upvote
Yeah, so caveat emptor: the legal system isn't something you can hack like a computer...

But...

The issue at hand is the "locality" of the encryption header. He merely facilitated its deletion, not the data.

If he had a backup at home, is that still a felony?

What about if he had a backup on a flash drive with him?

What if he never had the header on the phone to begin with and used a detached header on a flash drive?

Are detached headers (a thing you can easily do with LUKS) now de-facto illegal?

This whole thing is making me feel rather uneasy about the bigger picture.

reply
See https://www.cbp.gov/document/directives/cbp-directive-no-334...

> The border search will include an examination of only the information that is resident upon the device and accessible through the device's operating system or through other software, tools, or applications. Officers may not intentionally use the device to access information that is solely stored remotely. To avoid retrieving or accessing information stored remotely and not otherwise present on the device, officers will either request that the traveler disable connectivity to any network ( e.g., by placing the device in airplane mode and disabling Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connections) or where warranted by national security, law enforcement, officer safety, or other operational considerations, officers will themselves disable network connectivity. Officers should also take care to ensure, throughout the course of a border search, that they do not take actions that would make any changes to the contents of the device.

and

> Passcodes or other means of access obtained during a border inspection will only be utilized to facilitate the inspection of devices and information subject to border search. Passcodes or other means of access may not be utilized to access information that is only stored remotely. Passcodes or other means of access should only be recorded by the officer in a temporary format and should not be uploaded into CBP systems. Passcodes or other means of access recorded by the officer will be deleted or destroyed when no longer needed to facilitate the search of a given device.

reply
I'm not sure what you're trying to say
reply
The existence of a key only being somewhere other than your current location during a border search enables you to legally say "I cannot unlock this device" and move on with your day.
reply
Well even today this guy could have just said 'I will not unlock this device' and they can seize it for some time, but they can't deny you entry. Which is pretty much the same scenario you created except the guy literally can't unlock it (but that doesn't actually matter here, he never _had_ to unlock it).
reply
> or maybe this functionality is available already

Basically already exists depending on specific trade offs and risk profile.

You already can encrypt your data and store the encryption key offsite. But then you couldn’t use your phone during travel, if you toss the key locally.

You can encrypt the data at rest and leave the decryption key in RAM and just turn off your phone. But they can still take the phone and copy the encrypted data, if they think they’ll get the key later.

My understanding is that this individual would t want the government to access the encrypted data either.

reply
I'm talking specifically about the graphene OS ability for that approach, not the ability to add an external key to some generalized encryption. The threat model here is that the traveler was required to provide a passcode unlocking a key they had with them on their phone. If that threat is not there, then this bypasses problem.
reply