one-to-many messaging

[Peter Fairbrother]

Chris Edwards wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> 
> | port numbers are not covered by 2(5) as they are not there for the 
> | purposes of the packet-passing service, so looking at port numbers is 
> | always interception.
> 
> One might argue that where "port 25 blocked" is a part of the service, 
> then the ISP *does* need to look at port numbers for the purpose of 
> passing on (or not) the packets.  Thus the port is traffic data.

For the purposes of RIPA section 2 it isn't traffic data, see 2(9).

Besides which, the 2(5) test is not just whether it is traffic data, it 
is whether it is put there for the purpose of facilitating the 
transmission of communications over the ISPs network - which port 
numbers clearly aren't, they are put there for the purposes of the 
endpoints, not the network.

You might argue that if port 25 traffic blocking is part of the contract 
then the port 25 numbers are there for the purpose of facilitating the 
transmission of communications - though to put it mildly I don't think 
that would go very far (!) - but it's irrelevant anyway, looking at the 
port numbers of the other traffic would still be interception.

> At work, our firewall looks at IP addresses and ports to decide whether or 
> not to forward a packet.  In this case it seems quite easy to argue the 
> port is traffic data.

Again, not according to RIPA 2(9).

And besides which your firewall is on your side of Lord Bassam's 
doormat, so it doesn't matter anyway. Also, you are not a public comms 
service provider. Also, even if they do intercept (unlikely) firewalls 
would be lawful under 3(3).. and so on .. and on

-- Peter Fairbrother