There literally are not. Anyone competent enough to be an expert witness will be able to plainly explain to everyone else how statistical analysis obviously delinates the difference between truly random noise and an encrypted volume.

▲

monocasa 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If there's a difference visible, that's a weakness in the encryption algorithm.

Encrypted data should be statistically indistinct from random noise.

It's an information theory thing. Everything in the ciphertext should be sitting at maximum entropy.

▲

pixl97 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Loll, you have a lot of faith in the legal system that I do not. Expert witnesses are commonly full of shit.

	▲	giancarlostoro 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I heard one argue that "zooming" on an image by adding pixels with an algorithm is normal, and he's had such "evidence" used in court before. I was a little horrified as someone who has worked on digital forensic software at a former employer. Adding pixels to an image is not evidence, you're fabricating something out of thin air, especially if its drastically smaller, its even more likely to be BS.

▲

fhdkweig 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even if that is true, I have better things to do with my time and money than pay a expert witness to explain: see, I wasn't breaking the law, I just wanted the cops to think I did. That just seems like a really bad idea.

▲

ThePowerOfFuet 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the difference between truly random noise and an encrypted volume

A LUKS volume with a detached header is indistinguishable from random data.