Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

On 8/18/2014 9:32 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote: > There are quite a few ways police and prosecutors can coerce a > suspect to hand over his encryption key(s). Your examples which involve coercion are illegal, and the ones that are legal do not involve coercion. > Dangling the prospect of a lighter sen

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 04:42:52PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > > Unfortunately most of us do. Including the US, UK and the Dutch are > > aklso pushing for such laws. > > Speaking only for the U.S., this is not the case. Dream on. > The United States Constitution protects an individual's ri

Re: It's time for PGP to die

>> Once a crisp and nicely implementable asynchronous protocol with forward >> secrecy comes up, however, we should have it implemented >> immediately.(The synchronous ones are easy, of course.) >Whispersystems has done a good job with Textsecure as ar as I read the >opinions about it. In practi

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

On 18-08-2014 20:11, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Err -- *what* right to remain silent? No country has a universal right > to remain silent. If you're a witness to a crime, you can be compelled > to testify about what you see. Yes, unfortunately. > If you're in possession of documents > that are

Re: It's time for PGP to die.

> At least for US persons, iirc the protection doesn't extend beyond > that? No, the Fourth Amendment protects all people within U.S. borders equally. Americans get no special protections over visitors to the country. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnup

Re: It's time for PGP to die.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 08/18/2014 09:03 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> The article also mentions the issue of inspections at border >> crossings which are not criminal investigations. > > A U.S. appellate court recently ruled that inspections of laptop > contents at b

Re: It's time for PGP to die.

> The article also mentions the issue of inspections at border crossings > which are not criminal investigations. A U.S. appellate court recently ruled that inspections of laptop contents at border crossings violated the Fourth Amendment. It's currently being appealed, but so far the tea leaves a

Re: It's time for PGP to die.

> Something better needs to live. That's the opposite of what he is > saying. What a negative Nancy. (Long anecdote, but I promise, it's relevant.) = I live maybe ten miles away from the world's largest firearms museum. When I first moved to this area a couple of years ago I figured I'd take

Re: It's time for PGP to die.

On Aug 18, 2014, at 7:13 AM, Jerry wrote: > The entire article is available here: > As the article says, the question of whether the 5th Amendment applies to passphrases remains unclear. There have been conflict

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

> Well, I see some ridiculous sentences of US judges published here, > but I realize that only the most stupid ones reach the press here. > However, since US law has something called "subphoena", which I > consider a grave violation of the right to remain silent, I have not > much trust in US l

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

On 18/08/14 16:15, Aaron Toponce wrote: > Also, many big mail vendors have already enabled SSL/TLS/STARTTLS, such as > Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. Unfortunately, so long as TLS is not demanded, a downgrade attack can easily disable it. My 2c Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in c

Re: It's time for PGP to die.

On 17/08/14 23:14, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > But let's be real careful about thinking we are in any way better > than other people. We're not. I completely agree with that statement but never read any disrespect in the mail you are replying to. It /can/ be read that way, I agree. So it might be g

(OT) It's time for PGP to die.

On 18/08/14 19:28, Johan Wevers wrote: > And then they became "witnesses" and had to testify. Considering what > could happen to them if they talked they suddenly all had amnesia... Classic prisoners dillemma! You know, they should arrest a whole lot of these groups, and in a controlled setting tr

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

On 18-08-2014 14:31, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> And who determines wether it has any "testimonial value"? > Johan, we're entering paranoid fantasy here. If you truly believe the > whole of the USG is corrupt, Well, I see some ridiculous sentences of US judges published here, but I realize that

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

On 18-08-2014 11:04, Rob Ambidge wrote: > But it is just legal theory, and I am no expert in law, american law, or > even cryptography. So what happens in practice is anyone's guess really. I've seen what happens in practice: some group of people was accused of organized growing of hennep. They a

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:24:43PM -0400, Mark H. Wood wrote: > Sure, it does encrypt mail. My SMTP has mail from me to deliver. It > contacts an SMTP that it thinks can get the mail closer to its > addressee. My SMTP sends STARTTLS, the receiving SMTP agrees, they > handshake, and the rest of t

Re: It's time for PGP to die.

