9 ms·

Id like to be able to configure 2 passwords on my devices, one that logs me in, and another "destruct password" that when entered as password, wipes the device

Id like to be able to configure 2 passwords on my devices, one that logs me in, and another "destruct password" that when entered as password, wipes the device clean and overwrites the drive. preferably I'd be able to configure certain directories that should be wiped, so only confidential data is destroyed. then it would log in normally. I doubt silly borderguards would realize the pwnage

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Belphemur 9y ago
I'd prefer a clean partition with some unconspicuous data on it. Better that way then they won't dig more into the phone.
- flipp3r 9y ago
  Truecrypt and variations have something like this, I believe they call it Hidden volumes
  - bitwize 9y ago
    If they find out or even suspect it, hello felony obstruction of justice and making false statements charges.
    - triplesec 9y ago
      Really? For a search? You are allowed to hide things in your house. This is certainly not legislated.
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        It's illegal to lie to investigators. (They're allowed to lie to you, but not vice-versa.)
        jessaustin 9y ago
        This fact actually makes it a potential offense to say anything to them. After all it's not their fault if they misunderstand you...
    - Posibyte 9y ago
      Can you be charged with obstruction of justice if you haven't been charged or served a warrant? i.e. just being suspect doesn't put you in line of perjury charges in this case. I'm not a lawyer, but that was my interpretation in case that's wrong.
      - openasocket 9y ago
        Yes, you absolutely can be charged with obstruction without a warrant. If you are being interviewed by an LEO and you lie to them to disrupt their investigation, that's potentially a crime. It doesn't matter if you haven't been subpoenaed or aren't under oath.
        Posibyte 9y ago
        Right, but in this case, when there isn't a crime. When they're looking for evidence to charge you with or use as a reason to deport or something in that area. In that case, can that be construed as Obstruction of Justice?
        openasocket 9y ago
        > Right, but in this case, when there isn't a crime There wasn't a crime, until you deceived officers. It doesn't matter if you deceived them to cover up a crime, or to protect your privacy, or just for fun, it's still illegal.
        jriot 9y ago
        How is that illegal? They asked for a password to their device. He gave a password which then cleaned the device. For all the authorities know, it was a clean device i.e., brand new. Maybe they enjoy regularly installing new OSs using a clean install. This being illegal is equally as bad them searching devices in the first place without just cause.
        openasocket 9y ago
lr4444lr 9y ago
Clever, but would likely add "obstruction of justice" to the charges against you, and reduce your chances at beating the original point of suspicion, should it ever result in charges, due to spoliation of evidence. Why not instead just refuse, and use the technicality of violation of privacy, to beat the authorities by making anything they find inadmissible in the first place? (I'm assuming US-centric here, of course.)
- Normal_gaussian 9y ago
  That may work if you are covering up possession of illegal downloads or something similar. But if you are protecting your privacy (personal documents etc.) or your companies privacy (source code, plans, etc.) then you've still lost. The deletion password would work, as long as they don't image the drive first and use your software to decrypt.
  - wiz21c 9y ago
    The only way is to physically destroy the hard disk, like making confetti with it. For example, it's very hard to destroy data saved on SSD drives (last time I heard)
    - eDISCO 9y ago
      There's a clever way to destroy data on SSD: just overwrite your (encrypted) hard drive encryption key, then even though the data remains, the key is lost forever. I think most modern SSDs come with the feature. More info in this question: https://superuser.com/questions/986387/why-does-my-ssd-internally-encrypt-data-even-without-a-password-set https://superuser.com/questions/986387/why-does-my-ssd-inter...
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  But this is a request made prior to any charges being laid. I'm actually curious what the legal situation would be: if you had been charged on other evidence it would likely be obstruction, but is that a charge that can be laid without any reason to suspect a crime has occurred?
kortex 9y ago
That's clever and all, but I feel like it dodges a very important human rights issue, rather than tackling it head-on. People shouldn't have to resort to some Inspector Gadget-esque "this message will selfdestruct" or real-partition-hidden-partition mechanism. Furthermore it also disadvantages people who are less tech savvy and can't implement such mechanisms. If you're not served a warrant, they shouldn't be allowed go snooping into locked devices.
- chii 9y ago
  When a legal rights don't exist, people go for a way to enforce their rights technologically.
  - wordupmaking 9y ago
    So "the internet" keeps saying for over a decade, yet the collar keeps shrinking. I think it's kool-aid.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      As a group it doesn't work for any but the largest issues, look at SOPA. But many individuals do what they can. Consider the increase in encryption use.
- mikeash 9y ago
  It's not a dodge unless it's being proposed as an acceptable alternative to reforming these powers, not merely a way to cope with them. You can reasonably attempt to implement both technological and political solutions.
- komali2 9y ago
  The problem is in this case, the guy is specifically in a grey area of "enemy of powers-that-be in the country he's entering." He deals with for example cases where western nations torture terror suspects. If we leave law aside and think only in terms of "sides," that means that he is "opposed" to these governments, and it would only make sense for them to be hostile to him using their powers (arrest, taking his laptops, etc). Now let's continue to leave the law aside, because that's what our governments can do when they please, usually by not telling us (Snowden showed us this several years ago in no uncertain terms). So, human rights or no, a hidden-partition mechanism is merely allowing a civilian to use the same tools a government is - non-legal ones. In an ideal world, everybody (governments and civilians) would follow perfectly fair laws. That's not this world, those aren't our governments, so we all should be open to resorting outside the legal system to protect ourselves.
kazinator 9y ago
I'd like to be able to enter my ATM pin in reverse, so that it logs in normally, but also secretly phones for help! (Widely circulated, unimplemented idea which some people believe actually exists.)
kazinator 9y ago
The problem is that if people do this, the authorities will quickly learn to gain physical access to a device first and make a bit exact copy before doing anything else. (Which they probably already do anyway.) It's as if you've created a computer game for the cops in which they have one "life", before "game over". But they can easily defeat that by "saving the game" before the risky encounter with your data-eating password monster, to give themselves as many lives as they wish.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  Well...except in the case of the disk encryption key being stored in a "secure enclave"-style chip. You don't need to erase the data on the device, just clear the unreadable keystore.
incompatible 9y ago
Why bother? If you are happy to delete the data, no doubt you've got a backup online somewhere. So you may as well delete it before you travel and get it back when you need it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Belphemur 9y ago

