>IANAL but wouldn't the UK's proposed legislation make software that
>won't provide access to all keys implicitly illegal?
This has been the subject of great debate in the UK. The RIP Bill says that you can be
served with a key demand if you "have or have had" the
requested key. Until this week, the burden of proof then fell upon *you* to
prove it was no longer in your posession. (How to prove a negative...) Many
people interpreted this as saying that you had to keep copies of all keys,
just in the case any public authority decided it wanted a copy.
The one substantive concession the government made last week was to put the
burden of proof back on the prosecution, and add some language to try and make
clear that keys destroyed in the normal manner by software were legitimately
no longer in your posession. This would almost have certainly been forced on
the government anyway by the European Convention on Human Rights; a very recent case
held that another such "reverse burden of proof" (under anti-terrorism
legislation) contravened the right to a fair trial (no sh*t!)
Ian.
