BBC forum answers

[Philip Rowlands]

"Adam Atkinson (ETL)" wrote:
> 
> Charles Clarke's answers have gone up.

Well, I thought I'd made my question pretty fireproof. Yet the same old
answers came up again (to be fair, to the same old question).

He will not accept that claiming the "lost password" defence proves the
prosecution's case (of prior possession) for them. Then he goes on to
state that it is "reasonable and fair" to require someone to prove their
innocence where direct evidence is impossible to produce. Would it be
reasonable and fair to assume the guilt of a suspected burglar, and
require him to prove his whereabouts to avoid conviction?

I will now execute the Clarke algorithm for conviction avoidance:
"I created that PGP key 6 months ago, and as the documentation suggests,
kept the private key stored separately on a floppy disk. I added my
public key to a keyserver, but no-one ever used it. I copied over the
floppy when I needed a spare. I don't use PGP any more; I was just
trying it out. An old colleague sent my an encrypted message, which I
wasn't able to read."

Am I lying? Should I go to prison for 2 years? Or am I innocent? *Or
should I have to be proving this at all?*

I would be most grateful of a response from those Home Office
listmembers who could explain current thinking.


Phil