'Person' as in Section 13

[Paul Leyland]

> From: Nicholas Bohm [mailto:nbohm@ernest.net]
> At 03:09 PM 8/6/1999 +0100, Brian Morrison wrote:
> >On Fri, 06 Aug 1999 14:41:23 +0100, Nicholas Bohm wrote:
> >
> >>>If they
> >>>were to comply, and were subsequently dismissed for doing 
> so, would they
> >>>have any claim to unfair dismissal?  
> >>
> >>Probably, since they acted under legal compulsion; but this 
> argues for
> >>conferring a special legal immunity for the making of a 
> disclosure in good
> >>faith in the belief that it was compelled by a clause 10 notice.
> >
> >Surely, if they comply with the request, they could then only be
> >dismissed if the company were informed of the disclosure, and that
> >would itself constitute "tipping off" would it not?
> 
> The company might find out some other way, perhaps.

If the keys were so important to a company, would it not be wise to have
them split between multiple parties specifically to prevent any single
employee releasing them without authorization?  Several "n from m" schemes
are available, such that any n persons can recover a key but any n-1 cannot.

This brings up an interesting half-way house in the requirement that keys be
released when demanded by the police.  Suppose, for example, I have enough
information to generate a key if, and only if, I act in collusion with any
two other people picked from a group of five.  Do I possess the key within
the meaning of the Act?   If not, who does?   Any three people of the six
acting together surely possess the key, but no individual or pair can
possibly create the key.


Paul