[messaging] Value of deniability
natanael.l at gmail.com
Wed Dec 10 11:06:11 PST 2014
Den 10 dec 2014 19:56 skrev "Mike Hearn" <mike at plan99.net>:
> I would like to hear opinions on the value of deniability in OTR like
> From a privacy perspective the rationale is fairly clear. But I keep
reading stories like this one:
> in which people exonerate themselves or get themselves out of a sticky
situation because they are able to prove someone sent them text messages at
a certain time. E.g for establishing an alibi or (as in this case) to show
that a woman who had accused a man of rape was lying.
> If you have true end to end encryption and only you or the sender can
release messages, this seems like a pretty high standard of privacy
already. I'm not entirely sure I'd actually want to use a system that added
deniability on top, because being able to prove a conversation took place
is so often valuable in life and in business.
Like everything else it is a trade-off.
What if what you said is taken out of context? What if you were actually
just quoting somebody, being sarcastic or hypothesizing? You can't force
somebody to give you a signed statement in a way that allows it to be
proven authentic, for good reasons.
My personal preference is deniability by default, signing when chosen by
This way it essentially mimics the expectations of a private conversation
IRL. Those you recite it to have to rely on their degree of trust in you,
unless the other participants sign a document confirming the contents.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Messaging