Burden of Proof

[Dave Bird]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <38E4B809.404364B@doc.ic.ac.uk>, Philip Rowlands
<phr@doc.ic.ac.uk> writes:
>The Bill could be easily rectified on this matter by removing S49(1)-b,
>"or has had" [possession of the key]. Compel the prosecution to prove you
>have the key, and the burden of proof is back its proper orientation.

 I think perhaps what the Home Office meant to say was: 
"anyone who, at the time the become aware such a notice is being served,
 has possession of the key......."

 Access to the contents is demonstrated in some measure by acting upon
 the material, quoting it, or appearing to know the contents.  


 Forgetting a password is not easy to demonstrate either way.  All Plod
 can demonstrate is that you were regularly aware of the material 
 because demonstrably reacting to it,  then you heard about the notice, 
 now you say you suddenly can't recall the passphrase (under the stress 
 of being pulled in and questioned).  When of course it is possible that 
 if someone is disrupted in this way, it might just make them forget.

 Is destroying a key instead of giving access meant to be an offence?


- -- 
   ^-^-^-@@-^-;-^   http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
        (..)__u     news:alt.smoking.mooses

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBOOT5z38v/Y5zkfRPEQLUHQCg4UUKgewf0fenvSY2MZDYsxDxXo8AoNB7
53X4ig2em4KwI79hDlKBC9G9
=jAFw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----