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

[Peter Fairbrother]

> Charles Lindsey wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 22:41:48 +0100
> Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> said...
>=20
>>=20
>> Charles Lindsey wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> Yes. So what?=20
>=20
> OK, You have taken my bait.
>=20
> Let us recall the scenario. I postulated that all the mail passing
> through ISP X was filtered, and mail addressed to Joe Bloggs was
> diverted to the left, and mail addressed to anyone else (such as John
> Goodguy) was diverted to the right.
>=20
> And you have just agreed that, under your interpretations, bot Joe
> Blogg's mail and John Goodguy's mail has been intercepted.
>=20
> Now to the "So what?" bit.
>=20
> The interception of Joe Blogg's email was lawful, because the SOS had
> issued a warrent authorizing it.
>=20
> But the interception of John Goodguy's mail was unlawful, because the
> SOS had issued no warrant in that case.
>=20
> Q.E.D.

Puh-lease. I'm not a defender of RIPA, I don't like it, but you don't
seriously expect to catch me out that easily? The interception of JG's mail
was lawful, under ss.5(6)(a):
=20
5(6) The conduct authorised by an interception warrant shall be taken to
include-=20
=A0
(a) all such conduct (including the interception of communications not
identified by the warrant) as it is necessary to undertake in order to do
what is expressly authorised or required by the warrant;

>=20
>>=20
>> Charles Lindsey also wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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?
>>=20
>> It just means made available. Not made available for every purpose, or f=
or a
>> suitable or particular purpose, but just made available, in any way at a=
ll.
>> Which would include being made available to use in a scanner.
>=20
> Since the whole thing hinges on the meaning of "made available", it
> hardly makes sense to say that "made available" just means "made
> available". But in the case of RIPA, it has to be made available "to
> a person", which surely means that it must be put into a form which a
> "person" (whether individual or corporate) can comprehend.

Why should it? That's not what RIPA says.

There is no absolute availability. Something at the bottom of your garden i=
s
available to you, but less available than if it's in your room, and less
available than if it's in your pocket. Something in your pocket, or at the
bottom of your garden, is available to you, even if you don't take it out o=
f
your pocket, or go down to the end of the garden.

An email is available to root on most mail systems. Copying it to root's
home folder would make it more available, but less available than putting i=
t
on-screen.

For interception to occur, it is not necessary for a person to read the
mail. It just has to be made available to him. Diverting mail through a
scanner makes it available to the operator, to use. And he will actually us=
e
content, in the scanning process.