In fairness, an adversarial challenge can be useful in pointing out weaknesses (and possible mitigations) to a particular technical approach.
It's not clear that all of those objections are substantive or insurmountable.
"The USB port may have died" might be one possible response. (Not technically a lie, and hence defensible in court.) Or just silence.
Alternatively, some way of directing such probes to the decoy partition and presenting a sufficiently coherent impression of a valid partition might be another approach.
Much of this comes down to risks presented and costs of mitigation (or of getting mitigations wrong).
>"The USB port may have died" might be one possible response. (Not technically a lie, and hence defensible in court.) Or just silence.
That's about as convincing as "wow this phone just decided to experience catastrophic hardware failure after entering your totally-not-duress pin". Not to mention there's wireless adb.
>Alternatively, some way of directing such probes to the decoy partition and presenting a sufficiently coherent impression of a valid partition might be another approach.
That won't work because they'd notice the adb logs don't correspond to actions taken on the actual phone.
>Much of this comes down to risks presented and costs of mitigation (or of getting mitigations wrong).
Right, which is why grapheneos didn't bother implementing it, because it's a huge effort and it's not worth giving users a false sense of security (eg. thinking that the decoy works when it doesn't), and them getting sent to prison for it.
You seem to be assuming a perfect adversary who is infinitely technically capable? That seems... unlikely?
And why would wireless ADB be enabled? Disable it.
And why would any of this get you sent to prison? If my phone not having wireless ADB or a working USB port, or some set of partitions has become a thing I can go to prison for, then this is totalitarianism and we have already lost by existing?
Once again, you don't seem very interested in opposing this kind of tyranny?
