It's still pretty early, possibly buggy, and almost certain to get breaking changes without warning.
My original thought was to combine Lisp syntax and structural macros with C semantics and see how much extra abstraction that would provide, but variants of that idea have been tried before. They may have been compelling at a certain point in time, but I think a new systems programming language in 2026 should offer more, so it does.
Some features include: strong typing, protocols (similar to Clojure or Rust traits), non-nullable references, error values, bound error handlers (a bit like Common Lisp), optional lexical lifetimes, namespaces, and no mandatory runtime overhead relative to C.
It's self-hosted, which I've noticed several new systems programming languages announced recently are not.
The ones advertised on Meta platforms (and others like YouTube), at least the ones I've seen, claim to do so in a device that looks like it can't have more than a tiny battery and no cooling in there, or that they actualy show using standard AA batteries, or recharging inside an hour by solar energy, or other claim that thumbs its nose to the lawsof physics. But they must be real, after all that nice man left NASA to work on it and now the nasty commercial interests are trying to shut him down! I must buy one now while I still can!
The brand name that comes to mind is the Wicked Lasers Flashtorch, which uses a 65W halogen bulb that emits most of its energy as infrared, and a ~30 Watt-hour Li-ion battery. The old-fashioned light source is better suited to party tricks than illumination.
More modern, and also capable of improvised cooking are handheld searchlights from Acebeam and Imalent with many large LEDs, cooling fans, and even bigger Li-ion batteries. There are third-party videos of these and the older halogen type cooking eggs and setting fire to paper on Youtube.
What you're describing from the ads obviously violates the laws of physics. An alkaline AA would have a hard time cooking an egg on a dead short.
"May contain" labeling seems like the better solution to this problem. This should be allowed for allergens that are present in the manufacturing or packing facility but not intended to be ingredients in the product.
That's part of the problem. "May contain" doesn't provide legal protection and then if you make it a standard there needs to be testing for compliance which ends up as the same original problem and you just add compliance tits to your food product.
"May contain" should provide legal protection. It may be compliance tits in some cases, but that's better than forcing the addition of a compliance ingredient.
The term "missing person" calls to mind someone who is in serious danger, but a majority are something minor, like someone quitting a job without notice or taking an unannounced trip. The vast majority are resolved by finding the person alive.
Flock helping close 10K cases doesn't surprise me at all, but it doesn't meant those people wouldn't have been found without it. It may mean less work for the police, but the police don't usually put a lot of effort into a missing person without evidence they're in danger.
Google Maps has a better excuse for wanting to be an app than most since a primary use case on mobile is turn-by-turn navigation. That's possible to do in a web page now, but several features that improve the experience are not available in browsers.
I'm annoyed by a different thing ... It used to be when you searched for something, maps would always be a tab for results. Now it doesn't seem to be anymore...
What you need to do, in the modern Web, is to flip that around.
Anytime I need to search an entity with physical presence, I use Google Maps first. Maps is very good about getting the first result as intended and not showing superfluous non-matches. Maps will not chirp up with AI-generated responses. Maps will take me right to the place I want, and I can see a lot of profile info at-a-glance, and if I wanted their website, then Maps will give me their main website, and nothing else.
Whether it's a corporate HQ, a clinic, a local restaurant, or a geographic area, Maps can come up with a lot of relevant info and I don't waste my time in an enshittified Search. So I'm thankful for the Maps app and its mobile integrations.
I’m not sure how that’s a justification. If you want to app-wall the turn by turn directions, that would be one thing. The fact that turn-by-turn directions is better on mobile doesn’t rationalize lying about being unable to show photos, and auto opening the App Store three times every time you want to search for an address somewhere
The only time I've ever managed to burn through a quota that fast (on the cheap plan) was with an open-ended request to check a codebase for any defects or deficiencies. It dispatched five Fable subagents.
I also found the description of Lisp development weird, as if it's a second-hand repetition of someone else describing watching a Lisp developer in action.
The workflow I always use is to write code in my editor and use a keyboard shortcut to evaluate it. Typing directly into the REPL is for one-off state updates, inspection, experiments, and similar throwaway code.
For exactly the border search scenario, I wish smartphones could be imaged and restored as easily as PCs. Imagine booting the phone from a flash drive, making an encrypted image of the phone on said drive, and writing a fresh OS before reaching the border.
