Yes, deniable encryption is one way to go about since it cannot be proved that the key surrendered is not the real key. This however is not useful when one is in a torture cell where they try to break into the mind :-). Sarad. --- Tyler Durden <camera_lumina@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let us not forget all of the methods of "deniable encryption" discussed a few years back. If the "wrong" key is entered, the returned "de-encrypted" file will look -kinda- bad but not actually be the original plaintext.
This seems all the easier with TOR-stored data.
Fortunately, it would appear that such a law should be bound to force development of deniable encryption tools.
-TD
From: Sarad AV <jtrjtrjtr2001@yahoo.com> To: cypherpunks@jfet.org Subject: Re: [Clips] UK Government to force handover of encryption keys Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
This clearly doesnt work. All they will manage to do is harass citizens.
Sarad.
--- "R.A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com> wrote:
"It is, as ever, almost impossible to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that some random-looking data is in fact ciphertext, and then prove that the accused actually has the key for it, and that he has refused a proper order to divulge it," pointed out encryption expert Peter Fairbrother on ukcrypto, a public email discussion list.
Clayton backed up this point. "The police can say 'We think he's a terrorist' or 'We think he's trading in kiddie porn', and the suspect can say, 'No, they're love letters, sorry, I've lost the key'. How much evidence do you need [to convict]? If you can't decrypt [the data], then by definition you don't know what it is," said Clayton.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com