Article View: sci.crypt
Article #2208Re: Limits on the Use of Cryptography?
From: Rob Stampfli
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:43
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:43
38 lines
2535 bytes
2535 bytes
>>Iain McCord raises the possibiity that the police will "plant" an >>encrypted file, or worse, plant an incriminating encrypted file of >>their own design. >> >>This is not a cryptographic issue. They could do the same with any >>other kind of evidence. One's protections against this are also >>the same, including the ability to challenge the 'chain of evidence' >>in court, the ability to introduce contrary evidence, etc. > >Oh, but it IS a cryptographic issue. > >With a public key system you can be ABSOLUTELY certain that a particular >ciphertext was created with one key if you can decode it with the other. >Therefore, if the keys are not compromised you can, with certainty, >prove whether or not it was written by the individual in question. I am going to presume you are talking about "signing" a message. If you are talking about using a public key to encrypt a message, then presumably anyone could have done this. While I am not going to try to refute the essance of what you say, I think you make a giant leap of faith with your supposition "if the keys are not compromised". It is darn neigh impossible to conclude this once you no longer have control of the computer. If the police are of a mind to, they could generate a public/private key pair, sign a message with it, and claim it was signed by you. "How can you prove it was signed by me?" "Because it can be decrypted with your public key" "How do you know that is my public key?" "It was on your own public keyring with you as the indicated owner." Once the police have sole control over the computer, if the police are both technically competant and corrupt, all bets are off: Your defense is to convince a jury that the police have not been impartial. About the only thing cryptography adds in this regard is a degree of complexity that makes it beyond the scope of the average judge and jurist to understand. -- Rob Stampfli rob@colnet.cmhnet.org The neat thing about standards: 614-864-9377 HAM RADIO: kd8wk@n8jyv.oh There are so many to choose from.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Dec15.034358.12141@colnet.cmhnet.org>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!colnet!resReferences:
<11283@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> <1992Dec10.182022.9173@netcom.com> <Bz886x.Jw5@ddsw1.mcs.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.society.civil-liberty Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!colnet!res From: res@colnet.cmhnet.org (Rob Stampfli) Subject: Re: Limits on the Use of Cryptography? Message-ID: <1992Dec15.034358.12141@colnet.cmhnet.org> Organization: Little to None References: <11283@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> <1992Dec10.182022.9173@netcom.com> <Bz886x.Jw5@ddsw1.mcs.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:43:58 GMT Lines: 38