Destroying evidence (was "About 5yr. log retention")

[Sean R. Lynch]

On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 07:46:16PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Sean R. Lynch wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 07:19:13AM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> > [...]
> > > It's possession of the private keys that will roast your goose.
> > 
> > Fortunately the public key can be stored using steganography, or on some
> > medium that can be physically destroyed, or whatever.
> 
> That sort of destroys the 'public' part of that doesn't it? This takes us
> into the "if you've got a channel to send the code on how to decode the
> public key, why not send the public key privately? And if the channel is
> safe enough to send the key privately why not send the message itself?
> 
> There is also the point that if there is a public key and you claim it
> valid then by assumption you're also claiming there is a private key.

Eek.  Sorry.  I meant the private key could be stored steganographically.
And the public key need only be attached to your nym.  Now the trick is not
leaving anything around that might be used to link you to your nym.

-- 
Sean R. Lynch KG6CVV <seanl at literati.org> http://www.literati.org/users/seanl/
Key fingerprint = 540F 19F2 C416 847F 4832  B346 9AF3 E455 6E73 B691
GPG/PGP encrypted/signed email preferred. 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks-legacy/attachments/20001207/beb576ec/attachment.sig>