YouGov :"POLL - Blunkett's proposals on internet privacy: for or against"

[Charles Lindsey]

	On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 23:14:19 -0000
	"Alison Wheeler \(crypto\)" <crypto@creative.org.uk> said...

> As a working hypothesis, I've rather concluded that the act as passed
> requires ISPs, relayers, TELCOs (effectively everyone by the time you follow
> it through) to KEEP all data but NEVER look at it for ANY purpose unless
> Blunkett asks to see it (sic).

Yes, I think that's about it. It is even workable.

First of all, you keep it for as long as you need it for your own
purposes (billing, or enabling your abuse department to LART spammers).
Call it one month for the sake of argument. If Plod wants to see it
during that time, for investigating shoplifting, or something, then he
serves a notice under Chapter II of RIPA. That is all covered (well,
more or less) under existing law.

After the month is up, you still keep it, but embargoed as you said
above (but under RIPA, they still cannot ask you to keep more detail
than is reasonably practicable - I haven't heard that the new Bill
changes that). Now, if Plod comes along with his notice, and the notice
mentions "National Security" (these notices HAVE to specify a purpose,
and "National Security" is already one of the official purposes under
RIPA), then he can have the data. Otherwise, he cannot.
> 
> How you locate the requisite piece of data requested should, of course, be
> left as an exercise to be carried out when the request is made <g>

Just say "grep" :-) .

Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5