james2 at jfirth.net
Tue Sep 13 12:37:33 BST 2011
Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the intended recipient has to be the person the sender
> intends (in his mind) to send the email to, ie the fortune500 company,
> not the researchers.
> If the sender made a mistake and the researchers got the email by
> mistake, then they would be innocent - but that's not what happened,
> they got the emails intentionally.
> Note that if you did this by mistake (eg if att.com had a division
> called spl, and you registered splatt.com without intending to see any
> ATT mail) it might  still be interception - but it wouldn't be a
> criminal offense as there was no intent.
>  depending on whether the Judge thinks the "as to" in S.2(2) implies
> an element of intent or not - a moot point
Not wanting to give CPS or police an easy ride for letting BT off the hook
re Phorm, this neatly highlights why RIPA might become even more illiberal
if it enforced a stricter definition of liability.
More information about the ukcrypto