URLs, IPs and interception

[Roland Perry]

In article <47C873A1.6080308@zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother 
<zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> writes
>Can someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a browser 
>usually work like this: You enter a URL, the browser looks up the IP of 
>the domain name in a nameserver, then sends the URL to that IP address.

Some urls don't have domain names in, but if they do then you've 
described the process reasonably well. [1]

>So is there any reason for an ISP to look at the URL (including any 
>parts after the third slash) at all, in order to perform it's function 
>as a CSP?

Very much so if that particular website is hosted at *your* ISP. But 
that's one of those edge cases that needs special attention to detail.

>And isn't an ISP looking at URLs illegal interception?

There are numerous exceptions in the Act which describe legal 
interceptions. Including the infamous virus checkers [2] (as well as 
those urls belonging to suspects described on warrants from the Home 
Secretary).

We do need to concentrate on which things are interception or not, and 
then which sorts of interception are legal.

[1] If the url starts off with an IP address, the browser doesn't ask 
the nameserver and get back an answer "duh - why did you ask if you 
already knew", it doesn't ask at all.

[2] Which may or may not revolve around definitions of who the "person" 
(not being the intended recipient) is that the contents of those 
communications are made available to.
-- 
Roland Perry