Paul ("Gary") Beresford MP's CJP amendment on failure to decrypt

[Caspar Bowden]

>[mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Ben Laurie

>> This amendment fell, but it seems amazing that NO-ONE was
>prepared to make
>> the point that just because encrypted material is seized
>under a particular
>> act of parliament, is not evidence that that material in
>fact is child pornography.
>
>So what does "We took the view that the penalty for that
>offence did not
>and should not depend on or vary according to the nature of
>the material
>that may be protected by that key." mean, then?

Well it doesn't mean THAT (in that it doesn't state the rationale). I should
say it means about as much as...

"There is a real case for what the hon. Member for Mole Valley is
advocating. I said that directly to the children's organisations and to my
colleagues in this place and the other place who argued the case that the
hon. Gentleman articulately put this evening. We came to the judgment that I
have set out"

??!!??