That's a bit of a leap, really.

Also, Truecrypt's deniable encryption here doesn't seem like it would help, since they're talking at the computer level. Presumably, a power on or hard drive password. Assuming there's only one volume, you put that one in and the attacker has the keys to the kingdom.

Besides that, most averages joes wouldn't go through this kind of trouble. If you're running in opposition to a ruling power who might, say, launch a missile at you from 30,000 feet while you're in foreign territory (not naming any names here), then you probably already know to cover your ass.

On the other hand, an average joe thinking that they're cute by giving up the password to the concealed volume will only land a contempt charge when the file access times are checked.

You can despise the MPAA without downloading movies. Just as you can desire privacy without committing any crimes.

Ever copied and pasted an article published by someone else, and saved it to a file?

During your online conversations, have you ever written something negative about another person?

Do you have any data that you are contractually obligated to keep a secret, possibly relating to agreements signed with employers or clients?

Note that even data in your browser cache can be used against you[1].

Under a microscope, everyone is a criminal.

[1] http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Child-porn-in-Web-cache-...

The police raided the house of a veteran here in town a few months back for possession of small amounts of marijuana. The veteran opened fire and during the ensuing shoot out one officer died and five more were sent to the hospital. The news continuously talked about this veterans limited criminal history.

Ultimately he had a speeding ticket and had been charged with something like jay walking which was dismissed. That was his limited criminal history.

I completely agree that if you look at someone close enough, almost all will have limited criminal histories.

Saving an image or an article to your hard drive is not illegal, but redistributing it can be. Writing negative stories about other people is (in practically all cases) not illegal, either. Nor is having secret information.

Unless the majority secretly has an ungodly amount of child porn in their web cache I don't know about, I am not very inclined to believe that everyone is a criminal under a microscope.

Sure there are some, and when you consider the population of the world is several billion that "some" can become "many" without really saying anything about the majority.

That may be a matter of definitions. While I wouldn't say I have any unlicensed music, I might if you count my YouTube cache file.

You could enter one password and have it boot into a boring Windows XP environment while the true password would boot to your actual environment with all your secret files.

It's Jan 2012. What do you think is going to happen when they see that the one you gave up the code to hasn't been touched since July 2011?

Does Truecrypt have an option to not record date/time stamps on volumes, or better yet, scramble them?

Timestamps are going to be at the FS layer or higher, not much Truecrypt can realistically do about that..

I can't readily think of any Windows processes this would break.

If digital jurisprudence evolves the same way, perhaps a warrant (or discovery request) could be obtained to search within a single folder only, but not another, or the like. Perhaps there are cases out there like this already--but possibly a whole body of jurisprudence needs to evolve to deal with these issues.

If you're a straight male just make a second inner hidden volume and put a ton of gay porn on it. After a few days of arguing with the court just reveal your password to it and they'll think "oh shit, this is what he was hiding. Well nothing to see here, moving on. That's all."

So, 30+ year old models in your Safe For Government/get out of jail porn directory.

>.>

...I always use that method when trying to get out of trouble. Shhh.

That is, as long as the inner volumes remain truly undetectable.

Without the right password, there's no way to tell if there's an hidden volume, since the result of the encryption is indistinguishable from pure random data.

I don't have any of these. I'm not being contrary, just saying you should update your view that everyone has these things.

Oh, and you think folks who have no problem casually planting a bag of something in your car would have a problem dropping some files on your computer if they think that would help?

I'm not being contrary either, but to claim that you have nothing to hide could be seen as perjury for someone who wants to make sure they get you of something. And in this day and age I suspect the odds that you have something is higher than you may believe.

You might want to take a look at this: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html

If someone really wants to smuggle data or keep it secret they WILL find a way. They could just cram it all on a MicroSD and put it under their tongue, or between their butt crack, super glued behind their scrotum, lodged up into their vagina, buried in their rectum, etc.... The methods are endless.

This won't catch terrorists or pedophiles, it'll just catch innocent people like your mom who have some illegally downloaded songs on their laptop.

This is digital data we are talking about, there are much more effective means of moving it about.

I make it a point to not have pirated movies. I torrent linux distributions and free music (OC Remix); and I buy my software or use free alternatives. It may be true that most people have cracked software, pirated movies and [illegal] torrents, but it's not everyone.

Any lawyers want to comment on this ?

Because it's impossible for a safe to have an extra hidden compartment?

Finds hidden TrueCrypt volumes... :(

However, it does not detect the existence of a hidden inner volume.

It would be easier just to only use it via a VM booted from a Linux Live CD.

This isn't really a problem. Cops can get a warrant to search your house, and I'm pretty sure they'll find some things that aren't illegal, but are very personal.

If you restrict evidence finding procedure to those in which only evidence (and nothing else) can be found, then I'm pretty sure you'll end up with no evidence.

This has nothing to do with things that may or may not be "illegal".

The only circumstance is with my consent.

Unfortunately I cannot prevent physical intrusions. When it comes to security of data however thankfully things have been improving.

Whilst I think that of course people should stand up for civil liberties etc we have to bear in mind if we completely neutered the police your civil liberties aren't worth shit as a criminal can just take them from you as nobody has enough power to gather evidence against them.

You then risk people turning to mob justice with no due process whatsoever.

Police can serve warrants to search my home. There is nothing I can do to stop them, and I won't attempt to stop them (since I value my life). However that does not mean I consent or approve. "They have a warrant", provides me with zero comfort.

tl;dr: Police are going to keep being police without my approval, so I don't see why my system of ethics needs to give them room to operate.

without this, almost no crimes would have enough evidence to go to prosecution. that includes stuff that you don't care about, like privacy, and maybe stuff you do care about, like murders and kidnapping