URLs, IPs and interception

[Peter Fairbrother]

My apologies, this wasn't meant to be sent.

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>