Police drop BT-Phorm probe

[Caspar Bowden]

> admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Nicholas Bohm
...
> No, I think it needs the ordinary mens rea of intending to do the acts
> that constitute the relevant parts of the offence.  Very few offences
> (if any) require an intent that a crime be committed, and this
> certainly
> isn't one of them.  So this "no intent" point reveals the very dimmest
> possible failure to engage brain before operating wordprocessor.
>
...
>
> This police response is just cretinous

[CB] not disagreeing but there's more juice in the EU e-Privacy angle

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Caspar Bowden
> Sent: 16 April 2008 06:22
...
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=3DCELEX:32002L0058:EN=
:NOT
> <<<Recital (21) ...National
> legislation in some Member States only prohibits INTENTIONAL
> unauthorised access to communications.

...
> So there's an interesting twist here: Recital 21 flags up that some
> member states only prohibit INTENTIONAL unauthorised access (with the
> implication that those Member States should fix their laws). And yea
> verily, S.1(1) of RIPA says
>
> <<< Unlawful interception
> 1(1) It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without
> lawful authority to intercept>>>
>
> So
>
> Q1. Was the end bit of Recital 21 having a dig at RIPA (amongst other
> national laws)?
>
> Q2. is the ISP's defence, "we didn't realise we were intercepting,
> honest guv"?
>
> Q3. If lots of people tell the ISP that they think they ARE being
> intercepted, does that nullify the defence?

Caspar