Border pigs have cellebrite, assume they can access anything left intact.

If it botherw you, wipe it, if it doesnt, you dont really need a duress pin. But login to one profile and cellebrite can get the rest.

And yet, it does matter.

That would be an interesting proposition... under duress load profile x and delete all other profiles, apps, settings and keys.

And thats why you dont travel to countries with ropey regimes

Loading any profile allows the operating system access to root privileges, and opens potential for user privilege escalation.

In order to be convicted of destroying evidence, there needs to be proof that there was "evidence" on the phone in the first place.

If something on the phone is already known without doubt, then what's the need for access? if there is doubt at the time of the wipe then there is no proof or destroying evidence. 🤷‍♂️

Dont think that would be as secure. Once a phone has been unlocked after reboot, even if it has been locked again, the operating system and ram can be accessed quite easily with the correct tools and border controls have those tools.

Even a Graphene phone is only properly secure before first unlock after reboot. So i would not personally rely on allowing acess to any profile. I would assume its possible, (probably trivial) to gain complete access from there.

Any duress pin use should be covered under a person's right to avoid self incrimination.

If the phone is owned by your employer and they are the investigation target, then you might be on dodgy ground.

Restored by a dedicated and talented team or with an ai slop regurgitation machine?

So you agree he is a paid stooge at least.

Read my other comment. The revolving door of party leadership is recent and dysfunctional. And your vote is for your local MP AND the party they are a member of, knowing the policies and leadership of that party.

If you think otherwise you are ignoring a substantial amount of what you should have been considering in your voting decisions.

It's funny to me that nobody is disputing that he is a stooge in thrall to a foreign power. Instead people want to ague about the mechanisma of the elctoral syatem and whether or not burnham's appointment is normal or dysfunctional. Which of these two assertions matters more? Ii is not our expectations of party leadership changes.

But while people want to argue misunderstanding of one thing to discredit the other argument, I'll clarify that I have no misunderstanding of how the system is supposed to work.

We vote for an MP to represent us in parliament, knowing the policies of the party and of it's leader who would step into the pm role. There has never been, on the history of parliament, and expectation that party leadership would change hands like car keys at a swingers party. If you think otherwise, you ae normalising the dysfunctional behaviour and speeding the breakdown of the democratic process.

In my own, experience I have never had a local MP actually represent my view on anything that i have written to them about, they just quote and follow party or funded lines instead. ymmv This means the pm role and party policies are substantially more impactful.

As a result, ayone casting a vote without at least 50% of their choice being related to party leadership and policies is not understanding the system and is damning the rest of the population by voting for fictional authority over local concerns at the expense of national authority over real issues.

So to my original assertion, Burnham was not elected to the office of PM.

Well, if anyone had any doubt that Burnham is a paid up israeli stooge, i think those doubts can be considered settled.

Sick of these unelected prime ministers swapping the keys to number 10 whenever it suits a sufficiently wealthy lobby group.

I have lots of contempt for their business models. Felonious and otherwise. 😂