"Warrants authorising phone taps treble"

[Caspar Bowden]

>From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.=
greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Peter Fairbrother
>>Caspar Bowden wrote:
...
>> (i.e. *if* CSPs happened to log full URLs or search strings, they are
>> NOT obtainable as comms data. The IP/domain-name of the website
>> fetched would be obtainable)

>I'm not entirely sure that wording works for search strings.

>First let me say I have no idea how Google actually works, except that..

Search engines are "not postal and telecommunications operators", so they c=
an't be served with Notices; but the Italian newspaper story I mentioned is=
 about telcos and ISPs apparently logging URLs (including search strings) w=
hich pass through their systems.

However, it's an interesting point that an Authorisation (rather than Notic=
e) could let agencies in a position to do so, get communications data by me=
ans other than ASKING a "telecommunications operator" for anything *they* h=
ave retained, and for lesser justification and much broader purposes than g=
etting that data via an interception warrant. This was the old question of =
whether "black boxes" (and things have moved on since the Smith Report http=
://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2006/04/12/the_secret_narus_spy_software_at_=
folsom_street.html) ostensibly intended for interception use, could lawfull=
y be used to harvest traffic data also. I don't think that was ever denied =
?

--
Caspar Bowden