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).
alt Hacker News
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).