Android phones will soon reboot themselves after sitting unused for three days
252 points
11 hours ago
| 27 comments
| arstechnica.com
| HN
greatgib
9 hours ago
[-]
It's good to have an option like that, even being a default, but there definitively need a switch to disable that if it is your own will.

It's not even necessarily that good enough against cops, because in a lot of shitty countries, even some pretending to be democratics, not disclosing or at least inputting your password might be a crime severely punished. If I'm not wrong, there was a guy that had to stay years in jail until he would comply with the judge order to unlock his device.

reply
rvnx
9 hours ago
[-]
Interestingly, it could also be seen the other way around; it's a potential way for Google to force deployments of system updates (potentially at the request of law enforcement). With an automatic reboot, then the update can automatically be applied without user action.
reply
kokada
8 hours ago
[-]
This makes no sense, Android already will reboot itself after receiving an update and being inactive for a while (generally while charging it will install the update in its secondary partition, do some verification checks and reboot if there is no user interaction).
reply
kqr
6 hours ago
[-]
This sounds vendor-specific and not general for Android. I've never had that happen on any device but Windows and I would be very upset if it did happen.
reply
arghwhat
6 hours ago
[-]
This is default on iOS and on many Android versions.

It's often configurable, but e.g. carrier policy or local vendors can enforce it.

To have updates automatically install overnight is the maximally desirable scenario - waiting for user approval usually result in open vulnerabilities, and if you interact with a prompt you are by definition using your device and it is therefore a much worse time than while you're asleep.

reply
TylerE
3 hours ago
[-]
I hate overnight updates because a dialed one means I have no alarm and will be hours late for work.

And yes, this has actually happened to me at least twice.

reply
mh-
3 hours ago
[-]
I haven't had that happen on iOS, but I have woken up in the night needing my flashlight just to find my phone applying a lengthy update. I have it set to download automatically and install manually now, I believe.
reply
nradov
2 hours ago
[-]
You don't keep a real flashlight next to your bed?
reply
saagarjha
2 hours ago
[-]
Why would you when you have a phone?
reply
mvdtnz
1 hour ago
[-]
That's a weird thing to ask.
reply
sneak
2 hours ago
[-]
You don’t keep a real camera next to your bed? What about a two-way radio? MP3 player?
reply
ssl-3
1 hour ago
[-]
I keep all of those things next to my bed.

They all even share a unified battery charging mechanism and integrated packaging for easy portability.

I'm not sure if the idea of these pocket supercomputers will ever catch on, but it sure seems like it'd be nice.

reply
Talanes
3 hours ago
[-]
I haven't had any problems in at least 7+ years, but I work in coffee and I can remember at least two instances where an Apple update made half the staff late by turning off their alarms, myself included.
reply
Krasnol
5 hours ago
[-]
What Android version do you use where it doesn't happen`?
reply
rat9988
3 hours ago
[-]
Never happened on my samsung.
reply
ssl-3
1 hour ago
[-]
I've woken up to a rebooted Samsung phone.

(And it has been problematic for me at times when this happened.)

reply
rixed
8 hours ago
[-]
Except that on most phone you can already reboot the device if you long-press some button, can't you?
reply
BurningFrog
7 hours ago
[-]
You can always turn it off and on, AFAIK.
reply
ffsm8
6 hours ago
[-]
Long Press power while pressing volume down works on all Android devices I've used to date.

And that's ignoring the fact that disconnecting power, waiting a few days and then reconnecting it will inevitably let you cold boot it, too (which this would be an equivalent to - as far as I understood it)

reply
rtpg
1 hour ago
[-]
At least on iOS an update requires an explicit unlock, is this not the case on Android?

There could be secret pathways but I don’t know them.

reply
VWWHFSfQ
8 hours ago
[-]
It's already trivial to reboot a locked android phone
reply
mystified5016
9 hours ago
[-]
This is the real reason
reply
markus_zhang
8 hours ago
[-]
I actually think this is the reason. But I think Android has an option to disable auto update?
reply
oarsinsync
6 hours ago
[-]
> in a lot of shitty countries, even some pretending to be democratics, not disclosing or at least inputting your password might be a crime severely punished. If I'm not wrong, there was a guy that had to stay years in jail until he would comply with the judge order to unlock his device.

This sounds a lot like the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in the United Kingdom, where several people have been prosecuted and imprisoned for failing to provide encryption keys.

reply
chgs
28 minutes ago
[-]
reply
joak
8 hours ago
[-]
It's good to be able to disable this option: I use old Android phones as servers and don't want them to reboot every 3 days.
reply
MattSayar
5 hours ago
[-]
Completely agree, I don't want this to disrupt the Bop Spotter

https://walzr.com/bop-spotter

reply
yellowapple
2 hours ago
[-]
Probably a good time as any to replace it with something purpose-built anyway. A Raspberry Pi with a directional microphone and a custom app feeding said microphone data to a service like AudD or ACRCloud could readily do the trick without any of Android's extra baggage - though I do wonder how effective those services would be at detecting songs amid a bunch of background noise like Bop Spotter does via Shazam.
reply
MattSayar
1 hour ago
[-]
I think half the value of the phone here is the built-in battery
reply
ssl-3
58 minutes ago
[-]
Perhaps, but it's also inexpensive to (properly) use one or more 18650s with a Raspberry Pi if that's what one wants to do.

