Adducing sufficient evidence to raise an issue (was RE: Consultation on the Draft Code of Practice for the Investigation of Protected Electronic Information: Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

[Caspar Bowden]

admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Owen Lewis

>That reads to me quite clearly that there is no reversal of proof,
beyond
>any that might exist where a claim of inability to comply is registered
in
>response to a demand for any of the other several types of information
>which can lawfully be made.

So you are saying Owen there is no reversal of the burden of proof,
except when there is a burden of proof. Well that's all right then,
obviously. Man, are you raving or what?

> I'd say that:
>- A statement of reason for an inability to comply with a lawful demand
>requires examined and is not simply to be accepted at face value.

The state should not be making demands unless it can prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that it is logically and physically *possible* for them
to be complied with. Do you want to live in a country where the state
can ask you to do impossible things or throw you in jail?
=20
>- That a court hearing is a suitable occasion for such examination and
>testing, where the matter cannot otherwise be disposed of by more
immediate
>means.

Completely agree. And if the prosecution can't prove that someone is
capable of decrypting the action should fail. But RIPA doesn't require a
court to do this in all circumstances, it only requires the same vector
which authorizes acquisition of the underlying data. [BTW - this is what
is known in the trade as an error in the text of your argument Owen,
should you care to acknowledge it]

> - You may ask for but will not get - and nor should you get - a cast
iron
>'get-out' clause to allow all to exempt themselves at will from
compliance
>with legislation.

It's the government who inserted the "get-out" clause, I'm just trying
to find out what it means. In a democracy, it's normally believed to be
a good idea for the letter of the law to make sense and be
understandable. Since Magna Carta anyway.

>E.g. it will not protect the
>secrets of human traffickers, body part smugglers, drug dealers, the
>executives in the next ENRON or BCCI scandal or terrorists.

Your bias in assuming that persons accused are guilty, or that any
departure from that in reality is unimportant, it absolutely bleedin'
typical of your outlook Owen. You have a sort reverse naturalistic
fallacy going on, "because some sort of abuse of ideals is not unknown,
therefore it is not worth bothering trying to guard against the abuse or
uphold the ideal".

--
Caspar Bowden