Jerome Baum jerome at
Tue Mar 22 20:14:20 CET 2011

"Robert J. Hansen" <rjh at> writes:

> However, the fact you had a counterforensic tool, *by itself*, would
> probably not rise to the level of something that would be admissible at
> trial -- the same way that, if I was charged with stabbing someone to
> death, the fact I own a shotgun would be inadmissible.  There would need to
> be evidence of it being used unlawfully, like for instance, evidence
> spoilation.

Wasn't  there that case  where the  fact that  someone (a  now convicted
child molester nonetheless, but let's ignore that fact) had some OpenPGP
implementation  on their  computer  was  admitted into  a  US court  and
appeals didn't overturn that admission?

Anyway, we're  getting off-topic. We've already determined  that using a
deniable system might be a bad idea. The thought experiment continues...

PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A
PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 880 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110322/337d8515/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list