I think the main advantage to using phones for random stuff is availability: We here on HN probably have a decent selection of old phones to pick from, so it doesn't cost any money at all to give a new purpose to one.

reply
prmoustache
44 minutes ago
[-]
You can power a raspberry pi with that battery though.
reply
lostlogin
4 hours ago
[-]
Thanks for this.
reply
blackoil
7 hours ago
[-]
https://xkcd.com/1172/

Don't think old Androids will get this update.

reply
Lammy
4 hours ago
[-]
Why so dismissive of how somebody wants to re-use an old phone that you would compare them to the absurd fictitious behavior in that comic? Would you rather they become e-waste? If it fits their needs then it fits their needs regardless of the use-case that was marketed.
reply
TulliusCicero
5 hours ago
[-]
Eventually, the android phones of today will be old android phones.
reply
xethos
5 hours ago
[-]
It's a Google Play Services update, likely explicitly to be able to push it to all (Google-using) Android phones immediately, without waiting for OS updates. This will not be a "Guess I'll get it in a few years" update.
reply
MiddleEndian
3 hours ago
[-]
I generally like XKCD but dislike the message in this comic. If that's that guy's workflow, they don't have to actively support it, but he should be given the option to disable updates so he can continue to use his tools in the way he sees fit.
reply
SXX
9 hours ago
[-]
This is super annoying on newer iOS for device that I use purely for development. Before it was possible just keep iPhone unlocked indefenitely, but now it reboots and boom I have to use TouchID again.

This is again Apple being Apple making things harder without option to disable it even when development mode is on.

Has anyone found a way to bypass it?

reply
crazysim
8 hours ago
[-]
Do you think it's possible to jiggle it ala mouse jigglers and USB jigglers?
reply
SXX
6 hours ago
[-]
Problem is not user activity - it just needs PIN, TouchID or FaceID. Even if you logged to device via iPhone Mirroring it's still gonna reboot, get locked after 72 hours and for me personally it breaks iPhone Mirroring half of the time too.

One physical option to bypass it on iPhone SE is to actually physically activate PIN entry and then use Voice Control command to enter the pin since it works even before first unlock. Though this is basically compromises pin and device encryption. But it's cheap since there are plenty of $2 devices that can simulate touchscreen clicks.

I just want some easier option that works and not require agent 007 setup to just run a buld of my AI-generated crap via Xcode.

reply
crazysim
6 hours ago
[-]
Issue is, you kinda have a agent 007, sort of setup with the advanced data protection thing. I think you need an appropriate solution.
reply
SXX
6 hours ago
[-]
But all I want is "Please dont reboot my phone! Very please!" setting in options.
reply
out-of-ideas
1 hour ago
[-]
might have to resort to the homer j drinking bird to tap the screen (for reference https://youtu.be/R_rF4kcqLkI?t=174 )
reply
SXX
1 hour ago
[-]
No joke btw I already testing setup with auto clicker from AliExpress and Assistive Touch automation...
reply
saagarjha
2 hours ago
[-]
Keep an app running?
reply
SXX
1 hour ago
[-]
Might be I did something wrong, but even with YouTube video running via iPhone Mirroring device still went to reboot.
reply
Spooky23
8 minutes ago
[-]
It seems weird. I can’t get iOS to reliably auto update and reboot overnight when I want it to.
reply
saagarjha
1 hour ago
[-]
Hmm, yeah that seems wrong. I don't get reboots on devices I use frequently; I think it is only supposed to kick in when the device is not in use for a long time (it is meant to stop police who have a locked device they will try to brute force into).
reply
SXX
1 hour ago
[-]
Are you on latest iOS? Are you stilllocking / unlocking the phone once in 3 days at least?

7 days timeout on was introduced in iOS 18, but then decreased to 3 days. I dont use this device physically - it's just a phone that always connected to power and sit on top of mac mini for debugging and running some ios exclusive apps.

And I honestly dont do anything remotely interested to the police to worry about it. Yet it all just worked and now it doesnt.

reply
cameroncairns
47 minutes ago
[-]
My physical ios device test harness has no pin numbers/touch id activated for any of the connected phones. I noticed early on in testing that it would require physical access to reinput the pin code even when the device was already unlocked when I would restart an XCUI test.

If you're able to have fully unlocked devices at your test setup I'd suggest giving that a shot to see if it fixes your issue around device restart.

reply
layer8
9 hours ago
[-]
> I have to use TouchID again.

Don’t set it up with a passcode in the first place?

reply
SXX
9 hours ago
[-]
Unfortunately I use Advanced Data Protection on my Apple account so I kind a need that passcode. And moving to having completely different Apple account for development is PITA.
reply
elashri
8 hours ago
[-]
But I think connecting a device that can be used as authentication method without choosing a defense would negate the purpose of advanced data protection of your account and other devices.
reply
SXX
6 hours ago
[-]
Let's say I'm not super heavy Apple service user. For me Advanced Data Protection is defence against Apple itself and ability to keep little information I share via iCloud somewhat secret: mostly another backup of some photos and few other things.

