[OTR-users] multi-party OTR communications? (and other OTR details)

[smoothambiguity at aol.com]

 Yeah, I guess the real
problem lies in how our respective legal systems define what is
evidence and/or proof for an intentioned communication.? I recall
hearing some lawyers bitching, when I was in college, about a new
phenomenon called 'The C.S.I. Effect' (named after the popular
television series) where juries where letting more people off because
evidence in the case was expected to be more undeniable than is typical
in their professional experience.? I was of course seriously put-off by
the attitudes of the lawyers, but then it was a wake up call to me.? The prosecutors
exist to bust your balls (not necessarily to uphold the concepts of undeniably proven guilt), and whatever more easily pumps their
portfolio of statistics with less prosecutorial rigmarole, better
still.? Before I digress too far on a rant about what it means to be
'innocent until proven guilty' and how it easily fails us in U.S.
court systems, I'd just like to state for the record I hope to see the
brilliant minds behind this OTR project hammer out a system either
functionally deniable or impossibly secure, though the latter being
impossible it tends to lend toward some extra amount of hope in
the former.? (I've enough sense not to dream of the unconditional). 

p.s.- for the record, I feel for you cats in the UK who are being ordered to cough up passwords and keys in a court of law.? Thankfully over here, we're not expected to incriminate ourselves though I'm certain at least a few mustache wearing gumshoes crave to see the day we might.


 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain SmoothAmbiguity proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to SmoothAmbiguity. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed by SmoothAmbiguity. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited by SmoothAmbiguity and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify SmoothAmbiguity immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. This message will self-destruct in your brain. This conversation never happened. Remember: loose lips sink tight ships. See also: SmoothAmbiguity.

 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Morrison <bdm at fenrir.org.uk>
To: smoothambiguity at aol.com
Sent: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:32 pm
Subject: Re: [OTR-users] multi-party OTR communications? (and other OTR details)










smoothambiguity at aol.com wrote:
>  Umm, if I'm not mistaken, the spooky world of deniable encryption was 
supposed to bridge the gap for those of us who don't trust anyone.? Turning out 
to be harder than it seemed?

It is hard.

But having said that, even if you have authenticated the person you
converse with, they may have a log, but there is no independent way to
prove that what they logged is what you typed.

Of course, that won't help if the other person is a law enforcement
stooge and the establishment chooses to believe them over you.

-- 

Brian



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20080922/6d847845/attachment.html>