1996-10-04 - Re: How might new GAK be enforced?

Header Data

From: scrappo.reverb@juno.com (A L)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 3e0aa7422b03282054cf6729a25519bc747215df81a15a4b86d02389691ddaf7
Message ID: <19961003.163900.8239.6.scrappo.reverb@juno.com>
Reply To: <9610021732.AA17359@notesgw2.sybase.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-10-04 05:59:27 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 13:59:27 +0800

Raw message

From: scrappo.reverb@juno.com (A L)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 13:59:27 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: How might new GAK be enforced?
In-Reply-To: <9610021732.AA17359@notesgw2.sybase.com>
Message-ID: <19961003.163900.8239.6.scrappo.reverb@juno.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On 2 Oct 96 10:34:34 EDT Ryan Russell/SYBASE <Ryan.Russell@sybase.com> writes:
>One way to handle the problem mentioned below
>is this:
>
>Using your GAK-approved encryption, send a note
>that contains a PGP encrypted body (or insert your
>crypto of choice here.)  What this does is makes it
>look like you're sending a proper GAK only note
>to folks who are checking headers and such.  If 
>they actually decrypt it (with the proper court order), 
>they will see that you've got more encryption inside, 
>and drag your butt off to court and try to make you 
>give up your key etc...
You could also go one step further and leave out all
references that it was encrypted, (I think this was
discussed in a stego thread.) then when asked (told)
to decrypt it, say:
"Decrypt what? It looks like gibberish to me."

>
>    Ryan
>





Thread