User avatar
celeste_hearts_lesbianceleste_hearts_transceleste_hearts_demisexual flori_ava_star:~cursor_blinking @star@amazonawaws.com
8mo
years of work invested into plausible deniability, yet no court case using chat logs from such messengers as evidence being influenced by that property, seemingly ever?
2
0
8
0
User avatar
[4FBB09] @5225225@furry.engineer
8mo
@star yeahhh

i mean it's probably a good property to have if you can avoid having absolute cryptographic proof that you said something

but also yes it's not a get out of jail free card as shown by "people can get arrested for text messages, letters, phone calls" (though i assume court cases exist where someone did say something can be influenced by a strong enough argument that "actually they didn't say that")
1
0
0
0
User avatar
celeste_hearts_lesbianceleste_hearts_transceleste_hearts_demisexual flori_ava_star:~cursor_blinking @star@amazonawaws.com
8mo
@5225225 actually i read 2 whole papers on this topic which concluded that actually, no, even in cases where the crypto deniability prop was brought up, it did not majorly influence the case petsymposium.org/popets/2025/popets-2025-0018.pdf This is one of them I could find in my browser history. It's a really interesting read IMO, and I... rarely read papers
2
0
0
0
User avatar
[4FBB09] @5225225@furry.engineer
8mo
@star "have cryptographic deniability and let people just straight up rewrite (their local view) of the conversation" is a fun solution

(skimmed the paper but that seems to be the approach, along with considering if people actually want deniability)
0
0
2
0
User avatar
celeste_hearts_lesbianceleste_hearts_transceleste_hearts_demisexual flori_ava_star:~cursor_blinking @star@amazonawaws.com
8mo
@5225225 additional note: "i read two papers claiming otherwise" != "i am an expert" or "this is definitely true" but,, yeah, i just wanted to share what i know
0
0
0
0