"Private" communication exists using the Internet. Sometimes your device is in custody because you are in custody for suspicions they already have. In which case, good luck. Other times your device is in custody just because you happen to be crossing a border, for example. In that case, having the device be actually locked might prevent you from being turned away at the border or even ending up in custody yourself.
> "Private" communication exists using the Internet.
Sure, but virtually nobody depends on it to protect the sort of data that you are worried about if you're worried about an oppressive regime deciding to persecute you for what you say. For example, if you're afraid something you post on HN might cause an oppressive regime to come after you, securing your phone, or for that matter your laptop or desktop, isn't going to help you at all. Same goes for pretty much any place people say things on the Internet. Unless you never say anything except in a private, locked chat room secured by unbreakable encryption, and never send any email to anyone without using PGP and without being certain that they are also taking the same precautions you are, anything you say on the Internet is out there for the finding if anyone gets interested enough in you to look.
Signal is incredibly easy to use and many people use it. It’s easy to limit sensitive things to a medium like that. It’s also easy to create profiles that are some degree of “anonymous” that you can use for semi-sensitive data.
You don’t have to resort to never using the Internet as you imply. The vast majority of things people do online are perfectly safe for you to do, even if you are a potential target of a government.
> Signal is incredibly easy to use and many people use it.
For particular kinds of communication, yes.
> It’s easy to limit sensitive things to a medium like that.
It's possible, I suppose, but I would not say it's easy. People want to do many, many different things online. Signal only facilitates a tiny fraction of them. Most people won't be willing to limit their activities online so drastically.
> The vast majority of things people do online are perfectly safe for you to do, even if you are a potential target of a government.
Either you have a particularly limited set of online activities you engage in, or you are drastically underestimating the lengths to which governments will go if they become sufficiently oppressive.
Fair enough, but that's not my point. My point was more about persecution, not outright killings. That's an extreme that many governments won't reach for, even in the third world.
