Courts and bug product

[Ian Batten]

On 14 Feb 2008, at 11:35, Charles Lindsey wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:33:49 -0000, Roland Perry <lists@internetpolicyagency.com 
> > wrote:
>
>> In article <47B25467.5050100@zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk 
>> > writes
>>> "The alleged burdensome nature of the procedure" - - nonsense.
>>
>> I'm not following this closely, but I'm sure I heard a comment in  
>> the media that allowing intercept evidence would require a complete  
>> transcript of all the intercepts being given to both sides in the  
>> case. I suppose that's because the defence would otherwise claim  
>> that the intercept was being selectively quoted [1]. ...
>
> Surely you just provide them with the boring tapes, and let them  
> listen and transcribe it themselves.

The obvious objection to that is ``the prosecution have exotic GCHQ  
technology to establish what is being said from these murky recordings  
you've given us, we don't''.

ian