Starmer dumps doormat?

Roland Perry lists at
Fri Jan 21 14:53:06 GMT 2011

In article <61E52F3A5532BE43B0211254F13883AE034061 at EXC001>, Andrew 
Cormack <Andrew.Cormack at> 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.
Roland Perry

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list