[eloff]

The author is not talking about getting someone with physical access. He’s talking about bribing someone with software access to your disks, who can access the data, regardless of the encryption settings.

[knorker]

As I explained, and elaborated here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34017654) it's not as simple as that.

But also.

> The author is not talking about getting someone with physical access.

Right. The author missed this as one of the major attack vectors that this aims to protect against. I don't think leaving out a real justification for it when saying it's snake oil speaks in favour of the author's point.

[eloff]

> Right. The author missed this as one of the major attack vectors that this aims to protect against.

Did you read the article? He mentioned that right upfront.

[knorker]

First, here's a clip from the HN guidelines:

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that"

The article mentions it by dismissing it. No, really, this is the major attack vector this aims to protect against.

That and the ability to two-key the system. No encryption, no two-key.