It's not like I'm trying to defend against some state actors or whatver.

reply
elashri
4 hours ago
[-]
But this still weaken your defense against apple or whomever you are trying to defend against.
reply
layer8
3 hours ago
[-]
Why not have the option, though?
reply
Spooky23
6 minutes ago
[-]
Why not disable advanced data protection, as such an option would make the device vulnerable to simple data compromises.
reply
elashri
1 hour ago
[-]
I don't understand option to do what, you can disable advanced data protection for sure. What do you suggest here ?
reply
nativeit
7 hours ago
[-]
Considering this is all about Android adopting a very similar feature, it doesn’t sound like “Apple being Apple”…
reply
Mountain_Skies
7 hours ago
[-]
It's Apple being a trailblazer and leading the industry. Sometimes that lead is in a bad direction.
reply
OneDeuxTriSeiGo
5 hours ago
[-]
If I remember correctly, Apple actually picked up the feature after seeing it implemented in GrapheneOS. I think some people associated with Graphene were calling on Apple to add it for security reasons.
reply
dagmx
7 hours ago
[-]
The rest of the industry are adults and can be responsible for their own decisions though.
reply
anonymars
5 hours ago
[-]
Doesn't seem like it. I remember when Samsung ads mocked Apple for the camera notch and removing the headphone jack.

For obvious reasons those ads are long gone...

reply
SXX
6 hours ago
[-]
I'm 99% sure that Android version will be toggagle via Developer Options.
reply
ololobus
5 hours ago
[-]
I can only second this. I have an old iPhone with a second sim-card, because I need it from time to time. And Apple introduced this auto-reboot a bit earlier, iirc last year. The problem is that after rebooting it also disconnects from wifi, so e.g. SMS/handoff synchronization stops working until you enter a passcode. This is very annoying because it was very convenient for me to receive calls/SMS to my main iPhone.

It’s a good and reasonable feature, especially if for some reason you are afraid of state or security agencies in a place where you live, or maybe during travel. It’s still questionable, because in some states you can indeed go to jail if you don’t unlock. Yet, I really want to be able to turn it off for use-cases like mine.

reply
Talanes
3 hours ago
[-]
>It’s still questionable, because in some states you can indeed go to jail if you don’t unlock. Yet, I really want to be able to turn it off for use-cases like mine.

Even if the end result is the same, anything that forces authorities to use official power over informal power is a net win.

reply
sneak
1 hour ago
[-]
Apple doesn’t like supporting the use case of multiple phones for one person. They even encourage their employees to use their personal devices and accounts.
reply
Spooky23
10 minutes ago
[-]
That is very reasonable advice for the vast majority of people.

I have to have 3 devices: mine, work and a shared one for travel that crosses customs boundaries. It’s a massive pain in the ass.

reply
kwanbix
8 hours ago
[-]
I don't get the difference. Today after 72 hours (3 days) my phone asks me for my password and won't accept biometrics. Also, this is a problem for all the people that use them as alarm clocks. I use Alarm Clock Xtreme for example.
reply
xrisk
8 hours ago
[-]
(At least on iOS) shutting down the phone has something to do with wiping credentials/keys from RAM from where they can potentially be dumped. A just-booted phone is fully encrypted with no keys in memory.
reply
h4x0rr
8 hours ago
[-]
The phone doesn't accept biometrics but is still in AFU state. Encryption keys are in memory.
reply
krisoft
6 hours ago
[-]
> Also, this is a problem for all the people that use them as alarm clocks.

Yes. But quite honestly the right solution for that would be Apple providing an alarm clock API. The alarm clock application could call it with the next scheduled alarm’s time and the os would just wake up at that time and let the application do the sound / alarm thing.

reply
epolanski
4 hours ago
[-]
Stories about airport security and officers demanding access your phone is one of the reasons I will never come to the US.

An (Italian) friend of mine was stuck in Newark for 8 hours after he refused access to his phone, dragged in some room and questioned for hours along his wife while split from him own kids, even though he later gave them the password (he initially said no because he thought it was out of the line, he had nothing to hide).

He left livid for Italy 16 hours later despite being free to go on with his vacation.

Land of the free my ass.

reply
Spooky23
4 minutes ago
[-]
[delayed]
reply
SoftTalker
2 hours ago
[-]
Ok, but try refusing the requests of border authorities in any country and see how far you get before you find yourself escorted to a back room.
reply
epolanski
2 hours ago
[-]
I've visited 45 countries in my life and I've never ever been even asked once to even show the contents of my bag, let alone access to my phone.
reply
gcanyon
9 hours ago
[-]
For this use case there needs to be a reasonably quick way to erase/permanently lock a phone. Or maybe it needs to be something that is both 1. Less severe than that 2. Secure against personal inducements 3. More automatic.

So maybe something like a paired app with a friend/someone who is beyond the reach of the authorities, and if the phone isn't unlocked in a given definable period (or it can be triggered immediately), it then can't be unlocked without that person's active cooperation.

That's off the top of my head, so I'm sure there are optimizations.

reply
dsr_
9 hours ago
[-]
GrapheneOS offers hardening before first unlock, and an optional distress code that wipes the storage rather than unlocking.

