The Smith Report

[Tom Thomson]

> > Actually, the definition of communications data in the Bill is quite
> > good, when measured by its usually lamentable standard. Yes, it could
> > be tightened up, and some of my amendments address that.
>
> As remarked to Roland - you can drive a bus through the definition:
>
> "20(4) In this Chapter 'communications data' means any of the following
> (a) any address or other data COMPRISED IN or attached to a communication
> (whether by the sender or otherwise) for the purposes of any postal
service
> or telecommunication system by means of which it is being or may be
> transmitted;
> (b) any information which includes NONE of the contents of a communication
> (APART from any information falling within paragraph (a)) and is about the
> use made by any person..."
>
> So that "APART" seems to mean that comms data CAN include the contents,
> provided it is "COMPRISED IN" a communication. Doesn't that sound like a
> fairly reasonable description a datagram, headers and payload?

No.   (a) covers data "comprised in or attached to a communication
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY POSTAL SERVICE OR
TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM by means of which.....", and "apart"
in (b) merely allows content to be communications data if it is covered by
clause (a).  So content which is not there for the prurposes of a postal or
communications system is not communications data.
The definition appears to be reasonable; although "apart from ....(a)" in
(b)
may be redundant given the phrase "any of the following" at the beginning of
the definition.

It's possible that complaints about this fairly reasonable definition
detract
from the weight of complaints about the thoroughly unreasonable parts of
the bill.

Tom Thomson