URLs, IPs and interception

[Nicholas Bohm]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <02e001c87c65$69e1b580$1601010a@neos.tv>, Tom Thomson 
> <cmt@btinternet.com> writes
>> Sgriobh Roland Perry [lists@internetpolicyagency.com]:-
>>
>>> But the definition above says that interception does not include 
>>> traffic  data.
>>
>> Traffic data is not interception - agreed.  Content is not interception
>> either.  Interception is not any sort of data.  Interception is a sort
>> of conduct.
> 
> And the conduct is defined in terms of what it is that's being 
> intercepted (different kinds of data - some of which is content data, 
> some of which is traffic data).
> 
>> You appear to interpret S.2 (5) (a) as excluding all conduct relating to
>> traffic data from being interception.  That's amazing, the words are
>> very plain and simple English, and make it absolutely clear that only
>> particular conduct relating to traffic data is to be excluded, not all
>> conduct relating to traffic data:-
>>
>> (a) any conduct that takes place in relation only to so much of the
>> communication as consists in any traffic data comprised in or attached
>> to a communication (whether by the sender or otherwise) for the purposes
>> of any postal service or telecommunication  system by means of which it
>> is being or may be transmitted; or
>>
>> So conduct which collects traffic data for a purpose other than the
>> purpose of the postal service or telecommunications service by which the
>> communication containing it is being transmitted is still interception -
>> it is not excluded.
> 
> You are making the same fundamental mistake as others.
> 
> It's not the *conduct* that must be "for the purpose of a 
> telecommunications system", but the *data* which is "comprised in or 
> attached .. for the purposes of a telecommunications system".

I don't think that is right.  I'll quote the text again:

"(5) References in this Act to the interception of a communication in 
the course of its transmission by means of a postal service or 
telecommunication system do not include references to-

       (a) any conduct that takes place in relation only to so much of 
the communication as consists in any traffic data comprised in or 
attached to a communication (whether by the sender or otherwise) for the 
purposes of any postal service or telecommunication system by means of 
which it is being or may be transmitted; or

       (b) any such conduct, in connection with conduct falling within 
paragraph (a), as gives a person who is neither the sender nor the 
intended recipient only so much access to a communication as is 
necessary for the purpose of identifying traffic data so comprised or 
attached."

"Traffic data" is defined in ss2(9).  Again, I quote it:

"In this section "traffic data", in relation to any communication, means-

       (a) any data identifying, or purporting to identify, any person, 
apparatus or location to or from which the communication is or may be 
transmitted,

       (b) any data identifying or selecting, or purporting to identify 
or select, apparatus through which, or by means of which, the 
communication is or may be transmitted,

       (c) any data comprising signals for the actuation of apparatus 
used for the purposes of a telecommunication system for effecting (in 
whole or in part) the transmission of any communication, and

       (d) any data identifying the data or other data as data comprised 
in or attached to a particular communication,

   	but that expression includes data identifying a computer file or 
computer program access to which is obtained, or which is run, by means 
of the communication to the extent only that the file or program is 
identified by reference to the apparatus in which it is stored."

I assume (but it may be a technical question) that the definition is 
sufficient to enable one to determine what part of any communication is 
traffic data.  Can traffic data, so defined, be comprised in or attached 
to a communication otherwise than for the purposes of the system by 
which it is to be transmitted?

If not, the consequence is that the words in ss2(5)(a) "...for the 
purposes of any postal service or telecommunication system by means of 
which it is being or may be transmitted" serve no sensible purpose if 
they are read as qualifying "traffic data" rather than "conduct".

And if they did not qualify "conduct", what sense could there be in the 
opening words of ss2(5)(b), "and _such_ conduct..." (my emphasis)?  What 
is "such" conduct if it is not exactly that limited category of conduct 
defined in ss(2(5)(a) by reference to the purposes of system?  If 
"conduct" in (a) meant any conduct whatever in relation to traffic data, 
why would there be any point in defining a limited sub-category of 
"conduct" in (b) when the two are alternatives?  They only seem to make 
sense if there are two kinds of conduct distinguished by two kinds of 
purpose.

This Act is tiresome in its obscurity, by no means all of which seems to 
have been intentional.

Nicholas
-- 
Salkyns, Great Canfield, Takeley,
Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone  01279 870285    (+44 1279 870285)
Mobile  07715 419728    (+44 7715 419728)

PGP public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF