Thread

1. delichon · 1790868019 · focus · HN ↗

   I keep all of my most sensitive personal documents on my phone, as an emergency backup, but in an encrypted (Cryptomator) volume that requires a separate password. Given the routine news of such exploits this seems like due diligence.

   As I understand it this encryption is a significant additional barrier to technical or legal access to those files. If someone knows otherwise, please let me know. Being wrong could cost me my home and life savings.

   1. WithinReason · 1790868570 · focus · HN ↗

      If you don't give access to law enforcement when they ask: straight to jail. Encryption is irrelevant in that situation. If they see the encrypted volume you need to provide them access.

      1. rdevsrex · 1790869100 · focus · HN ↗

         Maybe in a country like the UK, but not in the US. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination.

         Which covers divulging encryption keys because it is treated the same as compelling you to give up the combination to a wall safe which is testimonial and protected.

         1. rdtsc · 1790874816 · focus · HN ↗

            Can't they just hand it to you say "you enter your passphrase, but don't divulge it to us and then hand us the phone". In other words hinging the passphrase divulging to the 5th can backfire in that respect. It like saying we have a search warrant, you open the safe for us, it's fine if you keep the combination to yourself, we just need to get inside.

            1. nater5000 · 1790877275 · focus · HN ↗

               No, that's pretty absurd. It's not specifically about the act of speaking. It's the act of incriminating yourself.

               But that's all beyond the point, anyways. If they did hand you your phone and said, "enter your passphrase," you can just say, "I don't remember it." They can throw a fit and put more heat on you in various ways, but until they resort to torturing you or they develop mind-reading technology, there's not much they can do at that point until the case reaches a judge.

               That's not to say "I don't remember" is a sound, blanket defense. But it's sufficient for demonstrating that these dynamics all depend on willing participants which is partially why these laws are designed the way they are.

               1. rdtsc · 1790881960 · focus · HN ↗

                  If the search warrant and seizure wasn't a thing I'd agree with you. But I can easily see opening a phone interpreted not that differently than opening a safe or your reinforced front door.

                  > But it's sufficient for demonstrating that these dynamics all depend on willing participants which is partially why these laws are designed the way they are.

                  What happens if during serving a search warrant the door is impossible to open or they find a super reinforced safe. Owner can even say "I don't remember the combination"?

                  1. sterlind · 1791071324 · focus · HN ↗

                     I'm not sure the police can compel you to open a safe. they can get a warrant to have someone weld it open with a blowtorch, but I don't think they can get a warrant to compel you to open your own safe for them.
            2. kadoban · 1790882982 · focus · HN ↗

               The act of unlocking it can incriminate you. It's ~proof that you have control of the device beyond what they already knew.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.