From: Johnathan Corgan <jcorgan@scruznet.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 95 18:23:31 PST
To: Robert Rothenberg <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Another problem w/Data Havens...
Message-ID: <Chameleon.4.01.950116182254.jcorgan@jcorgan.sj.scruznet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Data havens that can split data to two or more locations in seperate 
>jurisdictions can effectively ignore attention from authorities not 
>related to the site management or site preformance.  Encryption mandated 
>sites can also take this stance, while encryption is legal in any event.

It just occurred to me when reading this another method for ensuring the
"I can't tell what's in it" condition with a data haven operator.  Why not
use a secret sharing system where the contraband data is split into a number
of pieces and sent to different havens?  It could be argued that the individual
pieces are not the same as the whole, and there is absolutely no way the
operator could recover the original from a given piece (thus providing
plausible deniability.)

Using M by N secret sharing, with M < N, you build in some redundancy in case
one of the havens gets shutdown.

Ok, Eric, go ahead and blast your holes in this argument :)

==
Johnathan Corgan       "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
jcorgan@scruznet.com                    -Isaac Asimov


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBLxspxk1Diok8GKihAQG4FAQAjCaFOGC+N5zjQ3zVQstv75wxBp/d0js1
2a3ecWdD/S3Sv70l9Y2N4e4vja8Pps4eR1a7Gtzq/nWcHmZXRGRgCzaaHGCNibF5
RaIJUlGGpaKe/UaQ3XfZH2guRBSUCIi4To7QWf3CzpZoWkR4gmZhhB1AcZrd6Z34
WYqZUBwuISI=
=68Mc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----