The recent federal raid on the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson isn’t merely an attack by the Trump administration on the free press. It’s also a warning to anyone with a smartphone.

Included in the search and seizure warrant for the raid on Natanson’s home is a section titled “Biometric Unlock,” which explicitly authorized law enforcement personnel to obtain Natanson’s phone and both hold the device in front of her face and to forcibly use her fingers to unlock it. In other words, a judge gave the FBI permission to attempt to bypass biometrics: the convenient shortcuts that let you unlock your phone by scanning your fingerprint or face.

It is not clear if Natanson used biometric authentication on her devices, or if the law enforcement personnel attempted to use her face or fingers to unlock her devices. Natanson and the Washington Post did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The FBI declined to comment.

[

Related

FBI Raid on WaPo Reporter’s Home Was Based on Sham Pretext](theintercept.com/2026/01/15/fb…)

Natanson has not been charged with a crime. Investigators searched her home in connection with alleged communication between her and government contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, who was initially charged with unlawfully retaining national defense information. Prosecutors recently added new charges including multiple counts of transmission of defense information to an unauthorized person. Attorneys for Perez-Lugones did not comment.

The warrant included a few stipulations limiting law enforcement personnel. Investigators were not authorized to ask Natanson details about what kind of biometric authentication she may have used on her devices. For instance, the warrant explicitly stated they could not ask Natanson which specific finger she uses for biometrics, if any. Although if Natanson were to voluntarily provide any such information, that would be allowed, according to the warrant.

The FBI’s search and seizure warrant for Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson details how authorities could use her fingers or face to unlock her phone. Screenshot: FBI

Andrew Crocker, surveillance litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The Intercept that while the EFF has “seen warrants that authorize police to compel individuals to unlock their devices using biometrics in the past,” the caveat mandating that the subject of the search cannot be asked for specifics about their biometric setup is likely influenced by recent case law. “Last year the D.C. Circuit held that biometric unlocking can be a form of ‘testimony’ that is protected by the 5th Amendment,” Crocker said. This is especially the case when a person is “forced to demonstrate which finger unlocks the device.”

Crocker said that he “would like to see courts treat biometric locks as equivalent to password protection from a constitutional standpoint. Your constitutional right against self-incrimination should not be dependent on technical convenience or lack thereof.”

[

Related

Crossing the U.S. Border? Here’s How to Protect Yourself](theintercept.com/2025/03/29/cu…)

Activists and journalists have long been cautioned to disable biometrics in specific situations where they might face heightened risk of losing control of their phones, say when attending a protest or crossing a border. Martin Shelton, deputy director of digital security at Freedom of the Press Foundation, advised “journalists to disable biometrics when they expect to be in a situation where they expect a possible search.”

Instead of using biometrics, it’s safest to unlock your devices using an alphanumeric passphrase (a device protected solely by a passcode consisting of numbers is generally easier to access). There are numerous other safeguards to take if there’s a possibility your home may be raided, such as turning off your phone before going to bed, which puts it into an encrypted state until the next time it’s unlocked.

That said, there are a few specific circumstances when biometric-based authentication methods might make sense from a privacy perspective — such as in a public place where someone might spy on your passphrase over your shoulder.

The post Washington Post Raid Is a Frightening Reminder: Turn Off Your Phone’s Biometrics Now appeared first on The Intercept.

From The Intercept via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: news.abolish.capital/post/2402…

The recent federal raid on the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson isn’t merely an attack by the Trump administration on the free press. It’s also a warning to anyone with a smartphone.

Included in the search and seizure warrant for the raid on Natanson’s home is a section titled “Biometric Unlock,” which explicitly authorized law enforcement personnel to obtain Natanson’s phone and both hold the device in front of her face and to forcibly use her fingers to unlock it. In other words, a judge gave the FBI permission to attempt to bypass biometrics: the convenient shortcuts that let you unlock your phone by scanning your fingerprint or face.

It is not clear if Natanson used biometric authentication on her devices, or if the law enforcement personnel attempted to use her face or fingers to unlock her devices. Natanson and the Washington Post did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The FBI declined to comment.

[

Related

FBI Raid on WaPo Reporter’s Home Was Based on Sham Pretext](theintercept.com/2026/01/15/fb…)

Natanson has not been charged with a crime. Investigators searched her home in connection with alleged communication between her and government contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, who was initially charged with unlawfully retaining national defense information. Prosecutors recently added new charges including multiple counts of transmission of defense information to an unauthorized person. Attorneys for Perez-Lugones did not comment.

