3 ms·

Actually, the point of OTR is that they would, as they provide plausible deniability.

• PeterisP 9y ago
  Plausible deniability is kind of bullshit in this and similar cases - sure, one can't prove that the message was from her, there are all kinds of possibilities, but the authorities can reasonably assume (especially combined with an interrogation results and possible other circumstantial evidence) what was the likely sender, and that's completely sufficient for them, they don't need to prove anything. Just as in this article - no proof is provided (nor will ever be), and a reasonable assumption alone is enough to reject or evict a foreigner or detain and punish a local. I.e. plausible denial is essentially based on the hope that the opponent will follow some high standard about what constitutes evidence/proof and what is the level of plausibility. In a good legal/political environment you don't really need plausible deniability that much, and in a bad legal/political environment plausible deniability won't save you from harm; your plausible denials can simply be ignored. E.g. in the Signal standard "plausible denial" means that the message might have been spoofed by your recipient as it involves a shared secret that's not solely available to you - but it's not particularly likely (without extra evidence, motivation, etc) and not really that plausible. A good lawyer in USA might succeed using it as an argument to prevent a conviction, but any totalitarian regime will simply disbelieve it and declare it not sufficiently plausible; they are not really looking for solid proof of wrongdoing, hints of wrongdoing are good enough.