đź”” This profile hasn't been claimed yet. If this is your Nostr profile, you can claim it.
EditNeed a way to "Unintentionally" leak/supply the duress password to the authorities in a way that leads them to believe that it is the true password. Maybe a list of "passwords" in your notebook or wallet...
GROK: Destruction (or tampering with) potential evidence is generally a crime in the USA, especially if done with intent to interfere with an actual or anticipated investigation, search, or legal proceeding. Key Legal Principles: ⇢Tampering with evidence (state and federal): This typically involves knowingly altering, destroying, concealing, or damaging physical evidence (including digital data on a phone) with the intent to impair its availability in an investigation or court proceeding. Federal example: 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) makes it unlawful to knowingly destroy or damage property to prevent its seizure by authorities. This was used in a recent high-profile case. It applies even to "potential" evidence if you have reason to believe an investigation, search, or proceeding is imminent or underway. Destroying something that "might" become relevant can still qualify if intent is proven. Penalties vary by jurisdiction: often misdemeanors or felonies with fines, jail/prison time, depending on severity and whether it's during an active investigation. Context: GrapheneOS Duress Password GrapheneOS includes a duress password feature that wipes (effectively destroys access to) user data when entered. ⇢Important caveats: Timing and knowledge matter: Casually wiping your own phone with no investigation or demand in progress is usually fine (it's your property). But doing so after being stopped, searched, or subpoenaed can be charged as obstruction or tampering. Border/ports: Courts give the government broader authority for device searches, which heightens risks. Refusing to unlock is often protected by the 5th Amendment (self-incrimination), but actively destroying data via duress password is treated differently as affirmative destruction. Courts can also draw adverse inferences (assume the wiped data was incriminating) in related proceedings. Is there a difference between proactively setting up systems where no data is collected (or where it is immediately destroyed) as a standard action vs destruction of data as a response to a perceived acute threat? Yes, there is a significant legal difference in the US between these two approaches, primarily driven by timing, intent, and whether a duty to preserve evidence has been triggered. bressler.com 1. Proactive Systems (No/Limited Data Collection or Routine/Automatic Destruction)This is generally legal and common as a standard privacy practice:Examples: Privacy-by-design systems, short data retention policies (e.g., auto-delete messages after 30 days, no-logs VPNs, encrypted devices that minimize persistent data, routine cache clearing). Why it's usually allowed: Routine, good-faith data destruction in the ordinary course of business or personal privacy practices is not considered spoliation or tampering, provided it follows consistent policies established before any investigation or legal issue arises. contractorsperspective.com Courts distinguish this from targeted destruction. Consistent policies (documented and uniformly applied) help demonstrate lack of bad intent. bressler.com Limits: Once you reasonably anticipate litigation, an investigation, subpoena, or seizure (the "duty to preserve" kicks in), you must suspend routine deletions for potentially relevant data. Continuing auto-deletion after that point can lead to sanctions (civil) or charges (criminal), even if it's part of an existing policy. linkedin.com 2. Reactive Destruction (In Response to a Perceived Acute Threat)This carries much higher legal risk and is often treated as tampering, obstruction, or destruction to prevent seizure:Examples: Wiping a phone or deleting specific files after police stop you, agents demand access, or you learn of an investigation. Why it's risky: Laws focus on knowing intent to impair an investigation or prevent seizure. Reactive actions (especially duress passwords triggered during a search) directly match statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2232. law.cornell.edu In the recent GrapheneOS case, the duress wipe happened in direct response to a border search demand — prosecutors charged it as intentional destruction to block seizure. techcrunch.com Courts look at whether the destruction occurred after a trigger event (e.g., being approached by authorities). This makes proving innocent intent much harder. law.stackexchange.com Key Factors Courts Consider Aspect: ⇢Proactive/Routine ⇢Reactive to Threat Timing: ⇢Before any notice or anticipation ⇢After perceived/actual investigation Intent: ⇢General privacy or efficiency ⇢To impair access/seizure Policy: ⇢Consistent, pre-existing ⇢Ad-hoc or targeted Legal Risk: ⇢Low (if duty to preserve not triggered) ⇢High (tampering/obstruction charges) Consequences: ⇢Usually none ⇢Criminal charges ⇢Adverse inferences Bottom line: Setting up strong privacy defaults (minimal data collection, automatic/ephemeral storage) is a smart, generally protected practice. Actively destroying or triggering wipes in the moment when authorities appear is frequently interpreted as consciousness of guilt and evidence tampering. This distinction is well-established in both civil spoliation cases and criminal obstruction/tampering law.