Currently only available for Pixel phones, 6 and later. Offers many other security-related features.

reply
hypeatei
9 hours ago
[-]
You might get even more charges for doing that, though. Destroying evidence, obstruction or some made up charge.
reply
gcanyon
7 hours ago
[-]
Sure, I'm just saying there's a way to put unlocking the phone in the hands of someone who at least is not under the control of a hostile authority.
reply
LWIRVoltage
2 hours ago
[-]
A Veracrypt style hidden OS profile that is forensically invisible would be a better option - This would allow one to enter a password and give another "profile" or OS- that unlike current alternate profile stuff- would be solid against Cellebrite and GreyKey snooping into the device, and it'd be impossible to tell there was a hidden user/etc on it
reply
NekkoDroid
9 hours ago
[-]
This just gave me an idea: How about the phone accepting 2 password. One is the regular password and brings you into your regular account and then a dummy password that brings you into a dummy (but somewhat plausible, maybe user set up) account. That way you can still enter your normal account whenever you feel like it and if you are being pressured you just put in your "alternative password" and it just brings you to the dummy account.
reply
greatgib
7 hours ago
[-]
It would be a kind of duress password.

But the problem is that when authority wants you to unlock your device, they kind of already know why, what they are expected to find but they would that as a more complete proof. But from external input they would expect some downloaded files or accounts (like social accounts you were connected with your phone a minute ago), some SMS they saw passing, some call logs, so connection to your known accounts...

reply
exe34
8 hours ago
[-]
you'll get rubber hosed just in case.
reply
glenstein
7 hours ago
[-]
>not disclosing or at least inputting your password might be a crime severely punished

And to your point, I believe it's now the case in the U.S. that you can be legally compelled to unlock a fingerprint lock, but not a pin for whatever reason.

reply
baby_souffle
7 hours ago
[-]
Compiled unlock via biometrics is still somewhat contested. The general argument boils down to biometrics being something you can't really protect internally. A passcode that is only known inside of your gray matter can therefore can only be externalized via some sort of testimony. Being compelled to reveal a passcode violates your ride against compelled speech and self-inccrimination.
reply
intrasight
7 hours ago
[-]
In US you are protected by 5th. But it seems like the question hasn't been addressed by the Supreme Court since currently the answer depends on your jurisdiction. Which inspired me to check: here in Pennsylvania, the court cannot compel you to unlock your device with the password.
reply
sneak
1 hour ago
[-]
Biometrics aren’t testimony.

You don’t have to do anything for someone to hold a phone to your fingertip, or a camera to your face.

reply
scarface_74
57 minutes ago
[-]
There is nothing any technology company can do to protect against rubber hose decryption.
reply
14
33 minutes ago
[-]
There is always something that can be done. Like if phone is not actually powered on for x time set by the user it automatically factory resets all data. Or if phone is out of cell service for x time like as in a faraday bag in evidence then it resets itself. Or make it so that after a reboot it can only be opened if on a certain wifi hotspot or geolocation. Ultimately I am not a security expert or know if any of those ideas would actually work but it seems like you could add a few steps making it harder. Maybe it can be locked out and you can set a specific apple store which would require your ID before they can send a release code allowing it to be unlocked. All of that is probably way to complicated to be worth it for a typical user but I do think there can be a way if it was truly critical.
reply
crazygringo
6 hours ago
[-]
> because in a lot of shitty countries, even some pretending to be democratics, not disclosing or at least inputting your password might be a crime severely punished

What's your point? That because it isn't useful in every country, it's not worth making available to any countries?

It's not preventing you from providing your password.

You started by saying it's a good option to have, so I don't understand the point of your second paragraph.

reply
xg15
8 hours ago
[-]
I was thinking this would be the final death knell to using an (unrooted) Android phone as a cheap home server. But then again, not sure if that was even possible before with all the "battery protection" logic built into Android.
reply
jfkimmes
11 hours ago
[-]
This is a Google Play Services update. For GrapheneOS users without GApps wondering: A similar feature is already built-in: https://grapheneos.org/features#auto-reboot
reply
Freak_NL
10 hours ago
[-]
Heh, my first thought was “Don't they do this already?”, but apparently GrapheneOS was ahead of the curve there. Nice.
reply
amelius
9 hours ago
[-]
Huh, I have GrapheneOS and I never noticed it rebooting. (And when i manually reboot, the "BIOS" prevents it from booting without acknowledging that I'm aware it's a non-Google OS, so how does it work?)
reply
daneel_w
9 hours ago
[-]
The feature is not enabled by default. Also, the boot doesn't wait for you indefinitely - it just gives you a few seconds to glance the checksum and halt it, before it proceeds automatically.
reply
edent
9 hours ago
[-]
You don't have to acknowledge anything. The boot screen shows a warning which you can interrupt. If you don't do anything it'll continue to load as normal.
reply
ignoramous
6 hours ago
[-]
> This is a Google Play Services update

As the GrapheneOS docs note, the feature is better implemented in init and not in system server or the app/services layer like Google has done here? Though, I am sure Google engs know a thing or two about working around limitations that GrapheneOS developers may have hit (in keeping the timer going even after a soft reboot, where it is just the system server, and the rest of the userspace that depends on it, that's restarted).

reply
sva_
10 hours ago
[-]
Samsung has also had this feature for ages.
reply
udev4096
10 hours ago
[-]
They stole the idea from GrapheneOS and shipped a barely half-baked version with hardcoded time. GrapheneOS has configurable time for it since years
reply
iancarroll
9 hours ago
[-]
I would guess the more likely inspiration would be Apple recently adding this to iOS, if GrapheneOS had it for years and they didn’t add it...
reply
surajrmal
4 hours ago
[-]
As the article alludes to, Apple recently shipped the same policy to iOS so this is likely just following the precedent from them. Android developers don't pay attention to community forks.
reply
lysace
8 hours ago
[-]
I'd claim that Microsoft pioneered this time limit security concept with Windows 95 almost 30 years ago.

