Remember folks: You must provide your password to authorities in the U.K. if told to. Failing to provide your password to authorities will get you convicted of a crime.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-45365464

#privacy #SelfIncrimination #tyranny

@matt
That's fucked up, good thing you can render it useless with encryption containers like LUKS
@matt
That's really messed up! Would a corporation have to follow those rules like if you were murdered and the police want the data on your phone, pc, etc

@Faveing In the UK? Most definitely.

In the US? Most likely, but since IANAL I can only say I don't believe it is not settled by case law. Yet.

@matt really???
@omnipotens

@matt

As I understand it any enforcement of the IP Act does require a court order, however it is issued by political committee and not reviewed by the judiciary, which is i Think contrary to established methodology as it Is a criminal not civilian matter

This will only get worse post-brexit
Michael Brazda (@[email protected])

1K Toots, 254 Following, 973 Followers Β· <p>Just Ask</p>

@jason @omnipotens in the US, if it's not issued by a judge, it's not a court order (Imo, but IANAL).

On the other hand, NSLs...

@matt

Yeah, as i understand it tradionally a judge would sign off on a court order, however since the enactment of the [sarcasm]balanced and fair[/sarcasm] laws the IP Act brings to the tables the politicians decided to help out and not increase the judiciary workload and oversee such things themselves

@omnipotens
Mr. Matt :debian: :linux: (@[email protected])

3.24K Toots, 356 Following, 358 Followers Β· Based out of #Arizona. #Linux advocate. Gamer. Father. Technician @ #Intel Fab32. Getting old. Loves #chiptune and #metal #nobot please

@matt Here's my password sir: πŸ–•
@Bit_Faced don't jest, I think emoji can be used as passwords now ;)
@matt So its a crime to have a bad memory?
In Sweden there has to be an intent or criminally "bad judgement" (There exist a more correct english word for it but cant remember it now) to get convicted of anything in Sweden.
@drobban the jury is out on that one (ie it hasn't been settled with case law yet)

@matt

This is why plausible deniability, in combination with proper #opsec hygiene, segmentation and isolation is needed. Can't convict someone of refusing to hand out the encryption keys for data that isn't there.

@h3artbl33d @matt exactly, I remember a feature of true crypt was a hidden encrypted partition, you get two password, one show a dummy partition, the other the real.

@benoitj @matt

Exactly! It should be noted that the non-hidden part shouldn't be a brand new, default OS installation as that would raise suspicion.

Another method would be using a live environment that encrypts all temporary data, whether in RAM or on disk. Having a password vault hidden and inaccessable 'somewhere' might make this more viable.

But in the end - this is mitigating a situation that shouldn't be there in the first place. Madness!

@h3artbl33d @benoitj I would be careful with that approach. At least in regards to TrueCrypt, the authorities are well versed in hidden partitions.

@matt @benoitj

True that. I think hidden partitions aren't the best means to achieve opsec. Also, one shouldn't trust a sole method. Like TOR - even if properly used, if there is a vulnerability in the browser, the user and location info could be at serious risk.

The best bet - as far as I am concerned - is to design the opsec model to the particular situation, with the assumption that everything is comprimised from the start.

@h3artbl33d @benoitj my assumption is that encryption will only thwart a casual burglar or thief. A state sponsored attacker will have means to break in (either via brute force, or drugs and a $5 wrench).

@matt @benoitj

Well spoken. Though regular users aren't in the crosshairs of a state actor, eg, the NSA TAO division - they will obtain access.

No system is 100% safe/secure.