Home Office response on Burden of Proof

[Andrew Meredith]

Nicholas Bohm wrote:
> 
> Clearly not.  There will be cases where possession of the key
> can be proved by the Crown quite easily (e.g. where the accused
> has responded to encrypted messages in a way that proves he can
> decrypt them) [...]

Imagine for a moment that Ben's forged key was being used by its actual
holder on an anonymous communications channel of some sort (Mixmaster
email, smutty newsgroups etc). The email address (if present) in the key
would not be used to direct responses. The holder of the key would then
be in a position to reply (with a signed and/or encrypted message) to
the (signed/encrypted) messages sent using the PGP key, without
reference to Ben. The message that was the subject of the decryption
order could have an authenticated response showing a comprehension of
the content, but Ben would not have been involved.

Andy M