BAD NEWS :( Government amendments reinforce Big Browser

[Ken Brown]

Tom Thomson replying to Caspar & others:

> > The amendement to S.2 below seems absolutely to clarify that comms data
> > INCLUDES signals for the actuation of apparatus, i.e the full http string,
> > and therefore that conduct in relation to it DOES NOT constitute
> > interception - therefore no warrant is required.
> 
> I can follow you up to the point where you say "ie" and no further.  Please
> explain where in the bill the definition of a telecommunications system is
> given in such a way that web servers in general could be said to be
> apparatus comprised in it.  The two amendments refer to control signals for
> such apparatus, not to control signals for apparatus that is not comprised
> in a telecommunications system.
> 
> As I've said before, I think harping on about imaginary problems in areas of
> the bill which are actually quite sound will detract from the attention paid
> to your comments on areas where the bill is thoroughly unsound.

Surely the weakness isn't that the bill defines communications system to
include webservers (or any other computer system) but that it doesn't
make it clear that it doesn't. 

For that matter "(a) any address or other data comprised in orattached
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;" could, in the way those words are used
by us techies (who knows what judges think?) easily be held to include
cylinder & head references on commands sent to a disk controller. Or
whatever. Three-quarters of what computers do is communicating
"addresses" of things.

Yes, I'm sure these are nice and fair people & we can trust them to make
guidelines and rules of thumb that work in our favour. Of course we all
know that these monior matters of definition can (and indeed should) be
left to our fine English  courts who are experts in such things as well
as being  honest, inccoruptible, immune from political bias, more or
less generally infallible as well as having lots of expertise in
communications security (at least in parts, My Lord)  But I suffer from
a sort of democratic delusion or mania, such that when people pass laws
intending to control my behaviour I want to know what they mean (*). Of
course if Owen's point of view that no government can be expected to
debate or discuss security matters prevails then we can all just give up
& let our Lords and Masters do what they feel is neccessary for our own
good.

(*) nuts - time to read the Control of Hedgerows in Residential Areas
Bill. Isn't the parliament website wonderful? How do they find the time
to make all these Bills & Acts?  And what exactly is a "Motorised Marine
Leisure Vehicles Free Zone"?  

And what about Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Act 2000:
"1. - (1) The Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland department
may, at the request of the BBC, supply the BBC with social security
information.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the BBC includes any person
providing the BBC with services in connection with television licences."
 
Usual disclaimers - my opinions & not my employers