Home Office response on Burden of Proof

[Ben Laurie]

Donald Ramsbottom wrote:
>  So far as the burden of proof is concerned Caspar has eloquently put the
> same. Additionally, the whole concept of S:12 is worthless, unless the
> burden is reversed, or unless certain presumptions are built in, eg "you own
> computer X, there are encrypted files on X, ergo you must have the key to
> the files on computer X" , but there is no mention of any such presumption.

But that would be an erroneous assumption. When I send encrypted mail I
am _not_ in possession of the decryption key. But it is sitting on my
disk in my "sent" folder.

Also, there's a public key floating around that has my name on it that
is not mine. If someone sent me an email using that key I would be
unable to decrypt it.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi