Fwd: Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

[Peter Fairbrother]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Date: 	Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:32:14 +0000
From: 	Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com>
To: 	Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk>



I tried to answer your question but gmail has clearly been held in contempt.

Francis

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Mail Delivery Subsystem* <mailer-daemon at googlemail.com
<mailto:mailer-daemon at googlemail.com>>
Date: 2014-03-21 9:57 GMT+00:00
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: fjmd1a at gmail.com <mailto:fjmd1a at gmail.com>


Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk <mailto:ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server
for the recipient domain chiark.greenend.org.uk
<http://chiark.greenend.org.uk> by mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk
<http://mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk>. [212.13.197.229].

The error that the other server returned was:
550 Blacklisted site `[209.85.216.54]' [Irritated]

----- Original message -----

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
          d=gmail.com <http://gmail.com>; s=20120113;

h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
           :content-type;
          bh=7UuDjVfvR7fMCX2CWyaHTJOaOT649aOSs5bM5V3bwoY=;

b=QbBcVruYIPqM19GCwbohuZa8iUjhnhl0o9U4dtM1IuD6BBtfxiZig3ZK3Ma5N/ZAfi

   dFdBxpHguXMualDLSvQKJgqZyEaVYmS/gvY7KISA9A+7/CrWXRTqCVmHDSQ8Oh28nJ+c

   LeYkV5I0F5vXUPHMW0UMwaZ53tRaUK9MSrPvPYjiQgoGSbhm0pgvD83nEhcVhLt13x+W

   BbcsT1WqGmZGf4zX4nqghB6O+bNfZZo6TafW0JwO1NcQuOAslW+jeyPzcPr9RiMcZnSj

   w9HdySWXx44fqs7OsIhhD+nPssI43XVSBMiSh4PKDOXklOAez1x1HmRFC3xfLWMkYDIQ
           PhGg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.28.2 with SMTP id
k2mr53840299qcc.16.1395395853558; Fri,
   21 Mar 2014 02:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.30.97 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 02:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <532B6FD7.3040707 at zen.co.uk
<mailto:532B6FD7.3040707 at zen.co.uk>>
References: <532566EB.9080101 at casparbowden.net
<mailto:532566EB.9080101 at casparbowden.net>>
          <53271A2A.3040701 at zen.co.uk <mailto:53271A2A.3040701 at zen.co.uk>>
          <MtqqprGhY1JTFAco at perry.co.uk
<mailto:MtqqprGhY1JTFAco at perry.co.uk>>
          <53275FEE.90800 at zen.co.uk <mailto:53275FEE.90800 at zen.co.uk>>
          <UIn8wIHYYAKTFAVa at perry.co.uk
<mailto:UIn8wIHYYAKTFAVa at perry.co.uk>>

<CAEWR3ktyTXyHauc9ecQXwc8Sy9ZDw2D-Aej2Ue1zU=+Wuw4yng at mail.gmail.com
<mailto:Wuw4yng at mail.gmail.com>>
          <532B6FD7.3040707 at zen.co.uk <mailto:532B6FD7.3040707 at zen.co.uk>>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:57:33 +0000
Message-ID:
<CAEWR3ktAaxw9VMtiSpi0xLAOA=+ASO3hqEZ6HBsPykGRh4cB6g at mail.gmail.com
<mailto:ASO3hqEZ6HBsPykGRh4cB6g at mail.gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: BBCR4 on Crypto-wars today at 13:30
From: Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com <mailto:fjmd1a at gmail.com>>
To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
<ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk <mailto:ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk>>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133bbd02c44a404f51aea3f

2014-03-20 22:46 GMT+00:00 Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk
<mailto:zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk>>:
  >
  >
  > Suppose I say that the egg is not in the safe? Could a Court order me to
  > open the safe? I'm pretty sure it could order some baillifs or 
whoever to
  > open it, but order me?
  >

In principle, I suspect yes the court could order you to do that. Courts
have been quite innovative at using injunctions over the years.

In practice, in the example I gave, the court would almost certainly order
you to hand over the *egg* rather than open the safe. The court won't care
(and the claimant won't have any legitimate interest) in where you have put
it, just that you give it back.

I picked a detinue/torts interference with goods act 1977 case for a
concrete example. It *might* be possible to manufacture a cause of action
where the safe must be opened but I can't see one offhand.

In making the order the court will have had to decide whether or not you
had the egg. If the injunction was an interim injunction there'll have been
a different exercise than if the injunction is a final injunction. Take the
final injunction as an example: the court will have to be satisfied on
"balance of probabilities" (i.e. P(you have the egg|evidence available to
the court) > 0.5) that you have the egg. If satisfied they will almost
certainly make an order for delivery up.

If you say you don't have it - well that will already have been decided.



  >
  >
  > Suppose you can't prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that some evidence
  > against me is in the safe until you see it - and the only way to see
it is
  > if I open the safe?
  >
  >
  >
In the *egg* case, at committal for contempt, the court would have to find
(on the criminal standard) that you were in contempt, ie. that you had the
egg and were refusing to comply with the order to give it up. If the court
so finds you could be jailed.

In terms of "evidence against" you - not the egg case. The legal framework
is different. If it were (say) a civil claim for disclosure of evidence,

----- Message truncated -----




-- 
Francis Davey