s/forget passphrase for/cause permanent destruction of/ , Re: Letwin wants increased penalties for refusal to decrypt

[Peter Fairbrother]

Owen Lewis wrote:

>> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Richard
>> Clayton

>> I'm surprised BTW, in all this orgy of destroying disks, that there's
>> been no mention of "plausible deniability". In particular one can build
>> systems with multiple keys where you can reveal some to the authorities
>> but hold some back (with the authorities having significant difficulty
>> in determining the number of keys present in the system). There are
>> filesystems and also messaging systems that work this way.
> 
> Hush, Richard. Plod has not got the law to catch up this far yet. But he
> will, he will.
> 
> There is no artefact or natural thing you have your use of which cannot be
> regulated under the law. Not your wife, your child, your car or your train
> set.
> 
> It's but a matter of time before govts choose to regulate the use of
> cryptography (amendment to DPA 98?) Key escrow was a first attempt at
> regulating the uses of crypto but it will not be the last. I see a time when
> you will be required in law to make secure arrangements for your keys for
> the period over which you retain data that is protected by them and to
> produce them when lawfully required to do so.

Proving a failure to hand over keys is precicely what plausible deniability
prevents.

-- Peter Fairbrother