This is the problem I run into with technical people discussing the law all the time and I mean this constructively: stop trying to figure out technical workaro

This is the problem I run into with technical people discussing the law all the time and I mean this constructively: stop trying to figure out technical workarounds or look for technical compliance. So much of the law comes down to subjective and/or holistic tests of the facts. As soon as a lawful search is requested, situation has changed. The only question then is if you comply or not. If you remove the ability for that search to take place then how that happened is irrelevant. Destroying a secret key is no different to zeroing a blob of data. Actually the first might be worse. If the key is somehow recoverable (eg you have a copy on a cloud drive) then you can have ongoing penalties by refusing to comply.kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk The only thing that matters is the lawful request. Whatever you do up to that point is treated differently compared to what you do after. You might say: what if I add a deadman's switch where I have to type in a code every 72 hours to stop it wiping itself? Your thought process might be that this is passive. It doesn't matter. As soon as the request is made and you refuse to hit that switch knowing the phone will wipe, legally it's no different. You have destroyed potential evidence when faced with a lawful search. This is what I mean when I say stop looking for loopholes or technical compliance. It does not matter.