outsourcing GP appointments to India: is this legal under DPA?

Peter Sommer peter at pmsommer.com
Sun Jan 16 15:36:33 GMT 2011

Waddon was prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act and the issue 
was "place of publication".  For the purposes of that piece of 
legislation, "publication" took place at the point of uploading (the UK) 
though the servers were in the US.  (I was the defence computer expert).

On 16/01/2011 14:42, Richard Clayton wrote:
> In article<AANLkTikq+opLXYvpak-SGbyPxe0X6DbE6k0Qnu7=2TcC at mail.gmail.com
>> , Matthew Pemble<matthew at pemble.net>  writes
>>     I'll admit I don't quite understand your porn-magnate
>>     counter-example. Happy to get pointers directly if you think I'm
>>     missing something basic that the rest of the list are entirely
>>     clueful of :)
> I think Roland may be referring to R v Waddon 1999 and R v Perrin 2002
> (easy to locate with your favourite search engine), where people in the
> UK were operating [adult material] obscene websites in the US.
> If they had been in the US then it would be different, but since they
> were in the UK and publishing material that could be seen in the UK they
> were both convicted under the 1957 Act because the publishing activities
> were committed within the jurisdiction.
> Child sexual abuse images are more complex (or simpler!) to consider
> because there are offences of mere possession to consider, along with
> some extra-territorial provisions (for sex tourism for example).

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list