That’s not correct. It just says not recognized, and let’s you try again. I just tested it. Do you have documentation that it should work the way you said and mine is faulty?

On my ditto (running GrapheneOS), the Lockdown option is accessible through the regular power button menu. When I press power+volumeUp it switches to silent mode. I don’t know if/where I changed this, since I can’t find the options when searching in settings.

EDIT: I just found it - in Settings > System > Gestures > Prevent ringing. I can either set power+volumeUp to mute the phone, or vibrate only. Nothing about the Lockdown option, but having it in the regular power button menu is good enough for me.

On my 8, that just activates the Google assistant. To get to the power menu, you have to press power (oddly named button, to be honest) and vol up at the same time. But these are active acts that you have to think about and verify to make sure they did what they are supposed to. Mashing the power button 5 times is succinct. I don’t have to guess how many seconds I’ve waited. I don’t have to feel to make sure I’m hitting the vol up instead of vol down accidentally. I count 5 times, 6 to make sure, and I can drop it while being certain that it’s going to call 911. That’s what I want in an emergency. A quick distinct action that requires no guessing to make sure it works. It makes sense once you stop and think. Nothing else about the power button makes sense, but at least that part does.

You can turn off the 911 “feature.” Don’t ask me how I know 😅

You can turn it off somewhere in the settings

I did, yeah. Gotta test before commenting, of course. I see I have the setting disabled for some reason. Don’t recall disabling it though.

They disabled it . I don’t understand why they even commented. It reads like some weird flex

I didn’t even know it existed. I had to search to find the setting, but I see it exists on my phone and it’s disabled. I don’t recall disabling it though.

That is important to remember but it is sort of orthogonal to the point being made. Assuming that mind-reading worked perfectly you can find the truth about what the person believes. In most cases if they think they murdered the person and the gun is hidden behind the oak in their backyard it is beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it is still useful to have the truth about what that person believes, even if we have to remember that their beliefs are fallible.

Most trials and discoveries are already incredibly invasive. I don’t really see why the mind should be treated much differently. I would rather define what is acceptable evasiveness generally than different for mind vs written down in my diary.

Also why would you do this after they are convicted beyond reasonable doubt? This should only be done when required to reach the conclusion. Just like avoiding physical searches you can just plead guilty if you don’t want to be investigated.

If used properly this could actually be less invasive. Imagine a quick check of some facts that you believe with an automated machine that only returns the basic required information and you could be removed from the suspect list before other searches need to be done (like lawyers searching through your emails or personal notes).

I agree that this is a very dangerous thing to consider, and it needs to be applied very carefully. But I don’t think it is in the abstract any more morally wrong than the current methods of evidence gathering that we currently do. In many ways it could potentially be less harmful to the person being investigated. However it will be impossible to know for sure until we know how exactly this technology (when it is developed) works.

Oh, yeah I think you’re right. I think I might’ve changed it at some point.

Just checked and it’s under system > gestures > press and hold power button

let’s put aside everything @Aceticon@lemmy.world wrote you; if the French state was trying to legalize exactly this, it must be possible: la validation pure et simple de l’activation à distance des fonctions de géolocalisation de téléphone et autres objets connectés (voiture, balises airtag, montre etc) qui repose exactement sur le même procédé technique que le dispositif censuré : la compromission d’un périphérique, en y accédant directement ou par l’intermédiaire d’un logiciel espion pour en prendre le contrôle à distance.

source

wasn’t the scandal about the Pegasus spyware all about this imperceptibility?

If you can’t take out the battery, it’s never actually off.

It’s your life. This advice is important in more active circles. There are also jobs that should be given out. Just like there are medics that come out, there should be journalists—in leftist action circles, this isn’t EMTs and NBC photographers. See what I’m saying?

It’s ultimately your choice. But depending on what’s happening, the cause, the state, the cops, the current state of the govt of the country, etc., this advice can literally be invaluable.

The problem is that the people doing the surveillance are hardly going around honestly telling people what’s their surveillance profile.

For example in the UK that “pink knit cat hat white lady” would very likely be under surveillance if she was a member of the Green Party and participated in demonstrations. In fact, recently a number of cases came out where in the 80s and 90s the police had infiltrated Ecologist groups and even left some of the women in those groups pregnant with the children of men they late found out were undercover agents.

Further, the lower the barrier to entry to surveillance the lower the “threat profile” needed to end up under surveillance: if the authorities have already have well established and commonly used processes backed by ultra-broad surveillance court (or whatever those courts are called in your country) orders to just get from the mobile network providers all the phone numbers that connect to specific cell towers during a specific time period (such as the ones nearer a demonstration during that demonstratiom), pink knit cat lady is going to end up in the list just as easilly as baclava-wearing hard-core anarchist looking to break stuff.

They might not hack the pink knit cat hat lady’s mobile to install eavesdropping software, but she’s still in the list for every demonstration she attended carrying her phone and for the authorities finding out those who were at multiple demonstration and cross-searching with other databases to resolve those numbers to actual identities is pretty easy unless those people jumped through hops to keep those things disconnected (which, funny enough, smart anarchists are more likely to have done than your average pink knit cat hat lady)