5 ms·

By making the DKIM keys public, you are converting solid evidence of something that was said into something that was either really said, or someone else pretend

By making the DKIM keys public, you are converting solid evidence of something that was said into something that was either really said, or someone else pretended that they said. Evidence was destroyed.

mthoms 6y ago
This describes all encrypted and short lived messages. Edit: Removed the word "literally" because it was incorrect and caused distraction from the actual argument.
- hashtagmarkup 6y ago
  It doesn't at all. You're misunderstanding. Or, are you using the word "literally" in the modern sense of "not literally"?
  - mthoms 6y ago
    Are you just nitpicking my choice of words or are you going to explain how auto-disappearing messages aren't potentially destroying evidence in the exact same way you've described? As for encrypted messaging, yes it is not the same as "literally" destroying evidence. But it is hiding evidence (based on your logic). The end result is the same in the context of the claims you previously made. That is: justice is potentially being subverted.
    - hashtagmarkup 6y ago
      No one is auto-disappearing messages. You are just not understanding. Evidence that used to exist no longer exists as hard evidence. It isn't "hidden"... everything is still there. With secure DKIM justice can be served. With public after the fact DKIM, a shady lawyer claims the message could have been forged. Would-be hard evidence no longer exists as it can be painted as possibly forged. Destroy: transitive verb: to put out of existence. Are you just not learning what words mean?
      - mthoms 6y ago
        You said - >By making the DKIM keys public, you are converting solid evidence of something that was said into something that was either really said, or someone else pretended that they said. Evidence was destroyed. >Destroy: transitive verb: to put out of existence. As the other commenter stated, nothing was destroyed. Nothing. The plausibility of a certain piece of evidence was called into question, but that's not the same as destroying evidence. At all. It just isn't. You're wrong. For there to be a crime of "destroying evidence" there needs to be a criminal. If the keys are published, who is guilty of destroying evidence? Google? The email user? Please tell me who should be charged? >No one is auto-disappearing messages. End to end encrypted communications platforms Signal[0], WhatsApp[1] and Telegram[2] all offer disappearing messages. These end-to-end encrypted platforms are the de-facto replacement for insecure email. So again, I will ask. How is publishing DKIM keys "destroying evidence" but this isn't? >Are you just not learning what words mean? Take a hint from the votes. It's you who is soundly losing the argument. ---- If you can't articulate (1) who is guilty of "destroying evidence" and (2) why that destruction of evidence is any different from disappearing messages then you have lost the argument. Answer those two questions or concede that "destruction of evidence" has nothing to do with this and you've completely wasted your time (and looked like a total jerk while doing so). ----- [0] https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320771-Set-and-manage-disappearing-messages https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320771-Se... [1] https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-disappearing-messages/?lang=fb https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-disappearing-me... [2] https://mashable.com/2017/07/24/telegram-disappearing-messages/ https://mashable.com/2017/07/24/telegram-disappearing-messag...
        hashtagmarkup 6y ago
        A victim used to be able to prove they didn't send a message. A leaker used to be able to prove someone did send a message. Those evidentiary options no longer exist. They were destroyed when the DKIM keys were made public. You're not very bright. Concede that.
        mthoms 6y ago
Natanael_L 6y ago
No, destruction of evidence involves things like making something impossible to analyze and evaluate. Publication of a key doesn't erase the original messages and does not make it impossible to look into their contents to try to establish authencity by external means. Causing ambiguity is not destruction of evidence.
- hashtagmarkup 6y ago
  What do you call it when someone pees into someone else's pee sample?
  - Natanael_L 6y ago
    That would be an act of submitting false evidence, where you actively make a false claim regarding who the sample belongs to. Which is very distinctly different from a passive act of not maintaining evidence of the origin of every single thing. Keep in mind that no data is altered - the equivalent of all collected samples remaining intact. It's still just as possible to collect email logs, their contents do not magically dissappear. They would have to be actively manipulated by the party which holds the copy that would be provided to the police (either reported to them or confiscated, etc). That same party could already decide to delete the emails or strip signatures and then alter them.

