Is virus scanning interception?

[Richard Clayton]

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

In article <200207151905.18121.graham.todd@ntlworld.com>, Graham
<graham.todd@ntlworld.com> writes

>Whether or not the detector quarantines the email, deletes it, or subsequently 
>sends it on to Mary Poppins makes no difference.  It has been intercepted.
>
>Or in this area does the law not resemble common sense?

IANAL! but I've picked this up over the years...

In a statute words have their usual dictionary meaning

unless

        they're defined in the statute itself
                (as "interception" is in RIP 2000)

or      they're defined in the Interpretation Acts 1978
                (eg men <=> women, singular => plural etc)

or      there's some other general statute that's applicable
                (eg Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995)

or      funny bits and pieces of caselaw (which probably have non-Latin
        tags these days)
                (eg the Rule of Eiusdem Generis)

Which means that in this case, for this particular statute, the word
interception means what the statute says it does and common sense (or
your dictionary) is not required :)

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

Are you a Friend of FIPR yet?       http://www.fipr.org/friends.html

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

iQA/AwUBPTMZHBfnRQV/feRLEQKxbwCdEvIRHSmJCWSIcI3weh4rrl/dJ2gAoMNO
ZkGlRNNz/cgt2coA4am0i3tw
=1yBp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----