On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:06:27 +0100, [H]omer wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Police decryption powers 'flawed'
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | The government faces criticism over plans to give police powers to
>> | make suspects produce readable copies of encrypted computer
>> | evidence.
>
> Waste of time.
>
> Those serious about securing data, can just use plausible deniability
> techniques, such as steganography or hidden containers to obfuscate
> encrypted data, e.g. conceal hidden documents in a pr0n collection, or
> obscure classified data in secondary (hidden) containers, within a
> primary container holding plausibly subversive (but still legal)
> conspiracy theory material.
Lessons could be learned from the way scramdisk (a windows program) was
designed. The container files were implemented in such a way that even
the headers were encrypted, leaving no indication whatsoever that the
entire file was anything but random data bits. Without the passphrase all
that anyone could prove was that you had a file containing meaningless
data. Add a little steganography and it just looks like random
low-level noise that one might expect anyway.
> I'm all for thwarting the terrorists, but why should everyone else's
> privacy be compromised because of a few ragheads? Just don't let them
> into the country in the first place; problem solved.
Oh, no. El Presidente NEEDS those terrorists. Nothing would help Bush and
his Orwellian policies more right now than another terrorist attack on US
soil. Amercians would be screaming for the blood of Iraqi children, Israel
could nuke Lebanon for all anyone cared, and everyone would be begging for
one of Big Brother's thugs in every home to help protect us.
|
|
