For anyone following along who also never heard of "the anakata case", this is the trial of Per Gottfrid Svartholm Warg for hacking Danish government databases:
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-guilty-of-hacking-sentenced-to-two-years-in-prison-130620/ He was found guilty for two years. Part of the evidence was chat logs showing him chatting with an accomplice. Presumably he tried to claim the logs were forged: *The Court said that it had found the prosecution’s case against Gottfrid and his accomplice convincing, since among other things it ruled out the possibility that a third party could have carried out the hacking from the defendants’ computers.* *The Court also noted that chat conversations between the defendants showed that in addition to being the perpetrators of the hacking offenses, they also acted in concert.* *As a result, Gottfrid was found guilty of hacking, aggravated fraud and attempted aggravated fraud, and sentenced to two years in prison. His 36-year-old accomplice was sentenced to probation.* I think I agree with Eleanor that the costs of real deniability seem to radically outweigh the benefits, as anything that doesn't involve a simple on-screen editor for chat logs probably wouldn't be convincing, and that seems like a lot of effort and UI complexity. Moreover, I'm struggling to find a use case for this that doesn't involve someone lying in court. If I'm in a two-party chat, and we have strong privacy, then I'd probably prefer to have strong evidence (on my local device only) that what was said, was said. It seems like it can only help me because: - .... if I'm saying "hey dude, let's engage in conspiracy against the government!" and I'm talking to a double agent, that guy can probably convince me to do something that isn't deniable i.e. in the real world before closing the net. So it's hardly enough, to be a dissident. - .... if I'm an ordinary every day guy who is talking to someone, they accuse me of something and the text message evidence supports my case, I very much want it to be undeniable. - .... I don't want to ask every chat participant to activate some special signing mode before they chat to me. This would be interpreted as saying "I don't trust you". Of course people only usually want undeniable chat logs after it turns out their trust was misplaced. I'd much prefer to use a chat network where the social default was undeniability. You never know when you might turn out to be the poor guy in the newspaper article. W.R.T being quoted out of context, that happens with private speech conversations all the time and hardly anyone ever says "I didn't say that", they say "I'm being quoted out of context, here's the full conversation". Are there other use cases I've overlooked?
_______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
