one-to-many messaging

[Clive D. W. Feather]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <034401c89e53$c7c72350$1601010a@neos.tv>, Tom Thomson 
<cmt@btinternet.com> writes
>Unless the ISP can produce a good argument that delaying,
>throttling, and/or discarding VoIP traffic is necessary for the purpose
>of getting other data delivered effectively (so that he's doing it for
>the purposes of the public communications system) that must be illegal
>interception,

Delaying, throttling, or discarding traffic isn't interception *at all*, 
since the content is not being made available to a third party.

>Much the same way as span and virus
>filtering of email is legal interception

It's only interception if the filtering makes the contents available to 
a third party. If the filtering is done by the ISP then it's not 
interception.

The debate, IIRC, was whether making filtered-out emails available to 
ISP staff was making them available to a third party. If so, the 
"necessary for the service" defence makes it legal interception. If not, 
then it's not interception at all.

- -- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: <clive@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: <clive@demon.net>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:  <clive@davros.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP SDK 3.0.2

iQEVAwUBSAPNpyNAHP3TFZrhAQG2ggf7BbCPdy86Jo67npbb9blThZkBFvC8qYBY
Dgg5bGacSoDwGrDQfc5GEAxPI34x+fpbXmJ0Ns6AT9D2XSZ5AQd/Q9hMO0lKUrqP
zVhk8XenKzEpVq6TJ9WCtYX+OrDa1/+ZZk63RUgHM0h/qqbLlAC7szSCZWyoA0/8
Taw8yui2wd+Q93OLEKbcJ5nOZbw+vWHW4EFpGSIgS8LSxgyhFDFeWX77kULzp/Bm
zWDRIhKrezP0jkVqC4bxd6KLQSC+QuY6mmOMGxIsaHKAocQZP9juHuMe+zWmNzHT
W1h/UPiIGJ95kROsGiaC5jh6BKCbdtbWL4Ps6HPZhJPxVR7ySF99uA==
=OCDS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----