Roland Perry - "is an ISP a 'Person'?"

[Peter Fairbrother]

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> Now, according to the interpretations that Peter Fairbrother is trying
> to impose on us, you have just intercepted ALL the mail passing through
> ISP X.

Yes. So what? 

As defined in RIPA, interception goes on all the time. Even if you reject my
interpretations, it goes on all the time. In itself, interception is not an
offence - ss.1(1). 

However, interception is an offence when done intentionally and without
lawful authority (which means it's usually ok if you have a good and lawful
reason to do it). Sensible, neh?

Buggers up yet another meaning of the word "interception" of course, which
is already mangled beyond everyday recognition by RIPA and IOCA, but that's
legalese for you.

Under RIPA the interception can be the the modification of or interference
with the system, ss.2(2)(a). The concept of which items of mail were
intercepted doesn't really apply then. RIPA interception can also arise out
of an act of monitoring, ss.2(2)(b), when the concept does apply.

When postmen sort mail it's not ordinarily interception, under ss.2(5). If
they change the sorting process so that the sorters do something different
with mail to an individual*, the change in the sorting process would be a
"modification" interception. Running the process would be a "monitoring"
interception of ALL the mail it was run on, even if they only read the
address on the outside of the letters.

If someone sorted through the contents of the sorting-box for a round or
postcode in order to select mail for one person, it would be a "monitoring"
interception of ALL the mail for that round or postcode, and the act of
taking the mail out of the box would be a "modification" or "interfering"
interception. 

The previous two paragraphs are not subject to my "interpretations", or
arguments about "person", it's all plainly set out in RIPA. So what? RIPA
interceptions happen all the time. They are mostly perfectly legal.




I really don't see what all the fuss is about.


Assuming automated scanning is interception, it just prevents ISP's from
doing things they couldn't do by hand, things that we wouldn't want them to
do anyway. Arguing that the intention was to allow these things to happen is
IMO unlikely to succeed in Court.

It doesn't stop virus scanning, it doesn't stop (most) spam scanning, it
just stops things like autoscanning for eg political content. ISP's can scan
or autoscan for "purposes connected with the provision or operation of the
(telecommunications) service". That they should be able to autoscan for
other purposes would make a mockery of the intent of RIPA.

For DPA compliance ISP's should autoscan if possible, to limit the numbers
of people who see content.

Incidently it's impractical and probably nearly impossible to autoscan
without a human occasionally seeing content, for testing, auditing and
similar purposes, so this discussion is of little practical significance to
ISP's.



I guess the perceived problem probably comes from the butchery of the word
"interception" in RIPA.



Charles Lindsey also wrote:


> Peter Fairbrother said...
> 
>> It makes content available for the person who runs the machine to use, even
>> if he doesn't read it. The words "see" and "read" do not appear in Ch1 of
>> RIPA.
> 
> No, but it would be reasonable to interpret the meaning of "making
> available" as being "to enable the commumication to be 'seen' /
> 'read' / 'heard' / 'felt' (as may be appropriate for the form of that
> communication)". If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean?

It just means made available. Not made available for every purpose, or for a
suitable or particular purpose, but just made available, in any way at all.
Which would include being made available to use in a scanner.


-- Peter Fairbrother