burden of proof / keys or plaintext

[David Swarbrick]

In message <E11CJBN-0001sj-00@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk>, Ross Anderson
<Ross.Anderson@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes
>David Swarbrick wants clarification of:
>
>> 20.--(1) Every power which is conferred by an enactment to which 
>> this section applies on a constable who has entered premises in
>> the exercise of a power conferred by an enactment shall be
>> construed as including a power to require any information
>> contained in a computer and accessible from the premises to be
>> produced in a form in which it can be taken away and in which it
>> is visible and legible.
>
>With many products, compliance is already impossible. PGP, for
>example, allows you to specify that the recipient will only be able to
>display a message on screen, not print or save it. Although in theory
>one can write a noncompliant implementation, it would be unreasonable
>for PC Plod to insist that a user do this. 

I appreciate the limitations, but I just believe that this is the place
to start from. What evidence is there of police officers ever having
used it? What was their experience.

There are clearly great weaknesses in it, but I would rather move
forward from this than back from the proposed bill.
>
>
>
>

-- 
David Swarbrick, Solicitor, West Yorkshire
Web: http://www.swarb.co.uk/  david@swarb.freeuk.com Tel: +44(0)1484 722531
Home of the law-index (9800+ case digests).  IT and IP Law and contracts.
The Law Society regulates us in the conduct of investment business