"Robert J. Hansen" <r...@sixdemonbag.org> wrote: > Not even then. "Plausible deniability" is a myth, an ephemera. One > person may believe your denials; another may not. Whether they > believe you will have much more to do with how honest you've been the > rest of the time than with the particulars of cryptography you're > using. The jury isn't going to be technically skilled. Rather than > evaluate technology in a dry and strictly logical sense, they're > going to look at your performance on the witness stand and, from > that, decide whether to believe your denials.
An example is a bomb threat sent via anonymous remailer. Lacking other information or evidence (such as hacked computer, hidden camara, etc), a reasonable doubt would exist to a jury. Plausible deniability is still something to shoot for, because in the WORST case, it is plausible/possible/likely you sent the message, and in the best and average case, you have complete anonymity. Where as if you use a medium without plausible deniability property, the WORST/AVERAGE case is near certainty, and BEST case is likely. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
