[messaging] Value of deniability

[Jacob Appelbaum]

On 12/11/14, micah <micah at riseup.net> wrote:
> Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net> writes:
>
>> A digital signature is binding. A lack of a digital signature on a
>> text file certainly leaves room for assertion of tampering and of
>> repudiation of the statements contained in the text file. As I
>> understand the legal case in Denmark, at least one of the two people
>> in Anakata's case declared denied the contents of what appears to be a
>> logged OTR conversation. If they had used PGP encrypted/signed mails,
>> I think the prosecution would have made a very strong argument about
>> PGP signatures.
>>
>> Does that count as a reference to case law? I've requested transcripts
>> of the trial but after over a month of waiting, I'm not sure when they
>> will be delivered.
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding which case you are referring to, but as far
> as I understood it Anakata, and JLT were both found guilty. Anakata has
> been sentenced to 3.5 years in jail. JLT, who has already served 17
> months of pre-trial detention, was released.

I am referencing both cases in Sweden and in Denmark as a recent
example of an OTR chat being cited in court. What you said is correct
- though the specifics aren't really correct. JLT was not found guilty
of anything in the original indictment - he was later found guilty, as
I understand it, of having sent a link to public information to an
unknown party.

>
> What I read was that the prosecution managed to present the evidence (a
> chat between “Advanced Persistent Terrorist Threat” and “My Evil Twin”,
> which were linked to the Anakata and JLT by the prosecution). The judges
> and the jurors supported these conclusions and rendered guilty verdicts
> as a result.
>

Could you show me the document that conclusively ties each person to
each of those nyms? My understanding is that this was not concluded in
court.

> Was there some other specific part of this case where these chat logs
> were brought as evidence by the prosecution, but then were successfully
> argued as inadmissible evidence by the defense, with the judges/jury
> accepting that argument?

I believe that both stated that there was log tampering. I'm not
completely clear on all of the details as I lack access to the full
transcripts. In any case, they were one juror away from full
acquittal. In Sweden, Anakata was partially acquitted.

All the best,
Jacob