Starmer dumps doormat?
lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Fri Jan 21 14:53:06 GMT 2011
In article <61E52F3A5532BE43B0211254F13883AE034061 at EXC001>, Andrew
Cormack <Andrew.Cormack at ja.net> writes
>> I think we are back in the situation I was describing earlier - there
>>might be one outcome dictated by common sense (based on a deeper
>>understanding of these 'private sector interception' issues than
>>perhaps was exposed in the ICOA Review in 1999), and another by the
>>way the current law is drafted.
>I suspect we are. But what's puzzling is that I would expect MPs to have understood the PA situation from their own experience so to have
>talked about it. Since, as far as I know, they didn't, that made me wonder if there was an obvious (to them) answer to the problem that we
>techies were missing. But it may be that all the examples in their world are covered by clear definitions of the doormat/BT box etc. and it's
>only in things like e-mail, voicemail, Centrex, with which they weren't familiar in 1999 that the location of the doormat isn't clear, so the
>possibility that the PA is on the "wrong" side of it arises.
The only mention I recall (in debates etc) of PABX's and the various
edge cases they throw up is in the Comms Data provisions where the
"authorisations" were illustrated by the example of a hotel unable to
find anyone on the staff capable of interrogating the PABX, so the
police could decide to do it for themselves.
More information about the ukcrypto