sorry, but ...
lists at internetpolicyagency.com
Fri Jul 27 17:36:39 BST 2012
In article <op.wh3nj7gb6hl8nm at clerew.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey
<chl at clerew.man.ac.uk> writes
>>> 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 message.
>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.
I'm not sure the law as currently drafted can cope with one-to-many
messaging, where some recipients are in the UK and some aren't (and
cases where all aren't will indeed be difficult to determine on the
I was wondering if a single non-UK Bob would make the message fair game
- despite there also being many UK-based recipients.
Or might the social networking server be deemed a single recipient (in
most case not-in-the-UK), which then 'explodes' the message to multiple
recipients (in various countries) as a completely separate exercise.
[But see the 'mere conduit' proposition quoted above].
Surely, what's required is a proper policy debate on one-to-many
messages (and some resulting suitable law), rather than trying to work
out how a one-to-one messaging law might apply to them?
More information about the ukcrypto