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. 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.