On the Credibility of Deniable Communication in Court

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16873v1
• Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2025 15:14:43 GMT
• Title: On the Credibility of Deniable Communication in Court
• Abstract summary: Evidentiary processes in courts have been developed over centuries to account for the reality that evidence has always been forgeable.<n>We argue that deniability does not and need not change this paradigm.
• Score: 1.8047694351309207
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: 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 an inability to authenticate evidence in such contexts. 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. Our analysis highlights a gap between technical deniability notions and their application to the real world. There will always be factors outside a cryptographic model that influence perceptions of a message's authenticity, in realistic situations. We propose the broader concept of credibility to capture these factors. The credibility of a system is determined by (1) a threshold of quality that a forgery must pass to be "believable" as an original communication, which varies based on sociotechnical context and threat model, (2) the ease of creating a forgery that passes this threshold, which is also context- and threat-model-dependent, and (3) default system retention policy and retention settings. All three aspects are important for designing secure communication systems for real-world threat models, and some aspects of (2) and (3) may be incorporated directly into technical system design. We hope that our model of credibility will facilitate system design and deployment that addresses threats that are not and cannot be captured by purely technical definitions and existing cryptographic models, and support more nuanced discourse on the strengths and limitations of cryptographic guarantees within specific legal and sociotechnical contexts.

Related papers

• A Verifier-Centric Conceptual Model for Digital Credential Ecosystems [0.0]
  We present a verifier-centric conceptual model built on two decompositions.<n>We show that it explains interoperability failures, verifier-side burden, offline verifiability, privacy implications, and terminological ambiguities that element-wise comparison leaves unresolved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-12T12:59:26Z)
• Beyond Probabilistic Similarity: Structural, Temporal, and Causal Limitations of Retrieval-Augmented Generation in the Legal Domain [0.0]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation has become a standard architectural response to unreliability in legal AI.<n>We argue that these failures are symptoms of an architectural mismatch between probabilistic retrieval and the hierarchical, temporal, and institutional structure of legal knowledge.<n>We develop the argument in three moves. First, we articulate the ontological commitment of legal knowledge as a triad of properties derivable from classical legal theory.<n>Second, we identify three corresponding pathologies of retrieval (mereological blindness, diachronic blindness, and causal opacity), each developed with an operational definition, a failure mechanism, a canonical example, and detection criteria for
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-08T16:46:53Z)
• Authenticity Debt and the Synthetic Content Threat Landscape: A Layered Framework for Trust, Provenance, and IP Governance in the Generative AI Era [2.113921717639734]
  Generative artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed how content is produced.<n>This paper presents a comprehensive, multi-dimensional taxonomy of generative AI harms and attack vectors.<n>We argue that no single mechanism is sufficient in open, adversarial, and evolving environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-30T08:51:55Z)
• Provably Secure Agent Guardrail [89.79561918065122]
  Existing defense architectures rely on empirical semantic guardrails and probabilistic large model adjudicators.<n>This paper proposes a new security paradigm for agents based on the fundamental limitations of logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T02:12:41Z)
• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• Where Trust Fails: Mapping Location-Data Provenance Risks in Europe [1.0026496861838448]
  This paper frames a cross-sector analysis as a location-data provenance problem.<n>It argues for treating location as a digital primitive that should be represented as evidence-bearing claims.<n>The outcome is a sector-neutral foundation for future architectural work on a next-generation digital trust infrastructure for Europe.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T09:36:50Z)
• Witnessd: Proof-of-process via Adversarial Collapse [0.0]
  We address the gap between cryptographic integrity and process provenance.<n>We introduce proof-of-process, a primitive category for evidence that a physical process, not merely a signing key, produced a digital artifact.<n>We present Witnessd, an architecture combining jitter seals with Verifiable Delay Functions, external timestamp anchors, dual-source keystroke validation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T05:30:21Z)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• Deep Learning Models for Robust Facial Liveness Detection [56.08694048252482]
  This study introduces a robust solution through novel deep learning models addressing the deficiencies in contemporary anti-spoofing techniques.<n>By innovatively integrating texture analysis and reflective properties associated with genuine human traits, our models distinguish authentic presence from replicas with remarkable precision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T17:19:20Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• A Conjecture on a Fundamental Trade-Off between Certainty and Scope in Symbolic and Generative AI [0.0]
  Article introduces a conjecture that formalises a fundamental trade-off between provable correctness and broad data-mapping capacity in AI systems.<n>By making this implicit trade-off explicit and open to rigorous verification, the conjecture significantly reframes both engineering ambitions and philosophical expectations for AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T19:18:13Z)
• Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here's How to Make It Happen [2.5875936082584623]
  This paper presents the first rigorous formal definition of contestability in explainable AI.<n>We introduce a modular framework of by-design and post-hoc mechanisms spanning human-centered interfaces, technical processes, and organizational architectures.<n>Our work equips practitioners with the tools to embed genuine recourse and accountability into AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T13:32:05Z)
• Co-designing heterogeneous models: a distributed systems approach [0.40964539027092917]
  This paper presents a modelling approach tailored for heterogeneous systems based on three elements. An inferentialist interpretation of what a model is, a distributed systems metaphor and a co-design cycle describe the practical design and construction of the model. We explore the suitability of this method in the context of three different security-oriented models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T13:35:38Z)
• On Cryptographic Mechanisms for the Selective Disclosure of Verifiable Credentials [39.4080639822574]
  Verifiable credentials are a digital analogue of physical credentials. They can be presented to verifiers to reveal attributes or even predicates about the attributes included in the credential. One way to preserve privacy during presentation consists in selectively disclosing the attributes in a credential.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-16T08:22:28Z)
• Fact-Saboteurs: A Taxonomy of Evidence Manipulation Attacks against Fact-Verification Systems [80.3811072650087]
  We show that it is possible to subtly modify claim-salient snippets in the evidence and generate diverse and claim-aligned evidence. The attacks are also robust against post-hoc modifications of the claim. These attacks can have harmful implications on the inspectable and human-in-the-loop usage scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T13:39:24Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)
• Synthetic Disinformation Attacks on Automated Fact Verification Systems [53.011635547834025]
  We explore the sensitivity of automated fact-checkers to synthetic adversarial evidence in two simulated settings. We show that these systems suffer significant performance drops against these attacks. We discuss the growing threat of modern NLG systems as generators of disinformation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-18T19:01:01Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.