ZA approves RIP analog

[Peter Fairbrother]

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message
> <AFB26DF151B3D511BB2B009027C2C7A90BBB98@controller1.ukerna.ac.uk>,
> Andrew Cormack <A.Cormack@ukerna.ac.uk> writes
>> As far as I know the discussion on this list exhausted the issue - I'm
>> convinced that any scanning system that doesn't pass content to a human is
>> lawful - but I don't know whether the final version of the guidance will
>> still contain that unfortunate statement.
> 
> Having now spoken to one of the officials who set the policy behind
> RIPA, that's what they intended. They never thought of the situation
> where a corporate person "made available" the data to himself.

I'm disappointed by the fromer, and unsurprised by the latter.
> 
> Nevertheless, going by the wording of the Act, it's lawful. (Although
> from a common sense point of view, you can argue that an intermediate
> virus checker is the intended recipient of an email sent to a subscriber
> whose email system is known to include one... but perhaps that can of
> worms is best left unopened.)
:)
> 
> The only 'difficulty' this leaves is that all email (and by analogy of
> eavesdropping technology built into both the public PSTN and a corporate
> PBX all voice calls) are subjected to legal interception.
> 
> All we need now is a different name for what NTAC does....
> 
> ps. I very much appreciate the input in the adjacent thread, and will
> attempt to answer the various points made as soon as I can.

From the tone of your email, can I take it that the view that automated
scanning makes content available to the corporate person, and therefore is
interception, is gaining some ground? Or is it status quo ante?



-- Peter Fairbrother