Here we go again - ISP DPI, but is it interception?
zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk
Fri Jul 30 18:07:11 BST 2010
Nicholas Bohm wrote:
> 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.
Yes, seems rather silly. They are breaking CMA and RIPA, but "not the
Or maybe it's not so silly. CMA and RIPA are enforced by the Police, who
don't seem willing to act against large companies, whereas DPA is
enforced by the IC, who does seem willing to act, even if his powers are
-- Peter Fairbrother
More information about the ukcrypto