S20(4) from a Judges point of view (perhaps)

[Bazzer]

Donald wrote:

[large snip]

> Remember like all the esoteric means of bypassing the RIP that hav been
> suggested, there are a large number of possibilities, but relatively few
> probabilities. I just think that there is a high probability that a judge
> would say all the paraphenalia of the tooing and froing was comms data, and
> that only the actual file, document, picture, page or combination of them
> was protected. The fact that, that paraphenalia may enable somebody to
> replicate the content by requesting it themselves, is not relevant (in my
> submission) to the question of what was "lawfully" garnered under the
> definitions in S:20(4).

I'd agree. As RIP stands the above sounds like the sort of interpretation a judge
would make (although I'm still trying to get my head round the implications of the
last sentence). NB: by "sentence" I mean written, not custodial :)

A supplementary question, maybe:

If communications data is defined as above and content defined as a separate
entity needing a warrant under the hand of the Home Secretary, how does this
compare with current regulations surrounding communications data (such as when a
telephone call was made, from/to which number, what time of day etc.) obtainable
from the public telephone network?  Does 'interception'/recording of  this sort of
comms data (as distinct from the content of the telephone call itself) need to be
directly authorised under the hand of the Home Secretary on a case-by-case basis?
If not, how is it authorised?

Bazzer.