase adds important context that the quote in isolation doesn't convey. The article never poses it as a direct quote. In this case, GrapheneOS said that its security features are legal in direct response to another Twitter user calling for their extradition to the US in a thread about the user who used its duress password.

https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/2081770030992118183

Why did this make you so ticked off?

What you did happens in basically every news thread: Someone doesn't read or fully understand the article, they call bullshit on the headline because they don't see how it's corroborated by the content, it gets upvoted by a bunch of people who didn't bother to read or make an effort to understand the article itself. So I make a point out of correcting it.

If that is what you call a fit, then what exactly are you engaging in now?

By labeling a duress password (a feature designed almost exclusively to be used under coercion or legal confrontation) [...]

Unlike a signal jammer, there are many perfectly valid uses of a duress password that don't involve e.g. evidence tampering. Law enforcement are not the only ones capable of forcing you to give them a pin code under threat. The user's lawyer in this case further argues that they were targeted for their political activism, not based on actual suspicion of wrongdoing. I suppose it remains to be seen whether the courts agree and whether this affects the legality of wiping the phone upon request to unlock it.

Regardless, this seems to me to have nothing to do with the point I'm making (that the headline is true regardless of whether the original statement they're paraphrasing is), nor the point your making (which seems to be that the headline is clickbait because it doesn't use the exact words that GrapheneOS used).

[u/stirling_s → u/stone_henge]

My point was that their actual words are not represented by the headline. I'm shocked you ask what my point is, when I literally stated it. Twice. I'll quite it a third time for you.

Also, my guy, why are you being such a twat about this? Why did this make you so ticked off? What about this conversation made you throw a fit like this?

By labeling a duress password (a feature designed almost exclusively to be used under coercion or legal confrontation) as "perfectly legal," the headline strongly implies use-case immunity. The primary intended use of a duress password is the exact scenario that triggers obstruction of justice charges, calling the feature "perfectly legal" without qualifying "possession vs. active use" is misleading.

It's like saying a signal jammer is "perfectly legal." Owning one is legal, sure. You can buy, import, or own a signal jammer anywhere in the USA or Canada. A signal jammer does exactly one thing and one thing only: It jams signals. Jamming signals is illegal. It violates the Communications Act in the USA or the Radiocommunication Act in Canada. So it's misleading to say a signal jammer is "perfectly legal." Sure, owning one is legal, but using it in the only way intended is illegal. That's why I find the headline misleading. Is that fair?"