I think we're both misunderstanding each other:)
Person A writes a letter to Person B, expressing an opinion about Person C. Letter is stolen from B and published. If C is to take action against A, then it must be proven that it has been under a year since the letter was sent.
Additionally, if it can be demonstrated that the letter was only ever intended to be read by B, then there will be severe limitation on the damages that can be sought.
What I am arguing hinges upon whether the mysterious appearance of the decryption key 1 year after original publication can be compared to an act of theft, rather than an action in the process of publication.
Where's a damn lawyer when you need one?
>It's published when a third party becomes able to >view it. Your intentions are irrelevant.
This is not true. A letter written between two people, and then subsequently stolen and published is deemed to have been "published" when it was first written. And the intentions are extremely important. If you claim the encrypted messages were for one other person, then that will strongly mitigate any actions that can be taken against you. There is a certain level of privilege inherent in personal communications, even if you use a public medium like the Web.
The point is that you didn't *apparently* give out the key. If you later claimed that you only intended it to be viewed by another party (who held the appropriate key) at the time of posting, then it would start then.
Another workaround would be to encrypt your data, and then have the key mysteriously appear online after a year. In this case, the more publically available the message was, the better.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we're both misunderstanding each other :)
Person A writes a letter to Person B, expressing an opinion about Person C. Letter is stolen from B and published. If C is to take action against A, then it must be proven that it has been under a year since the letter was sent.
Additionally, if it can be demonstrated that the letter was only ever intended to be read by B, then there will be severe limitation on the damages that can be sought.
What I am arguing hinges upon whether the mysterious appearance of the decryption key 1 year after original publication can be compared to an act of theft, rather than an action in the process of publication.
Where's a damn lawyer when you need one?
>It's published when a third party becomes able to >view it. Your intentions are irrelevant. This is not true. A letter written between two people, and then subsequently stolen and published is deemed to have been "published" when it was first written. And the intentions are extremely important. If you claim the encrypted messages were for one other person, then that will strongly mitigate any actions that can be taken against you. There is a certain level of privilege inherent in personal communications, even if you use a public medium like the Web.
The point is that you didn't *apparently* give out the key. If you later claimed that you only intended it to be viewed by another party (who held the appropriate key) at the time of posting, then it would start then.
Another workaround would be to encrypt your data, and then have the key mysteriously appear online after a year. In this case, the more publically available the message was, the better.