https - hopefully not too stupid a question
zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk
Mon Jun 18 19:44:43 BST 2012
Andrew Cormack wrote:
> IIUC my example is exactly the sort of thing the "black boxes" are
> going to be asked to do - Internet Access Providers being asked to
> dig out the comms data that will be used by those webmail etc.
> providers that won't voluntarily participate in data
> retention/disclosure. So it's commsdata for the purpose of the
> webmail provider but just bytes for the access provider.
Just to be clear, that's not interception as defined in RIPA. It's not
banned by clause 1(4) of the draft bill.
If it's traffic data (or even if it might be traffic data) for the
webmail provider, then anyone, anyone at all - including the access
provider, or some shadowy filtering organisation - looking through the
entire UK's web traffic for that traffic data would still not be
Frances may be right (and me wrong) about the clause 9 stuff, but I'm
pretty sure I'm right about the above.
I'm not so sure about the clause 9 stuff either though - I haven't
analysed Part 2 in detail yet - but afaics I _think_ an authorised
person can say "I want you to filter all your traffic looking for
secondary traffic data", and an appointed filtering organisation can say
"give me access to all your traffic so I can look for "secondary"
I can't see anything that would prevent either of those, and I can see
plenty which would allow them. More to follow.. but I can't find any
practical limitations on the input to, or size of, the filtering operation.
> -- Andrew Cormack Chief Regulatory Adviser, Janet t: +44 1235 822302
> b: http://webmedia.company.ja.net/edlabblogs/regulatory-developments/
> Janet, the UK's research and education network www.ja.net
More information about the ukcrypto