Question Why do I need to enter passcode every morning?

Question Why do I need to enter passcode every morning? - Google Pixel 7

Before I go to sleep I put my phone on wireless charger. I wake up in the morning and it show unlock using passcode. No fingerprint or face unlock. Is there any way to disable this?

stephanstricker said:
Before I go to sleep I put my phone on wireless charger. I wake up in the morning and it show unlock using passcode. No fingerprint or face unlock. Is there any way to disable this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK, it is now mandatory that once in a while, you have to unlock the phone with passcode. When it will ask for the passcode varies. I have no idea why everyday at a particular time (or an event) your phone is asking for it. In my case, it varies. And I don't think that it is possible to disable it and I have not come across any post regarding this.

Don't know if this would work. Lol, I stopped at Android 10 like the Road Runner does when he spots a Wylie Coyote trap ahead.
Never set/use any locks on my N10+'s; double tap on/off. Don't even know if the fingerprint sensors work, never tried it

Typically you only need to enter passcode on boot, or restart. Is your phone rebooting during charge? You can check your uptime in 'about phone'.

I use a trusted place (home) with Smartlock. The verbiage says "Your phone will stay unlocked for up to 4 hours or until you leave one of your trusted places." Apparently the toilet isn't trusted and hours become minutes because taking a leak is all it takes to lock the phone.

Its so that when the FBI raids you in the early hours of the morning, they can't force you to unlock it with your face or fingerprint. Password/pin is knowledge based security and therefore protected by the 5th amendment.

96carboard said:
Its so that when the FBI raids you in the early hours of the morning, they can't force you to unlock it with your face or fingerprint. Password/pin is knowledge based security and therefore protected by the 5th amendment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't decided this specific issue. In 2020, the Supreme Court of New Jersey actually ruled that the 5th Amendment does not protect a person from being compelled to giving up their memorized password or pin. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court but they refused to hear it.
Although the majority of lower courts tend to rule the 5th Amendment does provide this protection, not all do and until the U.S. Supreme Court finally weighs in on this specific issue, the law remains uncertain.

Imagine this is for security reasons. Personally think this is a small price to keep the device safe. Afterall, these days, so much personal data is accessed via mobiles e.g. government apps, bank authentication etc

I don't think this increases my security at all. Finger print sensor are safe enough for me and on ios I never enter my pin unless I restart the device. If somebody has to guard his phone by the 5th amendment you got some serious issues.

stephanstricker said:
I don't think this increases my security at all. Finger print sensor are safe enough for me and on ios I never enter my pin unless I restart the device. If somebody has to guard his phone by the 5th amendment you got some serious issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd say anytime the FBI comes a knocking at your door at any hour a pin is the least of your concerns. But to your point, whether or not you occasionally need to put in a pin shouldn't bother you all that much. Maybe it increases security a smidge and maybe not but it takes under 2 seconds so just do it and forget it. IOS is a horse of another color so there's not much to compare. And we're certainly not going down that road in this thread. Sometimes I wonder what triggers it since it seems so random to me too.

The only real security is physical possession.
I guard my phone like my wallet. I don't leave it lying around. I don't flash it or use it when my mind needs to be in real time mode.
Many people are undisciplined and street stupid as hell. Many times that ineptness costs them a lot... eventually. At that moment those cute little security features are too little, too late.

Lughnasadh said:
Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't decided this specific issue. In 2020, the Supreme Court of New Jersey actually ruled that the 5th Amendment does not protect a person from being compelled to giving up their memorized password or pin. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court but they refused to hear it.
Although the majority of lower courts tend to rule the 5th Amendment does provide this protection, not all do and until the U.S. Supreme Court finally weighs in on this specific issue, the law remains uncertain.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The FACT that it "hasn't decided this specific issue" means that biometrics are NOT protected by the 5th amendment. In order for it to be protected by 5th amendment REQUIRES the decision to actually be made. In fact, even if the decision is made to protect biometrics under the 5th amendment, you should STILL take the appropriate precautions to protect yourself, since it is well established that not all law enforcement agencies or officers completely respect the law. Its much harder to force you to divulge data than to hold you down physically and force you to touch the sensor!