Destruction (or tampering with) potential evidence is generally a crime in the USA, especially if done with intent to interfere with an actual or anticipated investigation, search, or legal proceeding.
So… LG Monitors Install Ads on Your Computer Now When you connect certain LG monitors to Windows 11, Windows Update quietly installs an "LG Monitor" app that's not for controlling the monitor — it's just an installer that pushes ads, including big pop-ups for McAfee. The app gets installed WITHOUT UAC prompts, has broad system permissions, and has started appearing even on monitors bought years ago after recent updates. Macs aren't affected. The presenter recommends the open-source Monitor Control app instead. Classic bloatware situation from LG + Windows. https://youtu.be/ILk2Z-2rjes #Adware #PopUp #Installer #Windows11 #LG #Monitor #Bloatware
This sounds interesting and potentially useful. The Invisible Phone: Ditch #PSTN Forever – No #IMEI , No #IMSI , No #KYC , Total #Stealth Calling https://youtu.be/uS1RMmUklws #DeGoogle #Graphene #DataOnlyESim #Brax #VOIP #Privacy
In the time of Jesus (first-century Judaism), the term "yoke" ("ol" in Hebrew) was a recognized metaphor for a rabbi's teachings, interpretation of the Torah, or set of commandments and instructions that his disciples would follow. Different rabbis offered their own "yokes"—meaning their specific way of understanding and applying the Torah (Law) to daily life. Accepting a rabbi's yoke meant submitting to his authority as a teacher, learning from him, and living out his halakah (legal/ethical interpretation). This was part of the disciple-rabbi relationship, where followers committed to emulating and obeying their master's teachings. In the broader Jewish tradition, the "yoke of the Torah" or "yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven" referred to embracing God's commandments and rule, often seen positively as a source of joy, freedom from worldly burdens, and alignment with God's will (e.g., in texts like Pirkei Avot/Mishnah). It contrasted with oppressive "yokes" like foreign rule or overly burdensome human traditions. Jesus drew directly on this familiar imagery. In Matthew 11:28-30 (ESV), he says: > “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” - He positioned his teachings as the true, lighter yoke—contrasting with the heavier loads imposed by some Pharisaic traditions or other interpretations that added many extra rules. "Learn from me" echoes discipleship language: followers would apprentice under the rabbi, taking on his specific yoke. This fits the first-century context where Jesus was addressed as "Rabbi" and taught with authority, often engaging in debates over Torah interpretation common among Jewish teachers of the era. The metaphor would have been immediately understandable to his audience, like a craftsman-made yoke fitting well and not chafing (unlike ill-fitting or overloaded ones). It's a powerful image of voluntary submission that brings rest rather than exhaustion, rooted deeply in Jewish thought. #Jesus #Interpretation #Torah #teacher #rabbi #Bible #Authority
"Just follow your heart" is TERRIBLE advice. "“The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" --Jeremiah 17:9 Make decisions based on Biblical principles and teachings. Consult God before making a major decision. When in doubt, trust the Lord and his words as recorded in the Bible. This requires knowledge of His word. Read it. Study it. Meditate on it. Obey it... #Bible #Jesus #Christ #God #Heart #Decision #Doubt #Advice
De-viled? I love eggs...
It is good to rejoice when good overcomes evil. It is good to rejoice when justice finds the evil doer. One should mourn when an unrepentant person dies without being reconciled to God. 2 Peter 3:9 (NASB) "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."
