Home Office response on Burden of Proof

[Nicholas Bohm]

At 03:03 PM 8/5/1999 +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
>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)
>
>There may be such cases, but this doesn't sound like one: how can you
>tell how the response relates to an encrypted message you haven't
>decrypted (the point being that "the accused" has declined to decrypt,
>of course)?

You can tell if you sent it encrypted under the key you're interested in.

Regards,

Nicholas Bohm

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

Phone		01279 871272	(+44 1279 871272)
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