mthoms 6y ago

This describes all encrypted and short lived messages. Edit: Removed the word "literally" because it was incorrect and caused distraction from the actual argument.

hashtagmarkup 6y ago
It doesn't at all. You're misunderstanding. Or, are you using the word "literally" in the modern sense of "not literally"?
- mthoms 6y ago
  Are you just nitpicking my choice of words or are you going to explain how auto-disappearing messages aren't potentially destroying evidence in the exact same way you've described? As for encrypted messaging, yes it is not the same as "literally" destroying evidence. But it is hiding evidence (based on your logic). The end result is the same in the context of the claims you previously made. That is: justice is potentially being subverted.
  - hashtagmarkup 6y ago
    No one is auto-disappearing messages. You are just not understanding. Evidence that used to exist no longer exists as hard evidence. It isn't "hidden"... everything is still there. With secure DKIM justice can be served. With public after the fact DKIM, a shady lawyer claims the message could have been forged. Would-be hard evidence no longer exists as it can be painted as possibly forged. Destroy: transitive verb: to put out of existence. Are you just not learning what words mean?
    - mthoms 6y ago
      You said - >By making the DKIM keys public, you are converting solid evidence of something that was said into something that was either really said, or someone else pretended that they said. Evidence was destroyed. >Destroy: transitive verb: to put out of existence. As the other commenter stated, nothing was destroyed. Nothing. The plausibility of a certain piece of evidence was called into question, but that's not the same as destroying evidence. At all. It just isn't. You're wrong. For there to be a crime of "destroying evidence" there needs to be a criminal. If the keys are published, who is guilty of destroying evidence? Google? The email user? Please tell me who should be charged? >No one is auto-disappearing messages. End to end encrypted communications platforms Signal[0], WhatsApp[1] and Telegram[2] all offer disappearing messages. These end-to-end encrypted platforms are the de-facto replacement for insecure email. So again, I will ask. How is publishing DKIM keys "destroying evidence" but this isn't? >Are you just not learning what words mean? Take a hint from the votes. It's you who is soundly losing the argument. ---- If you can't articulate (1) who is guilty of "destroying evidence" and (2) why that destruction of evidence is any different from disappearing messages then you have lost the argument. Answer those two questions or concede that "destruction of evidence" has nothing to do with this and you've completely wasted your time (and looked like a total jerk while doing so). ----- [0] https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320771-Set-and-manage-disappearing-messages https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320771-Se... [1] https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-disappearing-messages/?lang=fb https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-disappearing-me... [2] https://mashable.com/2017/07/24/telegram-disappearing-messages/ https://mashable.com/2017/07/24/telegram-disappearing-messag...
      - hashtagmarkup 6y ago
        A victim used to be able to prove they didn't send a message. A leaker used to be able to prove someone did send a message. Those evidentiary options no longer exist. They were destroyed when the DKIM keys were made public. You're not very bright. Concede that.
        mthoms 6y ago

Natanael_L 6y ago

No, destruction of evidence involves things like making something impossible to analyze and evaluate. Publication of a key doesn't erase the original messages and does not make it impossible to look into their contents to try to establish authencity by external means. Causing ambiguity is not destruction of evidence.

hashtagmarkup 6y ago
What do you call it when someone pees into someone else's pee sample?
- Natanael_L 6y ago
  That would be an act of submitting false evidence, where you actively make a false claim regarding who the sample belongs to. Which is very distinctly different from a passive act of not maintaining evidence of the origin of every single thing. Keep in mind that no data is altered - the equivalent of all collected samples remaining intact. It's still just as possible to collect email logs, their contents do not magically dissappear. They would have to be actively manipulated by the party which holds the copy that would be provided to the police (either reported to them or confiscated, etc). That same party could already decide to delete the emails or strip signatures and then alter them.