96carboard said:
The FACT that it "hasn't decided this specific issue" means that biometrics are NOT protected by the 5th amendment. In order for it to be protected by 5th amendment REQUIRES the decision to actually be made. In fact, even if the decision is made to protect biometrics under the 5th amendment, you should STILL take the appropriate precautions to protect yourself, since it is well established that not all law enforcement agencies or officers completely respect the law. Its much harder to force you to divulge data than to hold you down physically and force you to touch the sensor!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First of all, you mentioned nothing about biometrics in your original post. You were talking about password/pin unlock methods. You said:
"Password/pin is knowledge based security and therefore protected by the 5th amendment."
This is the specific issue I was talking about and responded to. I never mentioned anything about biometrics. And by your own reasoning ("In order for it to be protected by 5th amendment REQUIRES the decision to be made."), that would mean password/pins are not protected by the 5th Amendment since the Supreme Court has not actually made a decision on this issue, thus contradicting your own original statement above that "Password/pin is knowledge based security and therefore protected by the 5th amendment").
Secondly, just because the Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on a specific right doesn't mean that right is not protected by the Constitution. We have 12 (actually 13) Circuit Court of Appeals here. They can decide the constitutionality of an issue without the Supreme Court weighing in. And unless the Supreme Court weighs in, their rulings control in their specific jurisdiction. And if all agree on whether a right is or is not protected by the constitution, that ruling effectively makes it the law of the land unless the Supreme Court decides to weigh in and overrule those decisions. And in fact, the Supreme Court often does not weigh in on the rulings of the Court of Appeals, especially when they are all in agreement, thus leaving those rulings controlling. Therefore, it is not correct when you say "In order for it to be protected by 5th amendment REQUIRES the decision (by the Supreme Court) to actually be made.".
It's when the lower courts are in disagreement that leads to uncertainty. A right could be protected in one jurisdiction but not another, as is the case with this issue. That's when the Supreme Court should take on a case and decide the issue so there is no uncertainty as to what the law is across the land. However, they don't always do this. As I mentioned earlier, they decided not to do this when the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided that the 5th Amendment does not protect a person from being compelled to give up their password or pin.

Lughnasadh said:
First of all, you mentioned nothing about biometrics in your original post. You were talking about password/pin unlock methods. You said:
"Password/pin is knowledge based security and therefore protected by the 5th amendment."
This is the specific issue I was talking about and responded to. I never mentioned anything about biometrics. And by your own reasoning ("In order for it to be protected by 5th amendment REQUIRES the decision to be made."), that would mean password/pins are not protected by the 5th Amendment since the Supreme Court has not actually made a decision on this issue, thus contradicting your own original statement above that "Password/pin is knowledge based security and therefore protected by the 5th amendment").
Secondly, just because the Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on a specific right doesn't mean that right is not protected by the Constitution. We have 12 (actually 13) Circuit Court of Appeals here. They can decide the constitutionality of an issue without the Supreme Court weighing in. And unless the Supreme Court weighs in, their rulings control in their specific jurisdiction. And if all agree on whether a right is or is not protected by the constitution, that ruling effectively makes it the law of the land unless the Supreme Court decides to weigh in and overrule those decisions. And in fact, the Supreme Court often does not weigh in on the rulings of the Court of Appeals, especially when they are all in agreement, thus leaving those rulings controlling. Therefore, it is not correct when you say "In order for it to be protected by 5th amendment REQUIRES the decision (by the Supreme Court) to actually be made.".
It's when the lower courts are in disagreement that leads to uncertainty. A right could be protected in one jurisdiction but not another, as is the case with this issue. That's when the Supreme Court should take on a case and decide the issue so there is no uncertainty as to what the law is across the land. However, they don't always do this. As I mentioned earlier, they decided not to do this when the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided that the 5th Amendment does not protect a person from being compelled to give up their password or pin.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are mistaken about things. The only thing up in the air is biometric security. Knowledge based security is protected.

96carboard said:
You are mistaken about things. The only thing up in the air is biometric security. Knowledge based security is protected.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not mistaken. And I just cited an example for you. In New Jersey (State v. Robert Andrews) you can be compelled to disclose your password and pin to your phone and computer. The court used the "foregone conclusion" exception to the testimonial act of production requirement to reach this decision. Other courts may use the same reasoning. So to make a blanket statement that "Knowledge based security is protected." is just false. It depends on the jurisdiction the action takes place in and whether it's in federal or state court.
Held: "For the reasons set forth above, neither federal nor state protections against compelled disclosure shield Andrews’s passcodes. We therefore affirm the Order of the Appellate Division compelling Andrews’s disclosure of the passcodes to his cellphones seized consistent with the trial court’s order of production, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings."--Supreme Court of New Jersey

Be interested to know if it were possible to wipe and reflash the phone (in an emergency) by entering a "special pin" instead of your actual pin.

