plumsauce - 3:40 pm on Mar 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

plum you should read the article...

Demaestro,

I *did* read the article.

After writing the second paragraph in my post. And no, the article does not mention explicitly any demand for passwords.

There are some great ideas like storing important data on camera memory cards ...

Is not such a good idea. You still have the data in your possession, and thus, it is subject to search. Steganography is security through obscurity.

To be clear, I did read the article, other articles about the same set of original circumstances. I have read with interest many more articles on the topic of encryption in general over the years.

My conclusion, if all of that reading is combined, is that there are no viable workarounds to physical possession. Once a someone is subject to search, it becomes irrelevant which particular storage device has been used and how many decoys are employed. It is all subject to search and seizure.

In the end, even if a subject does not have physical possession, there is always the fine tradition of rendering the subject to an interrogation friendly jurisdiction.

I did not savage the article, I am presenting the limitations of its suggestions. It's all about informed choice.

If someone chooses to hide their money under the mattress, they shouldn't cry in the event of a fire. If someone chooses to use a bank, they shouldn't cry in the event of a run on the bank.