There's no deception required to protect sensitive data or avoid the seizure of an expensive phone. Consent to unlocking the phone, refuse to unlock the drive. The drive gets seized and you go on your way (if you're a US citizen entering the USA).
Some time ago, Android with a custom recovery could come close to that, but it was fussy and as far as I know, no longer viable. Increased use of TPMs for storing credentials seems to be at least one of the reasons.
It may be fun to fantasize about these things some times, but there is no technical solution to tyranny. Laws are not like code, intent matters. Ultimately if the intent is that the government wants to see your private data, hiding it in any way will be charged - it doesn't matter if you jump through hoops to avoid this specific instance.
This is a half-truth. In a full banana republic, technical compliance with the law will not prevent consequences for failing to do what the authorities want. In a jurisdiction with perfect rule of law, it always will. The USA is somewhere in between.
One of the laws that's enforced pretty well in the USA is the protection against unreasonable search. Most of the time, a search requires showing a judge evidence that the search is more likely than not to reveal evidence of a crime. Exceptions are narrow and specific; the government's options to punish someone who refuses to decrypt data at the border are limited to brief detention and seizure of the medium.
Not yet tested is the idea that erasing data on the spot satisfies the purpose of the border search exception, which is to prevent importation of things that are illegal to import. This case might address that question.
Unreasonable search is always under attack though. There are many instances today of cops forcibly entering a home claiming nothing more than a welfare check, or "we received a call."
Edit to add that its also more difficult than it should be to protect and exercise the right against unreasonable search. If a cop knocks on your door its a consent-based interaction. You can simply not respond, but if you do happen to crack the door they can and will look in for any signs to claim as probable cause. Further there are cases where a person stepped out to talk and when they turned around and walked inside the cop slid right in behind them and later claimed in court the open door was implied consent. (I don't have a link to the court docs unfortunately.)
>There are many instances today of cops forcibly entering a home claiming nothing more than a welfare check, or "we received a call."
Sure, but there are also many instances today of evidence getting thrown out in court due to cops not getting a warranty and poisoning the tree and all its fruit. Rights don't just enforce themselves, there are and have to be a number of layers to the onion to help reduce the violation numbers at each stage.
I'm personally less concerned with those cases and more concerned with evidence that ultimately is thrown out allowed them to build a case that otherwise would have gone nowhere.
Say they search a vehicle without consent or probable cause and find weed. Then they further investigate the person and find additional evidence they otherwise never would have found. That weed find may get thrown out but it doesn't always nullify the rest of the case, and if the DA is clever they simply wouldn't submit the weed as evidence at all.
Maybe a better example as a half decent defense attorney, or the judge, could get subsequent evidence thrown out there.
A cop pulls you over for a brake light. They decide to go fishing, asking where you're coming from or where you're going, looking for any inconsistency to pull on. Maybe they decide they smell something on your breath.
A well informed person would refuse to ask questions and help ensure the traffic stop can move forward with the ticket, the cop isn't allowed to hold you for longer than required for the initial offense.
Most people when asked questions, though, will answer. Most people asked to take a field sobriety test will oblige. None of that is required and all requires consent - the cop knows that and knows that few people will stand up for that.
Such fishing expeditions should be illegal and anything found should be considered inadmissible due to unreasonable search. When the professional trained in law knows that they can game the average person it should be unreasonable practice.
That's not really relevant this was about going to jail after police break the constitution. If we're talking about bad things cops do there's civil asset forfeiture.
The minute the entanglement happens the person on the receiving end’s life gets 1000x more complicated. It’s a hollow victory if you have to go to court and spend a year or more defending yourself
Rights needing to occasionally be upheld by the courts wasn't my complaint though. Its cases where rights we're clearly infringed, at least I'd expect most citizens would agree, and courts uphold it because a person didn't say a particular phrase, for example, or because a "reasonable" cop would have seen a cracked door as implied consent.
Yes its border patrol, but its also still specifically for American citizens.
Border patrol doesn't get immunity from the constitution and my need to reenter the country is not probably cause for a Terry stop and search of my phone.
>There are many instances today of cops forcibly entering a home claiming nothing more than a welfare check, or "we received a call."
And there are also many instances of the city being sued, those cops being sued, losing qualified immunity, losing their jobs, etc, because we do still have recourse when cops do the wrong thing.
If your rights were violated, you stand to get a big payout, and get the cops fired that violated your rights. We aren't powerless, yet.