Sorry to awaken a dead thread, but I just noticed something on my P7 that my be relevant. Until about a week ago I was using fingerprint unlock only, and my phone would occasionally ask for a password unlock at random times, but generally not first thing in the morning. Last week I added face unlock, and my phone started asking for the password EVERY morning. Yesterday I deleted the face unlock and went back to fingerprint only, and this morning my P7 DIDN’T ask for password unlock. Seems that when it asks for a password depends on what kind of biometrics you set up. Guess it makes sense.

It is my usual practice to turn off my mobile before going to bed. That way, sleep is uninterrupted. When the phone is restarted the next day, the password is required to unlock the phone. Personally think this is a good safety feature. Consider how vital our mobiles are to daily life these days e.g. digital ID, banking authentication, email, contacts etc. Password entry seems a small price to keep data safe.
Just my 2 cents.

Related

AT&T Users - READ ME - Account Privacy Issues

I have also posted this in the hermes section, I created 2 threads to better the exposure to AT&T users in the forums they most frequent.
Hello Fellow AT&T Customers,
I want to notify all AT&T users of a situation that currently arose so you can protect yourself from having it happen to you. Last week a third party was able to call AT&T Customer Care and obtain all account information for all lines that I have. I have started a blog about this at http://www.tri-syndicate.com AT&T Customer Care management states that nothing will be done to compensate me for the harassment, and that it can happen to anyone. I am starting this blog to fight back at AT&T so this doesn't happen to anyone else.
If you haven't done so already I would suggest calling and setting a password on your account because it will help but not completely stop this from happening.
I am unsure of carrier policies outside of the U.S. but the U.S. carrier policies need to be changed before further damage may occur. I know they have obtained my cellular numbers but I do not know if they were able to obtain my address as well, this I am still trying to find out.
If anyone has any tips, suggestions, or ideas I am all ears.
Regards,
CUSTEL

AT&T's position on this is quite clear... you don't have any privacy...
"Well, it's not your record; it's our record. You don't own it; we own it, this may later be used to say it's not protected by the Privacy Act."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201742.html

Thank's for the link smuook hadn't seen that before.

Someone must have it out for you. Whenever I call customer service they ask me a whole bunch of questions regarding my account. Maybe someone got hold of your bill either from the mail or garbage and used that to pretend to be you. Hope you find out who is doing this to you. Keep a record so this way you have proof.
As for the reference to AT&T's policy "AT&T said it does not share the data with third-party marketing firms, but it cites circumstances under which it shares customer information with the government and law enforcement." and "News reports allege that AT&T and other telecom companies handed over millions of customer calling records to the National Security Agency to help track down terrorists."
This can be done to almost any company if order by a court of law. Point being safegaurd all of your personal accounts, shred all personal information and be vigilant about who and what information you give to who.

its far to easy for third parties to access ones account information. it can be done in a multitude of ways even in the store itself. I have had first hand issues with exes tracking down my bill information while I was on T mobile in the past it is a major issue imo. I feel you Custel and I really hope nothing major comes of thie beach. Its tough to make things more private because then even we as account holders become frustrated with the security measures and the amount of time we spend on hold while waiting to be served by customer service. We all want fast and secure service but right now we aren't getting it.
Definitely put a passcode on your accounts and NEVER add Authorized users to the accounts. they cause more trouble then they are worth.

Anyone know about cops got a question

Simply put, if a retired cop attempts to pull you over and play cop is that illegal? Plus, wouldn't his jurisdiction be ZERO since he's retired? Had one try and flex muscle with me today and was completely out of line.
Cliff notes: Guy probably near 85 years old driving wildly, I push it to get away from him, then he tries to tell me I'm the crazy one behind the wheel pulls a badge and a retired cop card thing.
Nothing happened afterwards but just curious...

Sue that fool that is completly illegal.
Sent from my SGH-T999V using xda premium

Nosferatu. said:
Simply put, if a retired cop attempts to pull you over and play cop is that illegal? Plus, wouldn't his jurisdiction be ZERO since he's retired? Had one try and flex muscle with me today and was completely out of line.
Cliff notes: Guy probably near 85 years old driving wildly, I push it to get away from him, then he tries to tell me I'm the crazy one behind the wheel pulls a badge and a retired cop card thing.
Nothing happened afterwards but just curious...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wtf? Lol
Sent from my One V using xda premium

You should have called the police on him. A retired cop has no right to pull you over. I bet you we're Wondering why a random car was chasing you down. If you got his name or license tag, I would report him if i were you.
Sent from my SGH-T999

Before you do anything, make sure he isn't a Reserve officer or deputy. A large amount of law enforcement departments hire retired officers on a reserve-only basis. They work only part time, but many are still sworn officers with arrest power.