The warrant included a few stipulations limiting law enforcement personnel. Investigators were not authorized to ask Natanson details about what kind of biometric authentication she may have used on her devices. For instance, the warrant explicitly stated they could not ask Natanson which specific finger she uses for biometrics, if any. Although if Natanson were to voluntarily provide any such information, that would be allowed, according to the warrant.

The FBI’s search and seizure warrant for Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson details how authorities could use her fingers or face to unlock her phone. Screenshot: FBI

Andrew Crocker, surveillance litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The Intercept that while the EFF has “seen warrants that authorize police to compel individuals to unlock their devices using biometrics in the past,” the caveat mandating that the subject of the search cannot be asked for specifics about their biometric setup is likely influenced by recent case law. “Last year the D.C. Circuit held that biometric unlocking can be a form of ‘testimony’ that is protected by the 5th Amendment,” Crocker said. This is especially the case when a person is “forced to demonstrate which finger unlocks the device.”

Crocker said that he “would like to see courts treat biometric locks as equivalent to password protection from a constitutional standpoint. Your constitutional right against self-incrimination should not be dependent on technical convenience or lack thereof.”

[

Related

Crossing the U.S. Border? Here’s How to Protect Yourself](theintercept.com/2025/03/29/cu…)

Activists and journalists have long been cautioned to disable biometrics in specific situations where they might face heightened risk of losing control of their phones, say when attending a protest or crossing a border. Martin Shelton, deputy director of digital security at Freedom of the Press Foundation, advised “journalists to disable biometrics when they expect to be in a situation where they expect a possible search.”

Instead of using biometrics, it’s safest to unlock your devices using an alphanumeric passphrase (a device protected solely by a passcode consisting of numbers is generally easier to access). There are numerous other safeguards to take if there’s a possibility your home may be raided, such as turning off your phone before going to bed, which puts it into an encrypted state until the next time it’s unlocked.

That said, there are a few specific circumstances when biometric-based authentication methods might make sense from a privacy perspective — such as in a public place where someone might spy on your passphrase over your shoulder.

The post Washington Post Raid Is a Frightening Reminder: Turn Off Your Phone’s Biometrics Now appeared first on The Intercept.

---

From The Intercept via This RSS Feed.

rss

2026-01-30 17:35:39

Washington Post Raid Is a Frightening Reminder: Turn Off Your Phone’s Biometrics Now

The recent federal raid on the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson isn’t merely an attack by the Trump administration on the free press. It’s also a warning to anyone with a smartphone.

Included in the search and seizure warrant for the raid on Natanson’s home is a section titled “Biometric Unlock,” which explicitly authorized law enforcement personnel to obtain Natanson’s phone and both hold the device in front of her face and to forcibly use her fingers to unlock it. In other words, a judge gave the FBI permission to attempt to bypass biometrics: the convenient shortcuts that let you unlock your phone by scanning your fingerprint or face.

It is not clear if Natanson used biometric authentication on her devices, or if the law enforcement personnel attempted to use her face or fingers to unlock her devices. Natanson and the Washington Post did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The FBI declined to comment.

[

Related

FBI Raid on WaPo Reporter’s Home Was Based on Sham Pretext](theintercept.com/2026/01/15/fb…)

Natanson has not been charged with a crime. Investigators searched her home in connection with alleged communication between her and government contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, who was initially charged with unlawfully retaining national defense information. Prosecutors recently added new charges including multiple counts of transmission of defense information to an unauthorized person. Attorneys for Perez-Lugones did not comment.

The warrant included a few stipulations limiting law enforcement personnel. Investigators were not authorized to ask Natanson details about what kind of biometric authentication she may have used on her devices. For instance, the warrant explicitly stated they could not ask Natanson which specific finger she uses for biometrics, if any. Although if Natanson were to voluntarily provide any such information, that would be allowed, according to the warrant.

The FBI’s search and seizure warrant for Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson details how authorities could use her fingers or face to unlock her phone. Screenshot: FBI

Andrew Crocker, surveillance litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The Intercept that while the EFF has “seen warrants that authorize police to compel individuals to unlock their devices using biometrics in the past,” the caveat mandating that the subject of the search cannot be asked for specifics about their biometric setup is likely influenced by recent case law. “Last year the D.C. Circuit held that biometric unlocking can be a form of ‘testimony’ that is protected by the 5th Amendment,” Crocker said. This is especially the case when a person is “forced to demonstrate which finger unlocks the device.”

Crocker said that he “would like to see courts treat biometric locks as equivalent to password protection from a constitutional standpoint. Your constitutional right against self-incrimination should not be dependent on technical convenience or lack thereof.”

