On 03/08/2012 05:49 PM, Pavol Luptak wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:22:28AM +0100, Ondrej Mikle wrote:
Plausible deniability az na specialne pripady (napr. provozovani Tor exit node) nepomoze, podobne ako to nepomohlo Manningovi s OTR. Celkom dobre to ilustruje
Vies o jednom pripade, kedy bol niekto realne stihany a kriminalizovany za prevadzku Tor exit-nodeu? Teda myslim normalne krajiny zapadneho sveta, nie nejaky Pakistan, ci Iran.
Jj, ved tvrdim presne to iste :-) Ale viem o typkovi v CR, kde za nim dosli monocajti kvoli provozovani Tor exit node (a matne sa mi mari, ze niekomu v "zapadnom svete" na chvilu zhabali HW a potom vratili, ale musel by som pohladat; aj ked technicky k zalobe nedoslo).
To, ze niekto skonci vo vazeni, lebo "niekto iny" si mysli, ze na tom sifrovanom disku ma detsku pornografiu a pritom to nevie nijako dokazat (lebo nevie k nemu heslo), je podla mna uplne potlacenie individualnych slobod a je to uplne nespravne.
To je sice pravda, ale k sudu sa nechodi pre spravodlivost, ale pre rozsudok.
Jon Callas na cryptography@lists.randombit.net:
There is no such thing as plausible deniability in a legal context.
Plausible deniability is a term that comes from conspiracy theorists (and like many things contains a kernel of truth) to describe a political technique where everyone knows what happened but the people who did it just assert that it can't be proven, along with a wink and a nudge.
But to get to the specifics here, I've spoken to law enforcement and border control people in a country that is not the US, who told me that yeah, they know all about TrueCrypt and their assumption is that *everyone* who has TrueCrypt has a hidden volume and if they find TrueCrypt they just get straight to getting the second password. They said, "We know about that trick, and we're not stupid."
"We are not stupid" znamena, ze s tym dokazu nieco robit? :-)
Chcu drzat daneho cloveka nekonecne dlhu dobu, kym nepovie heslo?
Asi zavisi ci si Assange alebo iny vysoko-profilovy pripad. Inak ti tam mozu trebars supnut nejaky trojan (kedze maju fyzicky pristup).
A nutit ho povedat "druhe heslo", ked nemaju ziadnu istotu, ze to druhe heslo vobec existuje a nevedia mu to nijako dokazat?
Zlozky exekutivy maju dost dlhe skusenosti s donucovanim, takze na nejakych geekoch co nemaju skusenost, im to moze vyjst. Nie kazdy znasa niekolkomesacny pobyt v cele predbezneho zadrzania dobre (kde su vsetky skupiny od podvodnikov az po vrahov zmixovane).
OM