In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Howie Goodell writes:
> It's (2) that's the real problem. They have this message they
> claim came from you, but the link to you is secret (maliced
keyboards; Windows 2000 backdoors, etc.) This has nothing to do
> with encryption -- since the evidence is plaintext -- it's a
> bugging case. However unlike wiretaps, a seized plaintext is
> not self-authenticating, unless you signed it with a private key
> the jury believes the Government didn't steal (hard to believe;
> how do we know they didn't watch you type your password and then
> fake the signature?) So if I were on a jury, why should I
> believe them?
I'm not a lawyer, but...
It's always possible to challenge the authenticity of evidence. The
government may not have to explain how they got it (though as I noted, I think
there's a good chance for a constitutional challenge here), but that won't
stop a clever defense attorney from casting doubt on it -- say, by pointing
out that Mark Furhman helped with the cryptanalysis....
--Steve Bellovin
