1996-03-10 - Re: rhetorical trickery

Header Data

From: “Vladimir Z. Nuri” <vznuri@netcom.com>
To: Mutant Rob <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
Message Hash: 5db35708ea120ac02933c0c4b820f2d2a57a7249c62b306556057fd84747d8a3
Message ID: <199603100055.QAA22483@netcom12.netcom.com>
Reply To: <199603090231.VAA01548@bb.hks.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-03-10 02:19:29 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 10:19:29 +0800

Raw message

From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 10:19:29 +0800
To: Mutant Rob <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
Subject: Re: rhetorical trickery
In-Reply-To: <199603090231.VAA01548@bb.hks.net>
Message-ID: <199603100055.QAA22483@netcom12.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>> there is an infamous case of a child pornographer or pedophile in
>> California that is sometimes cited by law enforcement representatives
>> as a good example of the evils of encryption: supposedly he encrypted
>> his diary and it couldn't be unlocked by them. this was mentioned in
>> the article.
>> but I have a question: how did they know it was his diary?
>If I remember some earlier discussion about that case from a few years
>ago, the file was called "diary.pgp".

how did they know it was *his* diary?

granted, this is highly suggestive, but again not conclusive.
it could be his friend's diary, or a diary of his flowertending,
or whatever.

sure, a government agent could insist, "well, don't be a bonehead.
it's obviously his diary, and surely contains all his crimes against

ah yes, just as, obviously, even before trial, "the man is a criminal"