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. midas89 · 1790876708 · focus · HN ↗

            you have the guy sitting in jail waiting for the courts to decide if his grapheneOS wiping his computer after wrong unlock codes is him obstructing.

            keep in mind that the "obstruction" charge can be and is abused as a catchall charge.

            1. MC995 · 1790877278 · focus · HN ↗

               > courts to decide if his grapheneOS wiping his computer after wrong unlock codes is him obstructing

               He didn't provide an incorrect code, or no code at all, he provided a duress code intended to destroy the device. There's a huge legal difference.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.