Message-Id: <199604100152.DAA25396@spoof.bart.nl> To: cypherpunks@toad.com From: anonymous@nowhere.goucher.edu (Senator Exon) Comments: Please report misuse of this automated remailing service to <remailer-admin@remailer.nl.com>
Oooh... forged headers... forged to indicate they're coming from _my_ school. I wonder who _this_ could be... perhaps someone who has expressed anger at me on the list? Perhaps just a random choice? Perhaps me? (Not me, that I'll tell you...)
Borrowing inspiration from May, a page from Scheier and some code from Gutman...
Techniques from Detweiller, and lousy law from Jim Bell (I _wonder_ who might have posted this... :-) )
Hard disk space being cheap now, Bob creates several distinct disk partitions and uses Peter Gutman's Secure File System, or equivalent, to encrypt all of them. [ ... ] Practically, Bob cannot be forced to reveal the pass phrases to any alleged remaining secret data, since this might not exist. To further encourage this belief Bob might associate innocous data with a first pass phrase, mildly embarrasing data with a second, and so on, and then, after revealing the first, gradually allow himself to be be coaxed into revealing the second and disclose a third only after the rubber hoses came out.
Since all of the partitions have similar content, no statistic should reveal which is which. Bob might have a bit refresher routine periodically nibble read and rewrite the whole disk so that no electronic characteristic exists that reveals record age.
Sure, this will effectively hide the data; so will a plain old encrypted partition...
No doubt, a judge might whimsically keep Bob in jail for a while, trying to assure that he has revealed all of the pass phrases, but the judge can never be certain, even when Bob has disclosed everything. This situation creates doubt that Bob is in contempt, even when he is, and makes a prison term relatively pointless, unless for revenge.
But that's what a contempt charge is _for_: "You're not treating me with respect, so I'm going to punish you." It might be described as being for a particular reason (ie supressing evidence), but each of those reasons ultimately boils down to lack of respect. In addition, were I handing down (or prosecuting) the contempt charges, I'd claim that the statement (even if it was made in public) that the individual didn't know all the keys in the first place was a lie, and that, by repeating the lie, they were purjuring themself. I am not a lawyer; however, I suspect that neither was the anonymous poster. In fact, I think I have a pretty good idea of who it was: someone on the list who: (1) Has recently been claiming that contempt charges were worthless, and that people should start ISPs, and pool money for insurance. (2) Has (probably) used this technique (at least once) before to create the appearances of support for one of his/her ideas which really has no support. (3) Might _possibly_ be upset with me (due to the headers...) I can't think of _anyone_ who meets THAT description, now can I? ;-) Jon ---------- Jon Lasser (410)494-3072 - Obscenity is a crutch for jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu inarticulate motherfuckers. http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D) - Fuck the CDA.