URLs, IPs and interception

[Roland Perry]

In article <47CAEB0D.10502@ernest.net>, Nicholas Bohm <nbohm@ernest.net>
writes
>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?

I think there are some corner cases, where it may be possible to argue
that the "from" data isn't necessary for the purpose of sending a
message "to" somewhere. But the "from" still seems to be traffic data.

>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".

Agreed, it does require at least the possibility that there is some
traffic data which isn't there for the purposes of the
telecommunications system (but might be there for the purposes of the
recipient).

>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?

The "such" conduct is limited to that which is related to relevant
traffic data.

>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?

(b) seems to be about being allowed to extract the data that's described
in (a). See the explanatory notes:

        31. Subsection (5) excludes from the definition of interception
        in subsection (2) any conduct which relates only to the traffic
        data comprised in or attached to a communication (expanded in
        subsection (9)), or which relates only to so much of the content
        of the communication as is necessary in order to identify this
        traffic data.

>They only seem to make sense if there are two kinds of conduct
>distinguished by two kinds of purpose.

Does the explanatory note help? I agree this is all far too obscure for
comfort.
-- 
Roland Perry