<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>privacy on Referently.com</title>
    <link>https://referently.com/tags/privacy/</link>
    <description>Recent content in privacy on Referently.com</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://referently.com/tags/privacy/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>The DOJ Is Prosecuting a Duress Passcode the Same Week India Banned the App That Needed One</title>
      <link>https://referently.com/the-doj-is-prosecuting-a-duress-passcode-the-same-week-india-banned-the-app-that-needed-one/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://referently.com/the-doj-is-prosecuting-a-duress-passcode-the-same-week-india-banned-the-app-that-needed-one/</guid>
      <description>I don&amp;rsquo;t have much sympathy for prosecutors who treat a phone&amp;rsquo;s security feature as evidence of criminal intent. That instinct made this story easy to write off as one more overreach the moment I read the headline.
It&amp;rsquo;s not that simple, and pretending it is would waste the more interesting story sitting right next to it.
The DOJ is prosecuting a Cop City protester for allegedly giving CBP a duress passcode — the GrapheneOS feature that wipes a phone&amp;rsquo;s contents when entered under compulsion — treating the wipe itself as obstruction.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
