Re: DH for email (re: email protection and privacy)

[Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>]

Mike McNally writes:

> In light of a conversation (not a private conversation; it was at an
> EFF-Austin gathering) with Mike Godwin in which he stated that the
> court has ample precedent to cite you for contempt upon refusal to
> produce encryption keys, I think it's clear that no decypherable
> encryption scheme is really adequate to protect private materials
> during a legal investigation.  Similarly, I suspect that a scheme to
> protect information by automatic destruction or obfuscation (as a
> friend described it, "digital flash paper") would be considered
> illegal obstruction of justice.
> 
> Therefore, were I to be in possession of information that for
> political or business reasons I strongly required absolute privacy, I
> would resort to physical security as the closest thing to a sure-fire
> solution.  Back things up onto high-density tape, and keep the tapes
> (*and* the tape drive, lest its presence be taken as prima facie
> evidence of the existance of off-line "evidence") in some secure
> place.

Note that a court could cite you for contempt for not complying 
with a subpoena duces tecum (a subpoena requiring you to produce objects 
or documents) if you fail to turn over subpoenaed backups.

To be honest, I don't think *any* security measure is adequate against a
government that's determined to overreach its authority and its citizens'
rights, but crypto comes close.


--Mike