"Warrants authorising phone taps treble"

[Roland Perry]

In article 
<2298D4476FA2F44591690E423F07C37B11F6E88107@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, try READING the text you are so fond of relying on:
>
>22(4) Subject to subsection (5), where it appears to the designated 
>person that a postal or telecommunications operator is or may be in 
>possession of, or be capable of obtaining, any communications data, the 
>designated person may, by ***NOTICE*** to the postal or 
>telecommunications operator, require the operator-...
>
>23(4) An authorisation under section 22(3) or notice under section 22(4)-
>...
>(b) in the case of a ****NOTICE***, shall not authorise or require any 
>disclosure after the end of that period of any data not in the 
>possession of, or obtained by, the postal or telecommunications 
>operator at a time during that period.
>
>The restrictions about "in the possession of" or "capable of being 
>obtained by" DO NOT APPLY to AUTHORISATIONS in the statute.
>
>How does that square with your assertions:
>
>>>>>>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.

Let's try it from a different angle.

A notice is served on a CSP to disclose comms data which *they* have. It 
can't ask them to [obtain and] disclose comms data that a different CSP 
has (legally forbidden, as well as logistically difficult for them).

An authorisation allows someone to collect the comms data from any CSP 
without that CSP's involvement.

It's all the same comms data, the same criteria.
-- 
Roland Perry