"Tipping-off" revisited

[Owen Blacker]

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

Quentin:
> 
> [deletia]
> 
> 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? 

I would *assume* (probably wrongly) that you cannot be bound by the
gagging clause unless the person served the notice has made you aware
of the notice(?)

IANAL, of course.   *G*

> 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"?  

Legal issues aside, it would be rather foolish to make such a
statement.  What if the key became compromised somehow and I wanted
to revoke it.  Then I would have a lot of people possibly making
unfounded assumptions.  Assumptions which may be deleterious to mine
own reputation, at that...   :o)


O x
- -----
Owen Blacker
Senior Software Developer / InfoSec Consultant    Wheel: Clerkenwell
See http://www.owens-place.org.uk/pgp.html -- more about my PGP keys
Sig  0x00036874 | d39f b776 fa20 c125 b0e2  aa6d 555e 4126 0003 6874
- -----
Opinions are mine.  My employer and their clients can get their own!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0
Comment: Due to RIP, pls check for revocation before using this key!

iQA/AwUBOqfFOlVeQSYAA2h0EQJMrACfekCW4wvXNvq7Y/8V6e+hQpvU9+YAnRuq
ytXzKdaFKq8Hm3vSqN7DEyUR
=hNS0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered 
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/