-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 the dragon escribió: > oops, didn't reply all... > > And if you look at the cases reported, these are not system admins refusing > to divulge data, or even regular people trying to protect their privacy - > they are child molestors and wanna-be terrorists.
Should I infer from that there where already proof about their guilt? > encrytion is about maintaining personal and data privacy; it's not about > having a tool to break the law. I agree. That's not the part that worries ME. >> Faramir wrote the following on 8/13/09 3:32 AM: >> [...] >> >>> Unfortunately, it is not unusual people forgets the passphrases used >>> to protect files, or secret keys... ... >> "Two people have been successfully prosecuted for *refusing* to provide >> U.K......." >> >> Charly What worries me is, if somebody is unable to decrypt the files, it may be interpreted as refusal to decrypt it. And how can you prove you are willing to obey, but you can't do it because you forgot the password? If somebody say "I refuse to decrypt the data", ok, it's their fault. But would police believe it if somebody say "sorry, I forgot the password"? Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJKhOFKAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAW/YH/1qhvobZgSPlKy5vl8KH6RmP ++uVoXNPA9oR1/xkUKzlMj2pASHVGWA7kfo9ituJm5SHyE57RQ07HhbxOP2vQ2+C qm8rNPDIHcDr1G7hKgI3Dh+YrF4tuSo0ZfRRMM2VM3sNzL/RxWu4pPnvNjTdtok2 NRKiJx0d5WGWCkGqhvg4tLDGOwFGXCxwGGhFUYUPCuRPC7bKWMRzNmwPgJx9gsSv R7NVDMhBqQiSF1q8ZtLkQ0ub3w0oRN5SKcU58ayvAt8/yUPNLUryAbqu71aeT6tU zmmCPE4EdDclQNqfrjcSMNGR5WOrCtbfsCHvJ1CmJbI/THFxcZAZI3dvwKcnV/E= =nEiK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