Card83 said:
Before you do anything, make sure he isn't a Reserve officer or deputy. A large amount of law enforcement departments hire retired officers on a reserve-only basis. They work only part time, but many are still sworn officers with arrest power.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This guy was close to 80-85 years old hardly active. He showed me a badge so I pulled over initially. Then he showed me his credentials in which it clearly said RETIRED on it.
He just kept yelling at me I told him to lower his voice. Eventually we went our separate ways. I was tempted to record him off my phone and then call the real cops on him but figured I have better things to do.
He was swerving his car next to me so I naturally accelerate by him at a good clip and try and keep my distance from him but he just kept tailing me and with his maneuvers you could hear his tires screetch at times. Almost hit my car twice.

Card83 is right about being a reserve cop. Also, depending on how high up they made it before retiring, some get to keep credentials (ie, sheriff for twenty years, still has pull after retirement).

If you got his name, call the cops and make a report.
That'll get the incident on record. He broke the law afaik.

carhustler said:
You should have called the police on him. A retired cop has no right to pull you over. I bet you we're Wondering why a random car was chasing you down. If you got his name or license tag, I would report him if i were you.
Sent from my SGH-T999
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This
_______________________________________
"fat bottomed girls, you make this rocking world go round"

carhustler said:
You should have called the police on him. A retired cop has no right to pull you over. I bet you we're Wondering why a random car was chasing you down. If you got his name or license tag, I would report him if i were you.
Sent from my SGH-T999
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ditto what was stated above. I myself am a LEO. There is a reason we typically drive marked patrol vehicles with emergency lights on them. This type of behavior can be confusing, not to mention outright dangerous for all parties involved. I'd go make a report and cover yourself. Also, if this man has made a habit of doing this type thing in the past and has ever been called on it before, his nuts could really end up in a vice. The best thing he could have done was pick up the phone and call the police and let it ride from there.
Sent using my HTC EVO 4G and a magic wand

If a police officer (especially if it's an Off-duty or retired one) oversteps their bounds you should definitely report it. That's the only tool we as regular citizens have to keep them from abusing their power. If the Police Station is no help (unlikely) you can call your local news, contact blogs and use the internet to spread the story.
---------- Post added 23rd October 2012 at 12:08 AM ---------- Previous post was 22nd October 2012 at 11:47 PM ----------
Decided I wanted to expand on that since I hate to think anybody would be clueless as to their rights in the event they interact with a LEO.
"Probable cause" is anything that gives the Officer reason to suspect you are or have committed a crime. A classic trick of crooked cops is to say that the smell marijuana which gives them probable cause since that there may mean there are drugs in your possession.
1. They do not have the right to give you anymore than a basic pat down to check for weapons/paraphernalia without probable cause.
2. They do not have the right to search your vehicle without probable cause. If asked make it clear that you do not consent to search and lock the door to your car if you get out.
3. Miranda rights will not be read to you unless you are actually being arrested but remember your right to plead the 5th until you have legal counsel. They are capable of using your words against you if you say something that might incriminate yourself.
4. You have the right to speak to the LEO through your window without opening your door. You can also tell them to have their department call you if they need to speak to you. Unless they have a search warrant they do not have the right to invite themselves in.
5. They do not have the right to go through your phone and if there is a passcode lock you are not obligated to give it to them.

Rooting is now more troublesome for us users

After alot of research through different sites I have realized that rooting tablets, such as the nexus 7, has been deemed illegal!
This was cited from a website, stated below;
"Can I Root My Tablet?
Not unless the manufacturer specifically allows you to. This is where things kinda start to hit the fan. According to the Librarian, the proposed definition of "tablet" was too ill-defined for the office to be able to expand the exemption. And I quote:
On the other hand, the Register concluded that the record did not support an extension of the exemption to “tablet” devices. The Register found significant merit to the opposition’s concerns that this aspect of the proposed class was broad and ill-defined, as a wide range of devices might be considered “tablets,” notwithstanding the significant distinctions among them in terms of the way they operate, their intended purposes, and the nature of the applications they can accommodate. For example, an ebook reading device might be considered a “tablet,” as might a handheld video game device or a laptop computer.
The main issue, as you can see, is not necessarily that the Register felt that tablets were somehow in a different class of device than smartphones and that consumers had fewer rights. It's that the case being made (chiefly by the EFF a few other consumer-advocacy groups) failed to adequately describe what a "tablet" is. The Library couldn't allow exemptions to the rule without risking more wide-spread effects than it intends.
Before you get upset, keep in mind that being very careful about what language is used in laws is important to our legal system. Overly broad rules can harm citizens in serious ways, so a lack of adequate language is, in principle, a good reason to hold back. However, this also means that a.) the burden is on the EFF to come up with a satisfying proposal to allow the exemption, and b.) we won't be able to look at this issue again until 2015 at the earliest"
I posted this here to ask you tablet users what you think about this bill.
This was quoted from "androidpolice. Com"
Exact link wouldn't copy with GSIII

