Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

the dragon wrote: [...] > encrytion is about maintaining personal and data privacy; it's not about > having a tool to break the law. If the encryption is strong and used correctly (with all the non-technical elements that implies) how would you tell the difference? -Chris signature.asc Descr

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

One might point out that TrueCrypt offers astounding capabilities for hiding data, which the margin of this note is too small to contain. http://www.truecrypt.org/ http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability --dan ___ Gnupg-users mailing l

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 michael GRIFFITHS escribió: > This is what the uk law has to say on the matter (see below) so I > interpret it as this. You may not be guilty but if you don't give them > the info they require in the format they require you are then guilty of > that

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 the dragon escribió: > If you're in control of the computer the files reside on, and were in > control of it when the files were created and last accessed, the chances > that you *don't* know the key for the encryption is so slim as to be > nonexista

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 the dragon escribió: > oops, didn't reply all... > > And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins refusing > to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their privacy - > they are child molestors and wanna-be t

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Adam Funk wrote: > On 2009-08-13, David SMITH wrote: > /SNIP**/ >> >> Not forgetting the possibility of malicious intentions - trying to frame >> someone by putting encrypted data onto someone's computer and tipping >> off the authorit

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

On 2009-08-13, David SMITH wrote: > So the people who come on gnupg-users asking for help because they've > forgotten their passphrase or accidentally deleted their ~/.gnupg > directory don't exist? > > I guess that's a new way of replying to them: "You don't exist". > > Not forgetting the possibi

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 01:09:34PM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote: > Scuze me? I thought this was the gnupg list! I'm sorta new at this stuff but > I'm expecting just a bit more expertise from the people contributing to this > conversation. I think the point is that they were done under RIP and you c

Re: Changes in 1.4.10

Werner Koch wrote the following on 8/13/09 10:44 AM: > Noteworthy changes in version 1.4.10 (unreleased) > - Version info: gnupg 1.4.10rc1 Configured for: Darwin (i386-apple-darwin9.8.0) > > * 2048 bit RSA keys are now generated by default.

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/13/09 09:41, quoth the dragon: > If you're in control of the computer the files reside on, and were in > control of it when the files were created and last accessed, the chances > that you *don't* know the key for the encryption is so slim as to

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Hi, > Reference: >> From:the dragon > >> And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins refusing >> to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their privacy - >> they a

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 02:44:44PM +0100, Iain Rae wrote: > >The RIPA is a particularly nasty piece of legislation in this respect. > > > I've often wondered what the situation would be if you'd set your > password to > "go and F**k yourself" > and were then required to provide it under the RIP

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

On Aug 13, 2009, at 9:53 AM, michael GRIFFITHS wrote: So who is on with the plausible deniability project for gpg? I have to admit the thought of not being able to prove my innocence doesn't sound like a good prospect. Innocent until proven guilty just isnt an option anymore While I believe P

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

David SMITH wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 06:59:55AM -0400, Charly Avital wrote: Faramir wrote the following on 8/13/09 3:32 AM: Unfortunately, it is not unusual people forgets the passphrases used to protect files, or secret keys... "Two people have been successfully prosecu

Changes in 1.4.10 (was: 1.4.10 release candidate)

Noteworthy changes in version 1.4.10 (unreleased) - * 2048 bit RSA keys are now generated by default. The default hash algorithm preferences has changed to prefer SHA-256 over SHA-1. 2048 bit DSA keys are now generated to use a 256

RE: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

This is what the uk law has to say on the matter (see below) so I interpret it as this. You may not be guilty but if you don't give them the info they require in the format they require you are then guilty of that law. 3.1 Part III provides a statutory framework that enables public authorities to

1.4.10 release candidate

Hi, I just uploaded a release candidate for GnuPG 1.4.10: ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/alpha/gnupg/gnupg-1.4.10rc1.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/alpha/gnupg/gnupg-1.4.10rc1.tar.bz2.sig Since the release of 1.4.9 back in March 2008 we did quite some changes. It would be good if you can giv

RE: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

Yes, conspiracy to commit terrorism, or assisting terrorist organizations are federal felony crimes in the US. PSA: Salary <> Slavery. If you earn a salary, your employer is renting your services for 40 hours a week, not purchasing your soul. Your time is the only real finite asset that you ha

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

Hi, Reference: > From: the dragon > And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins refusing > to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their privacy - > they are child molestors and wanna-be terrorists. Bollocks, To be charged is not necessarily to

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

On 08/13/2009 08:40 AM, the dragon wrote: > And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins refusing > to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their privacy - > they are child molestors and wanna-be terrorists. Some of them may molest children and some may wa

RE: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

Yes, and I'm sure that the government's (in any country) will word these cases in there own favour and make anyone who uses this technology look like the bad guys Michael Griffiths -

RE: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

So who is on with the plausible deniability project for gpg? I have to admit the thought of not being able to prove my innocence doesn't sound like a good prospect. Innocent until proven guilty just isnt an option anymore _

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

the dragon wrote: > If you're in control of the computer the files reside on, and were in > control of it when the files were created and last accessed, the chances > that you *don't* know the key for the encryption is so slim as to be > nonexistant. Apparently I don't exist, then. I have files w

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 08:41:37AM -0500, the dragon wrote: > If you're in control of the computer the files reside on, and were > in control of it when the files were created and last accessed, the > chances that you *don't* know the key for the encryption is so slim > as to be nonexistant. So th

RE: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

If you're in control of the computer the files reside on, and were in control of it when the files were created and last accessed, the chances that you *don't* know the key for the encryption is so slim as to be nonexistant. peace, clark PSA: Salary <> Slavery. If you earn a salary, your e

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 06:59:55AM -0400, Charly Avital wrote: > Faramir wrote the following on 8/13/09 3:32 AM: > > Unfortunately, it is not unusual people forgets the passphrases used > > to protect files, or secret keys... > > "Two people have been successfully prosecuted for *refusing* to pr

RE: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

oops, didn't reply all... And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins refusing to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their privacy - they are child molestors and wanna-be terrorists. encrytion is about maintaining personal and data privacy; it's not

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

Faramir wrote the following on 8/13/09 3:32 AM: [...] > Unfortunately, it is not unusual people forgets the passphrases used > to protect files, or secret keys... > > Best Regards "Two people have been successfully prosecuted for *refusing* to provide U.K..." Charly __

[Announce] Gpg4win 2.0.0 has been released

Hi! Building and installing GnuPG on the Microsoft Windows platform is more complicated than doing this on a Unix platform. To help users we are providing binary versions of GnuPG as part of the Gpg4win project. Thus if you need GnuPG on Microsoft Windows, we suggest to use the Gpg4win installer

Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Joseph Oreste Bruni escribió: > > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11556 > > Not entirely on topic, but for those using GnuPG (or other encryption > software), you should always keep abreast of the encryption laws of your > country. Unfortunate