On the Credibility of Deniable Communication in Court

Over time, cryptographically deniable systems have come to be associated in computer-science literature with the idea of “denying” evidence in court — specifically, with the ability to convincingly forge evidence in courtroom scenarios, and relatedly, with an inability to authenticate evidence in such contexts. Indeed, in some cryptographic models, the ability to falsify mathematically implies the inability to authenticate. Evidentiary processes in courts, however, have been developed over centuries to account for the reality that evidence has always been forgeable, and relies on factors outside of cryptographic models to seek the truth “as well as possible” while acknowledging that all evidence is imperfect. We argue that deniability does not and need not change this paradigm.