Arrest me then
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

"Yours sincerely,
The Land of the Free.™"

Not illegal in my country.

If there is no carrier subsidy, then there is no problem.
So you can root a Wifi nexus 7, but possibly not the 3G one (if you got it as part of a deal with a sim card). if you bought it outright, then there is no problem.
It's not hard to understand?

CrazyPeter said:
If there is no carrier subsidy, then there is no problem.
So you can root a Wifi nexus 7, but possibly not the 3G one (if you got it as part of a deal with a sim card). if you bought it outright, then there is no problem.
It's not hard to understand?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it has been deemed illegal to root anything classified as a "tablet device"
Look it up... that as well as unlocking sim is now illegal.
In my opinion if we pay two to seven or eight hundred for a device we should be able to make it how we like.

XDA is a world wide forum, so perhaps you might bother to mention what country you are talking about.
I presume you are speaking of the UK, but that's just a guess.
Not that I care; I really don't anticipate the "phone police" bursting through my doors anytime soon. As far as that goes, they'd probably druther my phone/tab was rooted as it should be easier to exploit in that condition.

TCPModding said:
No it has been deemed illegal to root anything classified as a "tablet device"
Look it up... that as well as unlocking sim is now illegal.
In my opinion if we pay two to seven or eight hundred for a device we should be able to make it how we like.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Explain how they'll keep 'tablets' running Win 7, Win 8 or Linux from having 'root' access?
Sent via my Nexus 7, Amiga 3000 or HTC EVO 3D

Going to close this.. it has been well discussed elsewhere..

Fingerprint scanner on nexus 6

**Please move thread if needed**
Hi im completely new to this website but have a strange idea that might bring the nexus 6 back to life! It probably wont work but can we add this?:
Cant add links yet..but it is a nexus 5x fingerprint scanner on ebay for 10$ usd
Since android 6.0 supports it itll work software wise i think?
But my main question would be will it connect to the N6?
Also you'd need to mod the back cover to have a hole now i guess.
Please let me know if this is possible
Thanks!

Who says the Nexus 6 is dead?
Anyway, what you want to do I don't believe is possible as there is no way to plug the scanner into the motherboard. That's the biggest problem you're going to have. If you can somehow overcome that obstacle, then the rest may be possible as it is mostly kernel drivers, binaries, and Android itself. Personally, I see too much work for too little reward. In the United States, NOT having a fingerprint scanner on your device is actually a good thing, especially if you value your privacy. You're better off using a password or pattern lock, because with a fingerprint scanner, depending on location police in the US can compel you to unlock your phone without a warrant.

I read somewhere that they had intended for it to have it but it was axed and that's how we got the Larger Dimple in the Back.

carlosjcar said:
I read somewhere that they had intended for it to have it but it was axed and that's how we got the Larger Dimple in the Back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe the large dimple at the back is more of a design attribute. Helps in a better stability when holding with a single hand. If I'm not wrong, I've seen it on motog as well.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Jaspreet84 said:
I believe the large dimple at the back is more of a design attribute. Helps in a better stability when holding with a single hand. If I'm not wrong, I've seen it on motog as well.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really. Nexus 6 prototype had a fingerprint sensor. And maybe here will fit Nexus 5x fingerprint sensor. I made a picture. As we see we dont have where to connect fingerprint. I dont know maybe its hided. I never tried to open back cover and look into it.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

Ifixit did a teardown of the Nexus 6. The mainboard of production units has no connection for a fingerprint scanner. Now, if there were pictures of the prototype's mainboard available that would help figure out whether there was an actual connector or the scanner was juryrigged. If juryrigged, it may be possible to repeat the process on a production unit.
EDIT: I found additional pictures on Google. It wasn't readily apparent in the pictures above, but the fingerprint scanner was to be part of the upper ribbon cable on production units. So, we have the connector, but there is another issue: how to get the fingerprint scanner to connect to the existing ribbon cable, since you cannot slip two ribbon cables into one connector.

Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
Ifixit did a teardown of the Nexus 6. The mainboard of production units has no connection for a fingerprint scanner. Now, if there were pictures of the prototype's mainboard available that would help figure out whether there was an actual connector or the scanner was juryrigged. If juryrigged, it may be possible to repeat the process on a production unit.
EDIT: I found additional pictures on Google. It wasn't readily apparent in the pictures above, but the fingerprint scanner was to be part of the upper ribbon cable on production units. So, we have the connector, but there is another issue: how to get the fingerprint scanner to connect to the existing ribbon cable, since you cannot slip two ribbon cables into one connector.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My guess is that a fingerprint sensor is *probably* just a simple i2c interface, and maybe an interrupt. Likely those two signals are already on the ribbon cable that is in there. What that means, is that you *might* be able to add it, but it would require a custom made ribbon cable.
More important question though (@OP mainly)... is why would you go to all that trouble? A fingerprint is really NOT a great biometric security feature, they aren't that difficult to duplicate. In fact, a half decent hacker could duplicate your fingerprint by reading your fingerprints off the phone's body and the fingerprint sensor itself.
Its nothing that would "bring it back to life", its just a gimmick. Fact is that Nexus 6 really is still all the way up there by today's standards. It is NOT universally outperformed today's newer phones -- it DOES hold its own against SD810, winning more in benchmarks than it loses. For example, the single-threaded performance of the SD805 absolutely obliterates the 810.

@doitright: I already pointed out to the OP one of the big pitfalls of a fingerprint scanner, that pitfall being police can compel you to unlock your phone without a warrant. The lack of a fingerprint scanner is one reason why I picked the Nexus 6 in the first place, instead of spending lots more money for the 6P. Staying away from the 810 is another.

Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
that pitfall being police can compel you to unlock your phone without a warrant.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You sure about that? What jurisdiction would that be, and what is the written law that supports it? It doesn't sound right, and I can't imagine there being any difference between being compelled on a biometric vs a passphrase... On top of that, of course, is the fact that just because it has a fingerprint sensor, doesn't mean that you need to use it or teach it your fingerprint.

doitright said:
You sure about that? What jurisdiction would that be, and what is the written law that supports it? It doesn't sound right, and I can't imagine there being any difference between being compelled on a biometric vs a passphrase... On top of that, of course, is the fact that just because it has a fingerprint sensor, doesn't mean that you need to use it or teach it your fingerprint.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-a-suspect-unlock-a-phone-with-a-fingerprint/
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/...s-to-unlock-fingerprint-protected-smartphones
The precedent has been set already, both articles explain why it stood in court. Essentially, they say that your fingerprint is like DNA and can be collected at the crime scene and if it leads to additional evidence, so be it.

Dusty Rhodes said:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-a-suspect-unlock-a-phone-with-a-fingerprint/
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/...s-to-unlock-fingerprint-protected-smartphones
The precedent has been set already, both articles explain why it stood in court. Essentially, they say that your fingerprint is like DNA and can be collected at the crime scene and if it leads to additional evidence, so be it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's pretty scary, but not exactly the same as what you suggested. In particular, it doesn't look like the police can compel you, since even things like DNA/breath sample/etc., can't just be demanded on a whim, rather this would be compel, as in a judicial order, aka "warrant".

doitright said:
That's pretty scary, but not exactly the same as what you suggested. In particular, it doesn't look like the police can compel you, since even things like DNA/breath sample/etc., can't just be demanded on a whim, rather this would be compel, as in a judicial order, aka "warrant".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it says:
A Virginia state trial court held that a suspect “cannot be compelled [by the police] to produce his passcode to access his smartphone but he can be compelled to produce his fingerprint to do the same.”
It doesn't say by the courts but specifically "by the police", but I'm not a lawyer so my chances of being incorrect are pretty high. It just seems to me that they are talking about when someone is a suspect the police are allowed to "compel" you to unlock your device via fingerprint. Either way, it all seems shady as hell.

