Heh, now that would be interesting. I wonder if the &quot;intent&quot; scenario would apply to this also?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:56 PM, decoder <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:decoder@own-hero.net">decoder@own-hero.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">

  
    
  
  <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
    I can&#39;t answer the question but it would be even more interesting to
    answer this if you&#39;re using a One-Time-Pad (i.e. two files of equal
    size on two different servers, both XORed give you the data). There
    exists a mathematical proof that none of the two files leak a single
    bit of information of the original data :)<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Chris<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
    <br>
    <br>
    On 02/18/2011 07:50 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] wrote:
    </div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div></div><div class="h5">
      
      <div>Sorry, when I say eligible, I mean &quot;which server would they
        be allowed to take down by law?&quot;.
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>I&#39;m not too hot on the laws of encryption, but I&#39;m sure
          there is something which states that hosting encrypted files
          are not illegal, it&#39;s distributing the key which allows you to
          gain access to those fails, which is actually illegal.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>*DISCLAIMER: I don&#39;t know if the above is true or not, so
          apologies if I got this wrong*
          <div>
            <div><br>
              <div><br>
                <div>On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:46 PM, ck <span>&lt;<a href="mailto:c.kernstock@googlemail.com" target="_blank">c.kernstock@googlemail.com</a>&gt;</span>
                  wrote:<br>
                  <blockquote>I go with the server hosting the files
                    since the key should be<br>
                    significant smaller than the files and therefor much
                    easier to mirror.<br>
                    <div>
                      <div><br>
                        On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Cal Leeming
                        [Simplicity Media Ltd]<br>
                        &lt;<a href="mailto:cal.leeming@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk" target="_blank">cal.leeming@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk</a>&gt;
                        wrote:<br>
                        &gt; So here&#39;s a thought.<br>
                        &gt; If illegally distributed files (such as
                        this one) were encrypted and hosted<br>
                        &gt; on one server, and the key hosted on
                        another, which server would<br>
                        &gt; be eligible for take down?<br>
                        &gt;<br>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                </div>
                <br>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      </div></div><pre><fieldset></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: <a href="http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html" target="_blank">http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html</a><div class="im">
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - <a href="http://secunia.com/" target="_blank">http://secunia.com/</a></div></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </div>

<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.<br>
Charter: <a href="http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html" target="_blank">http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html</a><br>
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - <a href="http://secunia.com/" target="_blank">http://secunia.com/</a><br></blockquote></div><br>