4 ms·

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

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?
- openasocket 9y ago
  Whether charges have been made is completely irrelevant. If you prevent a LEO from doing is or her job that's obstruction, or spoliation, or one of a couple other charges depending on the specifics. If this wasn't the case, you do these sorts of obstructions to trick officers into never laying charges for the crime you committed. You might respond, "well shouldn't they be charged with the crime they committed in that case, not the obstruction stuff?" And they can be charged for that as well, but often the obstruction, especially the destruction of evidence, makes it impossible to actually get a conviction.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  IANAL, but I have had the pleasure of having several in my family. One of the things I've come to learn is (again, U.S. centric) that you don't typically get out of legal trouble once you're in the authorities' clutches by "technical cleverness". You don't know at the time described by the parent poster what other evidence might exist, and that includes faulty witness statements. If you mislead the prosecutors to destroy harmless data that could have gotten the whole case dismissed through a technicality, the act could be used in the worst way against you. Don't help the prosecution. Keep your mouth shut and your data expressedly off-limits until you get your legal representation.
  - 3131s 9y ago
    > that you don't typically get out of legal trouble once you're in the authorities' clutches by "technical cleverness". Right, technical cleverness is the lawyer's job. If you get arrested on any serious charges in the US politely tell the police that you need to speak to a lawyer.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      In the US you should almost always tell police, no matter what the question, that you decline to answer any questions without your lawyer. Don't talk to the police, they aren't your friends. They are trying to build a case to convict someone, and not necessarily a guilty person.
triplesec 9y ago
I don't think this objection flies, because if you just turn up with a wiped phone and special login accounts they also can't do anything to you.
Rmilb 9y ago
What would be the legality of stating " My password is not XYZ", when XYZ is the destruct password. Can you get the obstruction of justice charge if they try it and it destroys evidence?
- falcolas 9y ago
  Intent matters. If your intent was to trigger the destruction of data, you'd probably still be slapped with the obstruction of justice charges.
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    And judges aren't fond of people who are obviously trying to pull a fast one.
  - ryukafalz 9y ago
    Here's an idea: write the self-destruct password on a post-it note and leave it on your monitor. It's the same sort of thing, but preemptively - it's not obstruction of justice if you're not under investigation when you do that.
  - kazinator 9y ago
    How can the sentence "X is not Y" possibly specify the intent "I want you to try X anyway, to see what happens".
    - jjnoakes 9y ago
      When you have prior knowledge about what X does (deletes evidence) and there's no reason to say "the password is not X" other than to trick someone into trying X as the password, that's how.
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      Because it's reasonable to assume that you know that a statement like that will arouse their curiosity. You're dealing with humans looking for some kind of actionable information, and with reason to believe that you may be trying to deceive them on some level or another.

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?

openasocket 9y ago
Whether charges have been made is completely irrelevant. If you prevent a LEO from doing is or her job that's obstruction, or spoliation, or one of a couple other charges depending on the specifics. If this wasn't the case, you do these sorts of obstructions to trick officers into never laying charges for the crime you committed. You might respond, "well shouldn't they be charged with the crime they committed in that case, not the obstruction stuff?" And they can be charged for that as well, but often the obstruction, especially the destruction of evidence, makes it impossible to actually get a conviction.
lr4444lr 9y ago
IANAL, but I have had the pleasure of having several in my family. One of the things I've come to learn is (again, U.S. centric) that you don't typically get out of legal trouble once you're in the authorities' clutches by "technical cleverness". You don't know at the time described by the parent poster what other evidence might exist, and that includes faulty witness statements. If you mislead the prosecutors to destroy harmless data that could have gotten the whole case dismissed through a technicality, the act could be used in the worst way against you. Don't help the prosecution. Keep your mouth shut and your data expressedly off-limits until you get your legal representation.
- 3131s 9y ago
  > that you don't typically get out of legal trouble once you're in the authorities' clutches by "technical cleverness". Right, technical cleverness is the lawyer's job. If you get arrested on any serious charges in the US politely tell the police that you need to speak to a lawyer.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    In the US you should almost always tell police, no matter what the question, that you decline to answer any questions without your lawyer. Don't talk to the police, they aren't your friends. They are trying to build a case to convict someone, and not necessarily a guilty person.

triplesec 9y ago

I don't think this objection flies, because if you just turn up with a wiped phone and special login accounts they also can't do anything to you.

Rmilb 9y ago

What would be the legality of stating " My password is not XYZ", when XYZ is the destruct password. Can you get the obstruction of justice charge if they try it and it destroys evidence?

falcolas 9y ago
Intent matters. If your intent was to trigger the destruction of data, you'd probably still be slapped with the obstruction of justice charges.
- roywiggins 9y ago
  And judges aren't fond of people who are obviously trying to pull a fast one.
- ryukafalz 9y ago
  Here's an idea: write the self-destruct password on a post-it note and leave it on your monitor. It's the same sort of thing, but preemptively - it's not obstruction of justice if you're not under investigation when you do that.
- kazinator 9y ago
  How can the sentence "X is not Y" possibly specify the intent "I want you to try X anyway, to see what happens".
  - jjnoakes 9y ago
    When you have prior knowledge about what X does (deletes evidence) and there's no reason to say "the password is not X" other than to trick someone into trying X as the password, that's how.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    Because it's reasonable to assume that you know that a statement like that will arouse their curiosity. You're dealing with humans looking for some kind of actionable information, and with reason to believe that you may be trying to deceive them on some level or another.