Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by brandon272 2603 days ago
> This was viewed as a better alternative than something like TrueCrypt with decoy passwords since if the government can ever prove you did it then that's obstruction.

If that qualifies as a type of legally actionable obstruction, it would seem that intentionally wiping your device before you cross a border and then reloading data onto it once you arrive at your destination would also qualify.
1 comments
brooksgarrett 2603 days ago
In one, you intentionally give false information and lead the government believe you in good faith complied. In the other, the data is inaccessible and the government is aware it is inaccessible. They can then evaluate risk and seize the device or take some other action from that knowledge. IANAL and I don't play one on TV.

ETA: To complete the threat analysis, and if they seize two devices, one with a password protected key and a LUKS volume without headers? I'll take LUKS.

link
brandon272 2603 days ago
> In the other, the data is inaccessible and the government is aware it is inaccessible.

Because the person made it inaccessible with the intention of concealing it from law enforcement and others. There is still a means to decrypt the data.

All of the actions described in this thread - whether it's decoy passwords, encrypted volumes with headers, burner devices, or wiping data and then restoring at the destination, all seem like they could be construed by law enforcement as a person obstructing their ability to sift through the individual's data.

(But IANAL either.)

link