From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:43:36 +0800
To: minow@pobox.com
Subject: plausible deniability (Re: ATTN: BlackNet, sog's keys 4 sale)
In-Reply-To: <199810150105.CAA02529@server.eternity.org>
Message-ID: <199810150200.DAA02609@server.eternity.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




I wrote discussing plausible deniability for public postings:
> But for your suggested applicatoin -- plausible deniability for
> `speaking truth to kings' -- it works fine, because that's the point,
> plausible deniability against well resourced attackers (you are in
> trouble if well resourced attackers are interested in you anyway), but
> some value to the signature for low resourced attackers.
> 
> Other ways to provide plausible deniability is to not sign public
> posts, and to use non-transferable signatures for private email.

I missed from this list of approaches for plausible deniability the
canonical cypherpunks approach: post anonymously :-)

The other way is perhaps to have shared identities, such as Monty
Cantsin claimed to be, and such as perhaps Toto has been on occasion.

Adam
-- 
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`