3 ms·

> Then the LEO just asks for the second password. But it's entirely _optional_ to use. They cannot prove there is a second password.

by lol768 8y ago

cryptonector 8y ago
They're not dumb. You installed the thing you're claiming gives you plausible deniability -- it's a fair inference that you wanted just that so that you could hide something, ergo the court will just demand that password. Which means you shouldn't install any such software unless you're going to have those hidden partitions and are willing to let LE have access.
- cesarb 8y ago
  Do most users of TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt use this "hidden volume" functionality, or do they just want the basic full disk encryption? It wouldn't surprise me if users of plausible deniability were in the minority.
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    If you could show that most users never do this, you might have an argument in court. How would you do this though? At the end of the day, the fact that you have this sw installed will make it fair to infer that you are using this feature. You can disagree, but it's what the courts say that matters here, not what I say.
- gambiting 8y ago
  The problem is that you could totally have truecrypt installed and not have a second hidden partition. There is no way to prove that you do. Of course, the court could throw you in jail for not being able to provide something that doesn't exist anyway, but yeah....I'd hope that the lack of proof here would help you win the case.
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    A prosecutor, a jury, and a judge, will all have a chance to decide that you're telling the truth. There is not mathematical proof here (there never is in any trials, really), so it will all come down to: do we believe the LEO's and the defendant's experts' testimony? Recall, the defendant won't testify -- their lawyer won't let them -- but if they did, they'd probably do themselves in anyways, the court (jury, judge) won't believe them. There is no plausible deniability here, really.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      Putting someone in jail because they won't provide a password to a partition that might exist is truly beyond the pale. If that happens we have completely discarded the notion of presumption of innocence.
- aeternus 8y ago
  You can easily go a 3rd level (more) deep by adding another veracrypt file within the hidden partition. You could also use stenography techniques to hide your encrypted file/data within an image or video. There are also use-cases that don't include a hidden partition, ex: I keep private code repositories in a veracrypt partition to protect them in the event of laptop theft while not avoiding the perf hit of full disk encryption. There's no need for the hidden partition / plausible deniability for a use-case like that.

> Then the LEO just asks for the second password. But it's entirely _optional_ to use. They cannot prove there is a second password.

by lol768 8y ago

> Then the LEO just asks for the second password. But it's entirely _optional_ to use. They cannot prove there is a second password.

cryptonector 8y ago

They're not dumb. You installed the thing you're claiming gives you plausible deniability -- it's a fair inference that you wanted just that so that you could hide something, ergo the court will just demand that password. Which means you shouldn't install any such software unless you're going to have those hidden partitions and are willing to let LE have access.

cesarb 8y ago
Do most users of TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt use this "hidden volume" functionality, or do they just want the basic full disk encryption? It wouldn't surprise me if users of plausible deniability were in the minority.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  If you could show that most users never do this, you might have an argument in court. How would you do this though? At the end of the day, the fact that you have this sw installed will make it fair to infer that you are using this feature. You can disagree, but it's what the courts say that matters here, not what I say.
gambiting 8y ago
The problem is that you could totally have truecrypt installed and not have a second hidden partition. There is no way to prove that you do. Of course, the court could throw you in jail for not being able to provide something that doesn't exist anyway, but yeah....I'd hope that the lack of proof here would help you win the case.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  A prosecutor, a jury, and a judge, will all have a chance to decide that you're telling the truth. There is not mathematical proof here (there never is in any trials, really), so it will all come down to: do we believe the LEO's and the defendant's experts' testimony? Recall, the defendant won't testify -- their lawyer won't let them -- but if they did, they'd probably do themselves in anyways, the court (jury, judge) won't believe them. There is no plausible deniability here, really.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    Putting someone in jail because they won't provide a password to a partition that might exist is truly beyond the pale. If that happens we have completely discarded the notion of presumption of innocence.
aeternus 8y ago
You can easily go a 3rd level (more) deep by adding another veracrypt file within the hidden partition. You could also use stenography techniques to hide your encrypted file/data within an image or video. There are also use-cases that don't include a hidden partition, ex: I keep private code repositories in a veracrypt partition to protect them in the event of laptop theft while not avoiding the perf hit of full disk encryption. There's no need for the hidden partition / plausible deniability for a use-case like that.