Here we go again - ISP DPI, but is it interception?
nbohm at ernest.net
Fri Jul 30 12:03:53 BST 2010
Chris Edwards wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Nicholas Bohm wrote:
> | Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> | > Charles Lindsey said:
> | >
> | >> Once they have a list of addresses of sites, they they are perfectly
> | >> entitled to visit those sites (as is anybody else) and to probe them for
> | >> malware.
> | >>
> | >
> | > 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?
> I suspect Clive's refering to the case involving Daniel Cuthbert
> aka the "Tsunami Hacker"
Thanks to Chris and Peter for their pointers.
The decision of a magistrate isn't of course binding as a precedent, but
it's a good real-world example, and one must wonder whether Talk Talk
have overlooked it.
Their public responses do suggest that they aren't very clear about the
difference between data protection and interception, as they seem to be
justifying the interception on the basis that they haven't collected any
personal information about their customers.
Contact and PGP key here <http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm>
More information about the ukcrypto