|
|
|
|
|
|
by brooksgarrett
2604 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. |
|
|
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.)