[

Related

Crossing the U.S. Border? Here’s How to Protect Yourself](theintercept.com/2025/03/29/cu…)

Activists and journalists have long been cautioned to disable biometrics in specific situations where they might face heightened risk of losing control of their phones, say when attending a protest or crossing a border. Martin Shelton, deputy director of digital security at Freedom of the Press Foundation, advised “journalists to disable biometrics when they expect to be in a situation where they expect a possible search.”

Instead of using biometrics, it’s safest to unlock your devices using an alphanumeric passphrase (a device protected solely by a passcode consisting of numbers is generally easier to access). There are numerous other safeguards to take if there’s a possibility your home may be raided, such as turning off your phone before going to bed, which puts it into an encrypted state until the next time it’s unlocked.

That said, there are a few specific circumstances when biometric-based authentication methods might make sense from a privacy perspective — such as in a public place where someone might spy on your passphrase over your shoulder.

The post Washington Post Raid Is a Frightening Reminder: Turn Off Your Phone’s Biometrics Now appeared first on The Intercept.

---

From The Intercept via This RSS Feed.

Feds Are Tapping Protesters’ Phones. Here’s How To Stop Them.

You can add a PIN code to your phone’s SIM card in order to prevent police from cloning it.

^{Micah Lee (The Intercept)}

I'm trying to create a group in org-super-agenda that displays recurring events that occur today. They are showing under "Other items" in org-super-agenda.

Here's the event

* Burger and Fry-day!
:PROPERTIES:
:LOCATION: Everywhere
:ID:       69cca5d7-f9ef-45eb-9d41-76ee125156c7
:END:
<2020-09-11 Fri +1w>

  (use-package org-super-agenda
    :straight t
    :after org-agenda
    :config
    (org-super-agenda-mode 1)
    (setq org-super-agenda-groups
           '((:name "All Day Events"
                    :and (:date today
                                :not (:habit)
                                :not (:time-grid)))
             (:name "Today's Schedule"
                    :time-grid t)
             (:name "Punchlist"
                    :and (:scheduled today
                                     :not (:habit)))
             (:name "Habits"
                    :habit t)
             (:name "Important"
                    :priority "1")
             )))

EDIT: Apparently, if I could group by the text property 'day' instead of 'ts-date', which is what :date matches, it would be easy. Because 'day' matches (org-today), but 'ts-date' is the date of origin or the first occurrence of the recurring event.

Next week is European Open Source Week in Brussels, culminating in FOSDEM 2026 on the weekend. There are several important ways to stay connected to the Fediverse while you’re visiting this week!

• Mastodon maintains a booth at FOSDEM throughout the weekend. It’s a great place to get Mastodon merch or take a selfie with the Mastodon team.
• The Social Web Dev Room is a day-long event on Jan 31 in room H.2215 with loads of talks about Fediverse software and Fediverse organizing.
• There will be a loose mingling of Fediverse people at the À La Mort Subite bar in Brussels on Friday Jan 30 after 8PM. Wear a Fediverse symbol on a nametag or some other creative way so people can find you. Find your own table and then start mingling. There’s no organized activities or special space; just a node in space-time where you’re more likely to run into Fediverse people than normal.

As always, watch the #FOSDEM and #socialwebfosdem and #FOSDEM2026 hashtags for news and updates.

If you’re not travelling to Brussels, watch for streaming video from room H.2215 . There are also Fediverse events happening throughout the world throughout the year; Fediforum keeps a great list of the most prominent.

Archived link

The federal government’s proposal to appoint Anton Boegman as Canada’s first Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner marks a significant milestone in the country’s ongoing efforts to safeguard democratic institutions. This nomination reflects both the urgency of addressing foreign interference and the confidence placed in Mr. Boegman’s longstanding leadership in election administration.

An alumnus of Royal Roads Military College / Royal Military College, Class of 1988, Mr. Boegman brings more than three decades of public service and electoral management expertise to this new role. His academic foundation includes a B.A. from RMC (1988) and an MBA from Athabasca University (2001), complementing a career characterized by operational rigor, integrity, and a commitment to transparent democratic processes.

Mr. Boegman served as British Columbia’s Chief Electoral Officer from 2018 to 2025, following eight years as Deputy Chief Electoral Officer for Operations, and senior leadership roles within Elections BC dating back to 2004. In these capacities, he oversaw the administration of multiple provincial general elections and referenda—including several conducted fully by mail—and led complex modernization initiatives enhancing electoral security, accessibility, and public trust.

...