[messaging] plausible deniability and transcript editors

[Ben Laurie]

On 26 June 2014 21:53, Guy K. Kloss <gk at mega.co.nz> wrote:
> On 27/06/14 12:28, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> But as for courts, I think many transcripts from unencrypted,
>> non-cryptographically-bound communications that are presented to judges
>> and juries are in the form of word documents -- pretty much the
>> layperson's classic example of an editable document.  And people still
>> get convicted with those documents, even if there was no attempt to
>> claim cryptographic proof-of-origin.
>
> Yes, that's very sad, indeed. Especially when viewing the fact that
> there are web sites that can help you "digitally sign" documents by
> pasting either a scanned signature or "Your Name" in a chosen font under
> the document. And these are deemed to be legally valid ...

Signatures, at least in UK law, are about intent. See
http://www.apache-ssl.org/tech-legal.pdf ("Signatures: an Interface
between Law and Technology").