gpgsm and expired certificates

MFPA expires2013 at
Sat Nov 2 16:54:23 CET 2013

Hash: SHA512


On Saturday 2 November 2013 at 2:36:27 PM, in
<mid:52750DEB.6090408 at>, Robert J. Hansen wrote:

> They are not practicing guilt by suspicion. They are
> practicing, "hey, let's collect as much information as
> possible on this crime so that we can find the truly
> guilty person."

Experiences of people I know, together with footage broadcast on the
"reality TV" programmes where TV crews follow real police going about
their business, lead me to the conclusion they routinely practice
guilt by suspicion/guilt by association. If that approach fails to
find somebody the circumstantial evidence doesn't rule out, they will
switch to a genuine investigation if the matter is serious enough to
warrant the man-hours, or if it affects high-profile individuals.

No slur intended on any individual police personnel, just public
perception of the police forces' corporate approach. (And for the
record, I know many people who have formed a similar impression as
well as plenty who have formed a very different impression.)

> Police do not determine guilt.  Courts determine guilt.
> Police are in the business of collecting information.
> In a very real sense, police are a domestic
> intelligence agency.

Unfortunately, police sometimes influence the determination of guilt
by being selective in their presentation of information to the courts.
In the UK any withholding of evidence by the police has constituted
grounds for appeal since R v Fellows in July 1985.[1]

[1] The very short quote at
is the only reference I can find at the moment.

- --
Best regards

MFPA                    mailto:expires2013 at

The second mouse gets the cheese


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list