But At Least We Don't Live In A Police State

[Nick1911]

Another handy trick: if you don't want to be able to remember a password, use something like a UUID (For example: 4c9837d0-4860-11e1-b86c-0847203c9a66)

Write it down on a random page of a random book.

You can legitimately claim that you don't know the password in this case; it's long enough that you would have a very difficult time even trying to remember it.  If you need to be sure, and have the time, destroy said page of said book - now the data is truly unrecoverable by anyone.

Of course, having it in your head is better.  In theory, no one can get to that.  But, this is useful in limited cases where you might want to deny even yourself the ability to get into something fairly easily.

[Fitz]

Or, write down a bogus password. Play dumb when it doesn't work.


On passwords, anyone think about this yet? It's interesting...


http://xkcd.com/936/

[Regolith]

Or, write down a bogus password. Play dumb when it doesn't work.


On passwords, anyone think about this yet? It's interesting...


http://xkcd.com/936/

Also this:

http://xkcd.com/538/

 

[zahc]

If you destroyed the slip of paper with the password, that would be destruction of evidence possibly, yes?

Of course it would have to be proven that the paper you destroyed contained a passphrase. If you didn't admit that, I don't know how it could be proven.

What if I stored my password as a latent image on a piece of photographic film, and stored it in a simple lightproof envelope? I know enough to open it in the dark and develop it, but anyone snooping around would just take it out of the envelope and would have a scrap of film.

[Fitz]

If you destroyed the slip of paper with the password, that would be destruction of evidence possibly, yes?

Of course it would have to be proven that the paper you destroyed contained a passphrase. If you didn't admit that, I don't know how it could be proven.

What if I stored my password as a latent image on a piece of photographic film, and stored it in a simple lightproof envelope? I know enough to open it in the dark and develop it, but anyone snooping around would just take it out of the envelope and would have a scrap of film.

I think the simplest method is to write down a fake password, DONT destroy it, leave it up, then play dumb when it doesn't work.

[Strings]

Actually, a random line out of a book you have with you at some point would be perfect. How likely is it that someone could get the right line on the right page?

[Nick1911]

Actually, a random line out of a book you have with you at some point would be perfect. How likely is it that someone could get the right line on the right page?

I don't have the inclination to do the math, but I would presume very low.  Assuming they don't know what book to start with.  Even then, really.  The number of words used is fairly low (owning to repeats), but even a short pharse statistically occurs very infrequently.  (What is is, most phrases of six words or more are likely to be unique on the internet? [1]  Ah, combinatorial explosion, how we love you.)

[Fitz]

moneyllamadisturbshoneycombs

[freakazoid]

I wish I had data worth truecrypting against possible gooberment snooping.

Just fill it full of gay midget porn. 

[Lee]

Not sure I understand the point being made here - not saying this is right or wrong.  How is this different from refusing to answer a court's question about anything, e.g. revealing a source, violating client/patient confidentiality, or...?  A person always has the right to refuse to answer, but that doesn't mean they won't go to jail if they refuse to reveal information critical to the case.  With or without specific evidence, the court can evaluate the overall situation and deliver a verdict or punishment...right?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

pshaw  you wanna interrupt all this with common sense? kill joy

[Fitz]

Jesus, you really are a statist

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

this is nothin new  they show up at your house demand you open safe.  you say no  get an obstruction charge.  depending on how incriminating the stuff on the computer is it might be worth it. it might not be worth it to them to spend what it takes to crack your box  even if they are able

[Fitz]

this is nothin new  they show up at your house demand you open safe.  you say no  get an obstruction charge.  depending on how incriminating the stuff on the computer is it might be worth it. it might not be worth it to them to spend what it takes to crack your box  even if they are able

No, it's different, because the information DOES NOT EXIST without the encryption key.

By forcing you to give it to them, they are forcing you to CREATE incriminating evidence

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

they can't make you do anything, if you are a true committed revolutionary.it does becvome a "you can beat the charge but you can't beat the ride situation

[Tallpine]

I'm just waiting for TSA to ask me to log in to my encrypted laptop.

I can't.

It's not only a violation of company policy but a possible violation of federal law, due to ITAR, etc.

[KD5NRH]

Actually, a random line out of a book you have with you at some point would be perfect. How likely is it that someone could get the right line on the right page?

Even better, two lines from different places in the book.

One of my favorite things to annoy anyone snooping is to email myself an encrypted message where I've gone through and edited a percentage of the ciphertext to render it truly undecipherable.  I have a few files of the same type running around on my various flash drives, and the occasional heavily encrypted English paper or some similar non-interesting file.  The more garbage they have to sift through slowly, the more it costs them to get anything interesting.  Of course, I create extra keys to encrypt some of this stuff, then delete the keys afterward.