Thank you for clarifying .

I've come across a couple companies doing that. I've never seen the point. You can get the forensic tools yourself for cheaper. I'm assuming the bundling company facilitates interoperability, but that insnt worth the extra cost.

I can't speak for your morals or how you value privacy. I think the deciding factor may be who the customers are. Law enforcement is where your work can do the most good - people will be safer because of your work. Some future victims will even be alive because of it. But you may not agree with the legal standards they have to abide by. That is the best case, it would be foolish to think those rules are always followed. And you may not think the legal remedies are sufficient.

ediscovery is a bit different. I'd wager most of your customers will be corporations, processing corporate data. They're will definitely be personal data, but an employee putting sensitive personal data (that the company doesn't already have) is kind of giving up their expectation to privacy. Your other customer might be law firms or ediscovery firms, but their clients would be initiating or party to the lawsuit. They would be provided a chance to argue what is discoverable. Sensitive data unrelated to the lawsuit would remain private.

Hope this helps or at least gives you something to think about.

The is no maybe, maybe not about it. I've been doing digital forensics for 15 years.

You don't just walk in of the street and start doing the job. It isn't something you just figure out, and training from zero is extremely expensive and takes time. Time and money they don't need to waste when there are already trained examiners applying.

So, that leads me back to my point - if privacy is paramount for OP - I can't imagine this moral quandary wouldn't have happened some where in the hundreds of hours or more of training and practice prior to apply for the job.

Digital Forensics is not something you just walk in of the street and get a job.

So, assuming you're telling the truth - why are you having this moral conundrum now?

You should have examined hundreds of computers and phones during your education.

It's fine guys, I switched to paper straws.

Yea, ok bud. Go argue the obvious with someone else.

Nobody did. You're arguing against a point nobody made.

Or maybe I don't have knowledge and experience in EU law and didn't want to pretend I do.

Nothing in that reply is even close to anything I've said. Don't waste my time with stupidity or strawmen.

You aren't wrong, but this discussion is mostly about edge cases. The average person, yea, they won't have anything that is end of their world if a bad guy accesses it. But, that does mean there aren't many phones that contain significantly more important data than you have.

My comment was in reply to another saying a bad guy can force you to put your finger on the unlock sensor. There is no equivalent for pins.

They can threaten, yes, and you can give into that threat. Yes, that would be against your will, but it still requires you to acquiesce or cooperate was my point. The can't get the pin without you giving it.

Do any phones even allow 4 digit Pins? Apple doesn't, and my Samsung doesn't.

No one can force you to give up the PIN. They can threaten, and you may give in to that threat. But that isn't forcing, that isn't against your will.

But, a criminal can get you to unlock your phone with biometrics against your will easily enough - brute strength, render you unconscious, or even dead.

You assume that you are conscious, or even alive in your scenario.