https - hopefully not too stupid a question

Peter Fairbrother zenadsl6186 at
Mon Jun 18 22:23:24 BST 2012

Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <4FDF3F79.1000306 at>, Peter Fairbrother 
> <zenadsl6186 at> writes
>> 1(4) of the draft Act, which says "Nothing in this Part authorises any 
>> conduct consisting in the interception of communications .." only 
>> covers part 1 - and not part 2, where all the filtering stuff is.
> A very similar provision is in 9(5)(a) - in Pt2.

Yes - but I think that, like the provision in part 1, it may actually 
turn out to be essentially meaningless.

The part 1 proviso is as close to being semantically meaningless as I 
can determine - there is perhaps a small gap, in that comms data 
consists of traffic, use and subscriber data rather than just traffic 
data, and only looking for traffic data is excluded from being 
interception - but I cannot think of any situation offhand where that 
would make any difference.

just avoiding the chore of analysing the draft, should get back to that,


-- Peter Fairbrother

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list