Dusty Rhodes said:
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it says:
A Virginia state trial court held that a suspect “cannot be compelled [by the police] to produce his passcode to access his smartphone but he can be compelled to produce his fingerprint to do the same.”
It doesn't say by the courts but specifically "by the police", but I'm not a lawyer so my chances of being incorrect are pretty high. It just seems to me that they are talking about when someone is a suspect the police are allowed to "compel" you to unlock your device via fingerprint. Either way, it all seems shady as hell.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those article's are *NOT* written by lawyers.
If you read the second one carefully, there is a key in this bit; "Because Baust evidently refused to unlock his phone so that the police could look for the incriminating video evidence, the prosecution filed a motion to compel him to do so.
The court reasoned that the success of the motion turned on whether a passcode or a fingerprint was “testimonial communication” under the Supreme Court’s precedents, concluding that the former was and the latter was not. Judge Frucci therefore granted the state’s motion as to the fingerprints, but not as to the password."
So it was a MOTION TO COMPEL, which was granted by the court. The motion was filed by the prosecution. The police have nothing to do with it except that (a) their demand was initially refused, and (b) they are the ones who would ultimately carry out the order, assuming that it holds up to appeals.

doitright said:
Those article's are *NOT* written by lawyers.
If you read the second one carefully, there is a key in this bit; "Because Baust evidently refused to unlock his phone so that the police could look for the incriminating video evidence, the prosecution filed a motion to compel him to do so.
The court reasoned that the success of the motion turned on whether a passcode or a fingerprint was “testimonial communication” under the Supreme Court’s precedents, concluding that the former was and the latter was not. Judge Frucci therefore granted the state’s motion as to the fingerprints, but not as to the password."
So it was a MOTION TO COMPEL, which was granted by the court. The motion was filed by the prosecution. The police have nothing to do with it except that (a) their demand was initially refused, and (b) they are the ones who would ultimately carry out the order, assuming that it holds up to appeals.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you! So much hubhub over nothing.
First of all, this is the granting of a motion in a District Court in Virginia. It has persuasive value, sure, but it's very very low on the totem pole of persuasion. It certainly doesn't have precedential value although the issue may come up later, so far, the specific issue has yet to be actually been brought up in front of a court of record on its merits, so frankly, we don't know but as of now what an individual judge did for a motion speaks for very little as to concerns about fingerprint readers on a phone.
Second of all, the decision cites the lockbox/safe-combo analogy many times. US v. Hubble, 530 U.S. 23 (2000). This is still good law, but ultimately this is an analogy to explain to the layperson the difference between testimonial (knowledge that you have to divulge because it's in your head and must be compelled to produce out of essentially not existing in the physical realm) and non-testimonial (a physical item that simply exists, like the reading of the time on the clock, a tattoo on someone's knuckles etc). The only distinction the court really makes is that passcodes are testimonial and fingerprints aren't because they physically exist no matter what happens (unless you chop off your fingers, I suppose). This is very preliminary and speaks nothing about the admissibility of the evidence, if any, found on the phone are admissible, any information is relevant, anything could be suppressed, etc. The case has just started and this is really a minor bump in the road for defense, not some giant loss for the privacy community in itself. Sure, you got the fingerprints, but what can you access once you get past the lockscreen that'll be admissible in court? If you can't actually use it then it's really a pointless exercise (except in billing).
Third, while not entirely on point, the decision in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) shows that the court does actually respond to changing attitudes in how ordinary citizens use devices. While the VA case deals with the issue of responding to a court order, the Supreme Court case deal with a search incident to arrest without a warrant. If there's enough to get a warrant or the VA equivalent (unfamiliar with VA law here, sorry) that requires a motion to compel discovery, prosecution has already built at least somewhat a case against you. There are a multitude of defense strategies but the "I didn't do it" defense is not likely to be on the table if there's potentially incriminating video unless that video directly contradicts victim's description (it happens, but exceedingly rare). Hopefully the rest of us won't find ourselves in this kind of a situation, warrantless search of one's cellphone contents in ANY STATE is still not allowed under Riley as a search incident to arrest, because the precedent there, Chimel, is about weapons and preservation of evidence. Phones are not usually used as weapons - especially today, back in 2009 when Riley was arrested we were all using RAZRs - and if we want to set some sort of program, device, or trigger to encrypt or delete the evidence, the officer would likely not be able to do anything about it, or possibly even know about it, so there's no reason to allow it. Unless those procedures or codes are suddenly nonexistent, your phone, fingerprint or passcode, can't be searched with a warrant. The opinion by CJ Roberts specifically states that " Cell phones, however, place vast quantities of personal information literally in the hands of individuals." Id., 10 (differentiating between a patdown). Roberts also mentioned that there are very few cases where a person, who is about to be arrested, has the time to erase evidence himself that quickly and encryption wasn't even mentioned originally because it was a feature that became widespread while the case was ongoing.
Hell, read the opinion if you want to, these are people in their 70s and 80s talking about technology we use today and how our privacy would be intruded in a far greater and significant way than before if warrantless cell phone searches are allowed. Just Google "Riley v. California". This, I think, speaks volumes and in a voice far louder than an order from a District Court in Virginia. If the highest court of the land thinks that there's such a substantial privacy interest to one's cell phone data that trumps glove compartments, lockboxes, passenger compartments, trunks, pockets, and what have you that outside of some immediate exigent circumstances (you swallowing that SD card connected to your OTG adapter) you need a particularized warrant before searching the contents of one, then I think the law is moving in the right direction as a whole. And it's not all old decrepit defense attorneys who are defending these cases. I worked for one attorney who barely use email, but he's on the edge of retirement. Many young attorneys are very in tune with technology and hell, you don't think you'll find a rooted phone or two with custom kernel, recovery, and ROM in a Big Law office in Manhattan?
Most cases of note lately that I know of have been moving towards the notion that one has a lot of privacy interest in the phone's data and access to it must be strictly limited, and even the VA order notes that, albeit briefly because it's not the topic. I don't know what's the result of the VA Dist. Court. case, but I'd imagine even if you get into someone's phone there's gonna be a lot of stuff you can't touch and the law will follow up to address that. I don't think anyone should freak out over a fingerprint reader unless you plan on using that phone to commit some crime that leaves evidence on your phone in a way where a warrant can be produced that fits the criteria required,. I'm sure the question will be revisited substantially when fingerprint unlocking is widespread and commonplace but not yet.
tl;dr: Chill out, the Supreme Court knows that cell phone data is serious and private and for 99.999% of the folks here (give or take) with or without fingerprints cops won't come looking through your phone for ****s and giggles to see if you committed a crime.

