sorry, but ...
chl at clerew.man.ac.uk
Fri Jul 27 11:03:33 BST 2012
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:10:41 +0100, Roland Perry
<lists at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> Now if all the Friends are situated in the UK
> A huge assumption. My Facebook friends are literally all over the world.
> Even someone with a UK-based work life is quite likely to have at least
> one relative abroad.
>> , then any message is inevitably both 'sent' and 'received' within the
>> UK, and is therefore internal, since it seems to be agreed that a
>> server, wherever located, which provides mere conduit, or temporary
>> buffering/storage to facilitate such conduit, is itself neither a
>> sender nor a receiver.
>> Now if one of Alice's friends (say Bob) happens to reside outside the
>> UK, then things might get more interesting, since every message is
>> potentially from Alice to Bob (but what if Bob never actually bothers
>> to read it).
> Bob may have an email alert, which means he'll get sent the message
> whether he wants it or not. Similarly, if Bob has a Tweetdeck account
> linked to his Facebook, he'll be "pushed" many of the postings that way.
> This is all far to technology specific to be of use making law, however.
> You simply have to assume that there will be a Bob, and he will get the
If it so happens that there exists no such Bob outside of the UK, then
"They" will be breaking the law if they intercept it without a warrant. I
reckon the onus is on "Them" to ascertain that there does exist an
extra-terroitorial Bob if they want to go ahead and intercept without a
warrant. How "They" ascertain that is "Their" problem, and I doubt that
even the most microscopic examination of Alice's communication with
Facebook would reveal that.
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
More information about the ukcrypto