4 ms·
I've been curious about one aspect every time I've seen this law mentioned. Theoretically, let's say you use VeraCrypt or something similar to create a passwor
by timrichard 8y ago
I've been curious about one aspect every time I've seen this law mentioned.
Theoretically, let's say you use VeraCrypt or something similar to create a password-protected volume inside a big .mp4 file using steganographic techniques. A second secret password is set, which can decrypt another hidden volume which contains the actual sensitive data.
You give out the password for the first volume under duress.
Would that be enough to satisfy the law? If so, isn't it undermined?
- majewsky 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubberhose_(file_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubberhose_(file_system)
- mirimir 8y agoThey all know about VeraCrypt, and passwords for hidden stuff.
- timrichard 8y agoYes, but the point I'm getting at is whether someone could hypothetically still be outside the law if they gave access via the first password, but the interrogators suspected (but could not prove) that a second volume existed.
- mirimir 8y agoThey don't need to prove anything. They just imprison until you reveal the password for the hidden volume. And if there's really no hidden volume, then you're SOL.
- timrichard 8y agoMax tariff in the UK is 2 years, or 5 in Terrorism cases. Does anybody have any actual insight on this specific UK law, rather than guesses? Once again, this is in context of UK law. So speculation about rubber hoses in dungeons isn't particularly relevant (luckily).