Minister promises that Part III is coming

[Peter Mitchell]

Ian G Batten wrote:
> 
> I would suspect that, at a civil standard of proof, the prosecution  
> would contend that possession of a large amount of flat-random data  
> with no lawful purpose was proof of the use of encryption.  Your  
> defence, of course, would be the source and/or purpose of that  data.   
> Of course, using stego to put the bits into MP3s, JPGs and so  on is 
> still available.  Arguing that laws shouldn't be passed because  
> sufficiently skilled people can evade them is a nonsense, however: by  
> that logic we would have no laws against fraud.

I don't think that's the argument against part III. Rather the arguments 
are:

(i) It is possible, indeed normal, for people to have files on their 
computers of which they have no knowledge at all. So there is a 
substantial risk of miscarriage of justice if the law says they can be 
convicted unless they *can* account for them;
(ii) as a general principle, people should not be compelled by law to 
help the police gather evidence against them.

-- 
Pete Mitchell