Mastering the Internet

[Peter Fairbrother]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <4A009F63.5040300@zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother 
> <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> writes
re: "Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Maintenance of Interception 
Capability) Order 2002" 2002/1931

>> I'm pretty sure the installation of a black box can't be imposed under 
>> that Order,
> 
> A permanent intercept capability can, 


Indeed, a requirement *to_provide* a permanent intercept capability can 
be imposed - which is not at all the same thing as requiring the 
installation of a black box.

A black box presumably would have access to all the traffic in a pipe or 
link, and that is far more than the present Order mandates. If it's not 
mandated by an Order, it's not made legal by 3(3)(b) and, if the traffic 
available to the box includes any message content, installing or 
maintaining such a black box is illegal.

There are a few other twists afair, but I haven't looked at this for a 
while.


> and that might be implemented with a black box.

I don't think so, but as I said, I haven't looked into this in detail 
recently, as yet.

However I do think the ISPs are required to ensure that the only traffic 
which is available to the black box is traffic covered by a 
warrant/order/authorisation.



And if that's not the case, it definitely should be.


>> and it wouldn't get as far as the TAB.
> 
> Why?

'Cos fitting a black box is not an imposable requirement?



-- Peter Fairbrother