Skip to main content

Met Police to extract phone data - unless you have autowipe...

Media_httpnewsbbcimgc_jmkjd

I found this news extremely distressing. From a cybernetic point of view, our phone is an extension of ourselves. It contains all the data we can't quite store in our own minds but being external to our bodies doesn't mean it's any more private than our very own thoughts. For example, we take photographs to remind ourselves of people or places or things, we take notes to augment our own mental notes. These are own private thoughts.

The fact that they are removing a variety of data without specific intent is paramount to mind invasion. The problem is, you aren't doing anything illegal now but who knows how the law will change in the next 20 years. You may WANT to do something legally wrong but not morally wrong and you are only as free as your right to revolt. This is one of those things that helps curtail that freedom.

Luckily there are many tools out there to help us evade such naivety. A tool such as Autowipe http://goo.gl/7u2GX will allow you to enter your phone password in wrong x times or else enter a specific password when they attempt to make you unlock your phone, this will cause the phone to completely wipe itself. As I haven't tried it myself I can't say how obvious the wipe is but either way your data will be safe from prying eyes.

Ultimately, the police are a collection of human beings and it is very difficult to stop that level of data theft being abused. For example, people ogling at naked pictures of girlfriends etc.. (not that I would be stupid enough to have something like that on my phone! but I am sure there are plenty of you out there).

Comments

Dom Finn said…
One thing I will note is that according to one review on the marketplace, the eraser doesn't securely wipe the sd card. This is important to note because if someone was really determined to recover your data, they could. When you delete a file, the spaces in memory where you file was stored are just marked to be over written rather than actually deleting them meaning they can be recovered. To be completely safe, the spaces in memory need to be overwritten with blank data.

Popular posts from this blog

Creating star ratings in HTML and Javascript

I'd searched around a little for some shortcuts to help in doing this but I couldn't find anything satisfactory that included the ability to pull the rating off again for saving. I'd ended up coming up with this rather cheeky solution. Hopefully it helps you too! This is my first post in a while (I stopped blogging properly about 8 years ago!) It's strange coming back to it. Blogger feels very crusty and old by todays standards too.

Make your objects immutable by default

More about the Good Dojo In my post last week , I discussed creating objects that are instantiated safely. Please go back and read if you are interested. At the end of the post, I mentioned that I'd also written the class so it was immutable when instantiated. This is important!!! I feel like a broken record in repeating this but I am sure at the time of writing your code, you aren't modifying your object all over the place and so are safe in the belief that protecting against mutability is overkill. Please remember though, your code could be around for a hell of a long time. You aren't writing your code for now... you are writing for the next fool that comes along (including you) . Nothing is more upsetting that coming back to fix a bug on some wonderfully crafted code to say "Who has butchered my code?!", but often you were involved at the start of the process. You made the code easy to modify, allowing objects to be used / reused / modified without thi

An instantiated object should be "ok"

I've been QA'ing quite a bit of work recently and one common theme I've noticed across both Java and C# projects I have been looking at is that we occasionally open ourselves up unessacarily to Exceptions by the way objects are being created. My general rule of thumb (which I have seen mentioned in a Pluralsight video recently but also always re-iterate in various Robust Software talks I have done) is that you shouldn't be able to create an object and then call a method or access a property that then throws an exception. At worst, it should return null (I'm not going to moan about that now). I've created an example below. We have two Dojos, one is good and one is bad. The bad dojo looks very familiar though. It's a little class written in the style that seems often encouraged. In fact, many classes start life as something like this. Then as years go on, you and other colleagues add more features to the class and it's instantiation becomes a second