Consultation on change to RIP interception definition ("unintentional interception")

Andrew Cormack Andrew.Cormack at
Wed Nov 17 15:41:36 GMT 2010

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces at [mailto:ukcrypto-
> bounces at] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: 17 November 2010 15:25
> To: ukcrypto at
> Subject: Re: Consultation on change to RIP interception definition
> ("unintentional interception")
> In article <FA34FF4BE43B854BAC2F5F2C32239E2F01466D at EXC001>, Andrew
> Cormack <Andrew.Cormack at> writes
> >The Act defines
> >"A person intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission
> by means of a telecommunication system if, and only if, he-
> >(a)so modifies or interferes with the system, or its operation,
> >(b)so monitors transmissions made by means of the system, or
> >(c)so monitors transmissions made by wireless telegraphy to or from
> apparatus comprised in the system,
> >as to make some or all of the contents of the communication available,
> while being transmitted, to a person other than the sender or intended
> >recipient of the communication."
> >
> >Presumably an "intentional" interception is one where I make the
> modification or do the monitoring deliberately? So is an unintentional
> >interception one where I do it by mistake
> There was some discussion, when the Bill was being debated, about
> someone picking up a telephone extension (in a home, typically) and
> therefore "unintentionally" hearing the conversation.

How about an iPad that gives up its DHCP lease but keeps on using the address?

And now the idea is specifically to prohibit "unintentional" interception :(

> No doubt we could
> find analogies for this on data networks (indeed, the Goggle wifi
> sniffing is perhaps in this category).

I was trying to avoid mentioning that one ;)


> --
> Roland Perry

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list