Use of two private/public key pairs, Sign only and Encrypt only

Robert J. Hansen rjh at
Fri Sep 27 20:39:59 CEST 2013

On 9/27/2013 10:20 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> Is that your interpretation or in any way official? My respective
> search engige efforts were not successful.

Nothing is official until the jury comes back.

RIPA prohibits someone who is under a key-divulging order from telling
other people about the order.  That much is official.  It's within the
realm of possibility that a prosecutor would tell the Court, "Milord,
Mr. Laging revoked his certificate immediately after divulging to us the
passphrase.  This had the effect of tipping off his correspondents that
the certificate was compromised.  We ask that you deem this to be a
violation of RIPA's provisions prohibiting affected persons from telling
others about the forced disclosure of their key."

A lot of armchair lawyers (on this list and others) will say that this
argument would never fly.  I'm not so certain.  I'm not saying it would
certainly work; I'm also not saying it certainly wouldn't.  It would
depend a lot on the judge hearing the case.

Notice how I said "revoking your key *could* be seen as".  :)

> This point of view would have quite strange consequences: For how
> long shall you be forced to keep a key? Even longer than before (if
> you change subkeys regularly)? Why should you have to accept that
> police can read future data of yours, data which they do not have a
> warrant for?

These are legal questions.  Ask a lawyer.  (Or, given that it's a matter
of United Kingdom law, ask a solicitor.)

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list