I'd prefer a clean partition with some unconspicuous data on it. Better that way then they won't dig more into the phone.

flipp3r 9y ago
Truecrypt and variations have something like this, I believe they call it Hidden volumes
- bitwize 9y ago
  If they find out or even suspect it, hello felony obstruction of justice and making false statements charges.
  - triplesec 9y ago
    Really? For a search? You are allowed to hide things in your house. This is certainly not legislated.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      It's illegal to lie to investigators. (They're allowed to lie to you, but not vice-versa.)
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        This fact actually makes it a potential offense to say anything to them. After all it's not their fault if they misunderstand you...
  - Posibyte 9y ago
    Can you be charged with obstruction of justice if you haven't been charged or served a warrant? i.e. just being suspect doesn't put you in line of perjury charges in this case. I'm not a lawyer, but that was my interpretation in case that's wrong.
    - openasocket 9y ago
      Yes, you absolutely can be charged with obstruction without a warrant. If you are being interviewed by an LEO and you lie to them to disrupt their investigation, that's potentially a crime. It doesn't matter if you haven't been subpoenaed or aren't under oath.
      - Posibyte 9y ago
        Right, but in this case, when there isn't a crime. When they're looking for evidence to charge you with or use as a reason to deport or something in that area. In that case, can that be construed as Obstruction of Justice?
        openasocket 9y ago
        > Right, but in this case, when there isn't a crime There wasn't a crime, until you deceived officers. It doesn't matter if you deceived them to cover up a crime, or to protect your privacy, or just for fun, it's still illegal.
        jriot 9y ago
        How is that illegal? They asked for a password to their device. He gave a password which then cleaned the device. For all the authorities know, it was a clean device i.e., brand new. Maybe they enjoy regularly installing new OSs using a clean install. This being illegal is equally as bad them searching devices in the first place without just cause.
        openasocket 9y ago

lr4444lr 9y ago

Clever, but would likely add "obstruction of justice" to the charges against you, and reduce your chances at beating the original point of suspicion, should it ever result in charges, due to spoliation of evidence. Why not instead just refuse, and use the technicality of violation of privacy, to beat the authorities by making anything they find inadmissible in the first place? (I'm assuming US-centric here, of course.)

