David Shaw wrote: > I suspect things would go rather like this: > http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptogra...@metzdowd.com/msg10391.html
Perry is an optimist. It's considerably worse than he makes it out to be. Judges are not idiots. They are very well-trained and have a great deal of experience at the discovery of truth through Socratic and/or adversarial questioning. They are also rather dispassionate, which stems from the tremendous amount of human evil they come into contact with on a regular basis. Juries, on the other hand... In the American system (and many other systems borrowing from the British Common Law tradition), the judge is the arbiter of law, but the jury is the arbiter of fact. If the judge has any doubt as to whether there's an encrypted volume on the drive, the judge is probably not going to bother putting the accused in jail on a contempt charge. The judge is going to say, "the existence or nonexistence of material on that drive is a question of fact for the jury to sort out." And once the judge says that, you're rolling the dice with twelve plain, average, human beings -- which is to say, most of them will be technologically illiterate with little or no college education or grasp of formal reasoning. If you look at those twelve men and women and start to explain about deniable systems and perfect forward secrecy and every other crypto innovation you've thought of to keep you out of trouble, the jury won't understand a word of it. Not a word. They _will_, however, understand that you're blowing smoke up their ass. This is a mistake you will only ever get to make once. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