Question IMEI block?

How and from whom one can submit a request to blacklist/block the IMEI (i.e. in case of theft)?
(basically the IMEIs, since this phone has two..)
Can this be requested directly to Xiaomi?

In the USA, this.

blackhawk said:
In the USA, this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That looks to be for India
But in any case, I contacted Xiaomi - they say they can't do it "for privacy and security reasons" (...)
The telephone provider says also they cannot do it
So another motive for potential thieves - go out, steal a phone and all is good. No punishment and you may continue using the device or re-sell it. Ridiculous
Banning an IMEI and have a global database for blacklisted IMEIs should be perfectly viable, so that stolen phones are rendered unusable globally. So that potential thieves can only maybe use the stolen phones for parts
I find it very interesting that governments/providers/manufacturers cannot agree all on that one thing, so that consumers are more protected

jstoner said:
That looks to be for India
But in any case, I contacted Xiaomi - they say they can't do it "for privacy and security reasons" (...)
The telephone provider says also they cannot do it
So another motive for potential thieves - go out, steal a phone and all is good. No punishment and you may continue using the device or re-sell it. Ridiculous
Banning an IMEI and have a global database for blacklisted IMEIs should be perfectly viable, so that stolen phones are rendered unusable globally. So that potential thieves can only maybe use the stolen phones for parts
I find it very interesting that governments/providers/manufacturers cannot agree all on that one thing, so that consumers are more protected
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, my bad DoT
Your carrier sure can do it stateside, ask them.
However that's not how I protect mine. I try to avoid flashing it around strangers and keep it out of sight. Eyes, ears, mind in the real world instead of digital lala land. Don't let strangers use it. Never leave it lying around in unsecured areas. When not using stash it right away. If all that fails... anyone trying to steal mine will pay in blood, no free rides.

blackhawk said:
Sorry, my bad DoT
Your carrier sure can do it stateside, ask them.
However that's not how I protect mine. I try to avoid flashing it around strangers and keep it out of sight. Eyes, ears, mind in the real world instead of digital lala land. Don't let strangers use it. Never leave it lying around in unsecured areas. When not using stash it right away. If all that fails... anyone trying to steal mine will pay in blood, no free rides.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, prevention is the best thing
But if/when it happens, there needs to be a way to make the device useless to them. Its the least you can do after that point..

jstoner said:
Yeah, prevention is the best thing
But if/when it happens, there needs to be a way to make the device useless to them. Its the least you can do after that point..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ask your carrier, may have ask more than one rep and/or escalate it.
Unfortunately as with many things in life you get one shot to make/keep it right. I think Admiral Bull Halsey had the right plan when in a jam; "Attack, Attack, Attack!" Anger is more useful than fear.

Database Develop

welcome