3 ms·

This seems somewhat narrow, unfortunately. Suppose I have a laptop with an encrypted hard drive, and I'm known to use that laptop. It's going to be hard to co

• corin_ 13y ago
  Obviously it comes down to the judge's judgement call (no pun intended) but based on this ruling there could perhaps be other ways to cause doubt which lead to this ruling, for example could you argue that your laptop has the ability for you to use it without unencrypting said drive, while potentially allowing one or more other people to use the encrypted part? Or if you are using encrypted files (e.g. TrueCrypt but not encrypting an entire drive) then having multiple encrypted files, perhaps even labelled in a way to suggest multiple users, such as stored in a folder called "Shared storage"? Obviously all these things would need to look like they were genuine rather than thought-up for legal purposes, so I imagine if I ever ended up in this situation this comment might act against me... but as a non-American, the fifth is unlikely to be relevant anyway. On top of the fact that I currently have no encrypted drives. Even without circumstantial suggestions that there are multiple options, I wonder if you could simply make the argument that possession of a single encrypted drive does not indicate usage of said drive, and therefore there is no reason to believe you have access to the encrypted contents?