5 ms·
That's the least troubling side of this law. The most troubling thing is that you can now be thrown in prison on no more evidence than the presence of a blob of
by avar 13y ago
That's the least troubling side of this law. The most troubling thing is that you can now be thrown in prison on no more evidence than the presence of a blob of random data on your computer that the police can just claim is encrypted data that you're refusing to give up.
- harryh 13y agoHow is that more troubling than: "you can now be thrown in prison on no more evidence than the presence of a few pieces of paper in a filing cabinet that the police can just claim is evidence that you're refusing to give up" ?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gambiting 13y agoBecause with a pendrive you can't even prove that the paper is there. It could literally be random data, and the police could be insisting that you give them a password. If you did a full wipe of a pendrive with random data,and didn't create a filesystem, you would now have a device that could be used to incriminate you, even thought it really, really isn't encrypted. But you can't prove that. So I guess that if I were to use your analogy, the police would look through your cabinet, find a few pieces of paper,and then demand that you tell them how to read that invisible ink that you used on the paper. What ink? - you might ask. But it's irrelevant, you can still go to jail for not telling, even though there really is no ink.
- toyg 13y agoPlanting evidence is a practice as old as law enforcement though...
- harryh 13y agoHas anything ever actually gone to jail for refusing to decrypt data that wasn't actually real data? This is why we have judges. In order for a warrant to be issued and enforced there has to be evidence that there is something there to search for.
- marcosdumay 13y agoYou don't need the random blob to get in trouble. Please, they can just ask for the algorithm and passord for all that data you inserted in your photos through stenography.