Comment by spullara
12 years ago
Too bad the law is interpreted by people and not computers. These kinds of hijinks are frowned upon in courts. "Here look, I'll illuminate the pixels that aren't part of the message and leave the other pixels dark!"
12 years ago
Too bad the law is interpreted by people and not computers. These kinds of hijinks are frowned upon in courts. "Here look, I'll illuminate the pixels that aren't part of the message and leave the other pixels dark!"
This is a very important distinction to remember when you hear people trying to find little technicalities around the law. This solution may subvert the letter of the law but it does not give you immunity from the spirit of the law (which is considered in courts).
Also, if you are going to try to make a play against the letter of the law you need to be excellent at maneuvering the details, which this solution is not. The definition of "disclose the existence of" is not confined to explicit verbal or written behavior and this could by every definition be disclosing the existence of something.
Something that would have a better chance of holding in court would be to encrypt the NSA Requests for information in a file, host them publicly but "lose" the keys. It would be hard to prove that it was more than negligence.
Wouldn't publicly hosting the files (even encrypted) be considered "disclosing"?
Then there's the "loss" of the keys - another act that is highly suspicious depending on how well it's orchestrated.
Finally, any documentation or meetings where you are outlining these moves would be highly interesting in such a case.
Even better: make it so the image of the message appears on the customer's eyeballs' retinas upside-down!