ZA approves RIP analog

[Quentin Campbell]

WRT
> >| In the UK, the RIP Bill [sic] has faced heavy criticism

Roland Perry said...

But very little, in fact, about the Interception parts. Two years later=20
a couple of implementation issues [1] have arisen, but these are minor=20
compared to the fuss over Traffic Data (Public Authorities) and the
still ruminating GAK issue.

> >but, in South
> >| Africa, the Bill is supported by most main opposition parties.
>=20

...and...

As was the majority of RIPA in the UK.
=20
[1] Is Virus checking Interception (tm)
and.. Getting emails from ISP servers with Special Production Orders=20
rather than Interception Warrants.

--------------
I thought that the "is virus checking interception" issue was dead after
our July discussion on this list. At the time (13/7) you pointed out
that even the Home Office's RIPA team agreed that automated
virus-scanning was not "interception" under RIPA if "infected"
attachments were just removed and destroyed before the message was
delivered to its intended recipient.

Your message above implies that the issue is still very much alive and
kicking and I would be grateful for an update on where we are with it
(CoPs, Information Commissioner's view, etc).

For most Postmasters like me, automatic anti-virus filtering of all
incoming e-mail has become a basic and routine part of Mail Hub
operation and is not considered illegal under UK law.

Judging from the lists I am on, the issue of automated content scanning
of e-mail for spam detection appears to be more contentious. At this
site we simply tag messages before they are delivered to the recipient
mailbox if their "spam score" is above a certain threshold. This
strategy was adopted in part because of the problem of "false positives"
making the tagging less than 100% reliable.

However we are considering automatically discarding any incoming e-mail
if the "spam score" is above a second, much higher, threshold. This
threshold would be chosen so that the possibility of "false positives"
would be practically zero.=20

It seems to me that the way we (and most other UK acdemice sites)
operate our spam filtering is no different in kind to our anti-virus
measures. Why is there this apparent fixation on automated anti-virus
scanning to the exclusion of all other content/address scanning that
goes on in a modern Mail Hub?

Maintaining the integrity of mail systems and recipient hosts against
the growing tide of viruses, worms, spam, etc, is a constant struggle.
It would be unfortunate if uncertainty over interpreting RIPA and the
DPA stops Postmasters deploying the powerful automated tools that we
need to help us in this struggle.=20

It would be ironic indeed if one anti-terrorist measure (RIPA) prevented
UK sites from actively defending against another terrorist threat (cyber
warfare).

Quentin
---
PHONE: +44 191 222 8209    Computing Service, University of Newcastle
FAX:   +44 191 222 8765    Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 7RU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any opinion expressed above is mine. The University can get its own."=20