Thread

Cops Can Bypass iPhone's Automatic Reboot to Get into Locked Phones

287 points · 226 comments · speckx

Cider9986 · 1790869574 · focus · HN ↗
For those who don't know, automatic reboot restarts your device if you haven't unlocked it in a set amount of time. Cellebrite and other digital forensics companies are able to get into AFU devices much more often. The automatic reboot feature was first introduced by GrapheneOS and was later added to iOS and stock Pixels.
GrapheneOS's default is 18 hours and it can be set to between 10 minutes and 72 hours. iPhones and Stock pixels have it non customizable at 72 hours.
On GrapheneOS, for privacy and convenience, it's best to use a long random passphrase [1] for your primary unlock and then a fingerprint with a second factor pin as the secondary unlock. You enter the passphrase every time the device restarts.
If you're encountering someone that's going to seize your phone, try to restart/shut it down yourself so you don't have to trust the AFU protections.
[1] <a href="https://strongphrase.net" rel="nofollow">https://strongphrase.net give memorable ones which is cool.
1. 23ahGa17 · 1790870652 · focus · HN ↗
  People believed the reboot feature last time GrapheneOS was mentioned. It is of course nonsense.
  Shut down the phone in areas with a high snatch risk. That means during landing for example, because the aircraft can be boarded covertly if on the ground.
  1. stefan_ · 1790871523 · focus · HN ↗
    The internet exists and can transfer your data with no customs and borders, so if you are at risk of being snatched, the correct choice is to not carry a phone (or laptop, or..) at all.
    alkh-qrt · 1790874652 · focus · HN ↗
    If you live in the UK and travel to the US and are afraid of state actors, leaving your hardware at home seems like a bad idea, too.
    gambiting · 1790875098 · focus · HN ↗
    Despite all the nonsense that's posted about UK on the internet, British agencies do require a warrant to enter your home. TSA on the other hand does not require a court order to confiscate and mirror your device before giving it back to you.
    Edit: Just to be perfectly clear - Border Force in the UK can do the exact same thing to you once you return, British citizen or not. Leaving your device at home is still the safest choice.
    Cider9986 · 1790875230 · focus · HN ↗
    I believe it's CBP that does this, not TSA. Therefore Americans don't have to worry about it during domestic flights.
    > Despite all the nonsense that's posted about UK on the internet
    How is it nonsense? I'm not debating the warrant thing, but it's very reasonable to assume the UK has terrible protections for these sorts of things.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#:~:text=United%20Kingdom,edit" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#:~:text=Uni...
    <a href="https://eylenburg.github.io/countries.htm" rel="nofollow">https://eylenburg.github.io/countries.htm
    gambiting · 1790876663 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean in a broad sense if you read any news about the UK it might looks like a dystopian surveillance state where you get arrested for criticising the king(I kid you not - I've had multiple American coworkers ask me if this is true).
    And yes, UK has some awful laws around this. Yes it has put people in jail just for planning a protest before. Yes you can go to jail for not disclosing your passwords. But what you read on the internet is almost laughably out of proportion - no, you won't get arrested for posting a meme about the king.
    dmitrygr · 1790877820 · focus · HN ↗
    > news about the UK it might looks like a dystopian surveillance state where you get arrested for criticising
    Might it "seem" that way because it is that way?
    <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-are-being-thrown-in-uk-prisons-over-what-theyve-said-online-can-free-speech-be-saved/" rel="nofollow">https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-a...
    <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/22/britain-has-become-a-surveillance-state-and-its-not-making/" rel="nofollow">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/22/britain-has-beco...
    <a href="https://freespeechunion.org/news/more-than-62-000-people-have-been-arrested-for-speech-offences-over" rel="nofollow">https://freespeechunion.org/news/more-than-62-000-people-hav...
    Oh, and your government itself openly states it on record, too: <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-07-17/debates/F807CB70-D90D-4A19-9433-99539B7CF21F/OnlineCommunicationOffenceArrests" rel="nofollow">https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-07-17/debates/F807C...
    gambiting · 1790878525 · focus · HN ↗
    How many of those people got arrested for criticising the king?
    Not that this is some kind of great bar to clear, but if you're going to argue with what I said, argue with what I actually wrote.
    dmitrygr · 1790878896 · focus · HN ↗
    Ok then. Soviet Union had free speech too. Nobody got arrested for criticizing Reagan or Churchill.
    Clearly the point is clear. Why nitpick pointlessly?
    gambiting · 1790883108 · focus · HN ↗
    You've missed my point entirely, by a country mile.
    Someone above asked me how it was nonsense. I responded that people parotting the point about getting arrested for criticising the king is nonsense - like for instance, my American coworkers asking if that's true, because they read it somewhere on the internet. That is nonsense.
    If you want to argue with this point please do, but also please observe the rest of my comment and especially the parts that I haven't actually said.
    subscribed · 1790885139 · focus · HN ↗
    Let me repeat reports about these arrests here as well, for your convenience.
    6 people got arrested for trying to say "Not my king!" BEFORE his coronation: <a href="https://londondaily.com/not-my-king-anti-monarchy-protesters-arrested-during-uk-coronation" rel="nofollow">https://londondaily.com/not-my-king-anti-monarchy-protesters...
    Before they had a chance of protest. After months of discussing the planned protest in details and getting a green light from the Met Police: <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65542558" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65542558
    52 people were arrested DURING the coronation, for example for holding a placard "not my king": <a href="https://londondaily.com/over-52-anti-monarchy-protestors-arrested-during-king-charles-coronation" rel="nofollow">https://londondaily.com/over-52-anti-monarchy-protestors-arr...
    Police arrested despite KNOWING it's the member of public doesn't commit any offence: <a href="https://novaramedia.com/2025/03/11/police-officer-who-arrested-anti-monarchy-protester-was-aware-no-offence-had-been-committed/" rel="nofollow">https://novaramedia.com/2025/03/11/police-officer-who-arrest...
    I'm afraid you unwittingly misled your coworkers.
    gambiting · 1790885452 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm aware you are still going to twist what I said to prove your point, but I really don't fancy repeating the exact same point for the third time just so you can say something unrelated.
    Dylan16807 · 1790886075 · focus · HN ↗
    They already said you can get in trouble for [planning] protesting. They said you won't get in trouble for online criticism. Your links about protests aren't proving anything.
    subscribed · 1790886693 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not in the comment I'm responding to,
    >> Someone above asked me how it was nonsense. I responded that people parotting the point about getting arrested for criticising the king is nonsense
    Protesting against the king is criticising the king IMO. I didn't see his quantifier, since I would agree that online critique of the king in particular is not yet penalised.
    Not surprising you're implying bad faith though, if we're splitting the hair this thin.
    (and this specific planning of the protest was so heavy handed, because it belong to one of the two naughty protests, environmental. The second naughty one is protesting against the genocide. The rest is okay)
    Dylan16807 · 1790903592 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's not in the comment I'm responding to,
    It's in the original comment you responded to, and it's a critical part of the conversation chain.
    "And yes, UK has some awful laws around this. Yes it has put people in jail just for planning a protest before. Yes you can go to jail for not disclosing your passwords. But what you read on the internet is almost laughably out of proportion - no, you won't get arrested for posting a meme about the king."
    I'm not saying bad faith, I'm saying you misread their argument pretty badly.
    Your citations support the problems they already admitted. The hair was split before you got here because they're distinguishing in-person and online actions.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.