URLs, IPs and interception

[Peter Fairbrother]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <47C8A6AF.2050701@zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother 
> <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> writes
>> Consensual interception is only lawful if _both_ parties agree to the 
>> interception, which is generally impossible (as, for instance, I don't 
>> agree to anyone intercepting my websites, and Phorm don't check 
>> whether I have given permission, as they are required to do under RIPA).
> 
> RIPA is all about "intended recipients".
> 
> I don't see a problem with the subscriber[1] agreeing through the T&C 
> that the intended recipient of his browsing requests is a black box at 
> the ISP. 

I think that would fly like a lead pig.

That box will them request pages from the website returning
> them to their intended recipient, the black box. Which sends something 
> similar (maybe with ads inserted in the blank spaces provided by 
> participating websites) back to the subscriber.
> 
> [1] Although that leaves the issue of other users on the same connection


And Phorm looking at the webpages sent in reply. My web replies aren't 
sent to a black box, they are sent to a person (or occasionally a 
webcrawler).


And they do, else why do they claim to filter out numbers with more than 
3 digits (to prevent credit card umbers being collected), or anything 
with an @ in it (to avoid collecting email addresses?

-- Peter Fairbrother