> They have no backend systems access and just run through the AWS equivalent of "reboot it", "defrag your disk"
To be fair I would bet money that the overwhelmingly vast majority of support tickets are exactly those kind of issues, and ones that refer to actual bugs on their end are, comparatively, extremely rare, and should have to be escalated through normal procedures to weed out common problems.
I know I will get downvoted for this and people will just say "you're doing it wrong" or "the library wasn't designed for that" but I still think it would be really helpful for some people if the source of the data to swap out could be retrieved from parsing the response data as JSON and grabbing a certain named key.
Yes one can add a callback function to parse the data as JSON, do error handling etc. and then swap the text/HTML, but having that built in to a hx-foo attribute would be a lot easier.
Htmx has events you can listen to like htmx after response. You can think of it almost like a middleware. After the response comes in, your callback is triggered and you can make the callback look up some attribute given the calling parents attribute that you might call hx-json-key.
Yes you have to add this yourself, but you only need to add one js function once and be done with it.
I've used the callback pattern for custom error handling for all hx responses.
Re-using existing API calls that I can't change, where I want to replace the text of an html element with the text from a specific key in a json response.
Wireguard to where? Another ISP/VPN that can also sell/MITM your traffic just as well? Non-residential exit IPs are also very often blocked by many websites.
Residential ISPs are well setup for monitoring home traffic (and legally required to in most places). A VPS in a different jurisdiction is vastly less likely to be good at it.
You occasionally get blocked, but not that often if you can putup with a few more captchas. Can't remember it ever being more then a minor inconvenience and well worth this cost.
My home internet is 5G, and many, many websites are blocked or have infinite captcha loops... even well-known sites. Etsy is blocked. Reddit/Discord/Locals is blocked. Archive.is only captcha loops. Even libera IRC is blocked. Trying to buy products online often gets the order flagged or canceled as a potential bot or VPN. IPs are rotated often so I unfortunately have to share bad-reputation IPs with people who keep the addresses on global blacklists like DroneBL that are used by many sites. Even 4chan blocks most of the IPs I get because other people post CP from there.
Trying to use a VPS/cloud IP or well-known VPN provider, the experience for me is just as bad or worse.
For some, the issue is a lot worse than you think.
If you think the courts are going to keep letting it happen anyway without any consequences... have some faith. Justice moves slowly but hope is not lost.
I hope you are right, but the administration does not tend to follow court orders. They break the law and then use every legal mechanism at their disposal to slow walk cases through the system. And then, as I say, they do not follow rulings except under the most extreme pressure.
I have about as much faith in the courts ability to actually walk any of this back as I do in their ability to return the families they have kidnapped from my community.
I'll relax when it gets through SCOTUS (who has overturned nearly 90% of lower conservative court rulings to be in Trump's favor) and not a moment before.
I don't think any rational discussion about privacy can be had without first describing exactly what your definition of "privacy" is in this specific context, AND you must define a threat model. Otherwise we can't know if the vendor is even relevant to what they care about.
There are very specific rules for proving destruction of evidence. For a criminal case the burden proof in the US at least is "beyond a reasonable doubt", so someone would likely have to prove that you knowingly destroyed valuable evidence before you'd get in big trouble. And if you haven't already been served with something saying you need to preserve evidence, they might not have any claim to information they had no idea existed beforehand, especially if you don't talk.
Believe this is bad legal advice. They would only need to prove you destroyed information with intent to impede an investigation/case. They would not need to prove something convicting or weighing was destroyed.
What you seem to be referring to would be obstruction, whereas the entire parent thread was specifically discussing destruction of evidence. Fair to point out that there are other offenses that could be charged, but misleading to imply it’s the same thing.
> They would only need to prove you destroyed information with intent to impede an investigation/case
Which requires them to prove they know that device likely contains relevant information. Just being party to a court case doesn't mean you're forbidden from deleting anything ever again... like I said there are very specific rules for evidence, and one cannot begin to claim something relevant is destroyed if you can't even show that you had any idea what might have been destroyed in the first place.
It mostly hinges on your intent, i.e. what they can argue is your understanding of the information you destroyed, not theirs. It unfortunately can be far-reaching, including into the past.
You're right that in normal circumstances you can routinely delete records for data hygiene, to save money, as part of a phone repair, and so on, unless you've been court ordered otherwise.
You're also assuming they even think something may have been destroyed in the first place. A wiped/clean device is not necessarily indicative of anything. For a criminal case they still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they believed the device had something they wanted on it (and now it doesn't), with evidence to back that up... not just "well it COULD have had something". That might fly a bit farther in civil cases but not criminal.
And remember that without a court case alleging something in the first place, they wouldn't even have access to the device to know 1. it existed and 2. it might have had something useful on it. If I had two devices in my house and they're both clean, you can't just say "oh we think one of them had some evidence that was destroyed"... you need some kind of proof that it at least likely contained something relevant in the past before you can even begin to presume it might have been destroyed.
Nope--they don't need to prove they believed the device had something they wanted. That's just the motivation for them to go after you for inconveniencing them.
Same for your second paragraph: "oh we think one of them had some evidence..." - that's not how it works! It's your intent to destroy evidence that is the crime, not whether you destroyed evidence. They do not need to prove you destroyed evidence or even likely storage of evidence to get you convicted.
This is the main thing you're saying that is bad legal advice.
For your other point, yes, if they can't tell anything happened, or it seems like an accident, then you're probably going to get away with it. This happens a lot. I think that's a different topic. Original topic was: if you wink at your phone or use a weird finger (or some other visible gesture) and now your phone's wiped, could you get in legal trouble for that sequence of events.
> It's your intent to destroy evidence that is the crime, not whether you destroyed evidence.
Accidentally destroying evidence can still carry a serious penalty, but yes the intent is generally the most important. But absent intent, it can still help the prosecution to know the device had something useful to them on it.
Probably a much better idea to just go ahead and hit shutdown if you're on that screen anyway, since many phones are more susceptible to gear like Greykey or Cellebrite if they have ever been unlocked since the last power-on.
Unless one has been ordered to preserve evidence already for a pending court case... proving that someone knew said information was valuable as evidence, and willfully destroyed it knowing so, might be extremely difficult.
To be fair I would bet money that the overwhelmingly vast majority of support tickets are exactly those kind of issues, and ones that refer to actual bugs on their end are, comparatively, extremely rare, and should have to be escalated through normal procedures to weed out common problems.
reply