> And there are also many instances of [...] those cops being sued, losing qualified immunity, losing their jobs
Not really, the data points the other way. Cops basically never have to actually pay for their wrongdoings. Over 99.98% of money successfully recovered from cases against police is paid out by the cities, not cops personally [1]. A considerable number of cops that are fired are also eventually rehired by the same department [2] or a different one [3]. So I don't think it's that clear that you "have recourse when cops do the wrong thing".
Can you link to some of these cases of cops losing qualified immunity? It's an area in interested in but I understand that to be a vanishingly rare outcome - like only in very egregious cases, not just for run of the mill rights violations.
In case this isn't a bot and simply someone unfamiliar with the internet search, here is a snippet from the Google AI results when searching for the phrase, "list of US court cases where police lost qualified immunity."
--------
A federal court denies qualified immunity when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right or when material facts remain heavily disputed for a jury. While appellate and district courts routinely evaluate these claims, absolute lists contain thousands of entries because denials typically happen at the lower or circuit court levels rather than as sweeping national precedent.[0]
Notable Federal and Supreme Court Cases Denying Immunity
Taylor v. Riojas (2020): The U.S. Supreme Court summarily reversed a lower court and denied qualified immunity to correctional officers who housed an inmate in shockingly filthy, human-waste-packed cells for days, ruling that the extreme conditions-violating the Eighth Amendment-needed no prior identical precedent.[1]
King v. Brownback (Sixth Circuit): The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied qualified immunity to members of a joint law enforcement task force after they aggressively tackled and beat an innocent man (James King) outside a convenience store when they mistook him for a suspect.[2]
Schroeder v. City of Des Moines (2022): The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that three police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity after conducting an unlawful, suspicionless car stop and subsequent arrest based on an unverified temporary license plate.[3]
Glover v. City of Jackson (2024): A federal district court famously rejected a detective’s qualified immunity defense in a major civil rights action involving fabricated evidence and malicious prosecution, highlighting systemic flaws in the doctrine itself.[4]
Did you read your [2] citation? While the 6th court denied immunity, they tried to claim a different immunity. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the SC said you settle it without immunity first, the 6th court did not take that advice. Sounds like they used a different law.
I am not familiar with the case, but from my reading IJ is still trying to fight the immunity.
> Instead, the high court asked the Sixth Circuit to decide the issue first. Rather than seriously engaging with the issue, as the Supreme Court asked, the Sixth Circuit unthinkingly applied outdated caselaw, becoming the sixth federal appeals court to do so. Now, IJ is asking the Supreme Court to weigh in and deny the government one of its many tools to avoid the Constitution
It isn't foolproof though, and police and DAs have incentive to both work together and to look the other way.
Note I also didn't say the problem is rampant. I take issue that its possible at all, and that it isn't a 100% success rate of holding police to account, especially when most are required to wear body cameras today.
Border search exception lowers the requirements for judicial oversight.
"In United States criminal law, the border search exception is a doctrine that allows searches and seizures at international borders and their functional equivalent without a warrant or probable cause. Generally speaking, searches within 100 miles (160 km) of the border are more permissible without a warrant than those conducted elsewhere in the United States."
we're far closer to one side of that spectrum than the other. consider the retroactively legalized mass wiretapping, room 641A, NIST compromises, PRISM, 14 Eyes, the other Snowden revelations, etc
then consider this paired with the implementation of mass data sharing between the alphabet agencies, surveillance data sharing from private companies like Amazon Ring, Flock, Clearview, etc. and NSPM-7 ordering agencies to create JTTFs to target organizations like BLM
then consider the unmitigated use of force by federal law enforcement agencies like ICE
I think if this were 1995 your point might be fair but those days are unfortunately long gone
Agree with the thrust of your comment, but I had to comment on this:
> In a full banana republic, technical compliance with the law will not prevent consequences for failing to do what the authorities want. In a jurisdiction with perfect rule of law, it always will.
I think you may be misunderstanding that many laws, even in fair, just societies, are intentionally designed to be flexible. The real world is so variable and messy that in many cases it isn't feasible for a law to be written such it can be unambiguously determined whether or not a specific action violated the law. Laws often rely on humans using context to judge whether something violates the spirit of a law, and in a just society, this is a good thing.
My point is that I don't believe the idea of "perfect rule of law" is sensible. Law is always necessarily a bit fuzzy and nebulous.
I think I mostly disagree with this. "Technical compliance" is not and should not be the thing that a legal system is designed to incentivize, and should not be the criterion for "perfect rule of law."
