Here we go again - ISP DPI, but is it interception?
bdm at fenrir.org.uk
Mon Aug 2 16:46:58 BST 2010
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:33:15 +0100
Peter Mitchell <otcbn at callnetuk.com> wrote:
> Brian Morrison wrote on 30-07-10 11:51:
> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:39:02 +0100
> > Nicholas Bohm <nbohm at ernest.net> wrote:
> >>> No they aren't. You may recall that, a couple of years ago,
> >>> someone was convicted of computer misuse because he probed a site
> >>> for malware - to be precise, he put "/.." on an URL.
> >> Useful point: do you have a reference?
> > Dan Cuthbert. He was trying to make a donation to a Tsunami relief
> > charity web site and noted that the site was very slow and thought
> > perhaps he might be being phished, so he truncated the URL back to
> > just the host name. He was prosecuted for purely that action,
> > possibly because as an IT professional the police thought he should
> > realise that such an action would be unauthorised.
> Which prompts three questions. How was it proved that such an action
> was indeed unauthorised? Why would Cuthbert think (a priori) that it
> was unauthorised? Why did the police think that Cuthbert would think
> that it was unauthorised?
> A preposterous conviction and an even more preposterous prosecution.
I think it's crazy too, even in the light of Cuthbert's change of line
More information about the ukcrypto