FIPR-AC: FIPR amendment on "comms data" (was RE: FIPR wants Big Browser scenarios

[Roland Perry]

In article <002c01bfcb34$dde82620$0100a8c0@director>, Caspar Bowden
<cb@fipr.org> writes
>>Roland Perry
>..
>> >In case you are in any doubt, Authorisation and Notices are different
>> >things - look at 54.1.g/h.
>> >
>> >If someone has an AUTHORISATION and also has direct access
>> to the data - there is no NEED to serve a notice.
>>
>> So you don't think the "ANY CONDUCT" is referring to the issuing of
>> notices?
>
>Well, it doesn't say so - why do you think it might have that (very
>restricted) meaning ?

OK, having read Note 161, I now agree with you.

>Let's have another look at the defn. of comms data
>
>"20(4) In this Chapter 'communications data' means any of the following=97
>(a) any address or other data COMPRISED IN or attached to a communicatio=
n
>(whether by the sender or otherwise) for the
>purposes of any postal service or telecommunication system by means of w=
hich
>it is being or may be transmitted;
>(b) any information which includes NONE of the contents of a communicati=
on
>(APART from any information falling within paragraph (a)) and is about t=
he
>use made by any person=97..."

I read (a) to be the "things wrapping a communication, eg headers" while
(b) is "other things about the customer's communications, eg the
originating CLI or bill" (typically the cost of a handling a
communication is not included as part of the communication, and CLI is
not contained with an IP communication and must be reverse engineered
from RADIUS logs). And (c) is "other things about the customer not
related to any individual communications, eg his billing address".

>BTW - just noticed also
>
>"20.(3) A person shall not be subject to any civil liability in respect =
of
>any conduct of his which=97
>(a) is incidental to any conduct that is lawful by virtue of subsection =
(2);
>and
>(b) is not itself conduct an authorisation or warrant for which is capab=
le
>of being granted under a relevant enactment and might reasonably have be=
en
>expected to have been sought in the case in question."
>
>????!!!!?????

Does that exclude repaying the cost of replacing doors bashed in when
officers with Authorisations "collect the data themselves"? Is force
allowed when acting under an Authorisation?
--=20
Roland Perry