Times 7/3/2000: "Changing world of the snoopers"

[Richard Clayton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <38C66CB3.6E412F10@uwe.ac.uk>, Ian Johnson
<Ian.Johnson@uwe.ac.uk> writes

>Caspar Bowden wrote:
>> 
>> http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/03/08/timnwsnws01045.html
>> Changing world of the snoopers
>
>> ... provided
>> she used a licensed service provider. E-mails sent through unlicensed
>> service providers are currently not covered by any surveillance legislation.
>
>Forgive my ignorance but who/what/how are service providers "licensed"?

there are some generic licenses for the sort of thing that ISPs do. They
don't have to apply for them and no-one counts who is covered by them

>Assuming the concept is correct could anyone offer real world examples
>of
>licensed & unlicensed providers?

I think the Times has put across a subtle point so as to confuse. IOCA
1985 dealt with licensed telecommunications operators (not quite the
phrase, but it was intended to mean BT & Mercury). Newer providers such
as Thus, Energis &c are caught by the same net - but only if they are
telcos. Many ISPs, especially the smaller ones are not telcos and/or are
not owned by telcos.

You can find a (pre-RIP, and pre Taylor-Sabori) discussion of this
written by Clive Feather at:

        http://www.davros.org/legal/interception.html

It's unclear to me, if the email was actually seized at the University
that any of this is relevant, since whatever a University might be, it
clearly doesn't have the same relationship with students as an ISP does.
For example, it is rather unclear at the moment whether Clause 12 is
going to apply to JANET.

The Times is correct that under the new rules email can be seized under
an interception warrant from pretty much anywhere. The LEAs are also
unable to "cheat" and seize the email when it isn't moving (see 2(7))

The bit to look at harder though is clause 1(5)(c) which says that if
you can seize the stored communication under another Act then it isn't
an offence to read it, and you don't need an interception warrant (and
of course you can produce it in court).

Clearly it is silly if email reading requires Jack Straw's signature
when it has been finally delivered, but it could all be better drafted
to remove the feeling that the police can use PACE warrants to seize ISP
hard disks.

Mind you, drafting is everything -- I think I shall claim now that all
the email on this lap top is temporarily stored and will be delivered
onward to somewhere else eventually. ie: Jack's autograph is going to be
needed to inspect it!

- -- 
richard                       writing to inform and not as company policy
     fewer than 20 MPs still need adopting:  http://www.stand.org.uk/
"Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBOMbC4zH5BMWRRATGEQL/ngCffP3dguohLGe9m17cqYV4a1qS9NcAoNYi
FPBG+KsAvKmiWIX734NsjtJT
=EcvT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----