Legal compulsion and crypto

[Nicholas Bohm]

At 09:03 7/07/1998 +0100, Chris Ritson wrote:
>In Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980706194825.00fa8540@mail.netkonect.co.uk>
>Nicholas Bohm said (in part) :
>
>>The fact that you cannot produce a copy of a document
>>because you have destroyed it justifies your not producing it on subpoena,
>>in principle.  But if in practice the judge disbelieves you, then you may
>>find yourself in hot water.  The same will no doubt be true of the
>>principles which in due course cover compulsory decryption.
>
>So the judge's opinion may possibly be influenced by the normal behaviour
>of any expert witnesses. Will it become the norm to use frequently changed
>(and destroyed) keys for e-mail etc?

When considering the plausibility of a denial of this kind, normal practice
must be very relevant, but it might be hard work persuading a judge that he
needed to listen to an expert witness on the subject of normal practice.
Judges tend to be influenced by their own norms.  Keeping copies of
"correspondence" is certainly normal in a business context, and judges who
are sufficiently up-to-date to use a PC (which many are) would probably
think it normal to keep the text of letters and emails on the machine
(whereas an older generation used to handwriting personal correspondence
would think it much less usual to keep a copy). 

	Regards,

		Nicholas Bohm

Salkyns, Great Canfield,
Takeley, Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone		01279 870285	(+44 1279 870285)
Fax		01279 870215	(+44 1279 870215)
Mobile   	0860 636749  	(+44 860 636749)

PGP RSA 1024 bit public key ID: 0x08340015.  Fingerprint:
9E 15 FB 2A 54 96 24 37  98 A2 E0 D1 34 13 48 07
PGP DSS/DH 1024/3072 public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF