Starmer dumps doormat?

[Peter Fairbrother]

John Young wrote:
>> it's hard to take the step to a message which can 
>> be both in transmission and not in transmission at the same time.
> 
> Quite philosophically challenging and not altogether unprecedented
> in the reletivaty of simultaneity.
> 
> Mistakes in interpretation by officials and citizens might be eased
> by describing this state of simultaneily more understandably.
>

Actually I misspoke slightly, my apologies, and strictly speaking under 
RIPA a message can't be both in transmission and not in transmission at 
once {note1}.

However a communication can still be in transmission even after it has 
been transmitted.


An example: I have received an email, and released a copy to the public 
to do with as they please. There is also a copy of the email stored in 
my ISP's server, which I can access.

Because there is a copy at my ISP which I can access, as far as RIPA is 
concerned the email is still in transmission.

It's not just the copy at the ISP which is still in transmission, it's 
the entire "communication" which is still in transmission - including 
the copy which I have received, read and released to the public.




Now you can read copy bend fold spindle and mutilate the copy of the 
communication which I have released to the public, and that cannot be 
interception.

This is not because that copy of the communication isn't in transmission 
(it is in transmission), it's because in order for an action to be 
interception it has to involve the system by which the communication 
was/is being transmitted, and any reading, copying, bending etc. of the 
copy I have released will not involve that system.


However if you even look at the ISP's copy, then it could well be 
interception. Even though I have read it, and given you a legitimate 
copy of your own.



-- Peter Fairbrother



{note1} probably, though perhaps it could be in transmission for s.2 
purposes and not in transmission for other RIPA purposes