4 ms·

This makes me think that it would be nice to have two passwords for your device. One to access it, and one to erase the device and go back to default settings.

This makes me think that it would be nice to have two passwords for your device. One to access it, and one to erase the device and go back to default settings. Unless that is illegal too.

jdmichal 11y ago
That would be called tampering with evidence, and is very illegal in the United States. You would likely be able to be charged with that and obstruction of justice just for giving them the kill-password.
- archimedespi 11y ago
  But there's always plausible deniability :)
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    Good luck on plausible deniability when they have your device, enter the password that you told them, and see the device factory reset. The fun part is, regardless of whether or not the device held incriminating evidence, the act of clearing it is still illegal. Even if you cleared the device before it was taken into custody, they could still have a case if they can reasonably show that you cleared it with suspicion that it would be taken into custody. Obviously, that can be difficult to show, depending on the burden of proof required.
    - hardwaresofton 11y ago
      Maybe this is relevant here, district court recently found that forcing suspects to reveal their phone passwords is forced self incrimination: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/forcing-suspects-to-reveal-phone-passwords-is-unconstitutional-court-says/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/forcing-suspects-... (but they might just have you enter them yourself instead :/)
      - jdmichal 11y ago
        Forcing, yes. But they can still ask, and handing out a kill-password upon them asking would be tampering.
        hardwaresofton 11y ago
        Oh absolutely agree with the point that was made above -- just saw this story recently and thought it was relevant.
        retrogradeorbit 11y ago
        You could argue that they were the party tampering.
    - archimedespi 11y ago
      The point of plausible deniability is that you have an entire fake partition, with operating system and innocuous data, which looks like it's the only one on the hard drive.
      - jdmichal 11y ago
        That's not the technique that was proposed at the start of this thread, to which I was responding, and so is entirely irrelevant to my comments.
        archimedespi 11y ago
        I was saying that a particular technique was more effective than the originally posted one to which I responded.
        jdmichal 11y ago
        I see. I misinterpreted your intention due your alternative technique never actually being introduced as such until now.
        mindslight 11y ago
        The term you're looking for is steganographic filesystem, or steganography in general.
  - roel_v 11y ago
    There is no such thing as "plausible deniability". It's a nerd's fantasy of how they think things work, starting from the faulty assumption that "law" in the broadest sense of the word is a closed rule-based decision tree.
VikingCoder 11y ago
Real password and "My god, he only has two apps" password.
mikegerwitz 11y ago
There are better ways to handle that. VeraCrypt (for example; previously TrueCrypt) allows for using separate passwords to access different data depending on which one was entered: one would be a dummy volume on which you would plant convincing data, and the other ("hidden") volume would contain your actual data. Since the encrypted data are indistinguishable (ideally!) from randomness, you have plausible deniability. https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Plausible%20Deniability https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Plausible%20De...

This makes me think that it would be nice to have two passwords for your device. One to access it, and one to erase the device and go back to default settings. Unless that is illegal too.

jdmichal 11y ago

That would be called tampering with evidence, and is very illegal in the United States. You would likely be able to be charged with that and obstruction of justice just for giving them the kill-password.

archimedespi 11y ago
But there's always plausible deniability :)
- jdmichal 11y ago
  Good luck on plausible deniability when they have your device, enter the password that you told them, and see the device factory reset. The fun part is, regardless of whether or not the device held incriminating evidence, the act of clearing it is still illegal. Even if you cleared the device before it was taken into custody, they could still have a case if they can reasonably show that you cleared it with suspicion that it would be taken into custody. Obviously, that can be difficult to show, depending on the burden of proof required.
  - hardwaresofton 11y ago
    Maybe this is relevant here, district court recently found that forcing suspects to reveal their phone passwords is forced self incrimination: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/forcing-suspects-to-reveal-phone-passwords-is-unconstitutional-court-says/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/forcing-suspects-... (but they might just have you enter them yourself instead :/)
    - jdmichal 11y ago
      Forcing, yes. But they can still ask, and handing out a kill-password upon them asking would be tampering.
      - hardwaresofton 11y ago
        Oh absolutely agree with the point that was made above -- just saw this story recently and thought it was relevant.
      - retrogradeorbit 11y ago
        You could argue that they were the party tampering.
  - archimedespi 11y ago
    The point of plausible deniability is that you have an entire fake partition, with operating system and innocuous data, which looks like it's the only one on the hard drive.
    - jdmichal 11y ago
      That's not the technique that was proposed at the start of this thread, to which I was responding, and so is entirely irrelevant to my comments.
      - archimedespi 11y ago
        I was saying that a particular technique was more effective than the originally posted one to which I responded.
        jdmichal 11y ago
        I see. I misinterpreted your intention due your alternative technique never actually being introduced as such until now.
        mindslight 11y ago
        The term you're looking for is steganographic filesystem, or steganography in general.
- roel_v 11y ago
  There is no such thing as "plausible deniability". It's a nerd's fantasy of how they think things work, starting from the faulty assumption that "law" in the broadest sense of the word is a closed rule-based decision tree.

VikingCoder 11y ago

Real password and "My god, he only has two apps" password.

mikegerwitz 11y ago

There are better ways to handle that. VeraCrypt (for example; previously TrueCrypt) allows for using separate passwords to access different data depending on which one was entered: one would be a dummy volume on which you would plant convincing data, and the other ("hidden") volume would contain your actual data. Since the encrypted data are indistinguishable (ideally!) from randomness, you have plausible deniability. https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Plausible%20Deniability https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Plausible%20De...