https - hopefully not too stupid a question

Peter Fairbrother zenadsl6186 at
Mon Jun 18 22:59:35 BST 2012

Peter Fairbrother wrote:

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

wow, who wrote this s**t?

Mos' definitively it wasn't the guy who wrote RIPA, who might have been 
a complete bast*ard but he could reduce you to tears with his use of 
language and ability to create the complex.

Just saying.

Looks like this was written by a brain-dead person who knows the forms 
and previous laws, but is still brain-dead (rather than being a ba**ard).

For example, clause 11 - when does it ever get used? When does an 
authorisation need Judicial approval?

And notices can only be served on telecommunications operators? 9(3)(d)?

WTF is going on?

It's like the draft is written by a person with multiple personalities. 
Worse than a committee.

One voice is very loveydovey and nice-but-stern, and one is saying "we 
can still get all the traffic, to look for the data we need to find 
traffic data, and (maybe) do other things (if we interpret the laws the 
way we want) as well".

Needless to say, the latter voice is correct.

Just observations, analysis still in progress :)

-- Peter F

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list