> Better just to buy a bunch of USB sticks, wipe 'em all with random noise, use a couple for mundane files, and use a couple for sensitive files — deniably encrypted so as to look like random noise. Then, you can plausibly deny that they contain any sensitive files.
You're creating a situation where you have a set of encrypted and non-encrypted devices that are indistinguishable, and expecting the police to let you off. But there's nothing stopping someone with only encrypted devices to claim the same thing. I'd be worried that approach would fail either by 1) the police calling your bluff, or 2) indefinitely holding you in jail for contempt of court until you decrypt a drive that has un-decryptable random data.
An unreasonable adversary, such as a terrorist group or something, could plausibly do that. But the legal system has things like the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of guilt. If the court finds encryption headers on your disk, they've got evidence beyond reasonable doubt that there's encrypted data on it. If there's only noise, it's totally plausible that it's just a spare usb stick, especially if you consistently wipe your unused disks and don't just have one conspicuous disk full of noise.
Yeah, that's my point. A proper plausibly-deniable system will be indistinguishable from a disk which has been wiped, to the point that no court can reasonably accuse you of hiding files on it.
You're creating a situation where you have a set of encrypted and non-encrypted devices that are indistinguishable, and expecting the police to let you off. But there's nothing stopping someone with only encrypted devices to claim the same thing. I'd be worried that approach would fail either by 1) the police calling your bluff, or 2) indefinitely holding you in jail for contempt of court until you decrypt a drive that has un-decryptable random data.