They went with 2^32-1 milliseconds or about 49.7 days.

We don't talk enough about Microsoft's strong legacy of security innovations, IMHO.

reply
Dwedit
53 minutes ago
[-]
To this day, some programs malfunction after 2^31 milliseconds have passed since bootup, which is the halfway point. Milliseconds since bootup has just become negative, and has not rolled over yet. Just having a negative number of milliseconds is enough to mess with those programs.
reply
yalok
1 hour ago
[-]
I’m not sure it was because they cared about security - looks more like accounting for 32-bit timestamp rollover would be very disruptive to the huge (legacy) code base and it was a quick fix to work around the problem :)
reply
philistine
5 hours ago
[-]
I'm pretty sure you're joking. Windows 95 crashed if you sneezed in its general direction, I'm pretty sure it would blue screen due to some edge case well before 49 days of runtime.
reply
lysace
4 hours ago
[-]
reply
mcraiha
9 hours ago
[-]
Can you set the time to one minute?
reply
OneDeuxTriSeiGo
5 hours ago
[-]
Graphene's autoreboot has 12 different options (excluding disabling it) ranging from 72 hours down to 10 minutes and the timer is reset each time the device is unlocked. Tbh I think a 1 minute setting would actually be nice (for things like when you are going through customs, etc) but I get why they don't provide it.
reply
devrandoom
9 hours ago
[-]
Not against it, but I'm genuinely curious what the use case would be for that?
reply
amelius
9 hours ago
[-]
I guess as a prank, just like setting the language to Chinese for English speakers.
reply
67593874748
8 hours ago
[-]
Could be useful in a scenario where you won't be using your phone often and really want to maximize battery life.
reply
udev4096
9 hours ago
[-]
No, that is unrealistic. Please stop trolling
reply
II2II
9 hours ago
[-]
How so?

The system only reboots once it has been locked for a particular duration. Setting it to 1 minute basically says: put the system into a more secure state (e.g. purge unencrypted memory) and ensure that it is ready to go when I next need it. That said, while it is not unrealistic it would be problematic since accidentally letting the phone lock (e.g. input timeout) would result in a time consuming reboot.

reply
ThePowerOfFuet
9 hours ago
[-]
Why would you want it to auto-reboot after one minute?

The minimum on GrapheneOS is 10 min and the maximum is 72 hours. It can also be disabled.

reply
gumbojuice
11 hours ago
[-]
It's not great news for my old phone used for wifi at our guesthouse (let's a few security cams and our smart lock get online)
reply
1832
1 hour ago
[-]
Also bad news for my megayacht (use's an old android phone to monitor location and detect movement)
reply
rixed
8 hours ago
[-]
Same here, using several old androids as hotspots here and there. They stopped receiving updates long ago though, so I'm not worried.
reply
clort
8 hours ago
[-]
Its not an OS update, its a Google Play Services update .. so if they still apply you would get it

I found it strange that things like 'prettier settings screens' and 'improved connection with cars and watches' would be included in Google Play Services. Surely those things are part of the OS not part of a thing which helps you access the Play store?

I've been using a LineageOS (prev. Cyanogenmod) phone for years and have never installed any google stuff so I don't get these updates anyway.

reply
aftbit
7 hours ago
[-]
They've been moving more and more into Google Play Services because:

1. It's deployed to all devices and not subject to manufacturer approval for updates

2. It's easier to update without requiring user interaction or approval

3. It's closed source unlike Android so changes can't be incorporated by competitors

reply
wizzwizz4
11 hours ago
[-]
You should be able to switch this off, if you notice it being enabled, so (now you know about it) it should be a one-time downtime.
reply
devrandoom
9 hours ago
[-]
I skimmed through the docs, couldn't see anything about soaking disabling it.
reply
wizzwizz4
9 hours ago
[-]
It's right there in the Google System Release Notes. Quoting https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/1434... :

---

### Google Play services v25.14 (2025-04-14)

#### Security & Privacy

• [Phone] Enables a future optional security feature, which will automatically restart your device if locked for 3 consecutive days.

reply
devrandoom
8 hours ago
[-]
Wow I'm blind. Thanks and apologies.
reply
pengaru
6 hours ago
[-]
I used to do something similar for the security cams at my desert property.

Picked up a gl.inet x300b off ebay and never looked back.

reply
LinuxBender
10 hours ago
[-]
Not bad. If I could make a feature request it would be something like, After 3 days of being idle:

- [ ] Reboot

- [ ] Power Off

- [X] WIPE triple opt-in

Maybe there is a custom phone OS for this that makes the phone act more ephemeral and network boot off my self hosted iPXE/immich server? A dumb smart phone so to speak. An ephemeral diskless phone.

reply
al_borland
8 hours ago
[-]
A wipe seems extreme. An unexpected trip to the hospital could leave someone with a wiped phone when they come to.
reply
criddell
7 hours ago
[-]
If that’s something you are worried about, don’t choose that option.
reply
Krasnol
5 hours ago
[-]
Is there a person on this planet where an unexpected hospital visit could not happen?
reply
prmoustache
36 minutes ago
[-]
I think a wipe is not necessarily that much of an issue.

