"Warrants authorising phone taps treble"

[Roland Perry]

In article 
<2298D4476FA2F44591690E423F07C37B11F6E87F38@EA-EXMSG-C333.europe.corp.mic
rosoft.com>, Caspar Bowden <casparb@microsoft.com> writes
>>>>It was made very clear that authorisations are for getting the same data
>>>>that a CSP would normally provide, but in those limited circumstances
>>>>when a CSP wasn't able to do the job itself.
>
>>>When? Where? By whom?
>
>>Anyone interpreting 22(3): "conduct to which this Chapter applies" ?
>
>Why is that relevant (to the scenario which you snipped)? It cross 
>references proportionality (sought to be achieved yada yada), but we 
>were discussing whether it is legally *possible* to acquire comms data 
>in the way I described.
>
>Are you implicitly conceding that it is possible, if an agency bod
>thinks it is proportionate?

I don't understand why you are making such heavy weather of this.  Of 
course any conduct [access] has to be proportionate. But it also has to 
comply with the other requirements such as the data being "in the 
possession of" (or capable of being obtained by) a CSP. You seem to have 
some idea that an authorisation is a blank cheque to do *anything*.
-- 
Roland Perry