Veracrypt has something like this too! You can create a hidden volume with a separate password, so you can put some benign files in the main volume and hide your actual stuff in a second one with an alternate password.
I have a photo encrypter on my phone with this feature, LockMyPix. You can establish two vaults with their own passwords, or set up features like putting the password in backwards to go to a fake vault etc.
IMO, deniable something encryption is just not practical in real life. Authorites can make you life real hard, or just throw you straight into jail, just by suspecting you have encrypted materials.
The point is they don't have to proof if a piece of random data is indeed an encrypted blob.
Imagine you passing border security and got selected for search. They found a piece of data on your device with high entropy without known headers in the wrong place. You can claim you know nothing about it, yet they can speculate the heck out of you. In more civil nations, you might got on to a watch list. In a more authoritive nations, they can just detain you.
They don't have to prove you hiding something. The mere fact of you have that piece of high entroy data is a clue to them, and they have the power to make your life hard. Oh you said you deny them for a search? First congrats you still have a choice, and secondly that's also a clue to them.
For more info, read cryptsetup FAQ section 5.2 paragraph 3, 5.18, and 5.21. It is written by Milan BroĹž who is way more experienced than me on this matter.
That's why the second partition ( I'm case when you have 2 truly hidden and for the plausibility denial one ) should have some incriminating data as well like porn with lesser fines. It shouldn't be blank slate windows. I mean it should be believable to be "hidden" partition
You don't so it to protect you. You do it to protect others. Your encrypted content could be a list of sources for a journalist. Or email correspondents.
I can't help wondering what is up with all those people fighting in comments about encryption. You make the point time and again that having encrypted media is somehow suspicious. I see where you are coming from.
There are cases where people have gotten in trouble for using TOR/Signal, because it was presented to the court that "this is what criminals use".
There are those Wall Street companies that got in trouble for using encrypted messengers with trading partners.
We know about these, because it makes headlines when it happens.
Yet, there are people here, in any similar discussion, not just this one, that keep telling us that encryption is useless because authorities can more easily break your bones than brute force your private key, and you are going to be in trouble just for having encrypted media.
Is that so? Remember the fuss when federal regulators wanted Apple to install backdoors to encrypted i-Phones? Why so? No no, bear with me, if you people are correct, then every person with an encrypted i-Phone should be in a watchlist? What about all these Linux laptops all with LUKS on the main hard drive, flying around?
How come we don't hear about those people being prosecuted and brutalized every other day in all of these alternative media we are following?
Regarding encryption, I have a right to my fucking privacy and if you want to know what is in my hard drive, then you are the weird one. Now let's discuss criminal prosecution. If the authorities have something on you and they need whatever is in your encrypted drive to convict you, then they do not have anything on you unless they break the encryption. The more people practicing encryption the less fruitful their efforts will be. Your argument amounts to little more than the very authorities slogan "if you don't have something to hide". More people using encryption should make it sink that not only people with something to hide will use encryption, and indeed, all these everyday, non-criminal people are already using Encryption in i-Phones and Linux without having their bones broken.
Yet you keep repeating this rhetoric, which seems to have no other purpose than deter people from using encryption.
Now let's discuss brutality. If you live in a police state that can kidnap you and rough you up to forgo your protected right to privacy, then you don't have a problem with encryption, but a huge political problem. In that case encryption won't liberate you, but at the same time you have much bigger problems, and an entirely different threat model.
So the only thing you people could, in good faith, add to the discussion is "If you live in a police state, don't rely solely on encryption, and update your threat model". The other things you keep going on and on about are essentially a rebranded "if you don't have something to hide" and they only seem designed to discourage people from adopting encryption altogether, and the fact you don't let go can only mean one fucking thing.
I hate when open source projects don't want to include a screenshot of what the thing actually is.
Like I had to search far and wide to find a single screenshot of GrapheneOS to make sure it wasn't some out of date POS. (And yes they have zero pictures on their website to this day, nor any clear indication of what AOSP mainline version its built from (its currently 14)
A picture is worth a thousand words. If your README is 3000 words, add three pictures.