Some people lose or get their phone broken and start from a blank one on a regular basis.

In my case the only things that matter to me are synchronised through syncthing and radicale (a carddav/caldav server).

reply
xboxnolifes
4 hours ago
[-]
Wrong question. It's not about the chance of having a wipe. But if the having the wipe is worth happening on some false positives.
reply
LinuxBender
3 hours ago
[-]
Someone may want that behavior if they were intentionally injured and kept from their phone for 3 days. The perpetrators will eventually get past the hospital security. Contents should be backed up in a safe place either way, possibly in a place that someone that cares about them may access it.
reply
dist-epoch
9 hours ago
[-]
The WIPE is doable with a custom "management app", which has the permission to wipe the phone. Maybe such a thing already exists.
reply
kccqzy
26 minutes ago
[-]
A long long time ago, adding Gmail to your phone via the Exchange protocol over m.google.com gives Google the ability to wipe your phone remotely, including iPhones as well. No management profile needed.
reply
hnburnsy
1 hour ago
[-]
So the phone will reboot it self, but...

1) There is no developer accessible API to allow app developers to create an app to allow me to script power options (example, as an end user I want to script a restart or shut down my phone nightly).

2) Asking Google Assistant will not restart or shut down the phone.

3) Apple and Android have made it harder to shut down the phone, requiring double key press kung fu to even bring up the power menu.

reply
nubinetwork
29 minutes ago
[-]
Android theft protection already locks my phone constantly, usually because I pick up my phone before unlocking it...
reply
vishnuharidas
5 hours ago
[-]
I found that this saves a lot of battery. My old Motorola G5G is now sitting idle, and I had to charge it every 4-5 days. I found that if the phone is restarted and NOT unlocked, it will stay charged for more than 10 days. My best guess is that a screen unlock is required to start many of the OS-level services, which takes up all the battery.

If this is true, then the new update will save a lot of battery for those phones that are sitting idle.

reply
chowells
5 hours ago
[-]
Everything except a very minimal core is kept on an encrypted partition. Until the password is provided, most things can't launch.
reply
emrah
5 hours ago
[-]
A phone sitting idle is very unusual though, a very edge case
reply
graypegg
8 hours ago
[-]
> ...the new Play Services will limit that exposure to three days, even if it's plugged in.

This will be fun to track down after a long weekend in embedded devices once this android patch number is old enough to be baked into crappy payment terminals and mall kiosks.

Probably overall a good thing though.

reply
tripdout
7 hours ago
[-]
I don't think those would be likely to have Play Services, though.
reply
greyjoyduck
41 minutes ago
[-]
My samsung rebooting in the middle of writing this comment
reply
FeistySkink
8 hours ago
[-]
How is this going to work with SIM cards that need a PIN? I'll be just unreachable until I notice the reboot?
reply
myself248
5 hours ago
[-]
Or if you're primarily reachable by an app that can't launch until AFU, the phone reboots silently and you don't realize it, and you're incommunicado.

Some time later, you need to do something on the phone, you unlock it, the app starts up, and a flood of messages pours in. Wow, some of those would've been really useful to receive in a timely fashion! Whoops!

reply
switch007
8 hours ago
[-]
Locking the SIM is considered part of the feature on GrapheneOS AIUI
reply
fguerraz
9 hours ago
[-]
How about instead of patching up our societies with technology we vote for the right people / laws for once?
reply
homebrewer
7 hours ago
[-]
This won't help those of us living in countries where "elected" officials elect themselves. We haven't had a single honest election in decades (and probably won't ever have one), so measures like this are better than nothing.
reply
beeflet
1 hour ago
[-]
That plan, if implemented, may last as short as 1 election cycle. All political progress will inevitably be undone.

In contrast, technological change will forever alter the balance of power. What we should be asking is "Instead of patching society with political solutions, how about we solve fundamental problems permanently with technology?".

reply
scarface_74
46 minutes ago
[-]
You don’t vote for the police or the three letter agencies and elected officials have little power over people with guns. Yes I know both on the the state level the police are suppose to be under the command of the civil government. But no elected official wants to get on the wrong side of the police unions.

Besides most people support the police no matter what. Police know not to abuse their powers against Whites.

https://www.blackenterprise.com/white-protesters-form-human-...

reply
dagmx
7 hours ago
[-]
Does passing laws against a crime/overreach completely stop it happening?
reply
recursive
8 hours ago
[-]
How about both?
reply
teddyh
6 hours ago
[-]
This feudal system is too oppressive! Let’s put a good king on the throne!
reply
bigyabai
7 hours ago
[-]
The "right people" aren't represented by either side of America's bipartisan system. Good luck with your mass popular movement.
reply
yellowapple
2 hours ago
[-]
Can I configure this? In some cases I'd want the auto-reboot to be more aggressive (for example: after 3 hours). In other cases I'd want to disable the auto-reboot entirely.
reply
panny
1 hour ago
[-]
Why would it reboot instead of just power off?
reply
627467
9 hours ago
[-]
I'm surprised this is something taken seriously only now by stock android. Isn't it known universally that AFU devices are insecure? What's the point of adding strict password policies, biometrics etc, if data from a stolen phone can be (relatively) trivially be exfiltrated unencrypted?

