3 ms·
> This probably depends on where you are using it. If I understand correctly, it tells an attacker that you have _something_ to hide, but gives no clue as to an
by arcticbull 5y ago
> This probably depends on where you are using it. If I understand correctly, it tells an attacker that you have _something_ to hide, but gives no clue as to any metadata, such as the size of what you're hiding or how often it was updated.
Which brings you right back to the problem illustrated in the XKCD comic up top. As soon as you know they have something to hide you whack them until they tell you.
- giaour 5y agoThere is still some value in being able to disclose some private data without disclosing whether further private data exists. The other party will not know after a revelation if they have obtained the totality of secret data and must decide whether to continue to hit you with the wrench on the off chance that more secret data exists. This is a well known dilemma when interrogating people, since there's no known metadata about how many facts exist in your brain. As the GP points out, though, a common authoritarian response to this dilemma is to just keep torturing.
- dividedbyzero 5y agoDepending on where you are and what specific laws are in place that someone (the police maybe?) may not be able to get more whacking past a judge. I think this could work reasonably well in such situations.
- arcticbull 5y agoHere’s the problem. In a rule of law jurisdiction there’s no value provided. In one without they’ll just hit you.
- throwaway22032 5y agoSo you tell them. How do they know you've told them everything?
- arcticbull 5y agoWhack harder.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]