I would disagree with you, because "technical compliance" is compliance with the letter of the law. You have complied with every explicit requirement of the law. If the law is insufficient then legislature is free to add a clause that bans whatever aspect you technically comply with that they don't like.
The alternative is complying with the spirit of the law, which is an eternal guessing game. Who knows whether it's legal or not, we have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide what Congress _actually_ meant. It implies that the law means something beyond what anybody bothered to actually write down, and nobody has any idea what that is until the Judiciary interprets it into "actual law".
I don’t expect it to be exact or like code, but at the very least I expect it to be predictable and the “spirit of the law” fails that test often.
I still remember GDPR coming out and I read til my head hurt, decided the lawyers would have to figure it out. Then legal shows up and says they don’t really know either, we’re going to do X and hope someone else gets sued first so they can see what the court thinks the spirit of the law is.
Similar issues happened with opiates. They get overprescribed, DEA cracks down and says they’ll publish prescribing guidelines, then never does so everyone is left running on vague “as much as is necessary and justifiable” type verbiage. Can you keep raising levels to keep pace with a rising tolerance? Does that only apply to terminal patients where addiction is less of a worry? What’s the bar for them to be justifiable? Discomfort, pain, debilitating pain?
Both cases end in people who are genuinely trying to comply with the law being unsure of what compliance even is.
And the courts generally won’t take a hypothetical “is it a crime or not under this law if I did X?”. You have to just do it and accept it for the Schrodingers Cat it is. It’s both illegal and legal until the judiciary opens the box and decides it was one or the other for sure.
It's not clear to me why "predictability" should be a major goal. I'd say the goal should always be fairness. Of course, we want the letter of the law to describe what is and isn't fair, and for the law the be changed when it is either unclear or unfair.
But here's a question that might elucidate any major differences in our views if they exist: Do you think that a judge should ever pass a judgement that he or she believes to be unfair?
Yes, trying to solve a regulation or legal issue by some technical workaround will never work, you have to fight it at the same level, legally, or system-wise, otherwise, you will be like the person who tries to wash the stairs from the bottom all the way up, it rarely works, you gotta go up to down, collectively go against the matter rather than individually duct taping it for your own specific needs. In that example, it won’t be far fetched the same ones who made it illegal to wipe your phone to make illegal to install xyz OS or using abc protocol, in fact, that’s exactly what they are trying to do under the disguise of “protect the kids” and going after encryption or similar privacy related issues.
They would not be so vehemently against it if it did not work. There is a reason E2EE, duress passwords and similar technologies are under such intense assault these days.
Destruction of evidence as a crime goes back a long, long way. There's no precedent for making it illegal to install some OS or protocol the feds don't like. I don't particularly like what's being done to this guy, but what he did was pretty stupid. You can't be obligated to incriminate yourself but you aren't allowed to destroy evidence.
Having good technical tools won't fix a failing society, but they're still nice to have and they make state surveillance of its citizens just a little bit harder. I mean, where would we be without strong cryptography?
Normally I agree, but making the implementation initially ineffective is a good way to complicate more far reaching measures.
Americans aren't standing up against this, but they might have considerably more interest if the government was instead trying to ban encrypting data in cloud storage for everyone.
There's also just the fact it's ridiculous I can't have a spare phone ready to go in a few minutes and get it back exactly as I left it.
This is false. If you can image and wipe your phone on the plane before landing, and write those random bytes to a usb stick, the usb stick will appear blank, because encrypted data is noise. You land with a factory blank phone. You clear customs and get where you are going and restore your phone.
Substitute cloud storage for a USB stick if you do it at your departure hotel.
There are absolutely technical solutions to the implementations of tyranny. Otherwise we wouldn’t bother with encryption. Violence can’t solve math problems.
All of your websites are missing the legally required Impressum, comrade. It must contain your full legal name and address.
I'm serious, this is the law in Germany. It's also a great demonstration of a shitty law that people prefer to avoid complying with, which surely has something to do with the topic.
My websites are neither owned nor operated nor updated from Germany. Don’t be confused by the .berlin domain - using that TLD alone does not subject one to German law.
GrapheneOS has built-in encrypted backup and restore. It backs up the same data transferred by Google's device transfer feature for moving to a new phone which is nearly all app data, the data in the home directory, contacts and a bit more. Certain apps such as Signal encrypt their own data with another layer of encryption using a hardware keystore key. Signal's own backup system needs to be used for that, although it can just be used as a way to get data into the system backup.
