[6605] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: Coerced decryption?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kossmann, Bill)
Fri Feb 11 14:09:45 2000
Message-ID: <2F1A38DC0413D311A7310090273AD5278A037D@dthrexch01>
From: "Kossmann, Bill" <BKossmann@dthr.ab.ca>
To: cryptography@c2.net
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:32:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
It's "deniable encryption." One link is:
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/home/naor/public_html/PAPERS/deniable_abs.h
tml
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Nelson [mailto:nelson@crynwr.com]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 10:31
To: cryptography@c2.net
Subject: Coerced decryption?
Caspar Bowden writes:
> And, as a result, the Bill proposes that the police or the security
services
> should have the power to force someone to hand over decryption keys or
the
> plain text of specified materials, such as e-mails, and jail those who
> refuse.
Nobody's mentioned the possibility of an encryption system which
always encrypts two documents simultaneously, with two different keys:
one to retrieves the first (real) document, and the second one which
retrieves to the second (innocuous) document.
With such a system, it should be clear that coercing decryption has
the same negative attributes as coercing self-incrimination.
As an aside, why hasn't anybody mentioned this before? It seems
obvious to me. Am I some sort of supergenius or something (more
likely the latter, in my experience!)? Or is there an information
source that I'm missing out on? Are people saying things about
cryptography that don't make it to cryptography@c2.net?
--
-russ nelson <sig@russnelson.com> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
