other8026 It's the owner's primary unlock method. Entering it every once in a while proves the owner is still the one using the device. And 48 hours is not really that short of an amount of time.
But it would make sense only if timer would be forced for any state of the phone. It would make certain that device would not be used by non-owner for longer than 48 hours.
But in reality the situation is DIFFERENT. The implementation from google is working only on LOCKED device. So, if the criminal or police get your device they would simply not allow it to get locked. There are very cheap special devices for that. So they would use the device for month without any issues and without owner.
Am I right? I can be wrong on this easily.
So, if I am right with this assumption, then what is the point of this timer if it does not prove the owner is still using the device as you said?
other8026 What I mean is the device by itself is still secure whether the timeout is there or not. In your example, the user does something that exposes the primary unlock method to the outside world. That's the device owner's doing, not the feature's.
OK, now I got your point. You are right, the correct statement from me would be: this timer does not affects security of the device, nor OS itself, but only user's security due to the process of using password being different when timer exists or not.
other8026 Can you please share your source for this claim? I get the feeling that most people don't care or even think about it all that much.
I have only 2 sources:
- Own experience. I made password shorter, because it is not possible to enter it in some situations like running, riding, driving and etc. So, I have to use shorter passwords or pins instead of passwords ONLY because of this timer. I would love to have long password and enter it on reboot and updates, but I cannot.
- Logic. I mean, it seem logical to me, that other people that have similar issue (who uses password on GrapheneOS) may choose the same bad path as I did.
other8026 That comment was posted less than two months ago. I can't imagine much has changed since then that would make anyone change their minds.
I read the link. The author was not providing the reasoning and arguments well enough, not as should (as I tried to do here).
So, I understand why it could be chosen not to implement something for one person, something that seemingly make device less secure. I do not blame Daniel for such decision in such situation.
other8026 Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but after tons of posts going back and forth about this topic, I don't get the feeling you've considered the other side yourself.
Maybe you right, I should try better to consider counter-arguments.
On the other hand, I think I am open to such arguments. The problem is that most of arguments here were that:
- I should enter the password daily and it's fine to avoid the issue instead of solving it (good workaround, but not exactly what I am asking for),
- I should not worry about this too much and live different life,
- I should not use phone in public places and unlock it in a different place.
All these arguments are not ones that I agree on. I understand them, take into consideration, but only first one makes sense (as a workaround), and still not enough.
other8026 Still, the pros don't outweigh the cons if you ask me.
Do you personally use password? Or rather long PIN? If you do, how do you personally mitigate this problem with a timer? Enter password in inappropriate situations, or really each morning reboot the phone or use password/PIN unlock manually?
I see no good options for all users, that's why I would expect this toggle to benefit a lot of people (if they are offered this toggle to be turned on for example).