A couple of questions

[David Swarbrick]

In message <20000626132621.47712.qmail@hotmail.com>, Barnaby Prendergast
<ybanrab@hotmail.com> writes
>>"Stephen Lafferty" <stephen@slafferty.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>Could any passing lawyer please provide an example of a >case where drug 
>>dealers, paedophiles or pornographers >were able to avoid a guilty verdict 
>>because the >prosecution could not decrypt files on the accused's >hard 
>>drive.  I can't seem to find any evidence for this >in any promotional 
>>literature issued by the government.
>
>John Carr of NCH Action for Children has said, if I recall correctly, that 
>there have been cases where the CPS had been unable to prosecute owing to 
>encrypted evidence. Bit of an untestable theory, I assume, without standing 
>in the line of libel fire:-)

The point is that we should not deny this to be the case, it plainly
will be, and there will be many cases where, by its nature the truth is
quite unknowable.

What is more clear is that the police _have_ been able to get around or
through encryption, and that people, encouraged by a false sense of
security tend to commit large amounts of evidence against themselves to
'secure' envelopes. 

And the other issue which must not be forgotten is to ask how much crime
will be prevented by proper encryption being widely used (unlawful
intercepts come ruefully to mind).

-- 
David Swarbrick, Solicitor. Computer and Internet Law and Contracts
david@swarb.freeuk.com T: +44(0)1484 722531 F: +44(0)1484 716617
Law-index of 11,100+ case summaries at www.swarb.co.uk