Sigh.

Naw Jefro. Nobody is crossing the border. Some of these checkpoints are 100's of miles into the USA.
I know Yankees are insulated from this kind of harassment. There are no Border Check Points
in Vermont or Ohio like there is down south here.

The Border Crossing Border Patrol Station is a totally different animal and is
more heavily fortressed and armed to the teeth. Passport is required to go through.

My video just shows one driving down a USA freeway and being ferried into a
Drunk driving kind of checkpoint. Instead of looking for drunk drivers. You
Have losers on power trips trying to ruin your life. One thing can lead to another.

You just don't know the half of it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...2#.UbSxxBVAZRQ

My ranch is in Esperanza TX. I used to drive through that checkpoint every day on my way to work.
I have seen a 85 year old man hand cuffed and locked up and sent to federal prison for a marijuana roach in his ash tray.

Common sense aint too common any more.


Come down to the border and find out.

I'm afraid of what I'll find when I return to Texas ... will it be fascist ? I think it might be. It's sad, and I know it's just the beginning

Here's a good article on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_encryption_theory
The best current method is used by dm-crypt (cryptsetup), which is CBC + ESSIV (protects against watermarking attacks). XTS is newer, and although many recommend it, there are potential issues (see article).

cryptoloop is outdated because older ones use ECB, which is vulnerable to numerous attacks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_...book_.28ECB.29
or CBC without ESSIV, which is vulnerable to watermarking attacks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermark_attack

Here's another interesting article:
http://cyberwarzone.com/did-nsa-put-...ption-standard

There's a good article here about 'key disclosure laws' concepts and where various countries stand on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law
In the UK for instance, they can compel you to hand them over or go to jail.

You'd have to ask a lawyer about what happens re deniable encryption; ie can the Police insist its there and you must hand over the keys, or can you insist its not there.
Presumably there'd have to be some sort of technical proof its there?

I seem to remember seeing discussions about the qn of what happens if you genuinely forget the key (or tell them you have)... can you go to jail anyway?
The answer iirc was yes, which could be an issue if eg you were carrying such stuff on behalf of eg oppressed person elsewhere and genuinely didn't need to know/have the key... think Amnesty Intl etc.

Unlikely situations in most cases, but they could happen....

I think they would need a proof, otherwise they would be asking you to do something that may not be possible.

I would certainly hope so , but you do sometimes see some very ... odd ... legal decisions announced in the media.

Supreme Court Decides Your Silence May Be Used Against You
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/06/...ed-against-you

I wonder if they will release the new version of the Constitution, edited for all the rights you no longer have. It would probably be a black piece of paper, or huge stack of unintelligible lawyer speak whereby you waive all your rights.

To add to H_TeXMeX_H

Governments making it up as they go
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...o-come/276931/

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/17/58578.htm

http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-...linas-v-texas/

Interesting video. (watch)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

I always thought if it were possible to have two passwords, one for normal decryption of the partition by the user and another special one that can be used when harassed. The later would instantaneously and without warning restore the system to a "factory settings" only once and then it overwrites the former password as the normal password.

Truecrypt is close, but I have an even better method. I can't say it tho, it's top secret

I'll give you hint tho:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ablity-898812/
A small modification to this scheme goes a long way

I'm afraid that, if you rigged a "logic bomb" in your computer that would obliterate everything on it such that no one including yourself could now get to it ... then, if I were sitting on your jury, it would be damn near impossible for me to imagine how whatever-it-was could possibly have been anything but illegal.

If you encrypt something, it is presumably with the intent to be able to decrypt it. "Only you" should be able to use the information, if all works as you intend, but "you" will. The only reason why someone would conspire to do otherwise is because, well, "because he's guilty." You will have tarnished yourself so badly in my eyes that the mere suggestion of what might have been on that computer would be believable ... and the more lurid and awful it sounds, the better. This might be nothing more than "jurist psychology," but jurist psychology can certainly leave you hanging at the wrong end of a rope.

I don't think that stlt or Truecrypt are what I was thinking about.

However, consider Slackware for example, I think that my idea might be somewhat feasible. You would need to look in the initrd and locate the stage where cryptsetup is called and replace it with other bash commands. Should a specific kamekaze password match, then it will just silently start cleaning up commands. This would involve installing a minimal encrypted installation with the new password as the encryption key over the previously encrypted partition. A tiny partition would be needed to hold the needed image or packages. Finally the initrd will have to be replaced with a standard one. If the passwords do not match however, it will pass the password to cryptsetup for normal resumption of the booting up process (if the password is correct).

In this arrangement, the authorities would not find any evidence that you cleaned the encrypted partition as they would only find a tiny functional encrypted installation with a password that you could happily divulge. The data would be lost forever but you would not provide them with any evidence.

Chris

But what you can imagine is irrelevant (or at least it should be). People should only be sentenced to be guilty based on facts, not on imagination. AFAIK it is "Innocent until proven guilty" and not "Innocent until imagined guilty".

It's supposed to be, especially if you have a good lawyer.