5 ms·
> “Some encryption effects erasure of the encrypted data (so it ceases to exist), in which case decryption constitutes re-creation of the data, rather than simp
by mattst88 13y ago
> “Some encryption effects erasure of the encrypted data (so it ceases to exist), in which case decryption constitutes re-creation of the data, rather than simply unlocking still-existing data,” Shellow wrote in a court filing. (.pdf)
If I understand this correctly, the claim is that without the password the data does not exist, so by entering the password the data is recreated.
This is an interesting argument I can imagine a lawyer making to a judge or jury that doesn't know any better, but it's totally bogus.
The data exists, it's just encrypted. Claiming that is doesn't exist and is recreated by the password is disingenuous.
- anonymous 13y agoActually I agree with him. Let's say you encrypt a jpeg. You end up with a blob of bits that doesn't contain anything resembling jpeg data - the specific arrangement of bits that make what would be recognised as a jpeg file doesn't exist. It's recreated by decrypting the file - you make a new blob of bits arranged in the way a jpeg file looks. Technically speaking, the encrypted data is not a jpeg, but an input to a function that creates a new file which itself is a jpeg. You and I both know that the encrypted data is only useful for generating the decrypted jpeg and in that sense the two could be the same thing, but I definitely see the sense behind his argument.