Deniability

[Jerome Baum]

"Robert J. Hansen" <rjh at sixdemonbag.org> writes:

> On 3/22/2011 6:11 PM, Jerome Baum wrote:
>> So, if the goverment alleges I  have something to hide, then it is clear
>> that I do? Boy am I happy I don't live in the U.S.
>
> This is cheap ad-hominem.  I said nothing of the sort.  If the
> government *alleges* that you *committed a crime*, the government needs
> to enter into evidence *how you committed that crime*.

>>> And in the context of that conversation it was clear that there was, in
>>> fact, something illegal to hide.  Quoting: "if the government alleges,
>>> 'this person used OpenPGP to cover up the crime...'"

Let's rephrase what you said: "From the government alleging 'this person
used a  OpenPGP to hide evidence of  his crime' it was  clear that there
was, in fact, evidence of his crime."

One  step  further: "From  the  government  alleging  'this person  used
OpenPGP to  hide evidence of his  crime' it was clear  that he committed
the crime."

And another step: "From the  government alleging something, it was clear
that he committed the crime."

Where were  you involved? Quoting  dictionary.reference.com: ad hominem:
"attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument."

> If the crime is evidence spoilation, then yes, the government can enter
> into evidence the fact you possessed the tools required to spoil
> evidence.  It doesn't mean you're guilty of evidence spoilation: it only
> means the jury might find that fact to be interesting and relevant, and
> for that reason it should be presented to them.
>
> If I'm accused of stabbing someone to death, the government gets to
> enter into evidence the fact I own a knife exactly like the one they
> allege was used to murder someone.  This is no different.
>
> I honestly do not understand where you're coming from.  It seems as if
> you're deliberately trying to twist around what I'm saying.

I guess  we are  talking about  different trials. I  am talking  about a
trial pertaining to the original crime (child abuse), into which "he has
gpg  installed" was  entered as  evidence, under  the argument  that "he
might have encrypted his pictures with gpg -- we don't have the picture,
but he  might have done  this".

-- 
PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A
PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 880 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110322/3f6b2f70/attachment.pgp>