No hiding place for fly tippers

Peter Fairbrother ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:47:09 +0000


Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <47A49218.7090803@zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother 
> <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> writes
>>>  Who is asking you to explain, when local authorities can't access 
>>> that  data?
>>
>> Why can't they access it?
> 
> Wrong sort of authority and person.
> 
> As tracked by this kind of SI (others can no doubt quote chapter and 
> verse): http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051083.htm

Possibly: The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) 
Order 2003; http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2003/20033172.htm ?

Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Order only authorises the types of 
communications data demandable by "additional public authorities" to be 
data defined under ss. 21(4)(b) and 21(4)(c).

It's worth looking at s.21(4) again:

"(4) In this Chapter “communications data” means any of the following—

(a) any traffic data comprised in or attached to a communication 
(whether by the sender or otherwise) for the purposes of any postal 
service or telecommunication system by means of which it is being or may 
be transmitted;

(b) any information which includes none of the contents of a 
communication (apart from any information falling within paragraph (a)) 
and is about the use made by any person—

(i) of any postal service or telecommunications service; or

(ii) in connection with the provision to or use by any person of any 
telecommunications service, of any part of a telecommunication system;

(c) any information not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) that is held 
or obtained, in relation to persons to whom he provides the service, by 
a person providing a postal service or telecommunications service."


I guess location data is 21(4)(a).

Good to know why (and good to know how they differentiate, which I 
hadn't known before).


>> I know "Simon Says" so, but that doesn't always make it so.
> 
> Tsk. I doubt you'll ever find him being wrong on matters like this.

I expect you are correct, but maybe, just once?

:)


-- Peter Fairbrother