It's worth noting wiping a device shortly before an anticipated search could also be considered destruction of evidence in the same way. It doesn't have to be done after a request for the data to be considered that.
> There's no deception required to protect sensitive data or avoid the seizure of an expensive phone. Consent to unlocking the phone, refuse to unlock the drive. The drive gets seized and you go on your way (if you're a US citizen entering the USA).
This was likely the best move for him to take. They could have held him for a while and wasted his time but eventually would have had to give him access to a lawyer and let him go. Unless they had a recording of him entering a PIN/password, they were nearly certainly not going to get his data from it. He very likely didn't gain anything from wiping it.
He did help every GrapheneOS user by spreading awareness of the duress PIN/password. It was designed around an adversary aware of it and therefore not wanting to attempt using a PIN/password obtained via coercion. In the future, we want to integrate the feature into the secure element rate limiting for key derivation so it can't be avoided by exploiting the OS.
> GrapheneOS has built-in encrypted backup and restore.
The backup tool on GrapheneOS doesn't work for a large percentage of app data. And it often silently fails to backup some data, so you don't even know where the gaps are.
There have been promises of a better solution for years, but I haven't seen any movement yet.
This has gotten much better fairly recently ime. My backups to WebDAV work most of the time and when it fails I get notifications. But it was quite bad for a long time so I sympathize with your point
> It's worth noting wiping a device shortly before an anticipated search could also be considered destruction of evidence in the same way.
Look, if we are talking about a warranted search in the US then I'd agree with you. However, the entire point of CPB's unwarranted search authority is to stop contraband from coming in.
This would be like arguing that throwing away materials illegal in the US before boarding a plane is destruction of evidence.
Like, even if we assume exactly what CBP's claim is true, it was to stop CSAM. And the person had in fact had CSAM. Destroying the CSAM before getting to the US would be legal even though the US doesn't like it.
Further, if the data is actually backed up, then you haven't actually destroyed it and CBP or another agency can provide you with a search warrant for what they are looking for. But I'd note that this is far outside of CBP's authority. They are for stopping contraband, not FBI work.
And this is why he isn't being charged with destruction of evidence. He is being charged with destruction of property subject to a civil seizure.
The only reason they can charge him with this is that he destroyed it after being notified that it was being seized. If he has deleted it before then there would be nothing they could charge him with.
Right, but I think what makes this interesting is the destruction happened only after violating his civil rights. Had they simply seized the device the data wouldn't have been destroyed. He refused to give them the pass code several times before giving them the wiping code. He asked to leave and see a lawyer multiple times, which they refused to provide him with one. They held him, illegally, until he gave them his phone pass code.
And the whole reason they wanted in his phone (the real reason) was to figure out who he worked with in the stop cop city protest. That's why he was really targeted in the first place.
Those "nandroid" backups weren't "close" to that, they were literally that initially. Then, when Android phones started coming with the /sdcard partition mapped to the internal flash memory (a subdirectory of /data) instead of an actual SD card, the /data partition backup mechanism was changed to copy individual files into some sort of archive, but the end result remained the same.
You can still do it on modern Android devices, as long as the bootloader is unlocked. Yes, the file system is encrypted, but a modern custom recovery is able decrypt and mount it.
Not by default, but you have to enable it in developer settings, and then it does a full wipe, so if you plan to root your phone anyway, you do that when you buy it (buy, test hardware, oem unlock + factory reset, root, actually start using).
Xiaomi has fake unlock. It has an unlock button that never works and never has worked. Instead you have to write a letter to get their approval code or some complete bullshit like that. Of course this is because unlocking is illegal in China and they sell a lot of phones in China.
You have to ask yourself why this isn't possible anymore. Similar to how recording calls used to be possible but no longer. I don't know why it is but it is awfully strange that they keep tightening the belt on what we can do with our own devices.
You can do it on iOS officially. Android never had an official backup process, it was always through root apps. Backups could just be a casualty of killing rooted Android.
Why would recording calls not be possible anymore? On a rooted phone you can do it, some amixer and arecords might be needed, but it stores the audio of both sides.
Can't one just buy some craphone for like $50? with whatever sim.
The whole problem as I see it is that people for some reason submit all their life to a device they can not control. And when it bites them they go all suprised.