You failed to answer the question
For the moment, let's leave religion out of this discussion. I will come back to it later. All Humans(people), by nature, have the same rights; not dependent on when, where, how, or what gender they are born. These Rights supersede all national affiliations and national laws. These are natural laws. They existed before there were governments and will remain after. First and foremost, All people own themselves. All people are entitled to the fruits of their own labor. All associations, transactions, contracts, agreements, sales, etc. of Any kind, for Any reason must be voluntary. (Non-Aggression Principle or NAP - Aggression/Coercion should not be used to force anyone to do, say, or agree to Anything. The ONLY time aggression may be used is in the defense of the life and rights of yourself (or others) from another party initiating aggression.) Theft of any kind is wrong. These represent my ETHICAL stance on way human society should be. I understand that this model of society does not exist on any large scale today and may not come to exist in my lifetime, but this is something to strive towards. _________________ So, what does this mean and how did I come to these beliefs? Human beings, by nature, have the right of Self Ownership: Nobody else can decide for you how you should live your life. Only You can decide what's best for you. There is no other person, no human authority, higher than yourself in your life. If you own yourself, then every other human being also has that same Self-Ownership. Therefore, You have No right to act as an authority on someone else's life without their consent. You can not tell someone else how to live their life without their consent. You can not use force or coercion on another person in any way, except in the defense of the life or property of another. THINK HARD HERE IF You have no RIGHT to dictate to the life of another person, THEN you have no ability to convey that right to somebody else (e.g. through an election, etc.) For Example: You have no RIGHT to take something that is mine. Since you don't have the RIGHT to take my stuff, you can not give that right to someone else to use on your behalf. So, you can not bestow the RIGHT (which we have already decided you don't have) on the government and call it a Tax. The concept of governance is that the people being governed confer their rights upon authority figures to act on their behalf VOLUNTARILY. But, you can only give what you already have. You CAN NOT confer to another person a right that you do not already have to use/exercise on your behalf. If you are NOT a voluntary participant in a nation, an agent of the government (tax collector, police officer, etc.) can not legitimately come to your house and have the RIGHT to take your stuff because nobody who voted for this person or put that person in charge had the authority to grant that right to begin with. Voluntary Associations: No person should be forced to participate in anything that they do not want to be a part of. That includes but is not limited to: Governments Religions Marriages Armed Forces Businesses Clubs or ANY OTHER group or activity for any reason. If you agree with these beliefs, if you share this ETHICAL stance then you might be surprised to know that you are an Anarchist/Voluntaryist. _______________ I used to say that I am proud to be an American. You can be proud of the people in your country, proud of the accomplishments and advances her people have made, and at the same time recognize that there are flaws inherent to the system. I think that our country was founded on good principles, but, over the years, these principles have been sidelined by the corporate and political interests of this world. At the time this country was conceived there were a great many difficulties to be overcome but there were fewer rules and laws. We believed in individual liberty and created a nation to protect that liberty. The founders did their best, but just as with all other things in this world, advances have been made and new ways of thinking have emerged. The founders did what they thought necessary at the time, but I highly doubt that they would be pleased at what their creation has become. Now, instead of listing the things we are Not allowed to do, it seems we list the things we Are allowed to do. The laws and regulations in place today are oppressive, tyrannical, and unnecessary. The "taxes" the government steals from us are excessive. The "taxes" collected from us are not put to good or even effective use. The use of our armed forces to promote our ECONOMIC interests is deplorable. Our whole system is CORRUPT. IN SHORT, we have turned into the very monster we fought so hard to escape. This Country is in dire need of a MAJOR shift in the way we do things. It is inevitable. If we don't fix the problem, the whole system is going to burn down on its own. And on its way down we will lose more and more of our liberty until it gets to the point where ANYTHING that the powers-that-be offer us will be better than our current situation. I believe that it is still possible to make a difference from within the system, but that it will not happen, so I prepare for the worst. The average American is blind to the problem. The average person cares less about freedom and more about security. Most people these days won't complain unless there is some major shift from their comfort zone. The average person would rather be told what to do than take control of their own fate, make their own decisions, and live with the consequences. They are Sheep. ___________ I am a Christian, not because my family is Christian or because all the cool people are Christian, but because I made that choice for myself after deep thought and study on the subject. Nobody forced me to make this decision. It is not POSSIBLE to force someone to be Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/etc. It is a belief one has. ________________ Do I think that there should be laws prohibiting behavior that I find immoral? Ethically, insofar as it does not involve anyone else or their property then No. As a Christian then yes there are some behaviors that I would be OK with punishing. Speaking specifically about the United States: I think that the foundation of this country is and always has been Christian. The writers of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and all the corresponding individual State documents knew this. They felt that they did not need to explicitly state it because it was so obvious. I think that they did us a disservice. They should have explicitly stated that our ethics, our laws, and our way of life are all bound by, and a consequence of, belief in Jesus the Christ, the Son of YHWH God Almighty. They should have forbade the substitution of any other religion or lack thereof for the basis of our laws and societal structure. It may have helped mitigate some of the corruption, decadence, and evil that now pervades every aspect of our nation. Any serious examination of the history of our founding and those involved can come to no other reasonable conclusion. Our country has Christian roots. I have changed my views over time. I once took the position of accepting the status quo. I have decided that is not good enough. It's not good enough because it concedes defeat. It compromises where there should be no compromise. Government has few legitimate responsibilities: Protect Life, Liberty, & Property Prevent Evil and promote Good where possible. If you can not define Evil and Good objectively then you can not fulfill the second responsibility. If our country is to have any hope of survival, this is the only path I can see... __________________ Render unto Caesar... I pay my taxes. I don't want government thugs breaking down my door and hauling me off to a cage because I didn't want to let them steal the fruits of my labor. As long as the situation remains the same here I will continue to pay my taxes.
