"Tipping-off" revisited

[Q G Campbell]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Bohm [mailto:nbohm@ernest.net]
> Sent: 08 March 2001 15:33
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Cc: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: "Tipping-off" revisited=20
>=20
> [snip]
>
> Revoking a key does not reveal anything the Act can require=20
> you to keep
> secret.  This has always been the case, and no other words=20
> were ever needed
> to produce this result.  I don't think any of the lawyers on=20
> the list has
> ever thought otherwise.
>=20
> Revoking a key may of course provoke enquiries which cannot=20
> be truthfully answered, or may lead directly to inferences.
> None of that alters the original conclusion.
[snip]

I accept what is said here as far as it goes. But it seems only to focus
on the person to whom the notice was served and it takes no account of
any previous history of "warnings" that person might have given in the
past.

S.54(10) allows that a third-party may become aware of the "secrecy
provision" and can be proceeded against for "tipping-off".

What happens if I see a revocation certificate from Owen and publicly
state on this list that the inference I have made from this action is
that "Owen has been served a s.49 notice with a secrecy provison"?

If I was mistaken then I will look foolish but I certainly have not
broken any law.

But if the inference I drew was correct, and I was believed, then I have
tipped-off everyone, defeated the secrecy restriction in the s.49
notice, and ruined a major anti-something operation being run by the
issuing LEA. Precisely all of the things s.54 is supposed to prevent!

Can s.54(10) be used against me in this situation? Did I have
"reasonable grounds for suspecting that the notice contained a
requirement to keep secret what was disclosed" merely on the basis of
Owen's signature line and his action of revoking a certificate?=20

Do things really change if the signature line instead used the wording
(from Richard Clayton): "I will only revoke this key if served with a
s49 order with an s54 provision"? =20

Quentin