BAD NEWS :( Government amendments reinforce Big Browser

[David Swarbrick]

In message <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006080808400.1508-100000@finan.ncl.ac.uk>,
Quentin Campbell <Q.G.Campbell@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Caspar Bowden wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> 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.
>
>Caspar et al
>
>In clarifying what is meant by "communications" data the ammendment makes
>even less certain what can be strictly classed as "content". My special
>interest is electronic mail and in this context I make the following
>observations.

How does this apply to e-mail messages which request an acknowledgement
of receipt?
Or a message sent to a mailing list. One message is sent but actuates
the apparatus to re-transmit it to all members.

Or a cancel message sent to a newsgroup.

-- 
David Swarbrick, Solicitor, West Yorkshire. T: 01484 722531 F: 01484 716617
http://www.swarb.co.uk - david@swarb.freeuk.com 
law-index of 10,900+ uk case summaries.  IP/IT Law and Contracts.
The Law Society regulates our investment business.