In the quote I presented above, the author wasn't making a technical argument, but a moral one.
If you or the author are presenting an argument why repudiation is necessary on technical grounds, I will admit ignorance and defer to the experts.
But my reading of the blog post was that it is not a technical argument. It's an argument about morality, and specifically the author used political examples. If the author did not want lay people to argue about the moral implications, why did they use non-technical arguments?
I don't know how fair this is but will just say that the first thought that jumps to my mind here is that being surprised at a cryptographer advocating for deniable messages is a little bit like being surprised at a medical researcher advocating for effective antibiotics. It probably never occurs to either of them to question the legitimacy of their moral stance.
I certainly could be wrong. What’s the case for repudiation? Is making blackmail harder really the cryptographer’s mail argument for why repudiation is a benefit?
I didn’t see a more convincing argument in the blog post. If there is a technical reason why repudiation is beneficial, I would be grateful for an explanation.
If you or the author are presenting an argument why repudiation is necessary on technical grounds, I will admit ignorance and defer to the experts.
But my reading of the blog post was that it is not a technical argument. It's an argument about morality, and specifically the author used political examples. If the author did not want lay people to argue about the moral implications, why did they use non-technical arguments?