5 ms·
Problem is, he didn't destroy shit. "He" (by which I mean, technically the agents) deleted a header that's used to encrypt data but can restored from a backup.
by fedpost 2mo ago
Problem is, he didn't destroy shit. "He" (by which I mean, technically the agents) deleted a header that's used to encrypt data but can restored from a backup.
- MBCook 2mo agoDeleting isn’t destroying?
- fedpost 2mo agoSure, but the issue is he didn't delete his data, he deleted a header with a key in it, that's it, just a few MB. He didn't delete hundreds of GB of chats or browsing history, he deleted a key to access it and that key isn't necessarily the only one that can access it. All the stuff they want can still be accessed just fine if another copy of the key exists. To put it in protective, just opening a web browser or some other app can delete/alter more data than was deleted in this case.
- MBCook 2mo agoThat’s semantics. For all intents and purposes he destroyed it, no different than if he stomped on the phone or deleted all the files traditionally. I don’t think a judge would care about splitting that hair.
- fedpost 2mo agoKind of? Let's say he has a detached header on another device and deleted the one on his phone. It's not at all destroyed now. Is what he did still illegal? This is important because this is a feature of some crypto systems like LUKS. You can have your header on another physically septate device. If this is ruled on in an insufficiently nuanced way it could have very significant implications for carrying encrypted data without the key.
- tmp10423288442 2mo agoI think I misunderstood your original scenario. This one makes a lot more sense. Although I wouldn't want to be in the position of being the test case.
- lesuorac 2mo agoI dunno, now that you phrased it this way I feel like it does matter. Image he took a blow-torch to a safe and the door welded shut. The contents are still there but the door is broken.
- 15155 1mo ago> Image he took a blow-torch to a safe and the door welded shut This analogue isn't perfect, but it isn't relevant anyway: the laws in question criminalize acts based on their intent. The blowtorch wasn't intended to destroy the contents of the safe (a la deletion of a key), but even still: if the intent was to impede or delay the investigation by welding the safe shut, it would be equally criminal.
- 15155 2mo agoThese neener neener games don't work in reality. Courts aren't autistic computer systems.
- tmp10423288442 2mo agoI severely doubt that judges will be impressed with this reasoning.
- ApolloFortyNine 2mo agoThis is why we have judges, I wonder if this has been ruled on already. If you filled out a notebook in a special cipher with the cipher stored separately beside it, then when a cop asked for the notebook you handed the cipher over and then burned the cipher right in front of them, is that destruction of evidence? Idk at the end of the day it does have the same result as destroying the data. >"He" (by which I mean, technically the agents) Under the same logic you could mail a bomb to anyone and say you didn't kill anyone, they did. It was just rigged to blow when they opened the box.