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:41:27AM +0100, da...@gbenet.com wrote: > Time to die? Well after 20 years I think it is all very academic - professors > sit in class > rooms the world over - not much common sense comes out of their mouths. The > real issues are: > > (a) do we want to implement our ow

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 08:15:49AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 09:59:33AM -0400, Mark H. Wood wrote: > > Perhaps it would be a start if sites providing SMTP would turn on > > STARTTLS. > > STARTTLS does not encrypt mail. It only provides safe passage over the > network.

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 09:59:33AM -0400, Mark H. Wood wrote: > Perhaps it would be a start if sites providing SMTP would turn on > STARTTLS. STARTTLS does not encrypt mail. It only provides safe passage over the network. It is also client/server encrypted and decrypted. Thus, an administrator wit

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:41:52AM +0100, Nicholas Cole wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Robert J. Hansen > wrote: [snip] > > OpenPGP's biggest problem, BTW, which goes *completely unmentioned* in > > this blogpost: OpenPGP can't protect your metadata, and that turns out > > to often be

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

Am 18.08.2014 um 14:31 schrieb Robert J. Hansen: > On 8/18/2014 2:01 AM, Johan Wevers wrote: >> And who determines wether it has any "testimonial value"? > > Johan, we're entering paranoid fantasy here. If you truly believe the > whole of the USG is corrupt, and that our independent judiciary is

Re: It's time for PGP to die.

Much of the discussion has been about what analogy comes closest. Prosecutors tend to view PGP passphrases as akin to someone possessing a key to a safe filled with incriminating documents. s/Prosecutors/Judges Nobody really cares what prosecutors view it as: the question is what they can get

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

On 8/18/2014 2:01 AM, Johan Wevers wrote: > And who determines wether it has any "testimonial value"? Johan, we're entering paranoid fantasy here. If you truly believe the whole of the USG is corrupt, and that our independent judiciary is in cahoots with a corrupt Executive and Legislature in ord

Re: It's time for PGP to die.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:04:54 +0100, Rob Ambidge stated: > I read an article or something a while back stating the legal theory that > if your passphrase is an admittance to a past crime, to hand over said > passphrase would constitute as having said "testimonial value" and you > could get away wit

Re: [Announce] The sixth Beta for GnuPG 2.1 is now available for testing

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 07:14:53 +, KA IT User stated: > Again, we request to remove us from the mailing list. And again, have you checked the email headers? List-Unsubscribe: , -- J

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

On 8/18/2014 5:04 AM, Rob Ambidge wrote: > I read an article or something a while back stating the legal theory > that if your passphrase is an admittance to a past crime, to hand > over said passphrase would constitute as having said "testimonial > value" and you could get away with not disclosin

Re: AW: [Announce] The sixth Beta for GnuPG 2.1 is now available for testing

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 08/18/2014 09:14 AM, KA IT User wrote: > Again, we request to remove us from the mailing list. See the list-unsubscribe header or the bottom of every mail for how to unsubscribe. - -- - Kristian Fiskerstrand Blog: h

AW: [Announce] The sixth Beta for GnuPG 2.1 is now available for testing

Again, we request to remove us from the mailing list. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards __ Ing. Roman Höller, MSc Informationstechnologie Information Technology Kommunalkredit Austria AG 1092 Wien, Türkenstraße 9 Tel.: +43 (0) 1/31631 519, Fax: -99519 Mobil: +43 (0) 66

Re: Fwd: It's time for PGP to die.

I read an article or something a while back stating the legal theory that if your passphrase is an admittance to a past crime, to hand over said passphrase would constitute as having said "testimonial value" and you could get away with not disclosing the passphrase. But it is just legal theory,

Re: It's time for PGP to die.

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> Leaving aside the issue of how popular encryption of mail is - we are >> faced with the fact that 98 per cent of computer users are completely >> ignorant about software and hardware. But even if they weren't, the problem is that OpenP