[Brmlab] Par komentarov k Peterkovej prednaske "Má občan právo na tajemství před svým státem?"
ondrej.mikle at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 00:22:28 CET 2012
ku koncu sa to s otazkami hodne zacalo tahat k pravnym veciam a plausible
Plausible deniability az na specialne pripady (napr. provozovani Tor exit node)
nepomoze, podobne ako to nepomohlo Manningovi s OTR. Celkom dobre to ilustruje
Jon Callas na cryptography at 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."
> I asked them about the case where someone has TrueCrypt but doesn't have a hidden volume, what would happen to someone doesn't have one? Their response was, "Why would you do a dumb thing like that? The whole point of TrueCrypt is to have a hidden volume, and I suppose if you don't have one, you'll be sitting in a room by yourself for a long time. We're not *stupid*."
Rovnako ako neuspeje argumentacia "ja som len generoval nahodne cisla a vzdy mi
z toho vysiel HTTP POST request". U sudu sa zavola sudny znalec a on to rozhodne
BTW k poslednemu pripadu ked sud rozhodol, ze obzalovany nemusi desifrovat disk
- nakoniec heslo uhadli (asi ho bruteforcli):
More information about the Brmlab