> Forensics agent pulls and mounts hard drive
> Agent sees /home/hiddenuser
> Government seeks search warrant for content
> DA demonstrates recent knowledge/use of /home/hiddenuser
> Judge holds you in contempt until you provide encryption keys
Forgetting the keys is established as protected speech under 1A. Don’t have the case handy atm. Fairly new. Knowing the keys and intentionally withholding them has yet to be established either way. But there will be a case soon enough. Funny thing about law is that both sides (prosec. & defense) often don’t want many things clarified further because they usually have far-reaching impacts to parallel legal issues. Roe v Wade is a perfect example.
No basis for such a warrant for some US citizen entering the country. No such case has ever occurred, at least at the time when I received legal advice on the subject.
Consider the alternative: You're not worse off than you would be if you didn't hide it.
Hiding your login is a good security practice against all kinds of potential coercion.
Is this what the typical airport threat scenario looks like? How do they do this with soldered in drives?
> Agent sees /home/hiddenuser
Or they see nothing, because your drive is encrypted. They come to ask you for the key, you comply they see $blandaccount with some seemingly important company data and a scary corporate message as the desktop background (as justification why there is even encryption). Bonus points if you complain about it yourself ("If you ask me all of this is a bit paranoid"). Afterwards you use the real key and see $realaccount, because you thought about plausible deniability and how to use it propperly – if you still trust the integrity of your device, that is.
Do not do this unless you have strict guidance from a lawyer immediately before this happens. One small mistake could open you up to criminal liability and a world of hurt. Better to just plan ahead, bring a burner phone and show the photos to the agent when asked.
Are you insane? Going along with the courts is usually not in your best interests. Hiding the evidence and never going to trial certainly is. If we are talking about information that you definitely need to hide then the penalty for your obstruction of justice, whatever its form, will be a rounding error on your sentence. If it does not definitely need to be hidden then should they find out they are unlikely to charge you.
An attorney will tell you what is legal. An excellent attorney will tell you what you can get away with.
Strong language I know, but prisons are full of innocent people.
>The simplest example is asking “Do you know why I pulled you over?”. Typically, people spontaneously confess to speeding, sometimes they break down and admit that someone is wrapped up in a rug in the trunk.
I was asked this once, after I read a hilarious reddit comment, and found myself in a similar situation. I looked at the cop and said "it's not because of the pot in my trunk is it?". "Step out and open your trunk, sir". He opened the trunk to find a crock pot I had just purchased. I could tell he was flipping through emotions from stifling laughter to being highly annoyed. They eventually let me go and told me to slow down with a half smirk.
I don't recommend doing this, and I have zero plans to ever do it again as it wasn't as simple as stepping out and showing my guilt/joke. I was detained, backup units showed up, even a K9. They didn't search the inside of my car, but they did inspect other items inside the trunk to make sure I wasn't pulling a fast one on them.
Yeah, what you did was not smart. If you're being pulled over for a minor traffic infraction and you already know that you're guilty, simply admitting to it is usually the best option. I've gotten out of many tickets this way, because cops really do appreciate when you're not trying to BS them.
I was also pulled over once and accused of running a stop sign that I knew I didn't run, because I had seen the cop sitting there as I pulled up to the stop sign and made extra sure to completely stop. Due to the time of day, I believe he was (illegally) fishing for a DUI stop, and had considered filing a complaint with the department but never did.
Why wasn't it smart (besides actually talking to the cop)? I was not guilty of anything but making a joke in bad taste (and maybe doing 59 in a 55). It was an inconvenience to be detained for an hour, but it wasn't a hot day, I didn't have any obligations...
>simply admitting
no your best option is not to say a GD thing. story time: i was once pulled over on the eastern shore by a cop that was barely my age. i didn't say a word to him for the 10 minute stop. that really messed with his mental state and I could tell his internal hard drive was returning a seek error. at the end he stammered out "o-okay, w-well you slow down and haveaniceday" then he quick walked back to his car and turned down a side road.
You gave the cop probable cause to search your vehicle. That is never smart.
I'm sticking by what I said. As I clearly said in my post, I was only referring to minor traffic infractions where you know you're guilty. I guarantee I would have gotten some or even all of the tickets I got out of if I had blindly followed "NEVER TALK TO COPS" advice.
I was watching HK Apple Daily since the Hong Kong protests and lately a few of their latest videos have been showing up in my feed. While I’ve stopped watching, the thumbnails look incendiary in nature so seeing this happen is not surprising considering the news security law
Every time any Chinese diplomat opens their mouth, something incendiary comes out these days. There will be books written in the future and these times will be used an example on how to lose friends fast. The absolute reverse of soft power.
Pcap captures are not multithreaded so you are pinning to a single core.
This entire thread is interesting because it is highlighting a similar problem with my virtualized router. When I pinned the router vm to specific cpus the problem goes away. I switched to openstack which doesn’t give me the best control over cpu capabilities and the problem has manifested in a worse form.
My uninformed opinion is that there are underlying concurrency problems with multithreaded user land-kernel interaction and some nic drivers (consumer intel and Broadcom hardware)
Ah ! Thanks for this.
Being single threaded does not prevent you from having your process being migrated from one core to another though, no? Or do you mean that pcap captures are pinned?
This code isn't tested at all. They messed up copying code from a previous implementation, that's how bad this is. If they had had a few basic tests in place they would've spotted this before it even had a chance to be a problem.
