"Robert J. Hansen" <r...@sixdemonbag.org> writes: > However, the fact you had a counterforensic tool, *by itself*, would > probably not rise to the level of something that would be admissible at > trial -- the same way that, if I was charged with stabbing someone to > death, the fact I own a shotgun would be inadmissible. There would need to > be evidence of it being used unlawfully, like for instance, evidence > spoilation.
Wasn't there that case where the fact that someone (a now convicted child molester nonetheless, but let's ignore that fact) had some OpenPGP implementation on their computer was admitted into a US court and appeals didn't overturn that admission? Anyway, we're getting off-topic. We've already determined that using a deniable system might be a bad idea. The thought experiment continues... -- PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
pgpE9uomeXWOi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
