4 ms·

Prove that it isn't, officer.

lsb 15y ago
No cellphones are allowed in top secret military locations in the US, because all can be remotely signalled to start recording audio. We know they'll turn a phone into a bug if they need to, so it's foolish to assume they wouldn't be able to get the real PIN.
- schiffern 15y ago
  Do you have any evidence that indicates that this is the reason? A much more likely explanation for the policy involves abuse by the user, either intentionally or unintentionally. Cameras and USB sticks are similarly restricted.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Yeah, I'm sure that the Princeton, TX police department has access to CIA-level technology, and will use it to prove that I was texting while driving.
pjscott 15y ago
With that, you've just admitted that you're aware of the possibility of setting up multiple profiles with different unlock codes. Be careful what information you leak when you're trying to look innocent!
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  How so? The officer was the one that suggested the possibility in this scenario.
  - kaybe 15y ago
    Yes, but the answer shows that you were aware of it before, which means you have already come in contact with the concept, leading to a higher probability for you to actually use it.
    - tjoff 15y ago
      Then again, a tech savvy user that encrypts his drive and claims he/she haven't a slightest idea what the officer is talking about is probably in many cases way more suspicious. At least to an officer that is informed enough to bring that up.
      - kaybe 15y ago
        Depends. How closely linked are the concepts of simple encryption and plausible deniability encryption? If you start researching the topic a bit you will stumble upon both, but if, say, a friend installed it?
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I don't think that it does. I think the most it can be said to demonstrate is that you are aware of how the burden of proof is supposed to work in the United States. In other words, it's his job to prove things, not yours.
      - kaybe 15y ago
        Yes, but it implies much more than just that; defiance for example. You don't want to egg them on, do you?

lsb 15y ago

No cellphones are allowed in top secret military locations in the US, because all can be remotely signalled to start recording audio. We know they'll turn a phone into a bug if they need to, so it's foolish to assume they wouldn't be able to get the real PIN.

schiffern 15y ago
Do you have any evidence that indicates that this is the reason? A much more likely explanation for the policy involves abuse by the user, either intentionally or unintentionally. Cameras and USB sticks are similarly restricted.
pavel_lishin 15y ago
Yeah, I'm sure that the Princeton, TX police department has access to CIA-level technology, and will use it to prove that I was texting while driving.

pjscott 15y ago

With that, you've just admitted that you're aware of the possibility of setting up multiple profiles with different unlock codes. Be careful what information you leak when you're trying to look innocent!

burgerbrain 15y ago
How so? The officer was the one that suggested the possibility in this scenario.
- kaybe 15y ago
  Yes, but the answer shows that you were aware of it before, which means you have already come in contact with the concept, leading to a higher probability for you to actually use it.
  - tjoff 15y ago
    Then again, a tech savvy user that encrypts his drive and claims he/she haven't a slightest idea what the officer is talking about is probably in many cases way more suspicious. At least to an officer that is informed enough to bring that up.
    - kaybe 15y ago
      Depends. How closely linked are the concepts of simple encryption and plausible deniability encryption? If you start researching the topic a bit you will stumble upon both, but if, say, a friend installed it?
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I don't think that it does. I think the most it can be said to demonstrate is that you are aware of how the burden of proof is supposed to work in the United States. In other words, it's his job to prove things, not yours.
    - kaybe 15y ago
      Yes, but it implies much more than just that; defiance for example. You don't want to egg them on, do you?