URLs, IPs and interception

[Peter Fairbrother]

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> Beer! ! More beer!! The contents of this missive have been edited by 
> alcohol!! and the champagne is in the fridge ...  and there's always my 
> reasonably extensive collection of single malt, and some blended malt, 
> Scotch whiskies for after ..
> 
> Roland Perry wrote:
> 
>> I agree this is all far too obscure for comfort.
> 
> Roland, have a look at Ch2 again, with the "conduct" interpretation in 
> mind.
> 
> Ch2 starts off saying Ch2 doesn't cover interception - but is the 
> conduct envisaged in Ch2 interception?
> 
> Giving out historical traffic data, originally collected by the ISPs in 
> accordance with the "conduct" interpretation [1], isn't (not made 
> available "in the course of transmission" - the "making available" is 
> subsequent to that, and involves historical data not collected for that 
> purpose), and nor is giving out other usage data, or subscriber details, 
> or whatever 21(4)(b)..(c) data might be.
> 
> 
> But suppose Tom Nasty gets access to traffic data, in real time? 
> Shouldn't his subsequently giving that information out be interception 
> (as it was collected, and thereby made available, during it's 
> transmission, and the collection and making available weren't covered by 
> S.2(5), under the "conduct" interpretation?).
> 
> For ISPs the situation is different - when they collected, and perhaps 
> stored [2], the traffic data, that wasn't 

not   oooops!


interception (under the
> "conduct" interpretation).
> 
> 
> The "conduct" interpretation seems entirely reasonable, and even 
> sensible, to me.
> 
> Whether it was what Parliament intended is another question, but I don't 
> think the notes give much guidance - the number of MPs who read them, 
> well you might need toes as well as fingers to count them, but as a 
> proportion of voting MPs they almost certainly don't make half a quorum.
> 
> 
> -- Peter Fairbrother
> 
> 
> 
> [1] ISPs might be required to store comms data collected in the course 
> of transmission, by a law requiring them to do so - but while that 
> collection and storage is interception, it's allowed under s.3(3).
> 
> Giving the data out subsequently isn't interception, as it doesn't make 
> it available to a third (fourth?) party while in the course of it's 
> transmission.
> 
> 
> [2] They might also be allowed to collect and store traffic data for 
> their own purposes (to facilitate the transmission of communications), 
> which would not be interception.
> 
> Subsequently giving out that traffic data wouldn't be interception in 
> the course of transmission - the "making available" part of interception 
> would have already happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>