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.
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.
Except that on most phone you can already reboot the device if you long-press some button, can't you?
You can always turn it off and on, AFAIK.
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).
I actually think this is the reason. But I think Android has an option to disable auto update?
It's already trivial to reboot a locked android phone
This is the real reason
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.
Don't think old Androids will get this update.
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?
Do you think it's possible to jiggle it ala mouse jigglers and USB jigglers?
Considering this is all about Android adopting a very similar feature, it doesn’t sound like “Apple being Apple”…
It's Apple being a trailblazer and leading the industry. Sometimes that lead is in a bad direction.
The rest of the industry are adults and can be responsible for their own decisions though.
> I have to use TouchID again.
Don’t set it up with a passcode in the first place?
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
The phone doesn't accept biometrics but is still in AFU state. Encryption keys are in memory.
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.
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.
You might get even more charges for doing that, though. Destroying evidence, obstruction or some made up charge.
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.
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.
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...
you'll get rubber hosed just in case.
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.
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
Heh, my first thought was “Don't they do this already?”, but apparently GrapheneOS was ahead of the curve there. Nice.
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?)
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.
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.
Samsung has also had this feature for ages.
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)
Same here, using several old androids as hotspots here and there. They stopped receiving updates long ago though, so I'm not worried.
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.
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
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.
I skimmed through the docs, couldn't see anything about soaking disabling it.
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.
Wow I'm blind. Thanks and apologies.
They stole the idea from GrapheneOS and shipped a barely half-baked version with hardcoded time. GrapheneOS has configurable time for it since years
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...
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.
Can you set the time to one minute?
Not against it, but I'm genuinely curious what the use case would be for that?
Could be useful in a scenario where you won't be using your phone often and really want to maximize battery life.
I guess as a prank, just like setting the language to Chinese for English speakers.
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.
No, that is unrealistic. Please stop trolling
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.
> ...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.
I don't think those would be likely to have Play Services, though.
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.
A wipe seems extreme. An unexpected trip to the hospital could leave someone with a wiped phone when they come to.
If that’s something you are worried about, don’t choose that option.
The WIPE is doable with a custom "management app", which has the permission to wipe the phone. Maybe such a thing already exists.
How is this going to work with SIM cards that need a PIN? I'll be just unreachable until I notice the reboot?
Locking the SIM is considered part of the feature on GrapheneOS AIUI
« 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?
They keep them plugged in
How about instead of patching up our societies with technology we vote for the right people / laws for once?
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.
Does passing laws against a crime/overreach completely stop it happening?
How about both?
The "right people" aren't represented by either side of America's bipartisan system. Good luck with your mass popular movement.
> 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.
Google locking features behind the closed source, proprietary Play Services is "more reason to move to AOSP"?
You don't need Play Services for this feature to work. The design is not proprietary or even hard to reverse-engineer.
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?
Inert software. Inertware?
Good software
Not shit software
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
Can't it run two OSes, so the booting becomes instantaneous? (Like swapping graphics buffers, but now with the entire OS)
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.
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.
Thanks, No. I'd like to opt out of this.
Pff. Windows does this since decades. No? I vaguely remember this nag screens after unauthorized updates.
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.
It’s pretty well spelled out in the article…
The BFU state is more secure than AFU.
Just be glad it’s not windows, which does it every 3 hours.
Topical joke 25 years ago
For when it's sitting in an evidence baggy in the police station connected to a charger waiting for forensics
If that is a good thing what does that imply about my activities (or what an utter failure your justice system is)?
>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.
No implication, it's a standard feature.
Whos justice system? Lots of countries represented on HN. Many with questionable systems.
It's very clearly explained in the article.
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.
> 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.
This is not not the question you originally asked. Indeed it's a much better question.
> 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.
> 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?
"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).
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.
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.
The system is provably fully encrypted after a restart.
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...
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.