Normal_gaussian 9y ago
That may work if you are covering up possession of illegal downloads or something similar. But if you are protecting your privacy (personal documents etc.) or your companies privacy (source code, plans, etc.) then you've still lost. The deletion password would work, as long as they don't image the drive first and use your software to decrypt.
- wiz21c 9y ago
  The only way is to physically destroy the hard disk, like making confetti with it. For example, it's very hard to destroy data saved on SSD drives (last time I heard)
  - eDISCO 9y ago
    There's a clever way to destroy data on SSD: just overwrite your (encrypted) hard drive encryption key, then even though the data remains, the key is lost forever. I think most modern SSDs come with the feature. More info in this question: https://superuser.com/questions/986387/why-does-my-ssd-internally-encrypt-data-even-without-a-password-set https://superuser.com/questions/986387/why-does-my-ssd-inter...
Bartweiss 9y ago
But this is a request made prior to any charges being laid. I'm actually curious what the legal situation would be: if you had been charged on other evidence it would likely be obstruction, but is that a charge that can be laid without any reason to suspect a crime has occurred?

kortex 9y ago

That's clever and all, but I feel like it dodges a very important human rights issue, rather than tackling it head-on. People shouldn't have to resort to some Inspector Gadget-esque "this message will selfdestruct" or real-partition-hidden-partition mechanism. Furthermore it also disadvantages people who are less tech savvy and can't implement such mechanisms. If you're not served a warrant, they shouldn't be allowed go snooping into locked devices.

chii 9y ago
When a legal rights don't exist, people go for a way to enforce their rights technologically.
- wordupmaking 9y ago
  So "the internet" keeps saying for over a decade, yet the collar keeps shrinking. I think it's kool-aid.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    As a group it doesn't work for any but the largest issues, look at SOPA. But many individuals do what they can. Consider the increase in encryption use.
mikeash 9y ago
It's not a dodge unless it's being proposed as an acceptable alternative to reforming these powers, not merely a way to cope with them. You can reasonably attempt to implement both technological and political solutions.
komali2 9y ago
The problem is in this case, the guy is specifically in a grey area of "enemy of powers-that-be in the country he's entering." He deals with for example cases where western nations torture terror suspects. If we leave law aside and think only in terms of "sides," that means that he is "opposed" to these governments, and it would only make sense for them to be hostile to him using their powers (arrest, taking his laptops, etc). Now let's continue to leave the law aside, because that's what our governments can do when they please, usually by not telling us (Snowden showed us this several years ago in no uncertain terms). So, human rights or no, a hidden-partition mechanism is merely allowing a civilian to use the same tools a government is - non-legal ones. In an ideal world, everybody (governments and civilians) would follow perfectly fair laws. That's not this world, those aren't our governments, so we all should be open to resorting outside the legal system to protect ourselves.

kazinator 9y ago

I'd like to be able to enter my ATM pin in reverse, so that it logs in normally, but also secretly phones for help! (Widely circulated, unimplemented idea which some people believe actually exists.)

kazinator 9y ago

The problem is that if people do this, the authorities will quickly learn to gain physical access to a device first and make a bit exact copy before doing anything else. (Which they probably already do anyway.) It's as if you've created a computer game for the cops in which they have one "life", before "game over". But they can easily defeat that by "saving the game" before the risky encounter with your data-eating password monster, to give themselves as many lives as they wish.

khedoros1 9y ago
Well...except in the case of the disk encryption key being stored in a "secure enclave"-style chip. You don't need to erase the data on the device, just clear the unreadable keystore.

incompatible 9y ago

Why bother? If you are happy to delete the data, no doubt you've got a backup online somewhere. So you may as well delete it before you travel and get it back when you need it.