5 ms·
What about the opposite? remove the tech from the hypotetical. Say you carry a valise with a lock. They ask for the key, you truthfully answer that you do not
by iririririr 2mo ago
What about the opposite? remove the tech from the hypotetical.
Say you carry a valise with a lock. They ask for the key, you truthfully answer that you do not have with you. They burn the valise and lose all the contents.
So, are you in jail? or can you sue them for destroying your stuff?
- Jolter 2mo agoWhat the point of this hypothetical? In real life they would break the lock on your valise and return it to you bound together with tape.
- iririririr 2mo agoand how if this similar to how a duress password work? say breaking the lock burn the contents somehow, to prevent documents falling into thief's hands for the sake of the comparison.
- otterley 2mo agoYou didn’t tamper with the potential evidence; they did.
- iririririr 2mo agoright. that's my point. why if they try to guess your password and end up wiping data, then magically you're guilty?
- Jolter 2mo agoIntent matters in a court of law. A judge or a jury will consider: - did you intend for the data to be destroyed in an eventual search? - probably yes, because you went to the trouble to set up a duress password - is it reasonably that you mixed up the two passwords? No, because only an idiot would make them similar and you're clearly no idiot, because you were able to set up a phone with a duress password. - hence, you intentionally made the officer wipe your data, and you will be held liable. It doesn't make any difference if the destroyed potential evidence is physical or digital. The law as written is stupid, but that does not mean courts are stupid. It is rather funny to look at how some programmers believe they can "trick" the law. It does not work like computer code!