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

[Charles Lindsey]

	On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:30:13 +0000
	Roland Perry <roland@linx.net> said...

> 
> In message <200112181326.NAA18029@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey
> <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >Are you sure? Suppose I rent a permanent net connection, and just run an
> >NNTP server (or web server for that matter) on a machine connected to
> >it. The machine does not run anything else (not even email). I allow the
> >general public (or maybe only my paying subscribers) to connect to it to
> >download news (or web pages).
> 
> I don't see how any of these protocol-specific services would be
> excluded as a result of the nature of the content transferred by the
> protocol.
> 
> >Which bits if RIPA say that I am running a Telecommunications Service?
> 
> 2(1). "Service" is the use of a "system"; and a "private telecoms
> system" is anything attached to a Public telecoms system.

No, a "private telecoms system" is not "anything", it is a telecoms
system that is attached, etc.

So now you have to show that my server, which is attached to your piece
of wire, is itself a telecoms system. If my server passes that test,
then so does every home PC that receives the occasional email. On that
basis, even Lord Bassam's doormat is part of a communications system (it
is there to receive and accept communications falling from the letter
box).

Yes, the wording of the Act when it comes to dealing with the end points
of a communicztion is woolly, and this is not the first time I have said
so.

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