[messaging] Value of deniability

Mike Hearn mike at plan99.net
Thu Dec 11 05:38:12 PST 2014

> If you use such a system, I think you've clearly signaled that you
> don't trust me. I wouldn't chat with you and in fact, I didn't sign
> this email. :)

Sure about that? ;) You sent it via Gmail which signed it using DKIM as
coming from your account. To deny you sent it, you would have to either
claim your account was hacked or that Google is trying to forge evidence.

> End point security is rather weak and so I'd wager that you're aiming
> to design a protocol "feature" that will be fantastic for framing
> someone.

If you read the newspaper story I linked to from the first email, it was
the opposite - the guy was being framed and was able to prove it using text
message evidence, which wasn't deniable presumably due to records kept by
the carrier (there was CCTV evidence as well anyway). I think being able to
prove someone said something cuts both ways.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/messaging/attachments/20141211/e3371482/attachment.html>

More information about the Messaging mailing list