🚀 go-pugleaf

piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) writes:

>>>>>> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) (TR) writes:

>TR>     The police bust an alleged child molester, and take possession
>TR>     of his PC.  They believe that the hard drive contains a full
>TR>     database of young kids who have been *or may be* assaulted.
>TR>     That database is enciphered.

>Yeah and would you think he would just encipher it with a registered key?

The point is, if he doesn't, you nail him on *that* charge instead!

>Or think of the following scenario: Het isn't so stupid to put the database
>in his computer, but he has it on paper in a vault with a combination lock.
>What is the difference? (by the way, the vault destroys its contents when
>it is forcefully opened).

The thing is, there are people in the world who are less careful than they
could be.  They don't even use encryption, but they *do* use a computer.  
They just change all the filenames.  There *are* some clever ones who do 
pretty much what Terry Ritter suggested.  His scenario isn't so far out, 
IMHO.

On the other hand, the idea that every criminal has access to and regularly
uses some kind of vault complete with a self destruct mechanism . . . that's
maybe a little less likely.
-- 
I really don't make any claim at all to know what I'm talking about.
Actually, I make no claim to know what YOU'RE talking about, either.
In fact, now I've forgotten what we were talking about . . .