1997-05-22 - Re: Forgeries are your Friend

Header Data

From: Mark Grant <mark@unicorn.com>
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Message Hash: 014cf8f3f99e85e3b9486962ce7ee618aa9a7ac7905128dd3cdfbc603d303b31
Message ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.970522095957.13893B-100000@sirius.infonex.com>
Reply To: <v03007802afaa392f215b@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-22 17:49:37 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 01:49:37 +0800

Raw message

From: Mark Grant <mark@unicorn.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 01:49:37 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Forgeries are your Friend
In-Reply-To: <v03007802afaa392f215b@[]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.970522095957.13893B-100000@sirius.infonex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Thu, 22 May 1997, Tim May wrote:

> Thus, my point about routinely signing posts stands.

Sure, I was talking in general; my point only applies to those who make
more 'government approved' posts than 'dangerous' ones. Of course there's
still no guarantee that next year I won't be presented with an old signed
post about something which was innocuous and is now hideously illegal.

On the subject of deniability perhaps we should all publically state that
we've forgotten the passphrase to some of the encrypted files we have
lying around and see if that works in court if we ever end up there. I
know I have a couple of secret keys whose passphrases I've forgotten and
had a few files which I may have deleted.