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

[Andrew Cormack]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: 17 November 2010 15:25
> To: ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Consultation on change to RIP interception definition
> ("unintentional interception")
> 
> In article <FA34FF4BE43B854BAC2F5F2C32239E2F01466D at EXC001>, Andrew
> Cormack <Andrew.Cormack at ja.net> 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?
(http://www.net.princeton.edu/announcements/ipad-iphoneos32-stops-renewing-lease-keeps-using-IP-address.html)

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 ;)

Andrew

> --
> Roland Perry