On 12/10/14, Eleanor Saitta <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2014.12.10 13.56, Mike Hearn wrote: >> I would like to hear opinions on the value of deniability in OTR >> like protocols. >> >> From a privacy perspective the rationale is fairly clear. > > Has anyone ever seen a case where cryptographic deniability was > accepted by a judge? As far as I can tell, its legal value is a > fiction from the cryptographic community. >
Yes, I think so. The lack of signatures ensures that a text log is just that - a text file without cryptographic assurances. It is subject to tampering. If I recall correctly, this issue came up a bit in Anakata's recent trials. Furthermore, the inverse is accepted routinely - digital signature laws in some US states. Washington State in the United States seems to be an example. If you have a PGP signed email, I'd expect some binding laws to apply for statements made in the signed portion of the text. Without a signature, I don't it will fall under the same digital signature statutes. Repudiation and non-Repudiation are real properties that they have contextual value. All the best, Jacob _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