Not forever though, and if you're an iPhone user, already current iPhones sold in the US are eSIM only. So in some number of years (depenfing on your device oldness tolerance), they will become obsolete eventually.
They could be, easily so, twrp backup (and clockworkmod recovery before that), you'd just create the image of the phone (all partitions, everything), dump it to wherever, and then restore it, it was a standard system for testing new android versions on the phone.
The "secure enclaves" and other related stuff have made this harder in the recent years.
PinePhone will boot off a microSD before the internal flash, so you could have a clean OS on the card and your real one on the flash. The SD card is under the back cover with the battery and SIM, so chances are they won't think to try to remove it.
Somebody who doesn't know what they are doing, sure. Somebody who does, and maybe even enjoy doing it, and the challenge of it, will surely know about it simply because they are maybe two dozens of types of smartphones out there. Android (including of course GrapheneOS) based ones, iOS ... then PinePhones, Volla, Purism and few others. So having a guide on how each one can have hidden partitions or booting mechanisms is tractable.
Point being that relying on a hidden trick (rather than encryption) is a very risky bet.
Coincidence but I just started to listen to 404 media podcast on tracking rare books being scanned in AI facilities thanks to just a cheap AirTag. I find this a good illustration of how easy it is to find something if you know how to look for it, and thus again why encryption is the only safe way.
I really really want this for GrapheneOS. The current backup situation is terrible and nowhere near being able to easily image and restore the entire phone (or at least user data).
Think for a moment. What is the difference between giving them a password which wipes the phone and giving them a password which opens a blank phone?
It's the same thing. They punched in a code, they are presented with a wiped phone. Can they prove the guy gave them a distress password and wasn't simply carrying a wiped phone to begin with? No, but they just need to imply that is the reason to charge him with the felony.
> What is the difference between giving them a password which wipes the phone and giving them a password which opens a blank phone?
> It's the same thing. They punched in a code, they are presented with a wiped phone.
No, the behavior between the two is in fact visibly and obviously different.
The regular passcode unlocks the phone. The duress passcode reboots the phone and resets it. I know this because this is literally what previous articles said happened when they entered the passcode in regards to this case.
You can say it was a wiped phone to begin with, and that may work in court. They're welcome to have evidence it wasn't true, but whether they actually have that evidence is up in question.
But it's irrelevant in this case because the guy confessed.
Best you can get away with is lack of suspicion. Have a secondary phone with some standard apps on that you use now and then so theyhave a history and just look like you are just not a technical person and read novels on dead trees instead. A lot of work but likely works.
We are already there. Border cops have been searching people's socials to see what you think of Trump and denying entry if you don't like him or if you don't have enough socials or don't let the cops search them. This was a year ago.
They could be indistinguishable in theory, but looking up some videos of the process, it appears that GrapheneOS doesn't try to make the duress pin process look like your phone was just blank the whole time. It says "wrong pin" and then the whole thing resets.
>What is the difference between giving them a password which wipes the phone and giving them a password which opens a blank phone?
They don't get any indication that there was data there to be deleted, and you don't just factory reset but flash w an image of a clean phone that's been used. It has apps, it has accounts, it looks to the untrained eye (because that's who's looking at it) like a phone that was used normally by someone who has done nothing wrong.
The best technical solution is one code opens to a phone that has things but isn't your actual phone, and then another code that opens to your real phone.
The actual difference in this case is that the victim told the cops that the code had wiped the phone. That's a confession. Visible differences aren't relevant.
I already refuse to comply with questioning at the border. Been being harassed and my non-citizen travel companions being SA’d by CBP for decades. Get with the program.
So, how easy is this today on computers? If I have an Ubuntu 26.04 machine running, I can easily image the entire thing, completely wipe the machine, then reinstall from a flash drive and it behaves as if nothing happened?
This isn’t my territory, so excuse my ignorance, but I’d love to know how
Just get a larger drive than the internal one, and "dd" (copy byte by byte) the whole internal drive into a file on that external drive.
There could be issues with the TPM chips, having to re-enroll fingerprints or something, but not a problem in the case of a border search, since they can't pull out anything. So you could backup your whole system, install a clean ubuntu without anything special on the system (just if they check), and then download the image wherever you are and do whatever you want.
So on a Luks encrypted xubuntu, o can dd to an external and then my laptop can fall in a lake the next day and I run some simple command to unwind that on a fresh laptop and I’m off to the races?
I presume it’s much slower than rsync, since it’s comprehensive each time.
