https - hopefully not too stupid a question

[Francis Davey]

2012/6/18 Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk>:
>
> Why?
>
> If retaining the data is done in order to subsequently find traffic data in
> it, ie it is 2(5) conduct and is not interception, it doesn't need any
> justification in law to make it lawful - it already is lawful.

I may not have been making myself sufficiently clear - for which I
apologise. The point I was making was that the power used to require
operators to collect data on the scale envisaged will almost certainly
be that in clause 1 not clause 9. My view has nothing to do with
legality - though almost certainly vastly more can be done with clause
1 than 9, but simply practicality.

Clause 1 can require data to be kept for up to a year, clause 9 only
one month (subject of course to extensions of time). Data obtained
under clause 9 will in general relate to a specific investigation
(9(1)(b)(i)) whereas clause 1 is unrestricted in this way.

And of course most importantly in political terms, clause 1 is
exercised by the government whereas clause 9 gives powers to
authorised officers to issue notices to ISP's. Thus the Part 2 powers
are much lower down the food chain.

So, any comprehensive snooping system will almost certainly be created
under clause 1 powers not clause 9 powers, even if some of the same
data could be obtained under clause 9.

That is what I meant.

-- 
Francis Davey