Samsung's have had some feature that lets you set days of the week for the phone to restart (IME during early morning hours) automatically. It's not perfect but it's something. iOS seems to have some unclear logic to either restart or re-request password (not biometrics).

This should be standard

reply
kccqzy
19 minutes ago
[-]
Because they protect against different actors. A stolen phone? The thief likely just wants to strip your phone down to parts and sell the parts if there is a passcode. If there isn't anything, perhaps the thief would wipe it and sell it whole as a second hand device.

Only law enforcement cares about the difference between the AFU state and BFU state.

reply
chmod775
3 hours ago
[-]
I don't touch my phone for days at a time. It's just sitting there on my desk most days.

Not sure I'm too happy about this...

reply
rixed
8 hours ago
[-]
« This actually caused some annoyance among law enforcement officials who believed they had suspects' phones stored in a readable state, only to find they were rebooting and becoming harder to access due to this feature. »

Wouldn't the phones run out of battery after a few days anyway? Or do they keep them plugged in?

reply
aftbit
7 hours ago
[-]
They keep them plugged in
reply
wiseowise
8 hours ago
[-]
> This actually caused some annoyance among law enforcement officials who believed they had suspects' phones stored in a readable state, only to find they were rebooting and becoming harder to access due to this feature.

Lmao.

> The early sluggishness of Android system updates prompted Google to begin moving parts of the OS to Google Play Services. This collection of background services and libraries can be updated by Google automatically in the background as long as your phone is certified for Google services (which almost all are). That's why the inactivity reboot will just show up on your phone in the coming weeks with no notification. There are definitely reasons to be wary of the control Google has over Android with elements like Play Services, but it does pay off when the company can enhance everyone's security without delay.

All the more reasons to move to AOSP forks.

reply
67593874748
8 hours ago
[-]
Google locking features behind the closed source, proprietary Play Services is "more reason to move to AOSP"?
reply
bigyabai
7 hours ago
[-]
You don't need Play Services for this feature to work. The design is not proprietary or even hard to reverse-engineer.
reply
surajrmal
3 hours ago
[-]
The reason it is implemented in play services is likely because of how much easier it is for them to ship the feature to the most phones possible.
reply
amelius
9 hours ago
[-]
Can't it run two OSes, so the booting becomes instantaneous? (Like swapping graphics buffers, but now with the entire OS)
reply
edelbitter
7 hours ago
[-]
Android ships a feature called bootchart which you can use to prove that most of the time your phone spends booting.. it is actually far from bottlenecked on storage or compute - bugs to be fixed; not worked around with even more complexity. Heck, some phones do not even stop playing their vendors fancy animated logo when they are finished before the animation is.
reply
surajrmal
4 hours ago
[-]
Does it take into consideration thermal and power? Doing too much too quickly can be bad for both, so sometimes it's worthwhile to go slower.
reply
cubefox
8 hours ago
[-]
The Ars article seems to be inaccurate. Here is what the release notes say:

> Security & Privacy

> [Phone] Enables a future optional security feature, which will automatically restart your device if locked for 3 consecutive days.

So it only "enables" a "future" "optional" feature.

reply
m-p-3
2 hours ago
[-]
uhh, that's going to disrupt Briar Mailbox, which relies on an Android device to act as an always-on node. I really hope there is a way to toggle this.

https://briarproject.org/download-briar-mailbox/

reply
bobsmooth
6 hours ago
[-]
I misread this as reformat and was concerned for a sec. This is a good idea.
reply
jonathanstrange
9 hours ago
[-]
Thanks, No. I'd like to opt out of this.
reply
booleandilemma
10 hours ago
[-]
I just want software that will do nothing user-observable without me explicitly asking it to. No pop-ups, no suggestions, no automatic anything.

I don't know if it'll take a fancy buzzword or what. Unobtrusive software? Silent Software?

reply
MiddleEndian
2 hours ago
[-]
I've mused about writing a distribution license where every type of notification and update can be disabled, and any modification must follow the same license.

STFU (BSD equivalent) and STFU-O (GPL equivalent)

No LGPL equivalent because I would want even software that uses STFU-* licensed code as a library to follow the STFU-* license.

Just have to explicitly define what counts as a notification lol

reply
TheBicPen
4 hours ago
[-]
No notifications? Depends on what your definition of "asking it" is, but having to explicitly do an action to check for notifications and even phone calls seems counter-productive for a phone.
reply
layer8
9 hours ago
[-]
Inert software. Inertware?
reply
mystified5016
9 hours ago
[-]
Good software
reply
bobsmooth
5 hours ago
[-]
This is a terrible idea for an internet connected device.
reply
kranke155
9 hours ago
[-]
Not shit software
reply
Beijinger
10 hours ago
[-]
Pff. Windows does this since decades. No? I vaguely remember this nag screens after unauthorized updates.
reply
Aeolun
9 hours ago
[-]
Wait, why is this presented as a good thing?

