Joseph Oreste Bruni wrote the following on 8/12/09 10:46 PM:
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11556
>
> Not entirely on topic, but for those using GnuPG (or other encryption
> software), you should always keep abreast of the encryption laws of
> your country.
>
"Protect Your Laptop Data F
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Mearns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Joseph Oreste Bruni wrote:
> [clip]
>> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11556
>>
>> Not entirely on topic, but for those using GnuPG (or other encryption
>> software), you should always keep abre
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:40 AM, the dragon wrote:
>
> oops, didn't reply all...
>
> And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins refusing
> to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their privacy -
> they are child molestors and wanna-be terrorists.
>
> encr
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Joseph Oreste Bruni wrote:
[clip]
> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11556
>
> Not entirely on topic, but for those using GnuPG (or other encryption
> software), you should always keep abreast of the encryption laws of your
> country.
[clip]
Has everyone seen the
the dragon wrote:
> And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins
> refusing to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their
> privacy - they are child molestors and wanna-be terrorists.
If I read the news report at that link, I see the following:
> The form
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:40 PM, the dragon wrote:
> encrytion is about maintaining personal and data privacy; it's not about
> having a tool to break the law.
Reminds me of when some in the US was talking of Law Enforcement
Access Keys being incorporated into cryptographic products.
In Austral
the dragon wrote:
[...]
> encrytion is about maintaining personal and data privacy; it's not about
> having a tool to break the law.
If the encryption is strong and used correctly (with all the non-technical
elements that implies) how would you tell the difference?
-Chris
signature.asc
Descr
One might point out that TrueCrypt offers astounding
capabilities for hiding data, which the margin of
this note is too small to contain.
http://www.truecrypt.org/
http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
michael GRIFFITHS escribió:
> This is what the uk law has to say on the matter (see below) so I
> interpret it as this. You may not be guilty but if you don't give them
> the info they require in the format they require you are then guilty of
> that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
the dragon escribió:
> If you're in control of the computer the files reside on, and were in
> control of it when the files were created and last accessed, the chances
> that you *don't* know the key for the encryption is so slim as to be
> nonexista
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
the dragon escribió:
> oops, didn't reply all...
>
> And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins refusing
> to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their privacy -
> they are child molestors and wanna-be t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2009-08-13, David SMITH wrote:
>
/SNIP**/
>>
>> Not forgetting the possibility of malicious intentions - trying to frame
>> someone by putting encrypted data onto someone's computer and tipping
>> off the authorit
On 2009-08-13, David SMITH wrote:
> So the people who come on gnupg-users asking for help because they've
> forgotten their passphrase or accidentally deleted their ~/.gnupg
> directory don't exist?
>
> I guess that's a new way of replying to them: "You don't exist".
>
> Not forgetting the possibi
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 01:09:34PM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> Scuze me? I thought this was the gnupg list! I'm sorta new at this stuff but
> I'm expecting just a bit more expertise from the people contributing to this
> conversation.
I think the point is that they were done under RIP and you c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/13/09 09:41, quoth the dragon:
> If you're in control of the computer the files reside on, and were in
> control of it when the files were created and last accessed, the chances
> that you *don't* know the key for the encryption is so slim as to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Hi,
> Reference:
>> From:the dragon
>
>> And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins refusing
>> to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their privacy -
>> they a
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 02:44:44PM +0100, Iain Rae wrote:
> >The RIPA is a particularly nasty piece of legislation in this respect.
> >
> I've often wondered what the situation would be if you'd set your
> password to
> "go and F**k yourself"
> and were then required to provide it under the RIP
On Aug 13, 2009, at 9:53 AM, michael GRIFFITHS wrote:
So who is on with the plausible deniability project for gpg?
I have to admit the thought of not being able to prove my innocence
doesn't sound like a good prospect. Innocent until proven guilty just
isnt an option anymore
While I believe P
David SMITH wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 06:59:55AM -0400, Charly Avital wrote:
Faramir wrote the following on 8/13/09 3:32 AM:
Unfortunately, it is not unusual people forgets the passphrases used
to protect files, or secret keys...
"Two people have been successfully prosecu
t: 13 August 2009 15:39
To: the dragon
Cc: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Subject: Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data
Hi,
Reference:
> From: the dragon
> And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins
refusing to divulge data, or even regular peopl
God wants them to do because I
notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:25:25 -0400
> From: d...@fifthhorseman.net
> To: ce...@hotmail.com
> CC: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Subject: Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refus
Hi,
Reference:
> From: the dragon
> And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins refusing
> to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their privacy -
> they are child molestors and wanna-be terrorists.
Bollocks, To be charged is not necessarily to
On 08/13/2009 08:40 AM, the dragon wrote:
> And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins refusing
> to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their privacy -
> they are child molestors and wanna-be terrorists.
Some of them may molest children and some may wa
@gnupg.org
Subject: Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 06:59:55AM -0400, Charly Avital wrote:
> Faramir wrote the following on 8/13/09 3:32 AM:
> > Unfortunately, it is not unusual people forgets the passphrases
> > used to protect files, or
David SMITH
Sent: 13 August 2009 14:50
To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Subject: Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 08:41:37AM -0500, the dragon wrote:
> If you're in control of the computer the files reside on, and were in
> control of it when the fi
the dragon wrote:
> If you're in control of the computer the files reside on, and were in
> control of it when the files were created and last accessed, the chances
> that you *don't* know the key for the encryption is so slim as to be
> nonexistant.
Apparently I don't exist, then. I have files w
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 08:41:37AM -0500, the dragon wrote:
> If you're in control of the computer the files reside on, and were
> in control of it when the files were created and last accessed, the
> chances that you *don't* know the key for the encryption is so slim
> as to be nonexistant.
So th
+0100
> From: dave.sm...@st.com
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Subject: Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 06:59:55AM -0400, Charly Avital wrote:
> > Faramir wrote the following on 8/13/09 3:32 AM:
> > > Unfortunately, it is no
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 06:59:55AM -0400, Charly Avital wrote:
> Faramir wrote the following on 8/13/09 3:32 AM:
> > Unfortunately, it is not unusual people forgets the passphrases used
> > to protect files, or secret keys...
>
> "Two people have been successfully prosecuted for *refusing* to pr
th their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony
> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:59:55 -0400
> From: shavi...@mac.com
> Subject: Re: Two convicted in U.K. for refusal to decrypt data
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
>
> Faramir wrote the following o
Faramir wrote the following on 8/13/09 3:32 AM:
[...]
> Unfortunately, it is not unusual people forgets the passphrases used
> to protect files, or secret keys...
>
> Best Regards
"Two people have been successfully prosecuted for *refusing* to provide
U.K..."
Charly
__
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Joseph Oreste Bruni escribió:
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11556
>
> Not entirely on topic, but for those using GnuPG (or other encryption
> software), you should always keep abreast of the encryption laws of your
> country.
Unfortunate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11556
Not entirely on topic, but for those using GnuPG (or other encryption
software), you should always keep abreast of the encryption laws of
your country.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4
33 matches
Mail list logo
