why not zip the entire internet to 1MB so everyone can have a copy? because it is not possible - we don't know if it is possible. I mean we know it is impossible, but we don't know if it is possible to do it with acceptable quality loss.
It absolutely offers some legal protection. If it is implemented correctly, no legal framework for it is required. Government forces you to enter your password. You comply and enter "a" password. The device shows contents. You did what you were asked to do. If there is no way for the government to prove that you entered a decoy password that shows decoy contents, you are in the clear. Done correctly (in device and OPSEC) government can't prove you entered your decoy password so you can't be held in contempt. And that is the entire point. It is not like asking the government to give your "plausible deniability" rights. It is about not potentially incriminating yourself against people that abuse the system to force you to incriminate yourself.
> You comply and enter "a" password. The device shows contents. You did what you were asked to do.
No, you did something fake to avoid doing what you were asked to do.
> If there is no way for the government to prove that you entered a decoy password that shows decoy contents, you are in the clear.
But there are very effective ways to find hidden encrypted volumes on devices. And then you’ll be asked to decrypt those too, and then what?
This sort of thing is already table stakes for CSAM prosecutions, for example. Law enforcement can read the same blog posts and know as much about technology as you do. Especially if we are hypothesizing an advertised feature of a commercial OS!
>No, you did something fake to avoid doing what you were asked to do.
Yes, that is what plausible deniability is.
>But there are very effective ways to find hidden encrypted volumes on devices. And then you’ll be asked to decrypt those too, and then what?
I emphasized "done right". If existence of hidden encryption can be proven, then you don't have plausible deniability. Something has gone wrong.
My point was: OP claimed plausible deniability does not apply in legal cases which is a weird take. If you can have plausible deniability, then it can save you legally. This does not only apply to tech of course, but encryption was the subject here. In all cases though, if your situation is not "plausible" (due to broken tech, backdoors, poor OPSEC in tech, and / or damning other evidence in other cases as well) then you don't have plauisble deniability by definition.
Having ways of definitively detecting hidden encrypted volumes might be the norm today, might be impossible tomorrow. Then you will have plausible deniability and it will work legally as far as that piece of "evidence" is concerned.
Kind of that. I'm not USA based. In my country you can do it through gov. insurance which is a lot of bureaucracy that I can't handle. Will go through the private route (fast) and pay out of nose. This to help my anxious mind and learn through the experiences of others.
Private court system? How does it work? Regular court system works because the government has the threat of violence, has the muscle and rights to hunt, capture and detain. if "private court" rules against me and I refuse to obey, how will they make me obey? There is no "or else" embedded in it so it will be useless.
its a cryptocurrency, the courts legitimacy would likely come from the community forking as necessary to resolve issues as identified by the court, in the same way the us judicial branch gets its legitimacy from the us executive branch employing force as necessary to resolve issues as identified by that court.
its a broader group to convince, sure, but there is a clear 'or else' from which the court can get that legitimacy. 'return the money or else we will return it for you' is a meaningful or else
The first step is data minimization. The second step is informed and revokable consent. Everything else follows from there.
Do targeted ads increase the amount of personal data that needs to be stored and processed and the number of entities that will access it? Yes they do. Are they required for the site to serve its stated purpose? No, unless the site is marketing itself as literally a curated stream of targeted ads. So they require informed and revokable consent (i.e. opt-in). Even if you think they're beneficial to the user.
It's not about what's beneficial. It's about what's required. That's why most sites try to group services by categories like "functional", "analytics", etc. If you want to embed a Google Maps view to help people find your physical store, that's beneficial but still requires consent because it shares their data with a third party (i.e. Google) when the browser loads that map. Of course in this case you don't even need a banner, you could just have a placeholder (often called "content blocker") instead of the map with the option to consent to loading the map and storing that decision so the user doesn't have to see the placeholder again.
I don't understand this. Copyright law does not prevent people from sharing their information freely. It gives the option for "rent seekers" to do their thing. Enforcing your rights for return is optional for people that don't want to do it. I'm not talking about right-to-repair here, but the idea of copyright in general.
A lot of information is generated by taking some financial risk with the hopes of creating something of value and recouping that investment + some profit. Copyright makes that kind of venture possible. It doesn't prevent altruistic souls from putting in the same effort without any expectation of return. We always had this, by default. Copyright framework allows pursuit, generation and dissemination of huge swaths of valuable information that would otherwise not exist.
the point is, if your economic model cannot survive / adapt to the environment it is living in, is it viable? Cuba froze itself in time decades ago, is it just the embargoes? Why do they need capitalist trade to go a single step forward?
It’s the combination of the Castro family leeching off everything that they can plus the Floridians who are still salty about losing their rum factories etc who force the embargo - so it’s both being blocked by a major superpower and having an utterly corrupt government