Are there any gotchas?
This sounds too simple to be true—but again, my knowledge on backup is very unprofessional
You can do exactly that, yes, dd whole disk to external drive, dd it back. Of course this assumes you'll be buying the same laptop, otherwise, you'll have to reconfigure stuff, from graphics drivers, resolution etc., resize the partitions (assuming the new hdd is larger, and you can't use a smaller one).
The problem with dd is, that you can't really run it on a running system, because stuff is constantly being written to the drive (this is same for rsync too, but usualy the damage is smaller), so you have to boot a live linux from usb, dd the whole drive to an external drive, and then after swimming ashore, boot a live linux on the new laptop, and dd the backup to the new drive.
I've restored iPhones before, and it does seem pretty simple. Easier than PCs for sure. It's not instant, but the basic configuration is restored pretty quickly while the bulk data restoration happens in the background while you're able to use the phone.
Depends on the app and security setup. If it's using old school Symantec VIP Access, it will not survive a restore. If it is using TOTP from 1Password, it will. Not sure about other options, those are the two I am most familiar with. Thankfully I only have a single app these days relying on VIP Access.
My banking app required to log again to the bank account to bind new device and that's it. iOS is way better in this regard than stock Android. You pretty much get 1:1 copy on new device in an instant with the exceptions such as banking apps but that's kinda understandable.
It is that simple for most people. Millions of people do this every time they buy a new iPhone and in practice it means waiting a bit while things download and logging into their banking app.
It’s harder for people who don’t use cloud services and have to do things like copy TOTP seeds, but in this scenario you want those to live on a Yubikey with a PIN anyway.
Well it’s really easy to do that with an iPhone. Just with the inconvenience of needing to use a computer for that. You can just create an encrypted backup of an iPhone and store that anywhere.
At the border you have the same right to refuse to provide the pin/password on boot of your otherwise encrypted phone as you do to refuse to provide the key for an encrypted USB. (That right differs slightly depending on whether you are a US citizen or not).
What the subject in question of this new story did was cause the border official to inadvertently destroy the evidence on the phone and therefore indirectly destroyed the evidence himself.
(I'm not making a commentary as to whether or not it's a valid charge and criticism, or not. I'm just saying that's the material difference between your scenario and the original scenario)
I mean, you could ship your real phone to w/e destination ahead of you and bring a $50 burner to the border. If you're a person of interest this won't work because they can monitor you and the destination but if you're a regular schmuck then a burner that never touches your private data or accounts and has a bunch of dummy stuff on it will get you past the border goons.
Apple makes this very easy. I broke an iPhone and bought a replacement. If you have iCloud, you login to the new phone and you can see which backups you can recover from. If you are transferring a phone, say you upgraded, it’s even easier. You can also image the phone with a connected laptop and store it on a backup drive, which is nice to not use up iCloud limits.
The transfer and backup system are pretty much the same mechanisms.
Restoring is probably order of ~1 hour to go through all the setup. Then some hours to sync any data and updates that need to be redownloaded, apps reinstalled, etc.
That's mostly time for data sync in the background. It takes 5-10 minutes tops to have the phone working again, but longer to get all of the media and other data restored. Depends on how good your connection is.
> I wish smartphones could be imaged and restored as easily as PCs. Imagine booting the phone from a flash drive, making an encrypted image of the phone on said drive, and writing a fresh OS before reaching the border.
Backing up and restoring an iPhone is extremely easy. You don't need to imagine all of this flash drive or encrypted imaging stuff. You plug it into your computer and do a backup. You can then wipe the phone through the menus. Restoring from the same computer is easy.
Except apps themselves don't get backed up, only their data. So if you had any apps that are no longer in the app store or that came from outside of it (e.g. TestFlight or development builds), those won't be restored.
It's still pretty early, possibly buggy, and almost certain to get breaking changes without warning.
My original thought was to combine Lisp syntax and structural macros with C semantics and see how much extra abstraction that would provide, but variants of that idea have been tried before. They may have been compelling at a certain point in time, but I think a new systems programming language in 2026 should offer more, so it does.
Some features include: strong typing, protocols (similar to Clojure or Rust traits), non-nullable references, error values, bound error handlers (a bit like Common Lisp), optional lexical lifetimes, namespaces, and no mandatory runtime overhead relative to C.
It's self-hosted, which I've noticed several new systems programming languages announced recently are not.
reply