Why would I want my phone to auto reboot without my intervention? Never mind that it’ll never make three days on a single charge even if I don’t touch it.

reply
alistairSH
9 hours ago
[-]
It’s pretty well spelled out in the article…

The BFU state is more secure than AFU.

reply
WD-42
9 hours ago
[-]
Just be glad it’s not windows, which does it every 3 hours.
reply
recursive
8 hours ago
[-]
Topical joke 25 years ago
reply
scarface_74
44 minutes ago
[-]
Says someone who has never had to deal with corporate installed malware - ie MDM software.
reply
jillyboel
9 hours ago
[-]
For when it's sitting in an evidence baggy in the police station connected to a charger waiting for forensics
reply
Aeolun
9 hours ago
[-]
If that is a good thing what does that imply about my activities (or what an utter failure your justice system is)?
reply
gruez
9 hours ago
[-]
>or what an utter failure your justice system is

Even if you somehow live in a jurisdiction with a perfect justice system, that doesn't mean everyone else is.

reply
saagarjha
2 hours ago
[-]
I guarantee you that regardless of where you live your justice system is abusing the same access.
reply
edoceo
9 hours ago
[-]
No implication, it's a standard feature.

Whos justice system? Lots of countries represented on HN. Many with questionable systems.

reply
jillyboel
6 hours ago
[-]
The goal of a security system is to keep adversaries out
reply
crazygringo
9 hours ago
[-]
It's very clearly explained in the article.
reply
Aeolun
9 hours ago
[-]
It is not clear to me at all why the ‘benefits’ presented outweigh the negatives (which is _my_ device doing anything without me instructing it to). Even if you can turn it off, this is apparently enabled by default.

Law enforcement keeping hold of my phone for 3 days is simply not a realistic problem for me. Coming back to an annoyingly locked phone after forgetting it for a weekend very much is. The chances of law enforcement wanting anything with it are low enough that dealing with an extra unlock is more likely to be an impactful issue, even considering the potential impact that law enforcement or others stealing it could have.

reply
wiseowise
8 hours ago
[-]
> Law enforcement keeping hold of my phone for 3 days is simply not a realistic problem for me.

That's what cops and spooks would like to have you think.

reply
67593874748
8 hours ago
[-]
> Law enforcement keeping hold of my phone for 3 days is simply not a realistic problem for me.

It's not a problem, until it suddenly is.

reply
andybak
8 hours ago
[-]
This is not not the question you originally asked. Indeed it's a much better question.
reply
crazygringo
8 hours ago
[-]
> Coming back to an annoyingly locked phone after forgetting it for a weekend very much is.

It is?

I mean, my iPhone asks me for my passcode every 7 days anyways. And that's the only thing that happens on reboot anyways.

Also, you forget your phone for a weekend? How do you do anything during that weekend, like keep in touch with loved ones, get driving directions, pull up a boarding pass, check for delays, look up restaurants?

reply
hilbert42
7 hours ago
[-]
"How do you do anything during that weekend, …?"

Easy, do what we did before mobile phones—civilization existed for thousands years and worked quite well without them (Rome built an empire sans mobile phones, so did the English). We even ran and coordinated the largest and most organized event in human history—WWII—without them!

Some of us have not yet succumbed to phone addiction (I often go for quite some days without using a phone and still have a normal life).

reply
crazygringo
7 hours ago
[-]
Hey, if you want to go back to life in Ancient Rome, with the disease and lack of medicine, the slavery, the dictatorship... I'm not going to stop you.

When you say civilization worked quite well for thousands of years, as an argument against mobile phones, I'm not sure you've quite thought your argument through... unless it's always been your dream to be a Russian serf, or an Egyptian slave?

reply
lupusreal
6 hours ago
[-]
> Also, you forget your phone for a weekend? How do you do anything during that weekend, like keep in touch with loved ones, get driving directions, pull up a boarding pass, check for delays, look up restaurants?

Lmao I regularly go several days without calling family and months between any of those others.

reply
imcritic
10 hours ago
[-]
Isn't this stupid?

Why not flush something properly in the RAM instead to wipe the "cached" secrets?

A full restart feels like an overkill.

reply
crote
10 hours ago
[-]
That "something" is at least the entire userspace, so any attempt at doing so ends up being UX-equivalent to a full restart - while having a decent chance of leaving unintended trace data lying around in memory.

A full restart guarantees that everything will be wiped.

reply
scarface_74
5 hours ago
[-]
It’s not about data being wiped. It’s that neither Android nor iOS has fully encrypted storage after you reboot and enter your credentials - biometric or passcodes.
reply
davikr
10 hours ago
[-]
The system is provably fully encrypted after a restart.
reply
MattPalmer1086
10 hours ago
[-]
Not really.

Restart - simple with known and predictable effects, data no longer accessible, all secrets flushed no matter where they were or cached.

Turn off disk encryption, suspend all running services, overwrite all secrets in the O/S wherever they are, and then restore all that on entering password. Probably can't do anything about secrets cached by actual apps. Complex, hard to maintain and probably buggy.

reply
scarface_74
10 hours ago
[-]
It’s not just the RAM. Android devices and iOS devices are not that secure after first unlock (AFU).

https://blogs.dsu.edu/digforce/2023/08/23/bfu-and-afu-lock-s...

reply